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
    More: NewsFlash, Strong Memorial Hospital, fires, firefighters, morning  
•       •       •

19825 clicks; posted to Main » on 24 Dec 2012 at 9:23 AM (3 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


Oldest | « | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2012-12-24 01:40:05 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Benjamin Orr: 2010 Cumbria 12 dead - 11 injured

Okay, so since the firearms ban, there have been 2 shootings which don't even meet the casualty total we've had in the past TWO WEEKS.

Sh*t works.


img171.imageshack.us
 
2012-12-24 01:40:30 PM  
If only Ackbar would have been there in time....


wiki.ytmnd.com
 
2012-12-24 01:41:07 PM  

MichiganFTL: chuckufarlie: tonguedepressor: The loop hole in the constitution is you can own all the guns you want, assault weapons, sawed off shotguns, 400 round magazines, etc, just make the bullets illegal.

Sorry, the whole 'We'll just make bullets illegal' would be difficult to pass by a judge. It would be infringing on the 2nd amendment in the way that someone can say "Oh you can have free speech, but we're taking away the internet, print media, tv, and phones' would be on the first.


I am not the one who made the asinine statement about bullets.

But since you brought it up, the idea that eliminating certain types of weapons would be an infringement of the 2nd Amendment is just silly. What is or is not an infringement of the Constitution is based purely on opinion of SCOTUS and the American people. Nothing in the Constitution is eternal. That is why we have the Amendment Process.

Every right comes with responsibilities. Those responsibilities mean that we impose limits on the rights we have. Your statements show that you do not understand that.
 
2012-12-24 01:41:10 PM  

chuckufarlie: tonguedepressor: The loop hole in the constitution is you can own all the guns you want, assault weapons, sawed off shotguns, 400 round magazines, etc, just make the bullets illegal.

There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution concerning assault weapons or guns that use magazines. At the time that the Constitution was ratified, the only guns were muzzle loaders. SCOTUS has interpreted the Constitution to allow assault weapons. Interpretations change over time. There is no guarantee that assault weapons will always be allowed by SCOTUS.


There's nothing in the constitution that says you are allowed freedom of speech with other than a soapbox and bullhorn, or a slow movable type printing press that prints one page at a time, or a quill pen.

By your logic, you shouldn't be allowed to use the internet without a license and what you say should be heavily regulated by the government.

After all, its not in the constitution that you can do that.
 
2012-12-24 01:41:33 PM  

david_gaithersburg: cameroncrazy1984: Benjamin Orr: 2010 Cumbria 12 dead - 11 injured

Okay, so since the firearms ban, there have been 2 shootings which don't even meet the casualty total we've had in the past TWO WEEKS.

Sh*t works.

[img171.imageshack.us image 466x341]


Well that graph is completely nonsensical.
 
2012-12-24 01:43:02 PM  

ronaprhys: MichiganFTL: chuckufarlie: tonguedepressor: The loop hole in the constitution is you can own all the guns you want, assault weapons, sawed off shotguns, 400 round magazines, etc, just make the bullets illegal.

Sorry, the whole 'We'll just make bullets illegal' would be difficult to pass by a judge. It would be infringing on the 2nd amendment in the way that someone can say "Oh you can have free speech, but we're taking away the internet, print media, tv, and phones' would be on the first.

The best thing we can do now is discuss Chuckle's like he's not here. Simply put, he's shown no capacity to understand the Constitution, our political environment, etc. He's railing against rifles right now when handguns are used much, much more frequently in homicides. So when the next mass shooting occurs with something that he's not currently arguing against, he'll just move the goalposts. He cares not for the Constitution and would happily allow all sorts of assaults, rapes, etc., because they're smaller in count than a mass murder, even though the actual number of people involved will massively outweigh the others.


Good thing we can keep this handy:

imageshack.us
 
2012-12-24 01:43:47 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Banned on the Run: armed resistance against those in uniform carrying assault rifles may be necessary

Why beat around the bush?

Just say, "I need these things to shoot American soldiers."


.
/Duh!
//Libyan's had to shoot Libyan soldiers,
///Algerian's had to shoot Algerian soldiers.
 
2012-12-24 01:44:39 PM  

chuckufarlie: MichiganFTL: chuckufarlie: tonguedepressor: The loop hole in the constitution is you can own all the guns you want, assault weapons, sawed off shotguns, 400 round magazines, etc, just make the bullets illegal.

Sorry, the whole 'We'll just make bullets illegal' would be difficult to pass by a judge. It would be infringing on the 2nd amendment in the way that someone can say "Oh you can have free speech, but we're taking away the internet, print media, tv, and phones' would be on the first.

I am not the one who made the asinine statement about bullets.

But since you brought it up, the idea that eliminating certain types of weapons would be an infringement of the 2nd Amendment is just silly. What is or is not an infringement of the Constitution is based purely on opinion of SCOTUS and the American people. Nothing in the Constitution is eternal. That is why we have the Amendment Process.

Every right comes with responsibilities. Those responsibilities mean that we impose limits on the rights we have. Your statements show that you do not understand that.


lol, tell me the difference between banning all firearms and banning all bullets you twit.
 
2012-12-24 01:44:45 PM  

Princess Ryans Knickers: Why even have guns? It's obvious that people are going to shoot us anyway their eye out.


ftfy
 
2012-12-24 01:45:00 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: ronaprhys: cameroncrazy1984: Benjamin Orr: 2010 Cumbria 12 dead - 11 injured

Okay, so since the firearms ban, there have been 2 shootings which don't even meet the casualty total we've had in the past TWO WEEKS.

Sh*t works.

But it's unconstitutional. They banned many firearms, make you prove need in order to possess, and confiscated firearms from the general populace (though they did buy them - of course, I've not seen whether or not they paid market value).

Why do you think there is an amendment process to the Constitution? They're not set in stone, you know.


.
Oh geeze. Did he really write that?..^^^^^^^^^^^^
 
2012-12-24 01:45:08 PM  

Kit Fister: chuckufarlie: I am not sure what you point is. I never said that people do not break into houses or that people do not get attacked. But to cower in fear that it is going to happen to you is just sad. If a person believes that having a pistol in the house will protect them, fine. But the idea that anybody needs a rifle that uses a magazine to protect them is not thinking clearly.

My father and my brother are both police officers. My opinion is based a lot on listening to them over the years.

Must not have listened well enough -- All firearms, save for black powder or single shot, use a magazine, dumbass. A magazine is a device or enclosure that stores and feeds ammunition into the bolt mechanism to be loaded and fired. A clip is a device that holds rounds in a collected group and allows them to be easily fed into a magazine.

Also, do I need an AR-15 to defend my house from attackers? Nah. I don't know many common thieves that come in platoon strength. Then again, if I lived somewhere like LA during the riots or New Orleans after Katrina, I would consider an AR-15 a wise investment.

Now, screw the cock rubbing and the pantie pissing and foaming at the mouth. I've got a real life to live andit's my farking birthday. Time to go to the range and blow off some ammo and have some fun.


what ever it takes to get your rocks off.

I know what a magazine is, moron. And there are plenty of rifles that do not use a magazine or a clip. Why somebody who made such a stupid error would call anybody else a dumbass is beyond me. You appear to be way too stupid to assess the intelligence of any other person and most farm animals, now that I think about it.
 
2012-12-24 01:45:26 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: ronaprhys: cameroncrazy1984: Benjamin Orr: 2010 Cumbria 12 dead - 11 injured

Okay, so since the firearms ban, there have been 2 shootings which don't even meet the casualty total we've had in the past TWO WEEKS.

Sh*t works.

But it's unconstitutional. They banned many firearms, make you prove need in order to possess, and confiscated firearms from the general populace (though they did buy them - of course, I've not seen whether or not they paid market value).

Why do you think there is an amendment process to the Constitution? They're not set in stone, you know.


Agreed. So start with that as your position. You want to repeal the Second Amendment.

Also, what about all of the times that firearms are used to stop a crime?
 
2012-12-24 01:45:41 PM  
The only thing that can stop this is more fires.
 
2012-12-24 01:46:41 PM  

david_gaithersburg: cameroncrazy1984: ronaprhys: cameroncrazy1984: Benjamin Orr: 2010 Cumbria 12 dead - 11 injured

Okay, so since the firearms ban, there have been 2 shootings which don't even meet the casualty total we've had in the past TWO WEEKS.

Sh*t works.

But it's unconstitutional. They banned many firearms, make you prove need in order to possess, and confiscated firearms from the general populace (though they did buy them - of course, I've not seen whether or not they paid market value).

Why do you think there is an amendment process to the Constitution? They're not set in stone, you know.

.
Oh geeze. Did he really write that?..^^^^^^^^^^^^


Yes, yes I did. Or have you never heard of the 18th and 21st amendments? You know. One that was passed and one that repealed it?
 
2012-12-24 01:46:51 PM  

chuckufarlie: What concerns me and a lot of other people are these situations where one person commits mass murders. Your comments about fist fights and knifes is pointless because that is not the problem being addressed. You cannot go in to a school and beat a bunch of people to death, nor can you do so with a knife. You are the one not paying attention to the facts. In fact, you are not paying attention at all.


You can't attack a bunch of people with a knife in a school? You don't know what the fark you're talking about.
 
2012-12-24 01:47:25 PM  
Bomb squads have procedures to look for secondary devices and hazards (such as an ambush) before they begin operations on the suspected device. I guess that other emergency responders are going to have to implement similar procedures, it is unfortunate because the time it takes to ensure the scene is free from ambush could very well cost lives on any normal response.

We have to admit to ourselves that we are facing a new wave of domestic terrorism and begin to take action from that stand point.

The NRA better become part of the solution or they will be left out of the conversation entirely.
 
2012-12-24 01:48:12 PM  

chuckufarlie: There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution concerning assault weapons or guns that use magazines. At the time that the Constitution was ratified, the only guns were muzzle loaders.


Which meant that the citizens had access to the same weapons as the military. The Constitution says nothing about hunting.
 
2012-12-24 01:49:44 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: david_gaithersburg: cameroncrazy1984: ronaprhys: cameroncrazy1984: Benjamin Orr: 2010 Cumbria 12 dead - 11 injured

Okay, so since the firearms ban, there have been 2 shootings which don't even meet the casualty total we've had in the past TWO WEEKS.

Sh*t works.

But it's unconstitutional. They banned many firearms, make you prove need in order to possess, and confiscated firearms from the general populace (though they did buy them - of course, I've not seen whether or not they paid market value).

Why do you think there is an amendment process to the Constitution? They're not set in stone, you know.

.
Oh geeze. Did he really write that?..^^^^^^^^^^^^

Yes, yes I did. Or have you never heard of the 18th and 21st amendments? You know. One that was passed and one that repealed it?


.
Checks profile. Drunken Brit who can't read a simple graph, and probably was hungover during history class. I'll give you a pass.
 
2012-12-24 01:50:11 PM  

Scerpes: chuckufarlie: What concerns me and a lot of other people are these situations where one person commits mass murders. Your comments about fist fights and knifes is pointless because that is not the problem being addressed. You cannot go in to a school and beat a bunch of people to death, nor can you do so with a knife. You are the one not paying attention to the facts. In fact, you are not paying attention at all.

You can't attack a bunch of people with a knife in a school? You don't know what the fark you're talking about.


Why am I not surprised that you equate 22 wounded with 26 dead.

Why am I not surprised that you took my statement about killing a bunch of people with a knife and twisted it to attacking a bunch of people with a knife? That was very dishonest of you, or incredibly stupid. After all, my original statement was even included in your response.

You are not very intelligent.
 
2012-12-24 01:51:07 PM  
Well that graph is completely nonsensical.

I'm trying to find a 2nd source for the right hand axis. Are they saying there were actually only ever 400 licensed handguns in the UK? It's not per 100,000 because that would make 240,000 absolute which is more than the total number of firearms certificates.

Handguns have always been unusual. I don't know anyone who has ever owned a handgun (to my knowledge). But were they that unusual?
 
2012-12-24 01:51:13 PM  

chuckufarlie: Of course it is an effective way to stop these shootings. You are just going to extremes to justify your position. If you listen to the FBI specialists, you would have learned that mass shootings are conducted by people who have "snapped" and want to lash out at their perceived enemy. That is hardly the mindset that is going to lend itself to taking the time to construct a zip gun. These are people who want to strike NOW. The rage that they feel would not survive long enough to allow them to build a weapon.

The FBI also has stated that the people who are cold and calculating usually use bombs to kill people. They are willing to take the time needed to build a bomb. Mass shooters are not.

And yes, there will still be people who use bombs. But the existence of one type of killer does not mean we should not try to eliminate another.

It really would be helpful if you would get yourself educated on the subject so I do not have to explain all of this to you.



Columbine: they had bombs on the premises, and set a bomb off to distract the police.
OKC: 5000 pounds of explosives. Done in revenge.
Bath: 1000 pounds of explosives. worst school massacre in US history. Sparked by anger
 
2012-12-24 01:51:17 PM  

spelletrader: Bomb squads have procedures to look for secondary devices and hazards (such as an ambush) before they begin operations on the suspected device. I guess that other emergency responders are going to have to implement similar procedures, it is unfortunate because the time it takes to ensure the scene is free from ambush could very well cost lives on any normal response.


One of the first things you learn in an EMT class - "make sure the scene is safe". If you get killed, you won't be doing any more to help anyone else. Great idea in theory, but how thoroughly are you going to comb the bushes?
 
2012-12-24 01:52:30 PM  

chuckufarlie:
What I have said is that we should ban rifles that use magazines and confiscate the ones that are out there.


Yeah. That'll work. We cant even keep mexicans out of this farking place, and they walk around in public and are easy to spot at a distance.
 
2012-12-24 01:53:00 PM  

chuckufarlie: Kit Fister: chuckufarlie: I am not sure what you point is. I never said that people do not break into houses or that people do not get attacked. But to cower in fear that it is going to happen to you is just sad. If a person believes that having a pistol in the house will protect them, fine. But the idea that anybody needs a rifle that uses a magazine to protect them is not thinking clearly.

My father and my brother are both police officers. My opinion is based a lot on listening to them over the years.

Must not have listened well enough -- All firearms, save for black powder or single shot, use a magazine, dumbass. A magazine is a device or enclosure that stores and feeds ammunition into the bolt mechanism to be loaded and fired. A clip is a device that holds rounds in a collected group and allows them to be easily fed into a magazine.

Also, do I need an AR-15 to defend my house from attackers? Nah. I don't know many common thieves that come in platoon strength. Then again, if I lived somewhere like LA during the riots or New Orleans after Katrina, I would consider an AR-15 a wise investment.

Now, screw the cock rubbing and the pantie pissing and foaming at the mouth. I've got a real life to live andit's my farking birthday. Time to go to the range and blow off some ammo and have some fun.

what ever it takes to get your rocks off.

I know what a magazine is, moron. And there are plenty of rifles that do not use a magazine or a clip. Why somebody who made such a stupid error would call anybody else a dumbass is beyond me. You appear to be way too stupid to assess the intelligence of any other person and most farm animals, now that I think about it.


Really? I included black powder and single shot rifles, and rifles with a revolving cylinder. All others use a magazind
 
2012-12-24 01:53:18 PM  

trappedspirit: chuckufarlie: There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution concerning assault weapons or guns that use magazines. At the time that the Constitution was ratified, the only guns were muzzle loaders.

Which meant that the citizens had access to the same weapons as the military. The Constitution says nothing about hunting.


Pretty much everything on the bill of rights has been adapted to the times (and needs to be). Otherwise, your 'freedom of speech' wouldn't be protected on the internet, cell phone, tv, etc. That's why we have SCOTUS to interpret these to modern times, should the need arise. It does not mean "Oh well item x wasn't available in 1776 so it's not protected."
 
2012-12-24 01:54:58 PM  

trappedspirit: chuckufarlie: There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution concerning assault weapons or guns that use magazines. At the time that the Constitution was ratified, the only guns were muzzle loaders.

Which meant that the citizens had access to the same weapons as the military. The Constitution says nothing about hunting.


What you are saying is nothing more than your interpretation of what the 2nd Amendment means. And obviously your interpretation is wrong. There are lots of weapons in the hands of the military that you are not allowed to legally own,

No, the Constitution said nothing about hunting. But the only viable reason to own a rifle is for hunting. You can hunt four legged animals or you can hunt two legged animals. I am perfectly okay with people have the appropriate gun for hunting the four legged animals or the two legged animals that have wings. Those guns that only serve the purpose of killing people have no place in the homes of the people.
 
2012-12-24 01:55:13 PM  

spelletrader: We have to admit to ourselves that we are facing a new wave of domestic terrorism and begin to take action from that stand point.


It does seem like some of this is false flag ops. For instance, both Holmes the theater shooter and Lanza the school shooter have parents directly related to the LIBOR banking scandals going on.

It's creepy, almost like some sort of hidden message is triggering them....

Oh wait, it's not hidden. It's hordes of drooling ghouls from the mass media that love to get ratings by spouting falsehoods about the events that makes every crazy autist go "hmm, I could be famous too!"
 
2012-12-24 01:57:16 PM  

letrole: The problem with spree shootings isn't the innercity youths who are indeed armed to the teeth and willing to pull the trigger. The vast majority of firearm murders in the US comes from gangbangers and street thugs killing each other for practical reasons -- with specific targets. If the number of guns or the mere presense of guns were the problem, then you would expect to see pointless mass murders on the news each night.

The problem is rich white male misfits. Modern society is corrupt. The natural mechanisms that always kept erratic behaviour in check have been broken and perverted to favour the individual at the expense of the community.

1. If suicide is no longer a sin,
2. If public disobedience and defiance against authority are glorified,
3. If fame or celebrity is rewarded without merit,
4. If Right and Wrong are no longer absolute,
5. If erratic behaviour is no longer shameful,
6. If internal or self justification is held as a virtue,

-- then it will all continue along this path until society completely collapses, and a new order reforms from the ashes


...Please, please keep posting. I need to copy this down if I ever want to write a fascist New Order.
 
2012-12-24 01:57:28 PM  
WALLACE: What about... a weapon that can fire a hundred shots in a minute?

SCALIA: We'll see. Obviously the Amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be hand-carried - it's to keep and "bear," so it doesn't apply to cannons - but I suppose here are hand-held rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes, that will have to be decided.

WALLACE: How do you decide that if you're a textualist?

SCALIA: Very carefully.


source
 
2012-12-24 01:58:14 PM  
Sorry,
source
 
2012-12-24 01:58:30 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: ronaprhys: cameroncrazy1984: Benjamin Orr: 2010 Cumbria 12 dead - 11 injured

Okay, so since the firearms ban, there have been 2 shootings which don't even meet the casualty total we've had in the past TWO WEEKS.

Sh*t works.

But it's unconstitutional. They banned many firearms, make you prove need in order to possess, and confiscated firearms from the general populace (though they did buy them - of course, I've not seen whether or not they paid market value).

Why do you think there is an amendment process to the Constitution? They're not set in stone, you know.


Get right on that then. Nothing that passes a constitutional challenge is going to stop mass shootings, or even single murders.

The Cumbria douche used a shotgun and a .22 bolt action rifle - not assault weapons by any means. He used what he had available.
 
2012-12-24 01:58:52 PM  

jafiwam: For instance, both Holmes the theater shooter and Lanza the school shooter have parents directly related to the LIBOR banking scandals going on.


No, they don't.

/"bonjour."
 
2012-12-24 01:59:41 PM  

chuckufarlie: Scerpes: chuckufarlie: What concerns me and a lot of other people are these situations where one person commits mass murders. Your comments about fist fights and knifes is pointless because that is not the problem being addressed. You cannot go in to a school and beat a bunch of people to death, nor can you do so with a knife. You are the one not paying attention to the facts. In fact, you are not paying attention at all.

You can't attack a bunch of people with a knife in a school? You don't know what the fark you're talking about.

Why am I not surprised that you equate 22 wounded with 26 dead.

Why am I not surprised that you took my statement about killing a bunch of people with a knife and twisted it to attacking a bunch of people with a knife? That was very dishonest of you, or incredibly stupid. After all, my original statement was even included in your response.

You are not very intelligent.


?????

It still is a mass attack isn't it? I don't think those kids are happy they were stabbed multiple times. It isn't like they just got up and brushed off the stab wound and were never in danger of dying from the attack.
 
2012-12-24 01:59:57 PM  
These are the BEST THREADs
 
2012-12-24 02:00:11 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Banned on the Run: armed resistance against those in uniform carrying assault rifles may be necessary

Why beat around the bush?

Just say, "I need these things to shoot American soldiers."


Not now, obviously. American soldiers and the government are the good guys. Right now.
"I need these things so politicians are less likely to order American soldiers to threaten to shoot me."

How's that?
Get it yet?
 
2012-12-24 02:01:08 PM  
It's been a few years since the rest of the world looked at America and collectively slapped their forehead (since Bush left, really). Oh well, a few years ain't bad!

img546.imageshack.us

A few quick points before I turn off the internet for xmas time:

- If having more guns made a country safer, America would be the safest country in the world. It isn't.

- A year or so ago (last time I tracked down solid stats for this issue), America had 10x the population of Canada and 56x the number of murders (gun-related or not).

- Yes, the constitution says "right to bear arms". Of course, there's a reason you don't allow just anyone to buy dynamite, C4, grenades, or rocket launchers (etc.). A rocket launcher could be argued to be included in "right to bear arms". But it's not... because that would be insane! Well... that's how most people feel about assault rifles. Of course, a tragedy can be created by someone with a knife (as in China), the question is the amount of damage they can do, and how long it would take them to do it.

- Schools can't afford to pay their teachers or to even get proper supplies. How on earth are they going to pay for multiple security guards, each of whom has to be trained on the proper use of assault rifles?

- There were security guards at Columbine. They failed to prevent it. Add more?
 
2012-12-24 02:01:12 PM  

chuckufarlie: trappedspirit: chuckufarlie: There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution concerning assault weapons or guns that use magazines. At the time that the Constitution was ratified, the only guns were muzzle loaders.

Which meant that the citizens had access to the same weapons as the military. The Constitution says nothing about hunting.

What you are saying is nothing more than your interpretation of what the 2nd Amendment means. And obviously your interpretation is wrong. There are lots of weapons in the hands of the military that you are not allowed to legally own,

No, the Constitution said nothing about hunting. But the only viable reason to own a rifle is for hunting. You can hunt four legged animals or you can hunt two legged animals. I am perfectly okay with people have the appropriate gun for hunting the four legged animals or the two legged animals that have wings. Those guns that only serve the purpose of killing people have no place in the homes of the people.


What about target shooting for sport, entertainment or competition? (Biathlon)

Some types of rifles are very good at self-defense and are made for close quarter combat in confined spaces. Plus, a rifle has less over penetration probability than shotgun slugs and most handguns. (Though, if it's lethal, it'll go through several average house walls no matter what it is.)

You simply can't figure out that other people have other points of view, most of which are more valid than yours (because they don't push theirs on everybody.)

Maybe you should go ask the pigs in your family what you should do when someone breaks in and tries to rape you. I bet something along the lines of "defend yourself" will be the response.
 
2012-12-24 02:02:14 PM  

Banned on the Run: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Banned on the Run: armed resistance against those in uniform carrying assault rifles may be necessary

Why beat around the bush?

Just say, "I need these things to shoot American soldiers."

Not now, obviously. American soldiers and the government are the good guys. Right now.
"I need these things so politicians are less likely to order American soldiers to threaten to shoot me."

How's that?
Get it yet?


No.

Who do you want to shoot? American soldiers or American politicians?

Why don't you vote? Lines too long?
 
2012-12-24 02:02:20 PM  

ongbok: chuckufarlie: Scerpes: chuckufarlie: What concerns me and a lot of other people are these situations where one person commits mass murders. Your comments about fist fights and knifes is pointless because that is not the problem being addressed. You cannot go in to a school and beat a bunch of people to death, nor can you do so with a knife. You are the one not paying attention to the facts. In fact, you are not paying attention at all.

You can't attack a bunch of people with a knife in a school? You don't know what the fark you're talking about.

Why am I not surprised that you equate 22 wounded with 26 dead.

Why am I not surprised that you took my statement about killing a bunch of people with a knife and twisted it to attacking a bunch of people with a knife? That was very dishonest of you, or incredibly stupid. After all, my original statement was even included in your response.

You are not very intelligent.

?????

It still is a mass attack isn't it? I don't think those kids are happy they were stabbed multiple times. It isn't like they just got up and brushed off the stab wound and were never in danger of dying from the attack.


I said that it was not possible to kill a lot of people in a short period of time with a knife. Now you want to change my statement to fit your needs.

If you want to prove my statement to be inaccurate, please stick to attacking what I actually posted and not based on your imagination.
 
2012-12-24 02:04:43 PM  

chuckufarlie: ongbok: chuckufarlie: Scerpes: chuckufarlie: What concerns me and a lot of other people are these situations where one person commits mass murders. Your comments about fist fights and knifes is pointless because that is not the problem being addressed. You cannot go in to a school and beat a bunch of people to death, nor can you do so with a knife. You are the one not paying attention to the facts. In fact, you are not paying attention at all.

You can't attack a bunch of people with a knife in a school? You don't know what the fark you're talking about.

Why am I not surprised that you equate 22 wounded with 26 dead.

Why am I not surprised that you took my statement about killing a bunch of people with a knife and twisted it to attacking a bunch of people with a knife? That was very dishonest of you, or incredibly stupid. After all, my original statement was even included in your response.

You are not very intelligent.

?????

It still is a mass attack isn't it? I don't think those kids are happy they were stabbed multiple times. It isn't like they just got up and brushed off the stab wound and were never in danger of dying from the attack.

I said that it was not possible to kill a lot of people in a short period of time with a knife. Now you want to change my statement to fit your needs.

If you want to prove my statement to be inaccurate, please stick to attacking what I actually posted and not based on your imagination.


If you know how to properly use the knife and you have a victim pool who is afraid to fight back it is.
 
2012-12-24 02:04:55 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Banned on the Run: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Banned on the Run: armed resistance against those in uniform carrying assault rifles may be necessary

Why beat around the bush?

Just say, "I need these things to shoot American soldiers."

Not now, obviously. American soldiers and the government are the good guys. Right now.
"I need these things so politicians are less likely to order American soldiers to threaten to shoot me."

How's that?
Get it yet?

No.

Who do you want to shoot? American soldiers or American politicians?

Why don't you vote? Lines too long?


This is an interesting new tactic.

Good job. It fails, but good job.
 
2012-12-24 02:05:31 PM  
i1182.photobucket.com
 
2012-12-24 02:06:05 PM  

Orgasmatron138: Regardless of where you stand on the issue, Wayne delivered a poorly timed, poorly worded, nonsensical argument.

Muta: If he didn't have a gun he would have strangled them or drowned the firemen in a pool.

After reading about the Chinese stabbing incident, I was really surprised to find out that none of the victims died. Also, what balls on those kids, holding the guy off with broomsticks until help arrived.

In the country with lax gun laws, 20 kids died. In the country with strict gun laws, 20 kids were wounded.

If only outlaws have guns when guns are outlawed, where the fark were that nutcases' guns?


If only we lived in a totalitarian place where police could come in and bust up your house because you may have a dangerous weapon.

Counter point: Google UK massacres

In the UK (Where they have very strict gun laws), there was a mass shooting spree in 2010. They don't even have a serious smuggling problem like we have in the US. If we were to outlaw guns, we'd have the drug cartels smuggling guns in anyways. Gun bans would be exactly as effective as our war on drugs.
 
2012-12-24 02:06:31 PM  

willyfreddy:

- If having more guns made a country safer, America would be the safest country in the world. It isn't.


If having more gun control laws made a country safer, Mexico would be the safest country in the world. It isn't.
 
2012-12-24 02:07:57 PM  

ronaprhys: We heavily regulate driving for a number of reasons, most of which have to do with public use of roads - which are, by and large, provided by the government. So to allow them to have rules on the roads they provide might seem to make sense, no? Additionally, the hours of use for vehicles by the average individuals and their overall impact on the economy drive even higher levels of necessary regulation. Firearms really don't fall into that category. Yes, they can be carried publically - but generally aren't used publically (ranges don't count here - that'd be closer to race tracks, which we'll discuss later). If they are used, it's either a crime or legitimate self-defense.


The primary reason we regulate driving/vehicles is because it can be extremely dangerous. As can guns. Hence we regulate both. You'd like to discuss why driving is different than firearms. I've never argued they were the same - merely that we regulate both driving/drivers and firearms/buyers as a safety measure (in addition to other reasons).

So again, by your count, that legislation already exists.

Regulations do exist (I've already established this as a premise). Regulations have also been mildly effective (I've already established this as a premise). These are all premises I've argued previously but I'm glad we both agree that I've stated them :)

Secondly, by your logic, no unnecessary death is allowable (a laudable proposition, just impossible). However, as I recall, firearm deaths are the minority. Well behind vehicles. For children, pools are responsible for many more deaths than firearms. Wouldn't it make more sense to focus on the biggest hitters and work your way down?

My logic makes no such argument. You've tried bridging my argument with an assumed premise that suddenly changes the conclusion. I'm arguing in favor of certain new pieces of gun regulation (in addition to other safety measures) because guns are (1). much more effective when committing violent acts (2). have a higher risk of lethality (3). because previous regulation (specifically gun regulation) has been effective. (4). the rate at which people are injured or killed as either a direct or indirect result of firearms is too high. You're trying to insert a 5th premise in which I argue all things that could potentially injure or harm someone must be equally regulated in order to arrive at the conclusion that I'm also championing regulation reform on something like a hammer. That's untrue. Your usage of an assumed premise is invalid. It also appears that you're flirting with the slippery slope fallacy which isn't an appropriate challenge.

To the last part of the argument, yes we do (as citizens) accept a certain amount of unnecessary death. That's a fact. If we didn't, the speed limit would be 12.5mph or something equally slow.

As I said - the goal of gun regulation should be aimed at reducing the number of unnecessary gun deaths or injuries. We often aim for zero because we don't find any number greater than zero acceptable. Do we ever achieve zero? Doubtful. We create this unattainable ceiling intentionally so that legislation can evolve as needed and not based on exceeding a quota.

Your analogy in which a speed limit of 12 mph makes my point for me. Regulation can be an effective tool for creating a safer society. But again - my argument is about gun regulation and not all things that are dangerous. You can try pushing the slide down your slippery slope all you want but the fact is - we do regulate and have regulated without crippling the item we're regulating. Just because you an imagine a future in which we're all protected by layers of bubble wrap doesn't mean we should automatically ban all discussions about how we can be reasonable in future regulations aimed at creating safer societies. Forcing children to wear safety belts in vehicles didn't translate to a world covered in bubble wrap - neither will many of the suggestions being discussed.

None of that means we shouldn't look to ways to reduce the number of incidents, however, we also shouldn't respond in knee jerk fashions. Any debate needs to be reasoned, use statistics and logic, look at the positives and negatives, and weigh all factors prior to making a decision.

Great. We're on the same page. Why didn't you say this to begin with?

One thing you seem to be leaving out are the number of times firearms prevent a crime (rape, murder, theft, assault, etc). How many of those are acceptable and what might the increase be if you increase the restrictions on firearms?

Are you suggesting that the number of people who used guns to protect themselves from rape, murder, theft, assault, etc. outweigh the number of people who used guns to carry out rape, murder, theft, assault, etc.? If we were to look at each act in a one to one ratio (ie. for every person that successfully defended themselves against rape : every person that successfully committed rape using a gun) - we would still have more offenders than self-defenders. In other words - more offenders use a gun to carry out the crime than defenders use to prevent it.

And to say, "Well, it matters to that one woman who prevented her own rape," is a ridiculous answer. Preventing Sideshow Bob or Lanzatard would have also been meaningful. The fact is - guns are a much more effective tool at committing crimes than they are as a tool of defending against crimes.

And the solution cannot be to arm everyone in society. Do you have statistics that show that when both the victim and the assailant are armed with a gun - the outcome is much safer? Of course not. Imagine what would have happened if Sideshow Bob opened fire in a theater full of concealed carriers. Suddenly - you've got a dark theater full of weapons and itchy trigger fingers with no clear indication on which of the masked patrons was the assailant. The safer scenario isn't placing an armed guard in every theater because it's still dark, there are still costumes, and it's still crowded. But what if Sideshow Bob was prevented from purchasing all of those weapons and showed up to the theater with a knife? A bow? A hammer?

Actually, that might have something to do with arms vs armaments. These terms are different and have specific meanings. Nor can you actually compare a nuclear weapon with a firearm. Simply put, that's an illogical comparison.

Considering both are tools used to commit violence - the comparison is perfectly fitting. We don't allow the average person to purchase bombs because the potential risk to society outweighs a person's right to owning weapons. Now - you can argue how guns are different than bombs but that does nothing to change the fact that the government tends to effectively regulate items in which a single incident and produce dozens of causalities or injuries. You cannot shout, "Fire" in a crowded theater despite your 1st Amendment right.

Then it wouldn't be street racing, it'd be racing. There's a difference. One is illegal, one is not. Regulations already exist on firearms.

Well, if the racing is done on a street created in a racing complex designed to provide a legal venue for street racing then I'm using the term correctly.

You know the other reason what you're saying is silly? Because street racing and other activities don't ban or make illegal the vehicle (assuming it meets the normal requirements to be street legal), they ban the illegal activity.

For the record - you just asked the following question: Do you know why your argument for regulation is silly? Because it doesn't ban activities - assuming that the activities meet the regulated requirements.

Which is the exact same on firearms. Murder and shooting people is illegal. Using a firearm in the commission of a crime is illegal.

The goal isn't to eradicate the mechanisms that lead to violent behavior. Humans are violent. I never suggested we can eradicate violence. I did, however, suggest that we can turn a single act of violence that kills 20 into a single act of violence that injures one.

Also, quit using the word hobbies. Why do I say that? Because we're discussing a specifically-enumerated right. You're trying to minimize the appropriate uses of firearms by using a word with specific connotations and that's inappropriate in a debate.

I didn't realize you were talking about gun safety in a well-regulated militia? Technically, that's the only specifically-enumerated right you have. I'm talking about the use of guns in society at large (and not within a militia). My usage is accurate. Your hobby of gun collecting shouldn't usurp my right to life.
 
2012-12-24 02:08:33 PM  
We need more community action instead of gun control. Armed mobs need to preemptively hunt and kill all loner types that might be a mass shooter. And while we are at it, moar guns.
 
2012-12-24 02:08:55 PM  

chuckufarlie: trappedspirit: chuckufarlie: There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution concerning assault weapons or guns that use magazines. At the time that the Constitution was ratified, the only guns were muzzle loaders.

Which meant that the citizens had access to the same weapons as the military. The Constitution says nothing about hunting.

What you are saying is nothing more than your interpretation of what the 2nd Amendment means. And obviously your interpretation is wrong. There are lots of weapons in the hands of the military that you are not allowed to legally own,

No, the Constitution said nothing about hunting. But the only viable reason to own a rifle is for hunting. You can hunt four legged animals or you can hunt two legged animals. I am perfectly okay with people have the appropriate gun for hunting the four legged animals or the two legged animals that have wings. Those guns that only serve the purpose of killing people have no place in the homes of the people.


If the second amendment protected the right to own a musket with a bayonet, it referred to two devices whose only purpose was to make war. Not simply to kill humans, but to make war. Besides that, items with the purpose of killing do indeed have a legitimate place in the home of any who are willing and able to kill in defense of themselves or others.

Your understanding of guns is tremendously flawed and I can only assume it has been colored by your incredible, irrational fear of them. Your interpretation of the Constitution and your view of reality as a whole also seem to have been skewed by this fear.
 
2012-12-24 02:09:07 PM  

david_gaithersburg: Because four flying off on a tangent and I have no clue what it is that you want to discuss. The French and the Prussians backed us during the revolution. Someone is always backing someone somewhere.

/Unstable people fly off on tangents.
//You appear unstable.
///Slashies!


But David, didn't you say in this VERY thread that minutemen were the ones that threw off the shackles of oppression from the British Government? Why, that would be insinuating a revisionist view of history, wouldn't it? You'd never do that, right?

Going off on a Tangent? David, you were the one that brought up the idea that an armed populace will be able to rise up against the United States Government should it become a dystopian paradise, and throw off the bonds of oppression by their means alone. You used "examples" of countries that had done this, while conveniently ignoring the fact that they were proxy wars fought between major superpowers, with those powers giving massive military and financial aid to those rebels.

cdn.motinetwork.net
 
2012-12-24 02:10:13 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Banned on the Run: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Banned on the Run: armed resistance against those in uniform carrying assault rifles may be necessary

Why beat around the bush?

Just say, "I need these things to shoot American soldiers."

Not now, obviously. American soldiers and the government are the good guys. Right now.
"I need these things so politicians are less likely to order American soldiers to threaten to shoot me."

How's that?
Get it yet?

No.
Who do you want to shoot? American soldiers or American politicians?
Why don't you vote? Lines too long?


Since you didn't read the whole post, check the underline above
I do vote. An armed populace protects that right.
 
2012-12-24 02:11:48 PM  

chuckufarlie: MichiganFTL: trappedspirit: chuckufarlie: There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution concerning assault weapons or guns that use magazines. At the time that the Constitution was ratified, the only guns were muzzle loaders.

Which meant that the citizens had access to the same weapons as the military. The Constitution says nothing about hunting.

Pretty much everything on the bill of rights has been adapted to the times (and needs to be). Otherwise, your 'freedom of speech' wouldn't be protected on the internet, cell phone, tv, etc. That's why we have SCOTUS to interpret these to modern times, should the need arise. It does not mean "Oh well item x wasn't available in 1776 so it's not protected."

OMG. Are you really that retarded? Freedom of speech is just that. It is freedom of speech that is protected, not the internet or cell phones. The internet is a device used to exercise free speech but it is still speech itself that is protected in all of its forms.

To say that this analogy transfers to the 2nd Amendment is to show up just how stupid you are. If your interpretation was accurate, we could all own any weapon in the military arsenal. Obviously, we cannot do so. Therefore, your premise is nothing but ignorance.


Lol.

Now you are just name calling. Your arguments, as weak as they were, have completely collapsed.

You are right, free speech is absolute, just as the right to bare arms is.

imageshack.us
 
Displayed 50 of 1070 comments


Oldest | « | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
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