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.

(Daily Mail)   Meanwhile, in the gunless utopia of Britain   (dailymail.co.uk) divider line 414
    More: Scary, Britain, samurai sword, samurai  
•       •       •

25120 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Dec 2012 at 1:57 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-25 02:30:06 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: OddLlama: In all the gun threads I've read lately, there are those who insist that the second amendment is to insure protection for citizens against tyrannical governments. What I have never heard addressed is the army commanded by that government.are these people implying that our soldiers would take up arms against their families and friends in order to give power to a few in Washington? Do they not trust and support our troops? Why have I never heard this addressed?

http://www.history.com/topics/american-civil-war


So, in case Obama tries to free the slaves?
 
2012-12-25 02:30:07 AM  

Mrtraveler01: TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: kmmontandon: phrawgh:
Driving is a privilege, not a right.


So is voting, but last I checked, there were some pretty hefty restrictions on exercising that right.

TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: KrispyKritter: ignorance is bliss, subby. folks in Britain can have firearms, they just use them for hunting animals as they are intended.

Except the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting and EVERYTHING to do with a violent revolution to topple the government.


The Second Amendment was written in a time when hastily summoned militias had a hope of weapons parity and training with regular soldiery. That time has long passed. As has the time when we have to worry about a foreign power restricting our rights - we aren't a colony any more.

Right. Now the big worry is a domestic power restricting our rights. Good thing those Founding Fathers saw fit to give us a means to not be enslaved by the government they built.

Oh for the love of Christ, do you actually think we're at a point where we need to violently topple the government we currently have in place now.

The one that was Democratically elected?

How are you going to stop this "domestic power restricting our rights" anyway?


The threat of violence quite often makes the use of violence unnecessary.

OddLlama: In all the gun threads I've read lately, there are those who insist that the second amendment is to insure protection for citizens against tyrannical governments. What I have never heard addressed is the army commanded by that government.are these people implying that our soldiers would take up arms against their families and friends in order to give power to a few in Washington? Do they not trust and support our troops? Why have I never heard this addressed?


Some troops would defect. Others won't. I'm not going to just hope that the side I personally support comes out ahead in the numbers game. Why not hedge your bet with some extra support??

And again, the threat of violence often means you don't have to use it.
 
2012-12-25 02:31:03 AM  

Triumph: [i.dailymail.co.uk image 634x422]

In a monarchy, this is the limit of allowable technology in private hands. Doesn't matter whether you're the monarch of North Korea or Britain; the peasantry needs to be kept as defenseless as possible.


It's so adorable how you think your Glock or even AR-15 will protect you from the NSA/CIA/FBI/whatever. Please, go on masturbating to your dreams of overthrowing a Democracy gone wrong.
 
2012-12-25 02:31:35 AM  
A two foot long samurai sword?

i.dailymail.co.uk
Paging Therion or another expert: please identify that piece of metal?
 
2012-12-25 02:32:07 AM  

OddLlama: AverageAmericanGuy: OddLlama: In all the gun threads I've read lately, there are those who insist that the second amendment is to insure protection for citizens against tyrannical governments. What I have never heard addressed is the army commanded by that government.are these people implying that our soldiers would take up arms against their families and friends in order to give power to a few in Washington? Do they not trust and support our troops? Why have I never heard this addressed?

http://www.history.com/topics/american-civil-war

So, in case Obama tries to free the slaves?


The very fact that you think the Civil War was about freeing the slaves tells me you know NOTHING about U.S. History and any of your thoughts on why we have the 2nd Amendment is complete garbage.
 
2012-12-25 02:32:26 AM  
"Zero killed in non-mass spree non-shooting. Suspect disarmed by unarmed cop"
i2.kym-cdn.com
 
2012-12-25 02:32:37 AM  

OddLlama: So, in case Obama tries to free the slaves?


i.qkme.me
 
2012-12-25 02:32:54 AM  

zarberg: Triumph: [i.dailymail.co.uk image 634x422]

In a monarchy, this is the limit of allowable technology in private hands. Doesn't matter whether you're the monarch of North Korea or Britain; the peasantry needs to be kept as defenseless as possible.

It's so adorable how you think your Glock or even AR-15 will protect you from the NSA/CIA/FBI/whatever. Please, go on masturbating to your dreams of overthrowing a Democracy gone wrong.


Funny, because the FBI uses Glocks and AR-15s.
 
2012-12-25 02:32:56 AM  

Mrtraveler01: JSam21: Ok... here is the thing that is being missed. Just like I don't understand the people that say "I don't like abortion and it should be illegal", I don't get the people who say "I don't like guns and they should be illegal".

No one is forcing you to have abortions or own guns. Let the people who want to do or own legal things do things.

Its like getting mad at me for buying a donut because you are on a diet.

I don't like guns, but I don't want to make them illegal outright. I just want to find a way to restrict who can get them.

I would not be happy with a free-for-all, anyone can buy a gun, policy.


There is a way in place now. But most all of the gun laws deal with handguns only. You have to have a background check and be at least 21 years old to purchase a handgun and be 21 to purchase ammo for a handgun.

Now when you get into long guns thats where things become very lax. 18 years old with a valid id and you're good to go. Same with rifle and shotgun ammo.

Background checks should be mandatory for all purchases of fire arms. Reduction of magazine capacity will have zero effect on reduction of victims in an incident.
 
2012-12-25 02:33:36 AM  
GB has like 36 gun deaths a year to our 15000 our whatever obscene number it is, even though they are 1/6 the size. Gun control works there. Even police are discouraged from carrying. However its too late for the US to institute gun control like that. We have 300 million guns out there. It's not possible to get those returned. There are sensible things we can do to help things, like refusing to sell to just released mental patients or to folks that don't have any training in gun safety.
 
2012-12-25 02:33:47 AM  
Hey, even with socialized medicine, ASBOs, and legislation about even knives, crazy people are still crazy.

Oh, and why hasn't this been up yet?
farm2.staticflickr.com
 
2012-12-25 02:34:13 AM  

TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: 12349876: TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: EVERYTHING to do with a violent revolution to topple the government.

And guns aren't going to do a damn thing about it. If a government is bent on killing its own civilians in mass numbers, there's fighter jets and nukes and mustard gas and submarines and aircraft carriers etc. etc. etc.

You think the US is going to nuke itself?? Please stop the crazy talk. And just look at how well Afghanistan has fought back since 1979 against Russia and now against the United States. Small arms DO make a difference. Flappyhead: TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: KrispyKritter: ignorance is bliss, subby. folks in Britain can have firearms, they just use them for hunting animals as they are intended.

Except the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting and EVERYTHING to do with a violent revolution to topple the government.

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of 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.
Noah Webster

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
Thomas Jefferson

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
- Thomas Jefferson

Obama isn't coming to have sex with your wife, calm down.

Why do anti-gun people make everything about sex??


Make love, not war. :)
 
2012-12-25 02:35:23 AM  

kmmontandon:
The Second Amendment was written in a time when hastily summoned militias had a hope of weapons parity and training with regular soldiery. That time has long passed. As has the time when we have to worry about a foreign power restricting our rights - we aren't a colony any more.


hint: we weren't a colony when the Second Amendment was written.
 
2012-12-25 02:35:26 AM  
Switzerland, where the government passes out Sig Sauer pistols and machine guns to the citizens, has a much lower murder rate than the UK with the UK murder rate being about 50% higher. So much for guns causing murders.
 
2012-12-25 02:36:34 AM  

OscarTamerz: Switzerland, where the government passes out Sig Sauer pistols and machine guns to the citizens, has a much lower murder rate than the UK with the UK murder rate being about 50% higher. So much for guns causing murders.


This...
 
2012-12-25 02:36:59 AM  

JSam21: Mrtraveler01: JSam21: Ok... here is the thing that is being missed. Just like I don't understand the people that say "I don't like abortion and it should be illegal", I don't get the people who say "I don't like guns and they should be illegal".

No one is forcing you to have abortions or own guns. Let the people who want to do or own legal things do things.

Its like getting mad at me for buying a donut because you are on a diet.

I don't like guns, but I don't want to make them illegal outright. I just want to find a way to restrict who can get them.

I would not be happy with a free-for-all, anyone can buy a gun, policy.

There is a way in place now. But most all of the gun laws deal with handguns only. You have to have a background check and be at least 21 years old to purchase a handgun and be 21 to purchase ammo for a handgun.

Now when you get into long guns thats where things become very lax. 18 years old with a valid id and you're good to go. Same with rifle and shotgun ammo.

Background checks should be mandatory for all purchases of fire arms. Reduction of magazine capacity will have zero effect on reduction of victims in an incident.


What makes you think there is no background check for rifles?? And what rational person is arguing AGAINST background check?? Yay for background checks!! I also think there should be more mandatory training (Perhaps annual qualifying??) for concealed permit holders.

No rational gun owner thinks just anyone should be able to buy a firearm without any type of background check.
 
2012-12-25 02:37:30 AM  

Marcintosh: Triumph: [i.dailymail.co.uk image 634x422]

In a monarchy, this is the limit of allowable technology in private hands. Doesn't matter whether you're the monarch of North Korea or Britain; the peasantry needs to be kept as defenseless as possible.

Yeah, like your BushyMeister is gonna be a deterrent to an APC full of Marines.
*sheesh*
Oh and Happy Holidays to everyone too.


All his assault rifles and his home would be destroyed by little drones from miles away if the gubmint wanted him gone and was committed to tyranny.
 
2012-12-25 02:38:21 AM  

TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: OddLlama: AverageAmericanGuy: OddLlama: In all the gun threads I've read lately, there are those who insist that the second amendment is to insure protection for citizens against tyrannical governments. What I have never heard addressed is the army commanded by that government.are these people implying that our soldiers would take up arms against their families and friends in order to give power to a few in Washington? Do they not trust and support our troops? Why have I never heard this addressed?

http://www.history.com/topics/american-civil-war

So, in case Obama tries to free the slaves?

The very fact that you think the Civil War was about freeing the slaves tells me you know NOTHING about U.S. History and any of your thoughts on why we have the 2nd Amendment is complete garbage.


I was being snarky (Athough if you are trying to downplay the role slavery played in the war, well, whatever floats your boat, I'm not here to argue.). My original question was an honest one. There is not a single soldier I know including those in my family, that would go to war against american civilians for ANY reason.
 
2012-12-25 02:38:28 AM  
For all the "Obama is coming for our gunz" whackjobs here on FARK (you know who you are):

http://ftf-comics.com/?comic=obammer-part-1


Read that and the next two days of comics.
 
2012-12-25 02:38:40 AM  

OscarTamerz: Switzerland, where the government passes out Sig Sauer pistols and machine guns to the citizens, has a much lower murder rate than the UK with the UK murder rate being about 50% higher. So much for guns causing murders.


Oh look this lame talking point again:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/mythbusti ng -israel-and-switzerland-are-not-gun-toting-utopias/

Switzerland has also been moving away from having widespread guns. The laws are done canton by canton, which is like a province. Everyone in Switzerland serves in the army, and the cantons used to let you have the guns at home. They've been moving to keeping the guns in depots. That means they're not in the household, which makes sense because the literature shows us that if the gun is in the household, the risk goes up for everyone in the household.

Any other lame debunked talking points you care to share with the rest of the class today?
 
2012-12-25 02:39:27 AM  

simkatu: Marcintosh: Triumph: [i.dailymail.co.uk image 634x422]

In a monarchy, this is the limit of allowable technology in private hands. Doesn't matter whether you're the monarch of North Korea or Britain; the peasantry needs to be kept as defenseless as possible.

Yeah, like your BushyMeister is gonna be a deterrent to an APC full of Marines.
*sheesh*
Oh and Happy Holidays to everyone too.

All his assault rifles and his home would be destroyed by little drones from miles away if the gubmint wanted him gone and was committed to tyranny.


Except most citizens don't have assault rifles. Those things usually cost upwards of $20,000 a piece.
 
2012-12-25 02:39:49 AM  
Man is killed by a crossbow bolt passing directly through his heart. The detectives arrive. One of them finds the fatal crossbow bolt lieing near the body. Donning gloves, one detective carefully picks up the bolt, and begins to examine it. A few seconds later he starts to laugh, quietly at first. But within seconds, he is roaring with laughter.The other detective is at a loss.

"What's so funny?"
The laughing cop can barely speak....
"Take.....take this....over to Ballistics...."

/Well, the lab techs at Forensic Sciences thought it was funny...
 
2012-12-25 02:40:23 AM  

OddLlama: I was being snarky (Athough if you are trying to downplay the role slavery played in the war, well, whatever floats your boat, I'm not here to argue.).


Every libtard knows that it was clearly a war of Northern Aggression and the rights of the Southern States to secede because they wanted to keep slaves.
 
2012-12-25 02:44:44 AM  
Britain isn't "gunless" and no one is suggesting completely disarming the American populace. So... what was the point?
 
2012-12-25 02:47:23 AM  

Mrtraveler01: fusillade762: AverageAmericanGuy: Holloway Road sword attack - 1 victim

Injured. Not killed, even.

Done in two.

This is as stupid as the folks saying "Hey look, 12 people got stabbed in China but lived...that's why we shouldn't have any gun regulations".


It was 22. But yeah.


Mrtraveler01: Oh look this lame talking point again:


Thanks for saving me the trouble with that one.
 
2012-12-25 02:48:07 AM  

JSam21: simkatu: Ready-set: fusillade762: AverageAmericanGuy: Holloway Road sword attack - 1 victim

Injured. Not killed, even.

Really? Do you guys know what IED means? Anyone can build a bomb with a trip to Home Depot and $20.

And if the FBI is watching: God bless America.

Outlaw something that already exists and you get a black market where only the worst have access.

Not unlike abortion. It's sad and awful. And it has to stay legal and safe. Good people shouldn't lose rights because of the dregs. And if it isn't obvious, I'm pro-choice because women deserve the right.

So grenade launchers and stinger missiles for sale at Wal-mart with no restrictions, permits, or background checks? Or do you believe the Constitution allows us to regulate arms?

Of course it does... but an out right banning of guns is stupid.

But those items you've listed can legally be purchased by citizens with proper licensing.


Nobody is proposing any laws to take away our guns. Not even our AR-15s. They are proposing to stop the new sales of assault rifles, but this mythical gun ban of existing guns isn't ever going to happen here. Not without an Amendment or a new Supreme Court. Obviously we can restrict arm sales. You can't just go buy flame throwers, napalm, or whatever else you want with no restrictions.
 
2012-12-25 02:48:22 AM  

Marcintosh: Yeah, like your BushyMeister is gonna be a deterrent to an APC full of Marines.
*sheesh*
Oh and Happy Holidays to everyone too.


i keep seeing more and more arguments like this recently. if the gubbmint really got too big for its britches, would you really just roll over and beg 'not too hard please'? i have no fantasies about making a last stand against a squad and an IFV, armed with a semiautomatic rifle, but why do you think the government at least makes a half-assed attempt at trying to keep itself in line?
 
2012-12-25 02:48:58 AM  

TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: JSam21: Mrtraveler01: JSam21: Ok... here is the thing that is being missed. Just like I don't understand the people that say "I don't like abortion and it should be illegal", I don't get the people who say "I don't like guns and they should be illegal".

No one is forcing you to have abortions or own guns. Let the people who want to do or own legal things do things.

Its like getting mad at me for buying a donut because you are on a diet.

I don't like guns, but I don't want to make them illegal outright. I just want to find a way to restrict who can get them.

I would not be happy with a free-for-all, anyone can buy a gun, policy.

There is a way in place now. But most all of the gun laws deal with handguns only. You have to have a background check and be at least 21 years old to purchase a handgun and be 21 to purchase ammo for a handgun.

Now when you get into long guns thats where things become very lax. 18 years old with a valid id and you're good to go. Same with rifle and shotgun ammo.

Background checks should be mandatory for all purchases of fire arms. Reduction of magazine capacity will have zero effect on reduction of victims in an incident.

What makes you think there is no background check for rifles?? And what rational person is arguing AGAINST background check?? Yay for background checks!! I also think there should be more mandatory training (Perhaps annual qualifying??) for concealed permit holders.

No rational gun owner thinks just anyone should be able to buy a firearm without any type of background check.


Well then whats with all the talk of being able to just walk into walmart and pick one up off the shelf.

All of my experience is with handguns for work and I have to qualify every 6 months for my license, but that was with a revolver. We are now switching over to semi-autos and will have to qualify every 6 months for license and quarterly for the hospital with futher more intensive training.

I shoot and train every month... for my safety and the safety of anyone I'm around in the chance I have to dischagre my weapon while on duty.
 
2012-12-25 02:50:17 AM  

mediaho: Britain isn't "gunless" and no one is suggesting completely disarming the American populace. So... what was the point?


Gun nuts are overreacting and paranoid.

Also the sky is blue and water is wet.
 
2012-12-25 02:51:59 AM  

Mrtraveler01: OddLlama: In all the gun threads I've read lately, there are those who insist that the second amendment is to insure protection for citizens against tyrannical governments. What I have never heard addressed is the army commanded by that government.are these people implying that our soldiers would take up arms against their families and friends in order to give power to a few in Washington? Do they not trust and support our troops? Why have I never heard this addressed?

Because they're irrational and paranoid idiots?


Or maybe because it's happened in every country of every political persuasion from Nazi to Commie to true blue American. General Pershing led US troops against US citizens who had peaceably assembled and petitioned the government, both of which are rights guaranteed by the constitution.
 
2012-12-25 02:52:30 AM  

JSam21: TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: JSam21: Mrtraveler01: JSam21: Ok... here is the thing that is being missed. Just like I don't understand the people that say "I don't like abortion and it should be illegal", I don't get the people who say "I don't like guns and they should be illegal".

No one is forcing you to have abortions or own guns. Let the people who want to do or own legal things do things.

Its like getting mad at me for buying a donut because you are on a diet.

I don't like guns, but I don't want to make them illegal outright. I just want to find a way to restrict who can get them.

I would not be happy with a free-for-all, anyone can buy a gun, policy.

There is a way in place now. But most all of the gun laws deal with handguns only. You have to have a background check and be at least 21 years old to purchase a handgun and be 21 to purchase ammo for a handgun.

Now when you get into long guns thats where things become very lax. 18 years old with a valid id and you're good to go. Same with rifle and shotgun ammo.

Background checks should be mandatory for all purchases of fire arms. Reduction of magazine capacity will have zero effect on reduction of victims in an incident.

What makes you think there is no background check for rifles?? And what rational person is arguing AGAINST background check?? Yay for background checks!! I also think there should be more mandatory training (Perhaps annual qualifying??) for concealed permit holders.

No rational gun owner thinks just anyone should be able to buy a firearm without any type of background check.

Well then whats with all the talk of being able to just walk into walmart and pick one up off the shelf.

All of my experience is with handguns for work and I have to qualify every 6 months for my license, but that was with a revolver. We are now switching over to semi-autos and will have to qualify every 6 months for license and quarterly for the hospital with futher more intensive training.

I shoot and train every month ...


Yeah, you can just walk into Walmart and pick buy a gun AFTER you clear a background check that is as as simple as a ten minute phone call.
 
2012-12-25 02:55:35 AM  

TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: OddLlama: AverageAmericanGuy: OddLlama: In all the gun threads I've read lately, there are those who insist that the second amendment is to insure protection for citizens against tyrannical governments. What I have never heard addressed is the army commanded by that government.are these people implying that our soldiers would take up arms against their families and friends in order to give power to a few in Washington? Do they not trust and support our troops? Why have I never heard this addressed?

http://www.history.com/topics/american-civil-war

So, in case Obama tries to free the slaves?

The very fact that you think the Civil War was about freeing the slaves tells me you know NOTHING about U.S. History and any of your thoughts on why we have the 2nd Amendment is complete garbage.


Let me guess. You are white and think that the South just fought for states rights and didn't really care if slavery was abolished, they
just wanted to do it at the state level?
 
2012-12-25 02:56:10 AM  

TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: JSam21: TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: JSam21: Mrtraveler01: JSam21: Ok... here is the thing that is being missed. Just like I don't understand the people that say "I don't like abortion and it should be illegal", I don't get the people who say "I don't like guns and they should be illegal".

No one is forcing you to have abortions or own guns. Let the people who want to do or own legal things do things.

Its like getting mad at me for buying a donut because you are on a diet.

I don't like guns, but I don't want to make them illegal outright. I just want to find a way to restrict who can get them.

I would not be happy with a free-for-all, anyone can buy a gun, policy.

There is a way in place now. But most all of the gun laws deal with handguns only. You have to have a background check and be at least 21 years old to purchase a handgun and be 21 to purchase ammo for a handgun.

Now when you get into long guns thats where things become very lax. 18 years old with a valid id and you're good to go. Same with rifle and shotgun ammo.

Background checks should be mandatory for all purchases of fire arms. Reduction of magazine capacity will have zero effect on reduction of victims in an incident.

What makes you think there is no background check for rifles?? And what rational person is arguing AGAINST background check?? Yay for background checks!! I also think there should be more mandatory training (Perhaps annual qualifying??) for concealed permit holders.

No rational gun owner thinks just anyone should be able to buy a firearm without any type of background check.

Well then whats with all the talk of being able to just walk into walmart and pick one up off the shelf.

All of my experience is with handguns for work and I have to qualify every 6 months for my license, but that was with a revolver. We are now switching over to semi-autos and will have to qualify every 6 months for license and quarterly for the hospital with futher more intensive training.

I shoot and train every month ...

Yeah, you can just walk into Walmart and pick buy a gun AFTER you clear a background check that is as as simple as a ten minute phone call.


Ok... so then whats the problem? Background check was done and its a legal purchase
 
2012-12-25 02:56:14 AM  

OscarTamerz: General Pershing


You have a citation for that? his wiki page doesn't seem to mention it.
 
2012-12-25 02:56:41 AM  

Coming on a Bicycle: Triumph: [i.dailymail.co.uk image 634x422]

In a monarchy, this is the limit of allowable technology in private hands. Doesn't matter whether you're the monarch of North Korea or Britain; the peasantry needs to be kept as defenseless as possible.

Keep living that fantasy man. And don't forget to contribute to your HOA on time. And remember: no visible clotheslines. You're living in the land of the free, after all. Don't want no washing showing.


Oh Jesus, the Netherlands? Really? Speaking of dirty laundry hanging out, we hosted your Nazi-descended Queen in Chantilly VA this year. She spent four days shacked up at the Marriott trying to covertly influence the world through the Bilderberg meeting. Would ya do us all a favor and have a proper revolution to rid the world of her bullshiat?
 
2012-12-25 02:58:06 AM  

TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: JSam21: TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: JSam21: Mrtraveler01: JSam21: Ok... here is the thing that is being missed. Just like I don't understand the people that say "I don't like abortion and it should be illegal", I don't get the people who say "I don't like guns and they should be illegal".

No one is forcing you to have abortions or own guns. Let the people who want to do or own legal things do things.

Its like getting mad at me for buying a donut because you are on a diet.

I don't like guns, but I don't want to make them illegal outright. I just want to find a way to restrict who can get them.

I would not be happy with a free-for-all, anyone can buy a gun, policy.

There is a way in place now. But most all of the gun laws deal with handguns only. You have to have a background check and be at least 21 years old to purchase a handgun and be 21 to purchase ammo for a handgun.

Now when you get into long guns thats where things become very lax. 18 years old with a valid id and you're good to go. Same with rifle and shotgun ammo.

Background checks should be mandatory for all purchases of fire arms. Reduction of magazine capacity will have zero effect on reduction of victims in an incident.

What makes you think there is no background check for rifles?? And what rational person is arguing AGAINST background check?? Yay for background checks!! I also think there should be more mandatory training (Perhaps annual qualifying??) for concealed permit holders.

No rational gun owner thinks just anyone should be able to buy a firearm without any type of background check.

Well then whats with all the talk of being able to just walk into walmart and pick one up off the shelf.

All of my experience is with handguns for work and I have to qualify every 6 months for my license, but that was with a revolver. We are now switching over to semi-autos and will have to qualify every 6 months for license and quarterly for the hospital with futher more intensive training.

I shoot and train every month ...

Yeah, you can just walk into Walmart and pick buy a gun AFTER you clear a background check that is as as simple as a ten minute phone call.


Or is it just about where you can buy guns or whats checked in a background check?
 
2012-12-25 02:58:46 AM  

OddLlama: OscarTamerz: General Pershing

You have a citation for that? his wiki page doesn't seem to mention it.


I think he meant MacArthur and the Bonus Army.
 
2012-12-25 03:00:29 AM  
Terrifying how he was able to kill 26 helpless school children before being subdued, with narry a semiautomatic military-style rifle in sight.

Wait, he wasn't? So... How many DID he kill?

Oh... none?

Huh.
 
2012-12-25 03:02:29 AM  

Enigmamf: Terrifying how he was able to kill 26 helpless school children before being subdued, with narry a semiautomatic military-style rifle in sight.

Wait, he wasn't? So... How many DID he kill?

Oh... none?

Huh.


May I ask what makes a rifle or any weapon "military style"
 
2012-12-25 03:02:42 AM  

TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: simkatu: Marcintosh: Triumph: [i.dailymail.co.uk image 634x422]

In a monarchy, this is the limit of allowable technology in private hands. Doesn't matter whether you're the monarch of North Korea or Britain; the peasantry needs to be kept as defenseless as possible.

Yeah, like your BushyMeister is gonna be a deterrent to an APC full of Marines.
*sheesh*
Oh and Happy Holidays to everyone too.

All his assault rifles and his home would be destroyed by little drones from miles away if the gubmint wanted him gone and was committed to tyranny.

Except most citizens don't have assault rifles. Those things usually cost upwards of $20,000 a piece.


Sig Sauer M400 is an AR-15. Sells for $897 at Wal-Mart. The Colt version of the AR-15 sells for $1100 at Wal-Mart. No waiting period required in my state. Not a felon? Pick one up today, guaranteed.
 
2012-12-25 03:02:44 AM  

CthulhuCalling: OddLlama: OscarTamerz: General Pershing

You have a citation for that? his wiki page doesn't seem to mention it.

I think he meant MacArthur and the Bonus Army.


I don't think that would help his case much.
 
2012-12-25 03:05:25 AM  

Elzar: fusillade762: AverageAmericanGuy: Holloway Road sword attack - 1 victim

Injured. Not killed, even.
if the woman had been packing heat, there would have been zero injuries... This is what a country gets when thy give up their right to bare arms. Thanks a lot obummer...


Of course, in that case the man could have had a gun as well, and shot her from a distance before she even knew that she was threatened. Then she would be dead instead of alive. And then he could have taken her gun off her dead body, slipped away, then gone on a two gun rampage.

See, I can make up scenarios too.
 
2012-12-25 03:05:25 AM  

simkatu: Except most citizens don't have assault rifles. Those things usually cost upwards of $20,000 a piece.

Sig Sauer M400 is an AR-15. Sells for $897 at Wal-Mart. The Colt version of the AR-15 sells for $1100 at Wal-Mart. No waiting period required in my state. Not a felon? Pick one up today, guaranteed.


Neither of them are assault rifles. Hint: a characteristic of an assault rifle includes select-fire operation.
 
2012-12-25 03:05:40 AM  
Frequent news photo. Guess the country:
i.huffpost.com


Frequent news photo. Guess the country:
img.dailymail.co.uk
 
2012-12-25 03:08:19 AM  

Gordon Bennett: Elzar: fusillade762: AverageAmericanGuy: Holloway Road sword attack - 1 victim

Injured. Not killed, even.
if the woman had been packing heat, there would have been zero injuries... This is what a country gets when thy give up their right to bare arms. Thanks a lot obummer...

Of course, in that case the man could have had a gun as well, and shot her from a distance before she even knew that she was threatened. Then she would be dead instead of alive. And then he could have taken her gun off her dead body, slipped away, then gone on a two gun rampage.

See, I can make up scenarios too.


but then the goddamn Batman swoops in to stop him, but at the last minute Robin betrays him for slapping him too many times! Batman's uncontrolled flatulence causes some disconcern! Robin sabotages the Batmobile to lose a wheel, causing the Joker to escape!
 
2012-12-25 03:08:54 AM  
mmm...Guiness.
 
2012-12-25 03:09:23 AM  

JSam21: Enigmamf: Terrifying how he was able to kill 26 helpless school children before being subdued, with narry a semiautomatic military-style rifle in sight.

Wait, he wasn't? So... How many DID he kill?

Oh... none?

Huh.

May I ask what makes a rifle or any weapon "military style"


Some guns are meant to kill ducks. Some quail. Others kill deer, elk, bears. Some are designed mainly to kill humans in large numbers. Those are military style weapons. Normal folks don't hunt with AR15s with 100 round magazines.
 
2012-12-25 03:10:53 AM  

CthulhuCalling: Gordon Bennett: Elzar: fusillade762: AverageAmericanGuy: Holloway Road sword attack - 1 victim

Injured. Not killed, even.
if the woman had been packing heat, there would have been zero injuries... This is what a country gets when thy give up their right to bare arms. Thanks a lot obummer...

Of course, in that case the man could have had a gun as well, and shot her from a distance before she even knew that she was threatened. Then she would be dead instead of alive. And then he could have taken her gun off her dead body, slipped away, then gone on a two gun rampage.

See, I can make up scenarios too.

but then the goddamn Batman swoops in to stop him, but at the last minute Robin betrays him for slapping him too many times! Batman's uncontrolled flatulence causes some disconcern! Robin sabotages the Batmobile to lose a wheel, causing the Joker to escape!


but then selena gomez offers the joker some Vicodin which he OD's on in justin biebers' hotel room so justin cries. fark this I'm tired.
 
2012-12-25 03:13:01 AM  

simkatu: All his assault rifles and his home would be destroyed by little drones from miles away if the gubmint wanted him gone and was committed to tyranny.


Don't have so much as a water gun, but some of my neighbors are armed and I'm glad of it. Keeps the crooks guessing.

You have a point about drones (technology). The main reason the American revolution and the Enlightenment was able to occur was because the top weapon technology of the day was affordable and available to the masses. It was a quirky period in history that is similar to what's happening today in the information technology arena.
 
2012-12-25 03:13:04 AM  

simkatu: JSam21: Enigmamf: Terrifying how he was able to kill 26 helpless school children before being subdued, with narry a semiautomatic military-style rifle in sight.

Wait, he wasn't? So... How many DID he kill?

Oh... none?

Huh.

May I ask what makes a rifle or any weapon "military style"

Some guns are meant to kill ducks. Some quail. Others kill deer, elk, bears. Some are designed mainly to kill humans in large numbers. Those are military style weapons. Normal folks don't hunt with AR15s with 100 round magazines.


Hint: nobody hunts with 100 round mags. Weapons that are designed to 'kill humans in large numbers' are reserved almost exclusively for the military. An AR15 is a semiautomatic weapon that happens to have a visual similarity to certain military weapons. You're scared of how something looks.
 
Displayed 50 of 414 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report