Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(WHAM Rochester) NewsFlash NRA yesterday: We should have armed guards at every school. NRA after this morning: We're gonna need armed guards at fires too   (13wham.com) divider line 1070
    More: NewsFlash, Strong Memorial Hospital, fires, firefighters, morning  
•       •       •

19814 clicks; posted to Main » on 24 Dec 2012 at 9:23 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»


Want to get NewsFlash notifications in email?

1070 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-24 10:58:37 AM  

chuckufarlie: david_gaithersburg: Natsumi: I don't know if this has been asked before and please be nice... I don't live in America...
What is it with people and guns in America? Really?
I mean we (in Namibia) are avid hunters and such but we don't really take it to this level.

.
As human beings we believe ourselves to have certain basic human rights that are inalienable, and have provided that those basic human rights shall never be infringed upon by the government. One of those rights is the basic right to protect one's self from anything, including an out of control government. Our second amendment also serves to guarantee that the government will think twice before attempting to infringe upon any of the other basic human rights enshrined in the first ten amendments to our constitution.

240 years ago we had a standing army, and the best trained army in the world too. Our government became tyrannical and out of control, we took up arms and formed local militias to stand up against the biggest and best trained army and navy on the planet. That newly formed US government began to erode during the FDR administration and it is still slowly dissolving today.

A bunch of armed rednecks is not a guarantee of anything. You sure as hell could not stand up the the real military. You want to believe it because it gives your pathetic life some meaning.

You need to do some research on the American Revolution. The local militia did not win the war, It was a standing army that had been trained to fight in the European style. The militia was not reliable in battle. They were known to fire one round and then run away.

Also, what we see as the American Revolution was just part of a larger war that the British were fighting against the French.

The British did not lose the Revolution in America as much as they got tired of the conflict. Lots of your redneck buddies seem to think that you could win your war against the US government in the same way, that the govt. would get tired of ...


.
Ok, you're right. Good thing your weren't around to advise they Libyan's, Algerians, etc.. They were foolish to stand up to all of those modern military weapons.
 
2012-12-24 10:58:44 AM  
So four shot, two dead. Just farking fantastic.
 
2012-12-24 10:58:48 AM  

tonguedepressor: Why would anyone need this many matches in a single box!??
[www.readydepot.com image 250x234]


encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com

Are you trying to be the stupidest person on the internet?
 
2012-12-24 10:58:51 AM  

tonguedepressor: Why would anyone need this many matches in a single box!??
[www.readydepot.com image 250x234]


Kitchen matches? To light the stove.
 
2012-12-24 10:58:53 AM  

ongbok: Infernalist: Scerpes: Infernalist: Depends on the person, and whether they're actively trying to cause a serious physical injury to myself or someone else.

I wonder if Lanza thought those kids needed killing, too. You wonder?

And that would be a great reason to keep crazy people and people who make weapons available to crazy people from buying firearms. It sure would be nice to be able to have a database to check to see if someone is mentally ill, like we can do with felons.

Lanza didn't buy his guns. He stole them. Are you suggesting that we violate the civil rights of a potential gun owner because he has a son with autism? I'm shocked at you, sirrah. Shocked, I say.

Well in a lot of states if you are a legal owner of a firearm, and you will be breaking the law if you let a felon who is not supposed to be around guns live in the house where you keep your guns. Should be the same if a person living in your house has a mental issue and has been deemed potentially dangerous, you should have to remove your guns from the house if you want that person to live there or have unsupervised access to the house.


I don't know how old the kid was, but a lot of states already have strict laws about not allowing children access to guns.
 
2012-12-24 10:59:05 AM  

chuckufarlie: The British did not lose the Revolution in America as much as they got tired of the conflict. Lots of your redneck buddies seem to think that you could win your war against the US government in the same way, that the govt. would get tired of the war and go home. You overlook the fact that they would already be at home, fighting an enemy that the majority would see as an enemy of the nation.


No way man. Cletus and Zeke could totally take out a Nimitz class aircraft carrier if they had enough guns and ammunition. Why just last year Zeke was named NRA's "cool shot" of the year by the Bumfark, Georgia chapter of the NRA.
 
2012-12-24 11:00:05 AM  
Meh.

Probably just another autist crazy on the loose.

There will continue to be lots of them until they are locked up.
 
2012-12-24 11:00:09 AM  

tonguedepressor: Why would anyone need this many matches in a single box!??
[www.readydepot.com image 250x234]


I use to have a bad habit of setting garbage cans on fire when very upset. Having been raised by Norwegians, I was taught manners, so I would politely remove them from any structures first. So yes, I need those many matches, just in case I go back to my arsonist ways.
 
2012-12-24 11:00:26 AM  

Mimic_Octopus: we need the military grade weapons (which a semi-auto rifle is not) for when the US govt ends up like the british one we threw off a few years ago. do you think history stops because you are here right now ?


The government has Apache helicopters and Reaper drones, well armed with hellfire missiles. If they really, really want to come for you, they will, and your AR-15/AK-47/Glock won't change that.
 
2012-12-24 11:00:33 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: IronTom: or Detroit and Chicago.

See, the difference there is that the NYC gun ban has, you know, actual repercussions and teeth. The other two don't. But it's interesting that you have no idea why NYC gun crime has gone down.


Could've been a combination of a couple of different things. Cops everywhere would be one. Rising social class would be another (oddly enough, most middle class folks don't go shooting each other. It tends to be restricted to the poorer folks and gang/drug related issues).
 
2012-12-24 11:01:13 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: IronTom: or Detroit and Chicago.

See, the difference there is that the NYC gun ban has, you know, actual repercussions and teeth. The other two don't. But it's interesting that you have no idea why NYC gun crime has gone down.


I had heard that violent crime in NYC was way up.  You have any citations?
 
2012-12-24 11:01:29 AM  

WhippingBoy: chuckufarlie: The British did not lose the Revolution in America as much as they got tired of the conflict. Lots of your redneck buddies seem to think that you could win your war against the US government in the same way, that the govt. would get tired of the war and go home. You overlook the fact that they would already be at home, fighting an enemy that the majority would see as an enemy of the nation.

No way man. Cletus and Zeke could totally take out a Nimitz class aircraft carrier if they had enough guns and ammunition. Why just last year Zeke was named NRA's "cool shot" of the year by the Bumfark, Georgia chapter of the NRA.


It's one of dem dare pre-dator drones, Cletus!!! Shoot it!!! Shoot it!!!
 
2012-12-24 11:01:36 AM  

computerguyUT: Bontesla: computerguyUT: Natsumi: I don't know if this has been asked before and please be nice... I don't live in America...
What is it with people and guns in America? Really?
I mean we (in Namibia) are avid hunters and such but we don't really take it to this level.

It's being overblown by the media.
Yesterday somehow 319,999,999 people managed to not shoot anybody.

So you're saying the number of people shot was an acceptable level? Good to know.

That's amazing how you took what I wrote and turned it into what I really mean for me jackhole.

You guys spout "take them all away" like that would solve anything since it's not law abiding gun owners that are going nutjob.
Where's your real solution? It's so much easier to just spout crap and rhetoric in funny redneck misspelled words and make funny DEHURRRR sounds. Just makes you feel so superior doesn't it.
This country is in the situation it is currently is because we are building a structure that panders to the lowest common denominator.
The problem is there are just too damn many ways for the .0001% to go apeshiat.

Where does it end? passing laws does not affect criminals. I don't know how else to phrase it so you guy can undertand it.
Every gun I own is locked in a safe. If the Gestapo were to come by and take them all, what would that have accomplished?
I have managed to go 45 years without losing one and without shooting someone.
Why is the viloent .0001% more important than me?


When I said, "So you're saying the number of people shot was an acceptable level? Good to know", I only needed to deduce that from your statement that x number of people managed not to shoot anyone today. Your argument only makes sense if you establish an acceptable threshold of unnecessary gun violence. If you don't think any number of unnecessary shootings are acceptable then that would be a really odd statement for you to make.

Further - law abiding gun owners also snap. Here's the thing about law-abiding gun owners: they can be law-abiding every single day for fifty years and then one day decide to kill everyone in sight. So saying that just because you've previously obeyed all laws and have not shot anyone yet doesn't mean that you'll continue to obey all laws and will not shoot anyone in the future. You may be pretty confident in your sanity but I'm not. It's nothing personal but statistically speaking - I'm going to know people who die or be injured as a direct result of being shot. People in your circle will also know someone who will either die or be injured as a direct result of being shot. It's entirely likely that you know who will be that shooter and it's also entirely likely that you'd be surprised at who the shooter is.

I'm not arguing that guns should be banned. I'm saying that one's hobby should not put everyone else in society at risk. Society can regulate high risk behavior. It's why many states have regulated street racing, we have hunting seasons, and you can be arrested for driving drunk. We haven't banned street racing - merely designated areas in which it can be carried out and specified the conditions in which it can be enjoyed. We haven't banned duck hunting - merely created a season and designated zones in which it can be enjoyed. We haven't banned alcohol - merely stipulated that you cannot both drink and drive. Likewise - we shouldn't ban guns. We should, however, enact common sense regulations that help create a safer society. These common sense regulations should also be accompanied by other laws because regulating the tool, alone, will be insufficient.
 
2012-12-24 11:02:20 AM  

david_gaithersburg: Ok, you're right. Good thing your weren't around to advise they Libyan's, Algerians, etc.. They were foolish to stand up to all of those modern military weapons.


Except for the fact that they were being funded and supplied with other modern military weapons - including SAM and ATMs.- by first world nations, you have a point.

Actually, since you're talking about history, let's discuss how every "People's Revolution" that occurred in any second or third world country since World War II has been a proxy war funded by either the Americans, Russians, or Chinese?
 
2012-12-24 11:02:20 AM  

Scerpes: Infernalist: Depends on the person, and whether they're actively trying to cause a serious physical injury to myself or someone else.

I wonder if Lanza thought those kids needed killing, too. You wonder?

And that would be a great reason to keep crazy people and people who make weapons available to crazy people from buying firearms. It sure would be nice to be able to have a database to check to see if someone is mentally ill, like we can do with felons.


This is the height of selfishness and short-sightedness from this crowd.

Do you honestly think gun owners are going to go along with sanity checks run by the government or anyone else? fark no.

That's just another scapegoat and bullshiat non-solution they never intend to implement.  They will fight it in the courts, and claim the 2nd requires no such provision.  They KNOW this will never work, and they will never go along with it at a nationally organized or individual level.  The only reason it even sounds good right now is because they just want to make the issue go away for now, and blaming crazy people is a better alternative to looking at the gun problem.

What's the cut-off for "too crazy to own guns"?  Does that mean the government accesses your medical records and tests your sanity?  That they can force mental health care on you if you already own a gun, or can take your gun away if you're on certain medications?  What are those medications?  Will they allow you to be around your own guns if, say, you're recovering from surgery and on some pills that make you loopy for a while?  And if guns are out there and the health care issues don't work, then what?  Institutionalization for all people who can't be trusted around guns, just so Gun Derper can fantasize about blasting hippies and minorities creeping through his window?

Who pays for all that shiat? You have nearly half the country going bananas over some imagined "death panels" in Obamacare, and you want to tie the 2nd Amendment to all of this healthcare crap on top of it? No farking way they will ever go along with it.

Total bullshiat.  The answer is not to wave a magic wand and make all the crazy and bad people go away, it's to remove some of their resources or at least make those resources harder to get.
 
2012-12-24 11:02:23 AM  

chuckufarlie: tonguedepressor: Why would anyone need this many matches in a single box!??
[www.readydepot.com image 250x234]

[encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com image 204x247]

Are you trying to be the stupidest person on the internet?


I completely forgot where I was for a moment, thanks for righting my ship for me.
 
2012-12-24 11:02:39 AM  

KarmicDisaster: I'm not saying that there shouldn't be repercussions for providing a weapon to a crazy person or a felon. There certainly should. That's not the same as the strict liability some want for anyone who gives a gun to someone else who ultimately uses it to commit a crime.

No, of course not. If you report it stolen, or someone steals it and you don't know, not your problem. It would be the same with guns. But if you lend them your car/gun then you share responsibility as a participant in the crime.  Many states already have a "if kids get hold of your unlocked gun it's your fault" law, that is what I was thinking of.  Guns should be licensed and regulated exactly like cars in almost all respects, which aren't even weapons we are told.


If you lend your car to someone and they, unknown to you, kill someone else, you don't get locked up. I don't think it should be any different with a firearm.

That said, you should certainly secure your firearms to keep children away from them. I really don't have a problem with a criminal penalty for people who leave their weapons unsecured, and allow access by children/felons/crazy people.
 
2012-12-24 11:03:52 AM  

WhippingBoy: chuckufarlie: The British did not lose the Revolution in America as much as they got tired of the conflict. Lots of your redneck buddies seem to think that you could win your war against the US government in the same way, that the govt. would get tired of the war and go home. You overlook the fact that they would already be at home, fighting an enemy that the majority would see as an enemy of the nation.

No way man. Cletus and Zeke could totally take out a Nimitz class aircraft carrier if they had enough guns and ammunition. Why just last year Zeke was named NRA's "cool shot" of the year by the Bumfark, Georgia chapter of the NRA.


If you are seriously pitting Billy McPrepper against the US military, Billy overweight and down there in his basement with his Bushmaster and 10000 rounds of ammo and a box of MREs with oops, no water stored, against an M1 Abrams tank, well...
 
2012-12-24 11:04:02 AM  

david_gaithersburg: chuckufarlie: david_gaithersburg: Natsumi: I don't know if this has been asked before and please be nice... I don't live in America...
What is it with people and guns in America? Really?
I mean we (in Namibia) are avid hunters and such but we don't really take it to this level.

.
As human beings we believe ourselves to have certain basic human rights that are inalienable, and have provided that those basic human rights shall never be infringed upon by the government. One of those rights is the basic right to protect one's self from anything, including an out of control government. Our second amendment also serves to guarantee that the government will think twice before attempting to infringe upon any of the other basic human rights enshrined in the first ten amendments to our constitution.

240 years ago we had a standing army, and the best trained army in the world too. Our government became tyrannical and out of control, we took up arms and formed local militias to stand up against the biggest and best trained army and navy on the planet. That newly formed US government began to erode during the FDR administration and it is still slowly dissolving today.

A bunch of armed rednecks is not a guarantee of anything. You sure as hell could not stand up the the real military. You want to believe it because it gives your pathetic life some meaning.

You need to do some research on the American Revolution. The local militia did not win the war, It was a standing army that had been trained to fight in the European style. The militia was not reliable in battle. They were known to fire one round and then run away.

Also, what we see as the American Revolution was just part of a larger war that the British were fighting against the French.

The British did not lose the Revolution in America as much as they got tired of the conflict. Lots of your redneck buddies seem to think that you could win your war against the US government in the same way, that the govt. woul ...


Maybe you haven't noticed but the USA is not like those countries. We are not ruled by a dictator. We have a legally elected government that peacefully turns over the leadership when it loses an election. That is hardly the stage for a revolution. Sure, there are ignorant rednecks who "want the government back" but that is a position based on ignorance and stupidity.
 
2012-12-24 11:04:04 AM  

Scerpes: KarmicDisaster: I'm not saying that there shouldn't be repercussions for providing a weapon to a crazy person or a felon. There certainly should. That's not the same as the strict liability some want for anyone who gives a gun to someone else who ultimately uses it to commit a crime.

No, of course not. If you report it stolen, or someone steals it and you don't know, not your problem. It would be the same with guns. But if you lend them your car/gun then you share responsibility as a participant in the crime.  Many states already have a "if kids get hold of your unlocked gun it's your fault" law, that is what I was thinking of.  Guns should be licensed and regulated exactly like cars in almost all respects, which aren't even weapons we are told.

If you lend your car to someone and they, unknown to you, kill someone else, you don't get locked up. I don't think it should be any different with a firearm.

That said, you should certainly secure your firearms to keep children away from them. I really don't have a problem with a criminal penalty for people who leave their weapons unsecured, and allow access by children/felons/crazy people.


Are you retarded? Stop comparing cars to guns. Cars are not designed to murder people.
 
2012-12-24 11:04:09 AM  

Fapinator: Too soon?


TROLL!!!
 
2012-12-24 11:04:27 AM  

willfullyobscure: feral hogs are some mean madafaks brah. defo recco sum GUNZ to fix ya pig problems


Google translate doesn't know what to do with this... what language is it?
 
2012-12-24 11:04:29 AM  

BronyMedic: Coastalgrl: Btw, four firefighters shot, two have passed away, other two in guarded condition.

Goddamnit so much.


Thank you. Somehow this thread went a different direction.

/firefighter family
 
2012-12-24 11:04:51 AM  

lordjupiter: Scerpes: Infernalist: Depends on the person, and whether they're actively trying to cause a serious physical injury to myself or someone else.

I wonder if Lanza thought those kids needed killing, too. You wonder?

And that would be a great reason to keep crazy people and people who make weapons available to crazy people from buying firearms. It sure would be nice to be able to have a database to check to see if someone is mentally ill, like we can do with felons.

This is the height of selfishness and short-sightedness from this crowd.

Do you honestly think gun owners are going to go along with sanity checks run by the government or anyone else? fark no.

That's just another scapegoat and bullshiat non-solution they never intend to implement.  They will fight it in the courts, and claim the 2nd requires no such provision.  They KNOW this will never work, and they will never go along with it at a nationally organized or individual level.  The only reason it even sounds good right now is because they just want to make the issue go away for now, and blaming crazy people is a better alternative to looking at the gun problem.

What's the cut-off for "too crazy to own guns"?  Does that mean the government accesses your medical records and tests your sanity?  That they can force mental health care on you if you already own a gun, or can take your gun away if you're on certain medications?  What are those medications?  Will they allow you to be around your own guns if, say, you're recovering from surgery and on some pills that make you loopy for a while?  And if guns are out there and the health care issues don't work, then what?  Institutionalization for all people who can't be trusted around guns, just so Gun Derper can fantasize about blasting hippies and minorities creeping through his window?

Who pays for all that shiat? You have nearly half the country going bananas over some imagined "death panels" in Obamacare, and you want to tie the 2nd Amendment to all of this ...


We already ask people if they're mentally ill when they purchase a firearm. We just have no way to actually verify that they're telling the truth. Yeah...we need to be tracking people who are crazy. We're perfectly ok reporting their information to their insurance companies. It's time the feds start tracking it in an NCIC style database.
 
2012-12-24 11:04:55 AM  

WhippingBoy: chuckufarlie: The British did not lose the Revolution in America as much as they got tired of the conflict. Lots of your redneck buddies seem to think that you could win your war against the US government in the same way, that the govt. would get tired of the war and go home. You overlook the fact that they would already be at home, fighting an enemy that the majority would see as an enemy of the nation.

No way man. Cletus and Zeke could totally take out a Nimitz class aircraft carrier if they had enough guns and ammunition. Why just last year Zeke was named NRA's "cool shot" of the year by the Bumfark, Georgia chapter of the NRA.


.
Educate yourself before presenting yourself as an expert on farking everything under the sun. Link
 
2012-12-24 11:04:59 AM  
Well, let's be goddamn sure to run this story ON EVERY TV CHANNEL FOR 24 HOURS A DAY FOR A WEEK, SO THE NEXT PSYCHOPATH KNOWS HE CAN GET HIS NAME EVERY-GODDAMN-WHERE BY SHOOTING PEOPLE!!!

I really think we should rethink this national wallowing in these tragedies. As an internet psychiatrist, I'm sure we're encouraging these events.

/We have met the enemy, and it is the media.
 
2012-12-24 11:05:27 AM  

Infernalist: Scerpes: KarmicDisaster: I'm not saying that there shouldn't be repercussions for providing a weapon to a crazy person or a felon. There certainly should. That's not the same as the strict liability some want for anyone who gives a gun to someone else who ultimately uses it to commit a crime.

No, of course not. If you report it stolen, or someone steals it and you don't know, not your problem. It would be the same with guns. But if you lend them your car/gun then you share responsibility as a participant in the crime.  Many states already have a "if kids get hold of your unlocked gun it's your fault" law, that is what I was thinking of.  Guns should be licensed and regulated exactly like cars in almost all respects, which aren't even weapons we are told.

If you lend your car to someone and they, unknown to you, kill someone else, you don't get locked up. I don't think it should be any different with a firearm.

That said, you should certainly secure your firearms to keep children away from them. I really don't have a problem with a criminal penalty for people who leave their weapons unsecured, and allow access by children/felons/crazy people.

Are you retarded? Stop comparing cars to guns. Cars are not designed to murder people.


And yet they do.
 
2012-12-24 11:05:59 AM  

IronTom: cameroncrazy1984: IronTom: or Detroit and Chicago.

See, the difference there is that the NYC gun ban has, you know, actual repercussions and teeth. The other two don't. But it's interesting that you have no idea why NYC gun crime has gone down.

I had heard that violent crime in NYC was way up.  You have any citations?


<iViolent in has been dropping since 1990. In 2009, there were 471 homicides, the lowest number since at least 1963 when reliable statistics were first kept.

Source

I'd like to know were you heard violent crime was way up. A two-second google search only comes up with stories saying it's down.
 
2012-12-24 11:06:24 AM  

Mimic_Octopus: Infernalist: rth

umm, just about every single one that has ever been toppled ? you think they all stepped down after a debate ?

how many revolutions were successfully carried out without guns ?


Let's start with East-Germany 1989. No guns were used to bring down the ruthless socialist rulers.
 
2012-12-24 11:06:36 AM  

lordjupiter: too crazy to own guns


You sound reasonable, but then you call for banning guns.  How will a little old lady protect herself from big attackers?
 
2012-12-24 11:06:52 AM  

lordjupiter: Do you honestly think gun owners are going to go along with sanity checks run by the government or anyone else? fark no.


That totally explains why there was an armed revolt in NYC when guns were ba....oh wait no there wasn't.
 
2012-12-24 11:06:56 AM  

KarmicDisaster: WhippingBoy: chuckufarlie: The British did not lose the Revolution in America as much as they got tired of the conflict. Lots of your redneck buddies seem to think that you could win your war against the US government in the same way, that the govt. would get tired of the war and go home. You overlook the fact that they would already be at home, fighting an enemy that the majority would see as an enemy of the nation.

No way man. Cletus and Zeke could totally take out a Nimitz class aircraft carrier if they had enough guns and ammunition. Why just last year Zeke was named NRA's "cool shot" of the year by the Bumfark, Georgia chapter of the NRA.

If you are seriously pitting Billy McPrepper against the US military, Billy overweight and down there in his basement with his Bushmaster and 10000 rounds of ammo and a box of MREs with oops, no water stored, against an M1 Abrams tank, well...


he is not serious. Well, he is serious about making fun of Cletus and Zeke, but that is it.
 
2012-12-24 11:07:18 AM  

SurelyShirley: Mimic_Octopus: we need the military grade weapons (which a semi-auto rifle is not) for when the US govt ends up like the british one we threw off a few years ago. do you think history stops because you are here right now ?

The government has Apache helicopters and Reaper drones, well armed with hellfire missiles. If they really, really want to come for you, they will, and your AR-15/AK-47/Glock won't change that.


Eh... Just to play Devil's Advocate here, but Iraqi insurgents seemed to cause us a lot of hell with firearms that weren't better. I'd imagine a modern revolutionary scenario would play-out somewhat similar?

/I'll be in the corner with my gun and tin-foil hat.
 
2012-12-24 11:07:35 AM  

ronaprhys: chuckufarlie: david_gaithersburg: Natsumi: I don't know if this has been asked before and please be nice... I don't live in America...
What is it with people and guns in America? Really?
I mean we (in Namibia) are avid hunters and such but we don't really take it to this level.

.
As human beings we believe ourselves to have certain basic human rights that are inalienable, and have provided that those basic human rights shall never be infringed upon by the government. One of those rights is the basic right to protect one's self from anything, including an out of control government. Our second amendment also serves to guarantee that the government will think twice before attempting to infringe upon any of the other basic human rights enshrined in the first ten amendments to our constitution.

240 years ago we had a standing army, and the best trained army in the world too. Our government became tyrannical and out of control, we took up arms and formed local militias to stand up against the biggest and best trained army and navy on the planet. That newly formed US government began to erode during the FDR administration and it is still slowly dissolving today.

A bunch of armed rednecks is not a guarantee of anything. You sure as hell could not stand up the the real military. You want to believe it because it gives your pathetic life some meaning.

You need to do some research on the American Revolution. The local militia did not win the war, It was a standing army that had been trained to fight in the European style. The militia was not reliable in battle. They were known to fire one round and then run away.

Also, what we see as the American Revolution was just part of a larger war that the British were fighting against the French.

The British did not lose the Revolution in America as much as they got tired of the conflict. Lots of your redneck buddies seem to think that you could win your war against the US government in the same way, that the govt. woul ...


And you're a one-trick pony with your MADD whargarble.

Ever think maybe you SHOULD feel bad about this?  Maybe that's why you're so offended and threatened by it.
 
2012-12-24 11:07:36 AM  

david_gaithersburg: WhippingBoy: chuckufarlie: The British did not lose the Revolution in America as much as they got tired of the conflict. Lots of your redneck buddies seem to think that you could win your war against the US government in the same way, that the govt. would get tired of the war and go home. You overlook the fact that they would already be at home, fighting an enemy that the majority would see as an enemy of the nation.

No way man. Cletus and Zeke could totally take out a Nimitz class aircraft carrier if they had enough guns and ammunition. Why just last year Zeke was named NRA's "cool shot" of the year by the Bumfark, Georgia chapter of the NRA.

.
Educate yourself before presenting yourself as an expert on farking everything under the sun. Link


Rense.com? PFFTTAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAA
 
2012-12-24 11:07:40 AM  

stuffy: Fapinator: [img689.imageshack.us image 729x600]

Too soon?

Been looking all over for that game. Walmart says wont have it before Valentines.


Yeah ...pre-release demo. Since video games are causing all this violence, the full version may never see the light of day.
 
2012-12-24 11:08:06 AM  

Infernalist: Scerpes: KarmicDisaster: I'm not saying that there shouldn't be repercussions for providing a weapon to a crazy person or a felon. There certainly should. That's not the same as the strict liability some want for anyone who gives a gun to someone else who ultimately uses it to commit a crime.

No, of course not. If you report it stolen, or someone steals it and you don't know, not your problem. It would be the same with guns. But if you lend them your car/gun then you share responsibility as a participant in the crime.  Many states already have a "if kids get hold of your unlocked gun it's your fault" law, that is what I was thinking of.  Guns should be licensed and regulated exactly like cars in almost all respects, which aren't even weapons we are told.

If you lend your car to someone and they, unknown to you, kill someone else, you don't get locked up. I don't think it should be any different with a firearm.

That said, you should certainly secure your firearms to keep children away from them. I really don't have a problem with a criminal penalty for people who leave their weapons unsecured, and allow access by children/felons/crazy people.

Are you retarded? Stop comparing cars to guns. Cars are not designed to murder people.


Not sure who you are responding to, but 1) as an aside people do try to kill other people with cars on an almost daily basis anyway, 2) so, OK, given that cars aren't even weapons, why can't we at least regulate guns as strictly as we do cars?
 
2012-12-24 11:08:11 AM  

SurelyShirley: Mimic_Octopus: Infernalist: rth

umm, just about every single one that has ever been toppled ? you think they all stepped down after a debate ?

how many revolutions were successfully carried out without guns ?

Let's start with East-Germany 1989. No guns were used to bring down the ruthless socialist rulers.


Add the entire Warsaw Pact list of nations to that list.
 
2012-12-24 11:09:22 AM  
The new NRA spokesperson later told people to remain calm.

i81.photobucket.com

Everything is fine. Nothing to see here.
We have arrested the guns that did this.
 
2012-12-24 11:09:43 AM  

IronTom: lordjupiter: too crazy to own guns

You sound reasonable, but then you call for banning guns.  How will a little old lady protect herself from big attackers?


Show me where I called for banning all guns.  Do it.
 
2012-12-24 11:09:50 AM  

Infernalist: Scerpes: KarmicDisaster: I'm not saying that there shouldn't be repercussions for providing a weapon to a crazy person or a felon. There certainly should. That's not the same as the strict liability some want for anyone who gives a gun to someone else who ultimately uses it to commit a crime.

No, of course not. If you report it stolen, or someone steals it and you don't know, not your problem. It would be the same with guns. But if you lend them your car/gun then you share responsibility as a participant in the crime.  Many states already have a "if kids get hold of your unlocked gun it's your fault" law, that is what I was thinking of.  Guns should be licensed and regulated exactly like cars in almost all respects, which aren't even weapons we are told.

If you lend your car to someone and they, unknown to you, kill someone else, you don't get locked up. I don't think it should be any different with a firearm.

That said, you should certainly secure your firearms to keep children away from them. I really don't have a problem with a criminal penalty for people who leave their weapons unsecured, and allow access by children/felons/crazy people.

Are you retarded? Stop comparing cars to guns. Cars are not designed to murder people.


Ahem....
www.papermag.com
 
2012-12-24 11:10:30 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: lordjupiter: Do you honestly think gun owners are going to go along with sanity checks run by the government or anyone else? fark no.

That totally explains why there was an armed revolt in NYC when guns were ba....oh wait no there wasn't.


Is that as far as you got before you stopped reading my post?
 
2012-12-24 11:10:31 AM  

Scerpes: Infernalist: Scerpes: KarmicDisaster: I'm not saying that there shouldn't be repercussions for providing a weapon to a crazy person or a felon. There certainly should. That's not the same as the strict liability some want for anyone who gives a gun to someone else who ultimately uses it to commit a crime.

No, of course not. If you report it stolen, or someone steals it and you don't know, not your problem. It would be the same with guns. But if you lend them your car/gun then you share responsibility as a participant in the crime.  Many states already have a "if kids get hold of your unlocked gun it's your fault" law, that is what I was thinking of.  Guns should be licensed and regulated exactly like cars in almost all respects, which aren't even weapons we are told.

If you lend your car to someone and they, unknown to you, kill someone else, you don't get locked up. I don't think it should be any different with a firearm.

That said, you should certainly secure your firearms to keep children away from them. I really don't have a problem with a criminal penalty for people who leave their weapons unsecured, and allow access by children/felons/crazy people.

Are you retarded? Stop comparing cars to guns. Cars are not designed to murder people.

And yet they do.


You'd be surprised what you can kill someone with. That doesn't make any of them equivalent to tools designed solely and purely with death in mind. Handguns have NO other purpose except to exert the fear of death or deal death.

If you loan someone a gun, then yeah, you ARE responsible for what they do with the tool of death that you gave them.

Equally responsible, at that.
 
2012-12-24 11:11:01 AM  

Infernalist: Are you retarded? Stop comparing cars to guns. Cars are not designed to murder people.


The Corvair disagrees with you.
www.stolaf.edu
 
2012-12-24 11:11:16 AM  
We need a teacher in every gun store.
 
2012-12-24 11:11:29 AM  

chuckufarlie: Mr. Eugenides: czei: I get it: gun violence is caused by liberals working for Obama has part of a grand conspiracy to take away our guns?

I don't know that they're working for Obama or are working to take away our guns, but yeah, I doubt any of the recent mass shooters were registered as Republicans. In fact, a fair number of them (Side show bob and Loughner) seem to have been Democratic activists of sorts.

right, the kid's mother was a survivalist. How many survivalists do you think are Democrats? The kid grew up in a Republican household.

The idea that these maniacs are working to take away your guns is incredibly stupid. They do not have a political agenda, they are pissed and want to take it out on people.

You should go find a mental health professional and have a nice long talk. They cannot cure stupid, but they can help with the crazy.


Interesting; you make some fatuous leaps and then insult me without providing a shred of corroboration for your assertions. But somehow you're actually proud of your skill at debate aren't you?
 
2012-12-24 11:11:36 AM  

jakepowers: I have nothing of interest to add


Thank you for adding that.
 
2012-12-24 11:12:01 AM  

Spaced Lion: [assets.diylol.com image 510x486]


The occasional civilian massacre is the price we all pay -- and will continue to pay -- for freedom.
 
2012-12-24 11:12:03 AM  

verbaltoxin: david_gaithersburg: WhippingBoy: chuckufarlie: The British did not lose the Revolution in America as much as they got tired of the conflict. Lots of your redneck buddies seem to think that you could win your war against the US government in the same way, that the govt. would get tired of the war and go home. You overlook the fact that they would already be at home, fighting an enemy that the majority would see as an enemy of the nation.

No way man. Cletus and Zeke could totally take out a Nimitz class aircraft carrier if they had enough guns and ammunition. Why just last year Zeke was named NRA's "cool shot" of the year by the Bumfark, Georgia chapter of the NRA.

.
Educate yourself before presenting yourself as an expert on farking everything under the sun. Link

Rense.com? PFFTTAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAA


.
Learn to use Google if you must read the same story from NYT or Mother Jones.
 
2012-12-24 11:12:06 AM  

Infernalist: You'd be surprised what you can kill someone with. That doesn't make any of them equivalent to tools designed solely and purely with death in mind. Handguns have NO other purpose except to exert the fear of death or deal death.

If you loan someone a gun, then yeah, you ARE responsible for what they do with the tool of death that you gave them.

Equally responsible, at that.


Then it is absolutely the same for cars, hammers, chain saws, and any other deadly or dangerous weapon. Whether you like it or not.
 
Displayed 50 of 1070 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report