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 419
    More: Scary, Britain, samurai sword, samurai  
•       •       •

25112 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»



419 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 04:05:17 AM

simkatu: CthulhuCalling: 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.

Depends on who you ask. Most folks include a bunch of other characteristics that you didn't mention. These used to be banned under assault weapons ban of 1994. Bushmaster became popular by avoiding most of the characteristics.


And that ban had no noticeable affect on crime or firearm homicide rates. Military style semi-automatic rifles are hardly ever used in crimes. And their use in shootings like this or the Batman shooting or any other such incident are statistical blips.
 
2012-12-25 04:05:47 AM
I swear. Every gun debate always turns out the exact same way.

One side acts like guns are self aware death machines that will kill anyone one in sight. while the other acts like if a gun could technically be used to hunt SOMETHING, then it's as dangerous as a flower.
 
2012-12-25 04:07:07 AM

Mrtraveler01: 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.


I favorited you for the MANY incredibly reasonable posts you have made in this thread.

Every sane person in this country (including President Obama) knows that there is no real way for us to disarm at this point. There are just too many guns out there. If there was some "everyone turn in your guns" law enacted (LOL) only about 20% of gun owners would comply (and they are the 20% that should be allowed to have guns in the first place, because they are trying to be responsible ). The shiatty little urban thugs didn't get their guns through legal channels anyway, and no law, or amendment, or fairy princess tap dance among the daffodils will convince even ONE of them to turn in their guns.

We've fashioned a rod for our own backs.
 
2012-12-25 04:10:42 AM

log_jammin: I swear. Every gun debate always turns out the exact same way.

One side acts like guns are self aware death machines that will kill anyone one in sight. while the other acts like if a gun could technically be used to hunt SOMETHING, then it's as dangerous as a flower.


No sir... I never said that. I only disputed the point that AR variants are made solely for the purpose of killing people.
 
2012-12-25 04:11:38 AM

LaBlueSkuld: They did make the crimes heck of a lot easier to accomplish, though.


You what makes crimes a lot easier to accomplish? Victims who are unable to fight back.
 
2012-12-25 04:11:44 AM
Meanwhile, in the gunless utopia of Britain:

home.comcast.net

What a hellhole. Truly.
 
2012-12-25 04:12:25 AM

JSam21: simkatu: JSam21: CthulhuCalling: JSam21: And you can purchase AR variants in .308 which is a round used to hunt deer, elk, and moose... so again what is a real hunter?

.308 is an appropriate caliber for taking larger game. Depending on locality, you can hunt with a semiautomatic rifle, so now you're just arguing how it looks.

Right... but AR variants are made in .308... so the poster that said NO ONE can hunt real game with an AR is wrong.

So now let's get to the real issue... should weapons be outlawed or restricted by caliber?

No. They should hand out 6 inch shells and 14 foot long barrel guns that shoot 13 miles to everyone that isn't a felon. There is no sensible line in the sand so don't make one. Woohoo!

Sim... I'm trying to have a legitimate debate here. I've not once said that everyone should have access to weapons without restrictions. But since an AR10, which is an AR variant chambered in .308, can be used for hunting large game, then why are all AR variants automatically only for killing people? Or is it only the ones that shoot .223 rounds? Do you know what the AR stands for?


I have a friend back in New York who sometimes hunts in Pennsylvania with a semi-automatic AK-47. For him it depends on the mood that he is in. The AK-47 actually makes for a decent hunting rifle. In fact, many guns designed to kill humans make for decent hunting rifles.

/He hunts with a rifle in Pennsylvania because in most of New York you can only hunt deer with a shotgun fitted with a rifled barrel and using slugs (or with black powder rifles).
 
2012-12-25 04:12:29 AM
24.media.tumblr.com
 
2012-12-25 04:15:08 AM

JSam21: No sir... I never said that. I only disputed the point that AR variants are made solely for the purpose of killing people.


They are made solely for the purpose of killing people . Just like swords.
 
2012-12-25 04:16:06 AM

log_jammin: I swear. Every gun debate always turns out the exact same way.

One side acts like guns are self aware death machines that will kill anyone one in sight. while the other acts like if a gun could technically be used to hunt SOMETHING, then it's as dangerous as a flower.


I don't think you will find a gun owner that will state that ANY gun is as dangerous as a flower. Even a .22 has the power to maim or kill. But to answer a previous question, this picture suggests that yes, you can hunt with an AR15 (no, that isn't me. I use a Remington 700)
 
2012-12-25 04:16:55 AM

James F. Campbell: Meanwhile, in the gunless utopia of Britain:

[home.comcast.net image 600x460]

What a hellhole. Truly.


have you tried their cuisine?
 
2012-12-25 04:16:59 AM

Mock26: The AK-47 actually makes for a decent hunting rifle.


If you're hunting the broad side of a barn.
 
2012-12-25 04:19:17 AM

CthulhuCalling: this picture suggests that yes, you can hunt with an AR15


Yes you can. and you can kill a bear with a .22. There's documented cases and everything. That doesn't mean you should, or it's mart of you.

CthulhuCalling: I use a Remington 700


smart man.
 
2012-12-25 04:20:18 AM

log_jammin: JSam21: No sir... I never said that. I only disputed the point that AR variants are made solely for the purpose of killing people.

They are made solely for the purpose of killing people . Just like swords.


I think "solely" is a stretch... but they are really, really good for killing people. Why is that a problem?

I have mine 'cause it's fun to shoot AND it's really good for killing people.
 
2012-12-25 04:20:19 AM

log_jammin: Mock26: The AK-47 actually makes for a decent hunting rifle.

If you're hunting the broad side of a barn.


You do not know much about guns, do you?
 
2012-12-25 04:22:10 AM

Pray 4 Mojo: log_jammin: JSam21: No sir... I never said that. I only disputed the point that AR variants are made solely for the purpose of killing people.

They are made solely for the purpose of killing people . Just like swords.

I think "solely" is a stretch... but they are really, really good for killing people. Why is that a problem?

I have mine 'cause it's fun to shoot AND it's really good for killing people.


Ok I think i've been misunderstood with this quote. I don't see a problem with it at all... and the person who said that they were solely made for killing people is who I was sayng is wrong.
 
2012-12-25 04:22:57 AM

Mock26: You do not know much about guns, do you?


I know enough to know that ak-47s are not known for their accuracy.
 
2012-12-25 04:24:33 AM

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


The problem with that way of reasoning is that the government will make sure they are always much better armed. This is why the US is a police state, where every small town has a SWAT team with paramilitary weapons and why government control and power are everywhere. You are already living under a tyranny, and the misguided notions that guns equal freedom is actually used by the tyrants to fool a large part of the public in to believing they are living in a free country. You are not. You are living in a tyrannic olicharchy that has become so efficient that they succeed in having a large part of the population voting against their own interests.
 
2012-12-25 04:25:34 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.


Yep
 
2012-12-25 04:25:39 AM

Pray 4 Mojo: I think "solely" is a stretch... but they are really, really good for killing people. Why is that a problem?

I have mine 'cause it's fun to shoot AND it's really good for killing people.


I'm not saying it's a problem. I'm just saying be honest about it. the AR line(and many others) was developed for the military to kill people. Period. Does that mean they should be banned on that basis alone? I don't think so, but that doesn't mean that isn't what the were designed and built for.
 
DuX
2012-12-25 04:28:02 AM
What the hell have our gun threads come to?
This is a sad state of affairs when we're +150 posts in and nobody has used the term "CLIP" followed by the obligatory lower lip quivering response full of righteous indignation.
I always hear it in Pee-Wee Herman's voice: "It's not a CLIP, it's a MAGAZINE!"

Fark, I am disappoint.
C'mon, get with the program.

/Clip.
 
2012-12-25 04:28:19 AM

log_jammin: I swear. Every gun debate always turns out the exact same way.

One side acts like guns are self aware death machines that will kill anyone one in sight. while the other acts like if a gun could technically be used to hunt SOMETHING, then it's as dangerous as a flower.


Not to good at the reading comprehension, either, are you? Those us who are defending guns are not saying or even implying that guns are as dangerous as a flower. But, if you put a gun down on the ground then it really is as dangerous as a flower. Well, that is not true. You could stub your toe on the gun or trip over it or possibly cut your foot if you stepped on it barefoot, but it really is just a tool. The potential danger of a gun comes from the manner in which it is used and by the person using it. There are millions of legally owned military style semi-automatic firearms in this country that will never be used in an illegal manner. They are owned by responsible gun owners who simply enjoy shooting. And, yes, some people do use those firearms to hunt. It is not really traditional, but some people hunt with pistols. They simply enjoy hunting. Nothing wrong with that. And given all of this, why should we ban a certain style of firearm because a handful of irresponsible people decide to use them to gun down kids in a school or people in a theater? Why punish the rest of us for the acts of a handful of criminals? Wanting to ban military style rifles because of an incident like at Sandy Hook is like banning vodka because some guy drank a lot of vodka and killed a family of 6 in a drunk driving accident.
 
2012-12-25 04:28:46 AM
So are you anti gun people more scared of the top gun or the bottom one? the top one is all black with a pistol style grip while the other is pretty boring in the old wood style..
farm7.staticflickr.com
Because its the same gun. I photoshopped the images of before and after I changed the stock to lighten it for target shooting. Ruger 10/22 in case you were wondering. and I even have a 25 round magazine for it along with 3 or 4 10 round mags.
 
2012-12-25 04:29:38 AM

Mock26: Not to good at the reading comprehension, either, are you?


you won't see the irony in that comment.
 
2012-12-25 04:31:30 AM

BeSerious: 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.

Oh, like your guns will protect you from what this government has.

Good call.


Yes, the government will "win", if you can go so far as to call it a "win".

TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: "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


As in all of the threads of late, THIS!

Bears repeating. That was the intent of the law. Let the people maintain some measure of defense.

Democracy, is first and foremost, by the people. Sure, right now we have a voting procedure that works, kind of. We have a voice. The ability for people to retain some of their power is what maintains those rights.

We all have politician's that we feel would be the death of us all if they were to come into real power, now imagine one step worse, a set of them that decided they didn't need to listen to polls and votes. This is how many other countries in the world work right now. It's a travesty. What amounts to slavery, genocide, violence at whim toward whatever group of people the gov' decides are it's enemies this week.

As I noted above, sure, the may not win, but "victory" will be too costly for some years yet. Take away guns, and that factor of fear goes away, puts on the table a less costly means to their goals.

We don't need that kind of revolution now, but if history shows us anything, we will eventually.
 
2012-12-25 04:33:32 AM

log_jammin:
I'm not saying it's a problem. I'm just saying be honest about it. the AR line(and many others) was developed for the military to kill people. Period. Does that mean they should be banned on that basis alone? I don't think so, but that doesn't mean that isn't what the were designed and built for.


firearms were originally designed to kill people. later on they were found to be handy for killing food too. Guns kill. That's what they were designed for. They don't care what they are pointed at when the trigger is pulled. That is up to the person pulling the trigger.
 
2012-12-25 04:34:03 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.


The difference is that Switzerland is one of the richest countries of the world with an extremely stable economy, low unemployment, very good education for all, highly democratic, and extremely cohesive social structure, a long history of anti-militarism and neutrality, and little problems with crime, poverty or other social issues. There is no other country quite like Switzerland.

The Swiss are with almost no exception, very nice, well-educated, and extremely boring people.
 
2012-12-25 04:34:58 AM

log_jammin: Mock26: You do not know much about guns, do you?

I know enough to know that ak-47s are not known for their accuracy.


Yeah, just as I guessed. You do not know anything about guns. I have fired more than a few civilian model AK-47s and they are very accurate. How many have you actually fired? Sure, they might not be as accurate as say the M16, but they are accurate enough to hit a human sized figure at several hundred yards.

Also, check out this video of a guy test firing an AK-47 that is brand new. You will see how accurate it is. Oh, and his misses are close enough that if was hunting a deer he would have hit the deer.
 
2012-12-25 04:38:32 AM

CthulhuCalling: firearms were originally designed to kill people. later on they were found to be handy for killing food too. Guns kill. That's what they were designed for. They don't care what they are pointed at when the trigger is pulled. That is up to the person pulling the trigger.


yeah, I'm not sure what your point is here. I know that "guns don't kill, people do". I know guns can be used to hunt even if they were originally designed to kill people. I never claimed those things were not true.

all I said was that the AR line was designed from the ground up as human killing device, and claiming that one variant makes for an OK deer gun doesn't change that fact.
 
2012-12-25 04:41:08 AM

log_jammin: Mock26: Not to good at the reading comprehension, either, are you?

you won't see the irony in that comment.


A typo (to vs. too) has nothing to do with reading comprehension. It is simply a typo. Funny, though, how you did not respond to the rest of my post.. Too afraid to do so?
 
2012-12-25 04:42:16 AM

Mock26: Yeah, just as I guessed. You do not know anything about guns.


Yeah dude. you got me. I'm a college kid at Berkley and I've never touched a gun in my life. They totally make me cry n'stuff.

Mock26: Also, check out this video of a guy test firing an AK-47 that is brand new.


Just for shiats and giggles I think I'll google "ak 47 accuracy" and...well what do you know! same video! well case closed, it must be like some super accurate sniper rifle!
 
2012-12-25 04:43:56 AM

Mock26: log_jammin: I swear. Every gun debate always turns out the exact same way.

One side acts like guns are self aware death machines that will kill anyone one in sight. while the other acts like if a gun could technically be used to hunt SOMETHING, then it's as dangerous as a flower.

Not to good at the reading comprehension, either, are you? Those us who are defending guns are not saying or even implying that guns are as dangerous as a flower. But, if you put a gun down on the ground then it really is as dangerous as a flower. Well, that is not true. You could stub your toe on the gun or trip over it or possibly cut your foot if you stepped on it barefoot, but it really is just a tool. The potential danger of a gun comes from the manner in which it is used and by the person using it. There are millions of legally owned military style semi-automatic firearms in this country that will never be used in an illegal manner. They are owned by responsible gun owners who simply enjoy shooting. And, yes, some people do use those firearms to hunt. It is not really traditional, but some people hunt with pistols. They simply enjoy hunting. Nothing wrong with that. And given all of this, why should we ban a certain style of firearm because a handful of irresponsible people decide to use them to gun down kids in a school or people in a theater? Why punish the rest of us for the acts of a handful of criminals? Wanting to ban military style rifles because of an incident like at Sandy Hook is like banning vodka because some guy drank a lot of vodka and killed a family of 6 in a drunk driving accident.


If I could favorite this from my phone I would.
 
2012-12-25 04:45:01 AM
You know who know how to deal with swords
I'm tired of reading all this BS, if the panicked idiots win I'm also fine with that. They always get what they deserve.
/Merry fuking x-mas
 
2012-12-25 04:45:08 AM

Mock26: It is simply a typo


I wasn't referring to your typo.

Mock26: Funny, though, how you did not respond to the rest of my post.. Too afraid to do so?


I didn't respond to it because it was full of a shiat ton of assumptions about what you think I believe and what I don't. and the reason you made those assumptions is because of your poor reading comprehension. Hence...the irony that slipped right passed you.
 
2012-12-25 04:45:10 AM

log_jammin: all I said was that the AR line was designed from the ground up as human killing device, and claiming that one variant makes for an OK deer gun doesn't change that fact.


guns are efficient killers regardless of what you think they were 'intended' to kill. Take for example my Remington 700. It's a pretty reliable and standard target/deer rifle. Add a Harris bipod, a Leopuld scope, exchange the stock for a Kevlar one and you have an M-24 sniper rifle. My Mossberg 590 FLEX goes from being a tactical room broom to a game gun in about 30 seconds.
 
2012-12-25 04:49:04 AM

CthulhuCalling: guns are efficient killers regardless of what you think they were 'intended' to kill. Take for example my Remington 700. It's a pretty reliable and standard target/deer rifle. Add a Harris bipod, a Leopuld scope, exchange the stock for a Kevlar one and you have an M-24 sniper rifle. My Mossberg 590 FLEX goes from being a tactical room broom to a game gun in about 30 seconds.


Ok? and?
 
2012-12-25 04:56:03 AM

Mock26: log_jammin: Mock26: You do not know much about guns, do you?

I know enough to know that ak-47s are not known for their accuracy.

Yeah, just as I guessed. You do not know anything about guns. I have fired more than a few civilian model AK-47s and they are very accurate. How many have you actually fired?


How many versions are in the Call of Duty's?
/snerk

The AK-47 is actually fairly well re-purposed as a sniper(for those that didn't know)...

/Isn't the Dragonuv a refitted AK-47(in origin at any rate) for larger caliber, longer barrel, and semi-auto?

Really, with modern technology being what it is, interchangable or upgradable parts for different calibers, most guns are classed according to similarities in the firing and feed mechanisms. M-16/AR 15/whatever can shoot an amazing variety if you replace the right parts.

/partial to the bullpup design myself
//g-11 and p90 have interesting feeds that accomplish the same effect though
 
2012-12-25 04:59:54 AM

log_jammin: CthulhuCalling: guns are efficient killers regardless of what you think they were 'intended' to kill. Take for example my Remington 700. It's a pretty reliable and standard target/deer rifle. Add a Harris bipod, a Leopuld scope, exchange the stock for a Kevlar one and you have an M-24 sniper rifle. My Mossberg 590 FLEX goes from being a tactical room broom to a game gun in about 30 seconds.

Ok? and?


It doesn't matter what you think it was intended for. If the gun performs acceptably in another function, it makes no difference what it's intended design use was. That doesn't mean you'll get laughed out of the hunting camp showing up with an AR.
 
2012-12-25 05:01:52 AM
What was this guy's angle?

/oh, I see it in the photo, 90 degrees.
//perhaps he was clearing some bush.
 
2012-12-25 05:05:43 AM

Mock26: Wanting to ban military style rifles because of an incident like at Sandy Hook is like banning vodka because some guy drank a lot of vodka and killed a family of 6 in a drunk driving accident.


Except it's more like wanting to ban cars, but those are already well-regulated and you knew that would lose you the argument, so you pulled out the strawman of the thing that wasn't used as a weapon.

You can argue for guns and not be disingenuous, you know.
 
2012-12-25 05:06:35 AM
www.tvgoodness.com

The most dangerous people don't need guns.
 
2012-12-25 05:08:52 AM

CthulhuCalling: It doesn't matter what you think it was intended for. If the gun performs acceptably in another function, it makes no difference what it's intended design use was. That doesn't mean you'll get laughed out of the hunting camp showing up with an AR.


Read this carefully please....I never said, nor do I believe, that it matters what the gun was originally intended for. I only stated what it WAS originally intended for.
 
2012-12-25 05:15:39 AM

CthulhuCalling: James F. Campbell: Meanwhile, in the gunless utopia of Britain:

[home.comcast.net image 600x460]

What a hellhole. Truly.

have you tried their cuisine?


Countries that sell spray cheese in a can and yogurt in a tube aren't allowed to criticise other countries' food.
 
2012-12-25 05:17:04 AM

Gordon Bennett: CthulhuCalling: James F. Campbell: Meanwhile, in the gunless utopia of Britain:

[home.comcast.net image 600x460]

What a hellhole. Truly.

have you tried their cuisine?

Countries that sell spray cheese in a can and yogurt in a tube aren't allowed to criticise other countries' food.


The fark? How are you going to sell spray cheese in a bottle? That doesn't even make sense!
 
2012-12-25 05:20:27 AM
In the meantime, I want to wish each and every one of you farkers a Merry Christmas and I hope to hell we can have one day of peace on earth.

/I have argued with many of you.
//fark it all. I wish you the best.
 
2012-12-25 05:30:21 AM

starsrift: Mock26: Wanting to ban military style rifles because of an incident like at Sandy Hook is like banning vodka because some guy drank a lot of vodka and killed a family of 6 in a drunk driving accident.

Except it's more like wanting to ban cars, but those are already well-regulated and you knew that would lose you the argument, so you pulled out the strawman of the thing that wasn't used as a weapon.

You can argue for guns and not be disingenuous, you know.


Not being disingenuous at all. The call to ban military style semi-automatic rifles is stupid and will do no good (just as it did no good with the Brady Bill from 1994-2004). It is an irrational response to this latest shooting tragedy. So, I created a hypothetical but equally irrational response towards drunk driving and alcohol as an example to show how irrational it was. And it was the appropriate choice. It is not the car that makes the drunk driver kill someone. It is the alcohol. Either way, calling for the banning alcohol or banning cars because of drunk drivers is as irrational and stupid a response as calling for the banning of military style semi-automatic rifles because of a handful of incidents such as Sandy Hook.
 
2012-12-25 05:32:43 AM

phrawgh: kmmontandon: feckingmorons: AverageAmericanGuy: Holloway Road sword attack - 1 victim

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting - 26 victims

I don't know how you can reconcile the fact that guns are far more lethal on a per-incident basis than any other weapon.

Yet neither the gun nor the sword committed these crimes.


Therefor, no one convicted of a DUI should have their driver's license suspended.

After all, the car didn't commit the crime.

Driving is a privilege, not a right.


What about rocket launchers? Those are arms.
 
2012-12-25 05:33:15 AM

log_jammin: Mock26: Yeah, just as I guessed. You do not know anything about guns.

Yeah dude. you got me. I'm a college kid at Berkley and I've never touched a gun in my life. They totally make me cry n'stuff.

Mock26: Also, check out this video of a guy test firing an AK-47 that is brand new.

Just for shiats and giggles I think I'll google "ak 47 accuracy" and...well what do you know! same video! well case closed, it must be like some super accurate sniper rifle!


So, if you have never fired a gun before in your life, let alone an AK-47, then commenting on the accuracy of the AK-47 makes you a fool.

As for the video, I never made the claim that it was some sort of super accurate sniper rifle. Hades, I never even made a hint along those lines. That video was in response to your specious claim that AK-47s were inaccurate, and the video proved you wrong. Of course, I did not expect you to admit that you were wrong.
 
2012-12-25 05:33:52 AM

Mock26: Not being disingenuous at all. The call to ban military style semi-automatic rifles is stupid and will do no good (just as it did no good with the Brady Bill from 1994-2004). It is an irrational response to this latest shooting tragedy.


I'd like to think you stopped here.
 
2012-12-25 05:50:23 AM

Wayne 985: phrawgh: kmmontandon: feckingmorons: AverageAmericanGuy: Holloway Road sword attack - 1 victim

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting - 26 victims

I don't know how you can reconcile the fact that guns are far more lethal on a per-incident basis than any other weapon.

Yet neither the gun nor the sword committed these crimes.


Therefor, no one convicted of a DUI should have their driver's license suspended.

After all, the car didn't commit the crime.

Driving is a privilege, not a right.

What about rocket launchers? Those are arms.


And they can be purchased by civilians with proper licensing
 
Displayed 50 of 419 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report