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.

(USA Today)   How do you identify 32,000 morons?   (usatoday.com) divider line 169
    More: Followup  
•       •       •

20953 clicks; posted to Main » on 24 Dec 2012 at 3:35 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-24 05:14:00 PM
We should make him carry a gun everyday.
 
2012-12-24 05:14:01 PM

GoldSpider: Wayne 985: You're "special", aren't you?

I'm guessing the irony eluded you.


Maybe he's referring to the silly strawman argument.
 
2012-12-24 05:22:02 PM

pla: AssAsInAssassin

"The Congress shall have Power ...
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress..."

You understand, of course, that amendments to the constitution supersede those portions of the constitution that came prior to them, right?

So, for example, black people and indians no longer count as only 3/5ths of a human for the purpose of representational apportionment.

Though in fairness, I made an appeal to a document predating the constitution itself - Though more in the hopes of helping you understand that this has nothing to do with the evil, evil NRA twisting the holy words of our Founding Fathers.


So you're saying that the well regulated militia  in the 2nd Amendment
1) is not the same militia as in the body of the constitution, and
2) requires unfettered access to asault rifles?

What do you think "well regulated" means? Any yokel with a hankerin' to shoot an AK 47? Or do you think it's an essentially meaningless phrase put there for the sole purpose of confusing people?
 
2012-12-24 05:24:49 PM
I figured for sure, seeing only the headline, that the identification process would be via something more arcane, like, "All those who lined up for the latest bad movie," or whatever.

I had no idea the N.R.A. babies would make it so easy.

(Why can't we even TALK about it, you stupid pussies?)
 
2012-12-24 05:25:14 PM

AssAsInAssassin: pla: First, we have Piers Morgan abusing his first amendment rights to attack our second amendment rights.

It started when the NRA abused their 1st Amendment rights to re-define the intent of the 2nd Amendment (a well regulated militia under the authority of the president and congress, to put down ibnvasions and rebellions). The recent SCOTUS opinion was just the final nail  in history's coffin.


Where does it say "under the authority of the president and congress"? Militias are supposed to be under local control. They aren't national armies. They are to protect their own communities from other communities. They are the ultimate expression of small, local governments. They don't fit in with how we define the concept of a modern country, but then the notion of a modern country would be foreign and probably inimical to the framers of the Constitution.
 
2012-12-24 05:26:09 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: yyrkoon: Ignore the 1st amendment to uphold the 2nd. You are doing it wrong...

Oh look another person who doesn't understand what the first amendment is.


Oh look, another person who can't look up in a rainstorm without drowning.
 
2012-12-24 05:29:27 PM

dj_bigbird: 1/2 of the crowd at a Steelers game?


Just the ones waving those stupid towels?
 
2012-12-24 05:37:36 PM
I doubt many of that 32k really want to deport Morgan or even think its possible. Its an absurd petition which illustrates the absurdity of the White House petition website and the other petitions made there.
 
2012-12-24 05:39:32 PM
Subby and his extended family?
 
2012-12-24 05:43:26 PM
So, the White House petitions are cool when the FarkLibtards agree with the petition, but only morans sign the petitions the FarkLibtards disagree with. I get it. English people are black.

Am I doing this right?
 
2012-12-24 05:44:49 PM
Oh, one more thing. You would think the FarkLibbies would be ok with this, since the person the morans are wanting to deport isn't black or brown.
 
2012-12-24 05:50:41 PM
Nah. You Americans can keep him. I have no issues with his statements on gun control, but he IS a smug asshole.
 
2012-12-24 05:53:14 PM

Tumunga: So, the White House petitions are cool when the FarkLibtards agree with the petition, but only morans sign the petitions the FarkLibtards disagree with. I get it. English people are black.

Am I doing this right?


No, not even close.
 
2012-12-24 05:53:41 PM

Rich Cream: cman: [...]and yet still the same bullshiat for someone invoking their right of free speech


Now hold on there. I've been told for the past decade that only US citizens are afforded the rights enumerated in our Bill of Rights. Everyone else does not qualify.


Who is the dumbass who told you that? Anyone under the jurisdiction of the US voluntarily enjoys all rights under the Constitution. Seeing as he is a resident alien, he has voluntarily subjected himself to US jurisdiction and is therefore entitled to all of the enumerated rights.

\Since minors cannot volunteer their jurisdiction, their rights can be curtailed. Same goes for enemy combatants.
 
2012-12-24 05:55:46 PM

verbaltoxin: Oh come on, there can't be that many TF subscribers.


Done in one.
 
2012-12-24 05:55:59 PM

FunkOut: SixPaperJoint: In the spirit of negotiation and since it's the Xmas season, I'll make you 30,000+ people an offer:

[www.nbc.com image 296x369]
We deport him

IF

This guy goes too
[www.eonline.com image 300x300]

Deal?
I'll even start a WH petition if y'all game.

Can't we just put then both in a barrel and throw it off something?


How about that thing that guy jumped out of recently that was a big deal. The parachute guy. Let's nail them in a barrel, float them into the stratosphere, and push them out.

I'm indifferent whether they get parachutes.
 
2012-12-24 05:58:51 PM
I am all for deporting Peirs Morgan, but on account of him being a giant douchebag, not because of his position on gun control :).
 
2012-12-24 05:59:35 PM
The irony of what is likely a group of the same people that will scream to the high heavens about the first amendment and free speech asking the government to censor an individuals right to speak his mind by deporting him is actually pretty funny.
 
2012-12-24 06:00:12 PM

cman: Last week: deport those who speak out in favor of secession
This week: deport those who speak out in favor of gun control

Different sides (week one was from the left, week two from the right) and yet still the same bullshiat for someone invoking their right of free speech


In all fairness, I'm pretty sure the 'deport the secessionists' side was trying to be very clearly flippant. Sure, it shouldn't have been said, but you'll never stop the internet from hyperbole.

/Hopefully so is this side...
 
2012-12-24 06:04:54 PM
Ok, listen people. The Petition System works like this: You bring up an issue, the White House has to respond to it. It is not a referendum. It is not a popularity contest (well, I guess it is). Simply because 150k people signed a petition urging the WH to do something doesn't mean they will, only that they will respond to it.
 
pla
2012-12-24 06:10:25 PM
AssAsInAssassin : What do you think "well regulated" means? Any yokel with a hankerin' to shoot an AK 47? Or do you think it's an essentially meaningless phrase put there for the sole purpose of confusing people?

The USSC has decided it (legally) means absolutely nothing (in the famous Heller case you should know - and hate - so intimately as a fan of gun control).

In the late 18th century (and even today, though as a less common use) it meant something akin to "trained and ready to do its thing", or less formally, "in proper working order". So keeping the militia "well regulated" meant they didn't just report to the town hall to pick up their guns from the armory once every 30 or so years if a foreign invader happened to drop by for a visit - It meant, literally, that it "being necessary to the security of a free State", people should maintain and stay in practice with using their guns.

A "well regulated" fish tank doesn't mean you have an official license to own and operate an aquarium. It just means your fish won't die from too high a pH.


tenpoundsofcheese : It is so cute that you don't understand the first half of the first amendment.

You can exercise a right without needing to do so directly against the body from which that right protects you, eh?

Or did you really just think I read the insane ramblings of the founders of our country for fun, yet don't understand the difference between congress regulating speech and a mob of Average Joes expressing displeasure?
 
2012-12-24 06:17:45 PM

EatenTheSun: pla: It very, very specifically does not mean that. At its weakest, you could claim it refers to each state having its own standing army - But even that interpretation requires totally castrating its original intent.

Federalist #29

"To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year."


So, National Guard, then? There is no other militia that now functions in the way described. This annual or semi-annual review is certainly a government function, and certainly involves a review of what weapons are in whose possession and in what condition.
How often are you willing to be assembled for such a review?
 
2012-12-24 06:31:28 PM
Let's just deport Obama.
 
2012-12-24 06:37:48 PM

SixPaperJoint: In the spirit of negotiation and since it's the Xmas season, I'll make you 30,000+ people an offer:

[www.nbc.com image 296x369]
We deport him

IF

This guy goes too
[www.eonline.com image 300x300]

Deal?
I'll even start a WH petition if y'all game.


I don't think there's a person here who would be opposed to this.
 
2012-12-24 06:58:47 PM

AssAsInAssassin: pla: AssAsInAssassin

"The Congress shall have Power ...
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress..."

You understand, of course, that amendments to the constitution supersede those portions of the constitution that came prior to them, right?

So, for example, black people and indians no longer count as only 3/5ths of a human for the purpose of representational apportionment.

Though in fairness, I made an appeal to a document predating the constitution itself - Though more in the hopes of helping you understand that this has nothing to do with the evil, evil NRA twisting the holy words of our Founding Fathers.

So you're saying that the well regulated militia  in the 2nd Amendment
1) is not the same militia as in the body of the constitution, and
2) requires unfettered access to asault rifles?

What do you think "well regulated" means? Any yokel with a hankerin' to shoot an AK 47? Or do you think it's an essentially meaningless phrase put there for the sole purpose of confusing people?


The term "well regulated" referred to well trained and practiced when you look at the context of the day and the circa 1789 definition of the term.

Also militia were made up of ordinary citizens with their own firearms.

You do realize that actual assault rifles (not rifles that just happen to look like them) are in fact illegal to own in most instances.

Madison said it best:

(The Constitution)... preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."

(James Madison of Virginia, The Federalist, No. 46)

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.
---Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).

If you read the documents of the time the intent was clearly for an individual right to own firearms to protect against a runaway government. After all we had just fought a bloody rebellion against a tyrannical king.
 
2012-12-24 07:05:28 PM

SixPaperJoint: In the spirit of negotiation and since it's the Xmas season, I'll make you 30,000+ people an offer:


We deport him

IF

This guy goes too


Deal?
I'll even start a WH petition if y'all game.


Sign me up!
 
2012-12-24 07:22:20 PM
The RNC
 
2012-12-24 07:24:11 PM
What are people who ignore, Alex?
 
2012-12-24 07:26:35 PM

cman: kxs401: cman: Last week: deport those who speak out in favor of secession
This week: deport those who speak out in favor of gun control

Different sides (week one was from the left, week two from the right) and yet still the same bullshiat for someone invoking their right of free speech

Not really equivalent. Secession is treason.

Look up the definition of treason. It is the only criminal statute encoded into our constitution. Treason is defined as giving aid and comfort to the enemy. MOST OF the American people are not the enemy of the United States. Speaking out in favor of leaving the United States is not treason.


I do not necessarily agree about those red states.
 
2012-12-24 07:33:10 PM
pla: tenpoundsofcheese : It is so cute that you don't understand the first half of the first amendment.


Or did you really just think I read the insane ramblings of the founders of our country for fun, yet don't understand the difference between congress regulating speech and a mob of Average Joes expressing displeasure?


did you forget to switch tabs?  why are you replying to something I wrote to PLA with "did you really just think I read..."

I give you a 2/17 for your trolling attempt and poor alt-management skills.
 
2012-12-24 07:33:16 PM
Most of those petitions are Meh, some are No, and a few are Aww Hell No.  We need a way to voice our NO vote on some of these turkeys.

I've created a petition to do just that :)  Please visit it at  http://wh.gov/QXf9  and vote yes, I need 150 votes before it hits the front page.
 
2012-12-24 07:37:17 PM
pla:

Or did you really just think I read the insane ramblings of the founders of our country for fun, yet don't understand the difference between congress regulating speech and a mob of Average Joes expressing displeasure?

you wrote:  " We have 32,000 morons using the second half of their first amendment rights to criticizing Piers Morgan for using the first half of his first amendment right "

so yes, you don't understand the difference since no one is criticizing Morgan for using the first half of his first amendment right.
 
2012-12-24 07:38:02 PM

cman: kxs401: cman: Last week: deport those who speak out in favor of secession
This week: deport those who speak out in favor of gun control

Different sides (week one was from the left, week two from the right) and yet still the same bullshiat for someone invoking their right of free speech

Not really equivalent. Secession is treason.

Look up the definition of treason. It is the only criminal statute encoded into our constitution. Treason is defined as giving aid and comfort to the enemy. The American people are not the enemy of the United States. Speaking out in favor of leaving the United States is not treason.

Vodka Zombie: cman: Last week: deport those who speak out in favor of secession
This week: deport those who speak out in favor of gun control

Different sides (week one was from the left, week two from the right) and yet still the same bullshiat for someone invoking their right of free speech

Is Morgan saying that he wants to leave? Is Morgan petitioning the government to allow him to leave?

Wow. I feel like the answer to those difficult questions is NO. It's almost like your tattered brain is lacking an adult's ability to think in even slightly abstract terms.

The fact that people are demanding that others be deported for the exercise of free speech should be quite unnerving. Doesnt matter what the message is; asking others to be deported because of words is completely idiotic


It could be argued that breaking up the country does give aid and comfort to the enemy.
 
2012-12-24 07:38:17 PM

Snotnose: Most of those petitions are Meh, some are No, and a few are Aww Hell No.  We need a way to voice our NO vote on some of these turkeys.

I've created a petition to do just that :)  Please visit it at  http://wh.gov/QXf9  and vote yes, I need 150 votes before it hits the front page.


Stop trolling for votes.

Go somewhere else or start your own thread.
 
2012-12-24 07:51:25 PM
\

radiobiz: Unless I missed something Piers Morgan is a British subject not a US citizen and as such technically enjoys no protection under the 1st amendment. Therefore he can't abuse his right to it since he has no right to it. Just a small point.


Unless I missed something, the 1st Amendment says not a goddamned thing about a person's citizenry or lack thereof when it pertains to said rights of a person living in the United States.
 
2012-12-24 07:58:41 PM

scandalrag: Since minors cannot volunteer their jurisdiction, their rights can be curtailed.


Oh, I have almost as big an issue with that statement as I do the statement that non-citizens don't have Constitutional rights. Because the definition of citizen under the 14th amendment was to make sure slaves were counted as citizens, too, and the rest of the amendment pertains to all people, which means minors, too, can't be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of laws. You can't treat minors like little adults, true, but you also can't treat them like slaves, either.
 
2012-12-24 08:04:56 PM

smonter: You do realize that actual assault rifles (not rifles that just happen to look like them) are in fact illegal to own in most instances.


Unfortunately most of the populace is too naive when it comes to firearms that they don't know. If it looks like an M-16 burst fire or fully automatic they see in movies all of the time, it IS an evil instrument of killing. They don't quite get the concept that it's a single-fire automatic, and the only difference between that and a lot of varmint killing guns out there is purely aesthetic.

What's doubly annoying is people like Micheal Moore with that extreme naivete(As he did once on the Piers Morgan show) , acting outrageously when pantomiming what they think people do with guns. Yes, it's ridiculous when they do it, because they're farking morons.

All they conclusively prove is that they, as well as a good portion of society, shouldn't have guns, for everyone's safety. It is totally beyond their ability to handle them with responsibility. They have a stance born of very limited anecdotal evidence.

According to their absolute all-or-nothing style of logic, on account of their limited mental capacity, they would have us ALL wear Bicycle helmets 24/7, because retarded people need them.

smonter: Madison said it best:

(The Constitution)... preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."

(James Madison of Virginia, The Federalist, No. 46)

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.
---Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).

If you read the documents of the time the intent was clearly for an individual right to own firearms to protect against a runaway government. After all we had just fought a bloody rebellion against a tyrannical king.


This, This, and farking THIS!

Many of them got away from tyranny by running, and by the skin of their teeth. This is the origin of the US's stance on self defense, really. We shouldn't have to run, we should be able to protect our own. Hell, there's no where really to run to anymore, it's pretty much all taken.
 
pla
2012-12-24 08:25:57 PM
tenpoundsofcheese : so yes, you don't understand the difference since no one is criticizing Morgan for using the first half of his first amendment right.

You have a group of people asking for government intervention to silence a member of the press whom they disagree. The government, for its part, can't do that because of the first clause of the first amendment.

Getting tired of this, so would you kindly shiat or get off the pot? If the first part of the first amendment doesn't apply to that, well... You got some splainin' to do, Looshy!
 
2012-12-24 08:33:26 PM
cman

The 1st amendment only applied to ink quill pens and printing presses and peaceful signs.

They never envisioned that you could talk into a magic box and stupify millions of people at one time with total crap. Ban high capacity television!
 
2012-12-24 08:35:14 PM
Fact: Jeremy Clarkson once punched Piers Morgan in the face for being an insufferable twit.
...Twice.

/and He dumped a cup of water on him for ruining what was an otherwise enjoyable flight on the Concord.
/England won't take him back, we'll have to find someplace else.
/I suggest Antarctica. I hear its nice in the summer.
 
2012-12-24 08:42:37 PM
The Force scatters sometimes.
 
2012-12-24 08:48:26 PM
Can't we get rid of him using the laws against invasive foreign pests?
 
pc
2012-12-24 09:06:39 PM
img541.imageshack.us
FTFY
 
2012-12-24 09:14:37 PM

IlGreven: \radiobiz: Unless I missed something Piers Morgan is a British subject not a US citizen and as such technically enjoys no protection under the 1st amendment. Therefore he can't abuse his right to it since he has no right to it. Just a small point.

Unless I missed something, the 1st Amendment says not a goddamned thing about a person's citizenry or lack thereof when it pertains to said rights of a person living in the United States.


So your profanity laden argument is that the United States Constitution applies to any person living within its borders or perhaps controlled territories?

I see. And you've come to this conclusion based on what exactly?
 
2012-12-24 09:26:27 PM
Look on the Florida voters list under "Democrat"?
 
2012-12-24 09:28:51 PM

pc: [img541.imageshack.us image 627x374]
FTFY


Can you show me an actual quote of Obama saying "guns make us less safe?" Or is that another fabrication of the gun nuts, with as much grounding in American history as the gun nuts' twisted interpretation of "a well regulated militia?"
 
2012-12-24 09:42:15 PM

AssAsInAssassin: pc: [img541.imageshack.us image 627x374]
FTFY

Can you show me an actual quote of Obama saying "guns make us less safe?" Or is that another fabrication of the gun nuts, with as much grounding in American history as the gun nuts' twisted interpretation of "a well regulated militia?"


I'd make an actual response, but I find its a waste of time to talk with people who can't read whole sentences.
 
2012-12-24 09:55:44 PM

way south: AssAsInAssassin: pc: [img541.imageshack.us image 627x374]
FTFY

Can you show me an actual quote of Obama saying "guns make us less safe?" Or is that another fabrication of the gun nuts, with as much grounding in American history as the gun nuts' twisted interpretation of "a well regulated militia?"

I'd make an actual response, but I find its a waste of time to talk with people who can't read whole sentences.


Put up or shut up. Gun nuts are trotting this bogus quote all over the Internet, as if Obama actually said "guns make us less safe." I Googled it. The only instances I can find of this alleged quote are gun nuts pretending it's a real quote.
 
2012-12-24 09:56:57 PM
Oh. Heh. Got me there. Yes, I didn't look at it again, because I thought it was the same inane crap I've already seen.

I'll slink away now...
 
2012-12-24 09:58:19 PM

BokerBill: How often are you willing to be assembled for such a review?


"Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year."

I'm totally down with taking a couple of weekends a year to do some firearms training. It would be nice to see some non gun owners show up too, to at least get some basic training in gun safety.
 
Displayed 50 of 169 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report