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

(CBS4Denver - KCNC)   "Ban spoons, they make me fat"   (denver.cbslocal.com ) divider line
    More: Obvious, spoons, fat  
•       •       •

9637 clicks; posted to Main » on 30 Dec 2012 at 5:44 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2012-12-30 06:09:49 PM  

Bisu: GiddeonFox: mark12A: I pointed out that comparing the gun to a spoon was illogical because of the difference of use/design. Guns design was to destroy.

No, a gun is designed to push little lead pellets at high velocity in the desired direction. The direction is up to the operator, not the gun. It can be used for good (defending yourself) or evil (attacking others).

Banning highly desired inanimate objects simply doesn't work. Didn't work for alcohol, not working for recreational drugs, WON'T work for guns. We need to do something that will work, not just feel good.

You do realize that "using them for good" and "using them for evil" are BOTH destructive actions, right? Even if you're destroying a "bad guy" you're still DESTROYING a bad guy. Guns were designed to destroy, and even if they destroy "for good" they are still destroying. Even if I don't bring up statistics or studies or anything else, you have to accept the fact that guns, fundamentally, are meant to destroy things. It's the only reason they are made.

Actually, almost 100% of guns are made to make money off of their sale.  Some are used to destroy. Most are used for sport.


Sport is destructive. You are destroying targets or game. This is like arguing that a jackhammer is not fundamentally a destructive tool because you don't necessarially have to be aiming it at concrete.
 
2012-12-30 06:10:23 PM  

wyltoknow: I don't really hold feelings toward either side in this debate, but I do have to wonder, do gun enthusiasts offer any analogies that aren't completely off-base? "Lolz this innocuous elsewise-useful item might do some sort of harm maybe, obviously we need to ban it, ahyuck!" No, no zing points for you.


I shiat you not, a Charleston talk-radio host said that all trees within 200 feet of the side of the road should be cut down because they cause fatalities when cars run off the road into them.

I know this, because I'm a masochist and I listen to her show occasionally. Hey, it gives me material to work with.
 
2012-12-30 06:11:25 PM  
more guns = more guns. You have a gun, so I need a gun.

if you extrapolate the gun nut's logic for a safe America, wherever more than one person is gathered, a firearm should be present.

This is farking out of control and there is no going back.

/thinking about getting a handgun.
//we're farked
 
2012-12-30 06:11:42 PM  

Xcott: There are some insightful arguments that one can make as an opponent of gun control. Denying the obvious reality that guns are essentially for killing things is not one of them. Pretending that a gun is just an abstract mechanical device that moves part A when one pushes part B, and that everything else is a user issue, that's just derpy.


A bolt-action rifle is designed to kill things. Assault rifles like the AR-15 are designed to wound things. The thinking is that a wounded soldier is better than a dead soldier outright because it takes 2-4 others to tend to an injured soldier while it takes 0-1 others to take care of a dead soldier. Also, smaller rounds are easier to transport and carry. Hence why the 9mm is also popular for some semi-automatics.

But yelling, "we need to ban weapons designed to wound people" doesn't have the same kick.
 
2012-12-30 06:12:21 PM  

BlousyBrown: So, for shiats sake, bullets are made to destroy!


Just like knives.
 
2012-12-30 06:12:49 PM  

Darth_Lukecash: It's sad to see two things here.
1) Gun were designed to destroy. You point it at something and it is destroyed.
Spoons were designed to aid in eating. What you eat makes you fat. Spoon has no effect on weight gain.

2) The beleif that anything manufactured is beyond regulation. When it's clear that anything sold can be abused, it needs to be regulated.


The belief that not actually addressing the issue fixes the issue is the issue.

I can come up with of ways of abusing several unregulated items and it be very clear that it can be regularly abused very easily. It's not difficult to utilize items not intended for their use.

Is it really that difficult to understand that guns or no guns doesn't actually solve the issue? Primary being mentally farked up individuals snapping.
 
2012-12-30 06:13:11 PM  
GiddeonFox: Sport is destructive. You are destroying targets or game. This is like arguing that a jackhammer is not fundamentally a destructive tool because you don't necessarially have to be aiming it at concrete.

Now that you've made that abundantly clear that high-velocity objects transfer a lot of energy when they strike something, just what point are you making here?
 
2012-12-30 06:13:37 PM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: What's wrong with just mandating that the only legal firearms are single-shot bolt action rifles? Wouldn't that allow hunting and target shooting while minimizing spree shooting risks?


.
I'm pretty sure that the Second Amendment isn't about hunting or target shooting.
 
2012-12-30 06:13:56 PM  

Mrbogey: It's not that gun control advocates Mrbogey are is stupid. It's just all their his ideas, thoughts, and opinions are just really stupid.


FTFY, ya toolbag
 
2012-12-30 06:14:37 PM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: What's wrong with just mandating that the only legal firearms are single-shot bolt action rifles? Wouldn't that allow hunting and target shooting while minimizing spree shooting risks?


Yes, but money. The whole point of the doomsday prepper craze is to convince lots of people to obsessively acquire high-end expensive things. The killer's mother in the Newtown shooting had a pointlessly large arsenal of pointlessly powerful weapons, and she wasn't alone: enough people in the town were mimicking her behavior that residents complained of constant and gratuitous ka-booms from unlicensed shooting ranges.

If guns became these simple pedestrian things, if collecting guns became about as fun as collecting brooms, then it wastes all the marketing effort spent on creating "gun enthusiast" as a hobby.
 
2012-12-30 06:14:54 PM  
People were filing in an out of the Tanner Gun Show proudly putting their First Amendment right to use. Some bought guns for hunting, others for protection.

What?

seriously? The fark?
 
2012-12-30 06:15:39 PM  

wyltoknow: I don't really hold feelings toward either side in this debate, but I do have to wonder, do gun enthusiasts offer any analogies that aren't completely off-base? "Lolz this innocuous elsewise-useful item might do some sort of harm maybe, obviously we need to ban it, ahyuck!" No, no zing points for you.


They also think banning rocks is analogous.
 
2012-12-30 06:15:41 PM  

mediablitz: Do spoons make you 4 times as likely to be involved in a homicide if you have them in your house? How about 10 times more likely to be used in a suicide if you have them in your house?


blog.sarcasmsociety.com
"Would it make you feel any better, little girl, if they was pushed out of windows?"
 
2012-12-30 06:15:46 PM  

Mrbogey: Xcott: There are some insightful arguments that one can make as an opponent of gun control. Denying the obvious reality that guns are essentially for killing things is not one of them. Pretending that a gun is just an abstract mechanical device that moves part A when one pushes part B, and that everything else is a user issue, that's just derpy.

A bolt-action rifle is designed to kill things. Assault rifles like the AR-15 are designed to wound things. The thinking is that a wounded soldier is better than a dead soldier outright because it takes 2-4 others to tend to an injured soldier while it takes 0-1 others to take care of a dead soldier. Also, smaller rounds are easier to transport and carry. Hence why the 9mm is also popular for some semi-automatics.

But yelling, "we need to ban weapons designed to wound people" doesn't have the same kick.


I see the assault rifle ban as more of a statement than anything else. Handguns statistically kill far more people than assault rifles each year, but assault rifles have the ability to kill more things much faster, and can't really do justifiably better than rifles and handguns in terms of "sport" or "protection" uses. Sure, conventional bombs kill more people each year but nuclear weapons are the ones that everyone's worried about.
 
2012-12-30 06:15:47 PM  

Darth_Lukecash: It's sad to see two things here.
1) Gun were designed to destroy. You point it at something and it is destroyed.
Spoons were designed to aid in eating. What you eat makes you fat. Spoon has no effect on weight gain.

2) The beleif that anything manufactured is beyond regulation. When it's clear that anything sold can be abused, it needs to be regulated.


let's break it down:

liberal view: Guns are responsible, not the person using the gun


Mocking the logic by blaming spoons for the fat person's behavior is supposed to be absurd
 
2012-12-30 06:16:36 PM  

BeSerious: david_gaithersburg: [sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net image 735x412]

How'd that work out for him?


.
Perfectly!
 
2012-12-30 06:16:47 PM  

El Brujo: more guns = more guns. You have a gun, so I need a gun.

if you extrapolate the gun nut's logic for a safe America, wherever more than one person is gathered, a firearm should be present.

This is farking out of control and there is no going back.

/thinking about getting a handgun.
//we're farked


When I hear about home invasions on the news I start to think that maybe I should buy a gun for protection. Then I start to think of all of the studies that say you are more likely to have your own gun used against you than successfully defend yourself against criminals, and the higher rates of gun violence among gun owners, as well as worrying that somebody might get drunk and start playing with it and cause a problem.

Therefore I think I should probably just buy a can of mace or pepper spray for protection.
 
2012-12-30 06:16:48 PM  
" If you really think banning guns will get rid of guns, you probably voted for Reagan. Ask anyone below fifty about marijuana or cocaine. Ask any college kid below the age of 21 about drinking. You're ignorant of the way the world works.

How is the war on terror going? The war on drugs? The border war? Really anything the united states government is trying to put a stop to?

People that voted for Raygun believe banning guns WONT get rid of guns. That's the exact opposite of what you said. Therefore you are stupid. and therefore probably didnt vote for Raygun,
 
2012-12-30 06:17:29 PM  

GiddeonFox: Guns were designed to destroy, and even if they destroy "for good" they are still destroying. Even if I don't bring up statistics or studies or anything else, you have to accept the fact that guns, fundamentally, are meant to destroy things. It's the only reason they are made.


Knives were designed to destroy, and even if they destroy "for good" they are still destroying. Even if I don't bring up statistics or studies or anything else, you have to accept the fact that knives, fundamentally, are meant to destroy things. It's the only reason they are made.
 
2012-12-30 06:18:14 PM  
I am somehow reminded of Mark Twain's "War Prayer" Found here... http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/twain1.html

The salient point of which is...
"O Lord our Father, our young patriots, idols of our hearts, go forth to battle - be Thou near them! With them, in spirit, we also go forth from the sweet peace of our beloved firesides to smite the foe. O Lord our God, help us to tear their soldiers to bloody shreds with our shells; help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of their patriot dead; help us to drown the thunder of the guns with the shrieks of their wounded, writhing in pain; help us to lay waste their humble homes with a hurricane of fire; help us to wring the hearts of their unoffending widows with unavailing grief; help us to turn them out roofless with their little children to wander unfriended the wastes of their desolated land in rags and hunger and thirst, sports of the sun flames of summer and the icy winds of winter, broken in spirit, worn with travail, imploring Thee for the refuge of the grave and denied it - for our sakes who adore Thee, Lord, blast their hopes, blight their lives, protract their bitter pilgrimage, make heavy their steps, water their way with their tears, stain the white snow with the blood of their wounded feet! We ask it, in the spirit of love, of Him Who is the Source of Love, and Who is ever-faithful refuge and friend of all that are sore beset and seek His aid with humble and contrite hearts. Amen."
 
2012-12-30 06:18:17 PM  
but you eat yogurt with a spoon. and you eat a mcrib with your hands
 
2012-12-30 06:18:37 PM  
Fatty didn't notice the calorie and fat content information printed on the side of his packet of mac and cheese?
 
2012-12-30 06:18:57 PM  

david_gaithersburg: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: What's wrong with just mandating that the only legal firearms are single-shot bolt action rifles? Wouldn't that allow hunting and target shooting while minimizing spree shooting risks?

.
I'm pretty sure that the Second Amendment isn't about hunting or target shooting.


Explain to us what the Second Amendment is about. Don't tell me the bill of rights gives you the power to overthrow the government. You're going to need more than an AR15 and a couple buddies mad about quartering troops.
 
2012-12-30 06:19:58 PM  
I weigh 300 pounds. (Seriously.) You know who I blame, don't you?

www.campusdish.com

On every corner? C'mon, let's unite and ban this societal oppressor!
 
2012-12-30 06:20:04 PM  

ultraholland: GiddeonFox: Sport is destructive. You are destroying targets or game. This is like arguing that a jackhammer is not fundamentally a destructive tool because you don't necessarially have to be aiming it at concrete.

Now that you've made that abundantly clear that high-velocity objects transfer a lot of energy when they strike something, just what point are you making here?


That you can't say that "a device which causes objects to attain concentrated high energies and then transfer this energy to something else which generally cannot withstand such energy" is not fundamentally destructive. Argue all you want on other grounds, but "guns aren't destructive things by their nature unless people abuse them" is just wrong.
 
2012-12-30 06:20:21 PM  

BronyMedic: You missed the point yourself. The argument most rational people are making is not to outlaw guns, but to legitimately restrict who can own them (Maybe the mentally ill shouldn't own firearms?), and make regulations not only actually enforced, but more stringent than depending on the word alone of a buyer who's entire obstacle to purchase depends on them being honest.


QFT...
 
2012-12-30 06:20:22 PM  
When a spoon is produced that can be used to instantly fatten unwilling victims from a distance, I'll consider banning it.
 
2012-12-30 06:20:46 PM  

stirfrybry: Darth_Lukecash: It's sad to see two things here.
1) Gun were designed to destroy. You point it at something and it is destroyed.
Spoons were designed to aid in eating. What you eat makes you fat. Spoon has no effect on weight gain.

2) The beleif that anything manufactured is beyond regulation. When it's clear that anything sold can be abused, it needs to be regulated.

let's break it down:

liberal view: Guns are responsible, not the person using the gun


Mocking the logic by blaming spoons for the fat person's behavior is supposed to be absurd


Spoons don't make people fat. Food makes people fat, when combined with sloth. Spoons aren't even necessary for most of the food that makes you fat.
 
2012-12-30 06:20:54 PM  
Despite their opposing views on gun control, the people do agree on one thing - something needs to be done in hopes of preventing another tragic school shooting.

Sighs..you're not going to prevent shiat. You can take all the measures you want, but some people are just bat shiat crazy. They will continue to kill if they have a gun, a knife, or a bomb. All you can do is do your best to protect everyone, and yourself. If that means a few folks in the schools that are armed, i have no issue with this as long as they are properly trained. But don't expect some miracle "prevention" because you're going to be disappointed.
 
2012-12-30 06:21:24 PM  

Darth_Lukecash: ultraholland: Darth_Lukecash: Nothing intentional except a man who assumed his gun wasn't loaded and my dead friend had been in the way of a bullet.

I'm sorry about your friend but this is wholly irrelevant to the topic of gun regulation. Your friend hung out with idiots.


I pointed out that comparing the gun to a spoon was illogical because of the difference of use/design. Guns design was to destroy. That's all it's made for. A spoon can be used to eat healthy and unhealthy things.

He countered that it was the intent of the user.

I countered with the death of my friend, due to an accident-not intent.


Both people involved in your friend's death broke Rule #1 (Every gun is ALWAYS loaded), Rule #2 (Never point a weapon at something you don't intend to destroy) and Rule #3 (Keep your finger off the trigger until you are prepared to fire). I'm sorry for the loss of your friend, but both people involved in that incident were being stupid.

Guns are inanimate tools that were designed to fire a steel, lead, brass or copper projectile at high rates of speed; that's it. The use a weapon is put to is defined by the person shooting it. Yes, people have used them to kill, and will continue to use them to kill, but those people who truly want to kill someone or something won't be stopped by any ban (note Britain's need to ban samurai swords a few years ago...). No, they'll just walk around the law and purchase a gun illegally, or they will pick up a baseball bat or a knife or a lead pipe or a crossbow or a pencil or an icicle or a ... Do you see? There are no shortage of lethal weapons lying around, and people being stupid can, and will, find a way to use the weapon which is easiest to procure.

Also: more people die every year from car accidents than from guns; should we write more driving laws? More people die every year from cigarette-related causes than from guns; should we write more laws against smoking? More people die from accidental drownings every year than from guns; should we ban swimming? More people die every year from alcohol-related causes than from guns; should we ban alcohol? No, actually, we've already tried that, and it didn't work. My point is that total bans don't work. I would love to see the mentally ill be able to get the treatment they need, so we could take care of the *actual* problem, but the Republicans won't allow that because it would require raising taxes. I would love to see "assault weapons" taken out of the hands of the civilian population, but, oh, wait -- they already are. An AR-15 is NOT an assault weapon, as it does not have a selector switch to swap between semi-automatic and fully-automatic. An M16, an AK-47, an M4... These, and weapons like them, are assault weapons, and you, as a civilian, cannot legally buy them without a special license for which you pay the federal government a freaking huge amount of money every year.

My suggestion is that we A) enforce the laws that are already on the books, and which are sufficient to prevent most illegal weapons-purchases, and B) we get Congress to get off their collective asses and determine a way to lower spending on the stupid stuff so we can afford the important stuff.
 
2012-12-30 06:21:44 PM  

david_gaithersburg: [sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net image 735x412]


img42.imageshack.us
 
2012-12-30 06:22:00 PM  

moothemagiccow: david_gaithersburg: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: What's wrong with just mandating that the only legal firearms are single-shot bolt action rifles? Wouldn't that allow hunting and target shooting while minimizing spree shooting risks?

.
I'm pretty sure that the Second Amendment isn't about hunting or target shooting.

Explain to us what the Second Amendment is about. Don't tell me the bill of rights gives you the power to overthrow the government. You're going to need more than an AR15 and a couple buddies mad about quartering troops.


.
A - You have said that you do not want to hear the actual answer.
B - Tell it to the Algerians, the Libyans, the Syrians, etc., etc.
C - With all of the recent uprisings against dictatorships, your fear is understandable comrade.
 
2012-12-30 06:22:19 PM  

fredklein: GiddeonFox: Guns were designed to destroy, and even if they destroy "for good" they are still destroying. Even if I don't bring up statistics or studies or anything else, you have to accept the fact that guns, fundamentally, are meant to destroy things. It's the only reason they are made.

Knives were designed to destroy, and even if they destroy "for good" they are still destroying. Even if I don't bring up statistics or studies or anything else, you have to accept the fact that knives, fundamentally, are meant to destroy things. It's the only reason they are made.


Yes? It's not a valid argument to say knives weren't meant to destroy either. That's my point, that "Oh a gun is just a kind and loving inanimate object that has absolutely nothing to do with destroying things EXCEPT WHEN SOME MEANIE HUMANS MAKE IT DO THAT" is stupid and circular. There are plenty of OTHER arguments you can make, but not that one.
 
2012-12-30 06:22:56 PM  

DesktopHippie: Fatty didn't notice the calorie and fat content information printed on the side of his packet of mac and cheese?


Do they put warnings on guns? Like "do not point at people or animals?" I had a toy that said that. I'm thinking they don't, or all this could've been avoided. "Keep out of the reach of crazy vengeful people."
 
2012-12-30 06:23:08 PM  
Can't we just ban food?
 
2012-12-30 06:24:55 PM  

rvesco: I weigh 300 pounds. (Seriously.) You know who I blame, don't you?

[www.campusdish.com image 425x149]

On every corner? C'mon, let's unite and ban this societal oppressor!


i weigh 200 lbs

u know who i blame

the makers of this damned whey protein
i eat every morning

i used to be 160
 
2012-12-30 06:24:56 PM  

ultraholland: GiddeonFox: Sport is destructive. You are destroying targets or game. This is like arguing that a jackhammer is not fundamentally a destructive tool because you don't necessarially have to be aiming it at concrete.

Now that you've made that abundantly clear that high-velocity objects transfer a lot of energy when they strike something, just what point are you making here?


I think it's about the danger of bowling balls.
 
2012-12-30 06:25:11 PM  

Cuchulane: david_gaithersburg: [sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net image 735x412]

[img42.imageshack.us image 797x340]


And that prick also wasn't a big fan of private property rights. Is he one of your heroes?
 
2012-12-30 06:25:57 PM  

stirfrybry:
let's break it down:

liberal view: Guns are responsible, not the person using the gun


Congratulations on your total failure to understand your opponents.
 
2012-12-30 06:26:05 PM  

david_gaithersburg: Cuchulane: david_gaithersburg: [sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net image 735x412]

[img42.imageshack.us image 797x340]

And that prick also wasn't a big fan of private property rights. Is he one of your heroes?


B-b-but he's Republican Jesus!
 
2012-12-30 06:27:13 PM  

GiddeonFox: david_gaithersburg: Cuchulane: david_gaithersburg: [sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net image 735x412]

[img42.imageshack.us image 797x340]

And that prick also wasn't a big fan of private property rights. Is he one of your heroes?

B-b-but he's Republican Jesus!


.
And I'm an American. Your point is?
 
2012-12-30 06:28:19 PM  

Lord Dimwit: Spoons are a bad analogy. "Pure fat in a syringe injected right into my body that I carry around with me and sometimes 'accidentally' inject into other people" is a better one.


Or intentionally inject into a dozen innocent bystanders.

/People who think the spoon/gun analogy is a good one, must have done poorly on their SATs
//hard to have an actual debate when one side says "regulate" and the other side hears "ban"
 
2012-12-30 06:28:29 PM  

Monkeyfark Ridiculous: stirfrybry:
let's break it down:

liberal view: Guns are responsible, not the person using the gun

Congratulations on your total failure to understand your opponents.



yeah, right. Gun control? Ban guns? Totally not blaming guns at all! You win.
 
2012-12-30 06:28:34 PM  

david_gaithersburg: GiddeonFox: david_gaithersburg: Cuchulane: david_gaithersburg: [sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net image 735x412]

[img42.imageshack.us image 797x340]

And that prick also wasn't a big fan of private property rights. Is he one of your heroes?

B-b-but he's Republican Jesus!

.
And I'm an American. Your point is?


It was a joke, calm down
 
2012-12-30 06:28:40 PM  

david_gaithersburg: moothemagiccow: david_gaithersburg: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: What's wrong with just mandating that the only legal firearms are single-shot bolt action rifles? Wouldn't that allow hunting and target shooting while minimizing spree shooting risks?

.
I'm pretty sure that the Second Amendment isn't about hunting or target shooting.

Explain to us what the Second Amendment is about. Don't tell me the bill of rights gives you the power to overthrow the government. You're going to need more than an AR15 and a couple buddies mad about quartering troops.

.
A - You have said that you do not want to hear the actual answer.
B - Tell it to the Algerians, the Libyans, the Syrians, etc., etc.
C - With all of the recent uprisings against dictatorships, your fear is understandable comrade.


If that's your answer, you've got to be kidding.

Those countries' militaries combined are a pale shadow of the United States military. You are not taking over this country. You will be stopped before you get the chance to start.

I'm not afraid of you. What gave you that indication? Owning a gun is an indicator of fear. It says to me, "if I didn't have this gun, you might hurt me."
 
2012-12-30 06:29:26 PM  

moothemagiccow: DesktopHippie: Fatty didn't notice the calorie and fat content information printed on the side of his packet of mac and cheese?

Do they put warnings on guns? Like "do not point at people or animals?" I had a toy that said that. I'm thinking they don't, or all this could've been avoided. "Keep out of the reach of crazy vengeful people."


Do you honestly think they don't include warnings? You've either not purchased a gun or never read a gun owner's manual.
 
2012-12-30 06:29:34 PM  

Darth_Lukecash: a man who assumed his gun wasn't loaded and my dead friend had been in the way of a bullet.


The gun is loaded.  Always.

If you think the gun is not loaded, you are not just wrong, you are an idiot.
 
2012-12-30 06:29:38 PM  

LordOfThePings: People were filing in an out of the Tanner Gun Show proudly putting their First Amendment right to use. Some bought guns for hunting, others for protection.

Can't count? Career in TV journalism may be for you!


Came here for this, thanks for covering it.

If you're a journalist and you don't know what the First Amendment says, then you're not a journalist.
 
2012-12-30 06:30:19 PM  

moothemagiccow: david_gaithersburg: moothemagiccow: david_gaithersburg: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: What's wrong with just mandating that the only legal firearms are single-shot bolt action rifles? Wouldn't that allow hunting and target shooting while minimizing spree shooting risks?

.
I'm pretty sure that the Second Amendment isn't about hunting or target shooting.

Explain to us what the Second Amendment is about. Don't tell me the bill of rights gives you the power to overthrow the government. You're going to need more than an AR15 and a couple buddies mad about quartering troops.

.
A - You have said that you do not want to hear the actual answer.
B - Tell it to the Algerians, the Libyans, the Syrians, etc., etc.
C - With all of the recent uprisings against dictatorships, your fear is understandable comrade.

If that's your answer, you've got to be kidding.

Those countries' militaries combined are a pale shadow of the United States military. You are not taking over this country. You will be stopped before you get the chance to start.

I'm not afraid of you. What gave you that indication? Owning a gun is an indicator of fear. It says to me, "if I didn't have this gun, you might hurt me."


My AR-15 can totally take down an entire army of unfeeling murder sky drones dude, I don't know what kind of pussy ass guns you use.
 
2012-12-30 06:30:38 PM  

BronyMedic: You missed the point yourself. The argument most rational people are making is not to outlaw guns, but to legitimately restrict who can own them (Maybe the mentally ill shouldn't own firearms?), and make regulations not only actually enforced, but more stringent than depending on the word alone of a buyer who's entire obstacle to purchase depends on them being honest.


How would that have helped prevent the Newtown massacre? The mentally ill kid wasn't the one who bought or owned the guns---he simply took them from his mother, who passed all the requisite background checks.

I'm sure it's sound policy, but as long as anyone can acquire an arsenal, a felon or maniac can simply kill that person and take his/her guns.

But then, it's really a matter of the raw numbers, induced by this daffy wingnut trend of acquiring pointlessly large arsenals for no legitimate reason. Now that it's commonplace to have giant arms stashes with assault rifles and extended magazines, you just have a greater proportion of sickos who can get their hands on them.

In an alternate universe, stockpiling weapons is still the domain of militia types hiding out in Montana, this guy's mom would have gotten into kite flying or playing the bodhran, and this kid at the very worst would have gone on to stab Garrison Keillor. Instead, we have half the country convinced that the world is ending and they have to be ready to defend themselves with assault rifles, gold coins and cylinders of heirloom seeds.
 
Displayed 50 of 372 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report