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 39
    More: Obvious, spoons, fat  
•       •       •

9567 clicks; posted to Main » on 30 Dec 2012 at 5:44 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Funniest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-12-30 05:48:15 PM
5 votes:
elleandtheautognome.files.wordpress.com

Seriously guys, you're slacking.
2012-12-30 06:15:41 PM
3 votes:

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 06:05:56 PM
3 votes:

lewismarktwo: 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?

Just as soon as you uninvent the magazine and all the guns that use them.


We already uninvented Newsweek...it's a start
2012-12-30 06:00:08 PM
3 votes:
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.
2012-12-30 07:01:02 PM
2 votes:
Subtard is hereby challenged. He gets a spoon, I get an AR15. His goal is to make me fat, mine is to make him dead. Someone please start a betting pool.
2012-12-30 06:24:56 PM
2 votes:

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 06:06:15 PM
2 votes:

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


How'd that work out for him?
2012-12-30 04:49:23 PM
2 votes:
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!
2012-12-30 02:02:01 PM
2 votes:
Oh, I'm sure that guy is perfectly capable of getting fat just using his bare hands.
2013-01-02 09:41:25 AM
1 votes:

fredklein: fredklein: And, the problem here isn't guns (they are just a tool), or people who have this particular tool (singularly, or in "arsenals"). It's PEOPLE.


That's exactly what I said, you illiterate rube.

People who have no training with how to handle guns (because of anti-gun nuts who scream about 'training kids to kill' when a kids gun training program is suggested).

Stop right there. The killer had lots of training. He went to the shooting range with his mom and learned all about how to handle these weapons.

Do you seriously believe that a schizo kid who wants to shoot up an elementary school will decide not to do it if only he's given some "training?"

That's about as dumb as --- well, as dumb as openly plonking someone and then replying to one of their posts a day later.
2012-12-31 09:03:20 AM
1 votes:

redmid17: mediablitz: Doom MD: Why should I not have a legal right to own on

Why should you, consider a "well REGULATED militia"?

And why SHOULD you, considering we, as a country, kill people at triple the rate of the UK, ignoring guns?

Are you COMPLETELY unwilling to look at the totality of the 2nd amendment, and the violent culture we have cultivated in this country (2/3rds of the killing weapons in Mexico come from the Untied States)? Is is all about you buying whatever you want, morality be damned?

Google 'direct commercial sales' from the state department to Mexico and you'll find out why that 2/3 number is bullshiat. I mean you can check factcheck.org as well if you want a non-partisan website. The large majority of those American weapons found south of the border were sold to the Mexican government for distribution to their soldiers or police officers under the auspices of the aforementioned sales program. Yes there are definitely straw purchases feeding gun violence south of the border, but it's easier for the cartels to get automatic weaponry from China/Vietnam/South & Central America than it is to purchase AR-15s and similar weapons and smuggle them over the border into Mexico. Also since roughly 150K soldiers have deserted the Mexican army, most taking their issued weapons with them, and a large chunk started working for the cartel, it's not hard to extrapolate where a lot of those guns came from.

http://www.factcheck.org/politics/counting_mexicos_guns.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-500202_162-57337289/legal-u.s-gun-sales- to -mexico-arming-cartels/
http://articles.cnn.com/2009-03-11/world/mexico.desertions_1_deserti on s-drug-cartels-gulf-cartel?_s=PM:WORLD

BronyMedic: Mr. Eugenides: Fair enough, but the implication was that these weapons were getting into the hands of Mexican criminals through non State Department sanctioned means. So let me rephrase that as "And what would happen to you as a holder of a FFL if you sold your Javelin to some guy in Mexi ...


Uhhhhh. Good links? The United States government selling them to Mexico makes the issue moot? Really? That just cements my point: We are (literally) financing murder in Mexico.

You DO realize we are the government, right? It's not "them"?
2012-12-30 11:20:52 PM
1 votes:

Doom MD: Counter proposals have been offered ad nauseum. Furthermore, the awb is trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist. Rifles are used in a very small percentage of crime across the board.


But it's dumb to argue about percentages when a tragedy occurs. Every horrible tragedy is small in percentage terms. Do we need a secret service? A vanishingly small percentage of homicides are presidential assassinations. Did we need to do anything about 9/11? 3,000 is a tiny percentage of deaths.

Do we need do do anything about murder, of any kind? Even in Chicago you're far more likely to die from a car accident or influenza. Percentage-wise, the gang problem doesn't exist!
2012-12-30 08:53:02 PM
1 votes:
I wish idiots would stop bringing up the "well-regulated militia" part of the 2nd Amendment and asking where all the militias are today. These people are idiots and need to get with the times. The 2nd Amendment does not currently mean what it meant in 1791. It has changed over time.
2012-12-30 08:02:57 PM
1 votes:
I like the argument that is based on "Spoons make me fat ban spoons."
You can counter with "Do spoons make you make other people fat?" because if all the gunshot fatalities were self-inflicted I might be cool with no more regulation on guns. On the mental health issue, if we know someone is apt to hurt themselves or others we take all weapons of opportunity away from them. Having more and more guns in society makes for more and more weapons of opportunity.
We can say "Well if someone wants to kill someone, they will find a way.", but why make that search process easier?
I can point out numerous ways not to drown in a pool, but the most obvious is getting rid of the pool. Then there are other degrees of rational thought, restricting access to the pool (government regulations), more lifeguards (government regulation) or requiring everyone that has access to the pool be a certified a "Good Swimmer" (government regulation). When more and more people are drowning in the pool, screaming that there should be no more government regulation or saying that the regulations don't work, is akin to saying the only solution is to get rid of the pool.
I am not for getting rid of the pool, but failing to make it safe for everyone will eventually make it so no one can enjoy the pool.
2012-12-30 07:54:50 PM
1 votes:
img84.imageshack.us
Come at me Bro.
2012-12-30 07:29:59 PM
1 votes:

moothemagiccow:
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...


True, armed peasants don't stand a chance against our military, that's why we won so quickly in Vietnam. Okay, bad example. But Lebanon. Wait. Somalia? Hang on, give me a minute. Iraq? Afghanistan? Let me get back to you on this.
2012-12-30 06:57:37 PM
1 votes:

Mr. Eugenides: Since your ass is too lazy to do any looking I shall spoon feed you.


Wait, what are you doing? Stop it! You're killing him!! YOU MONSTER!!!
2012-12-30 06:42:12 PM
1 votes:
Recently some guy was cooking meth that caused an exposion that killed himself and the couple in the neighboring apartment.

I think they should ban meth labs.

/ what ?
// meth labs are already illegal ?
/// nevermind.
2012-12-30 06:36:45 PM
1 votes:

Cuchulane: 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?

JFK is one of yours?


.
He was also for zero corporate taxes. The so-call-progressives overthrew the Democratic Party years ago. It was sad to see their demise.
2012-12-30 06:30:19 PM
1 votes:

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 06:24:55 PM
1 votes:

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 06:23:08 PM
1 votes:
Can't we just ban food?
2012-12-30 06:22:56 PM
1 votes:

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 06:21:44 PM
1 votes:

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


img42.imageshack.us
2012-12-30 06:20:22 PM
1 votes:
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 06:19:58 PM
1 votes:
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 06:17:29 PM
1 votes:

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 06:16:48 PM
1 votes:
" 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 06:13:11 PM
1 votes:
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 06:12:21 PM
1 votes:

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


Just like knives.
2012-12-30 06:11:25 PM
1 votes:
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 06:10:23 PM
1 votes:

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 06:07:53 PM
1 votes:

GiddeonFox: Guns were designed to destroy



Nouns were designed to Verb.
2012-12-30 06:07:31 PM
1 votes:

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


I think JFK shot himself.
2012-12-30 05:56:57 PM
1 votes:
"Something snapped in me and I have to say something," the protester said.

Well at least he didn't have a gun.
2012-12-30 05:55:16 PM
1 votes:
ajeeznotthisshiatagain..jpg
2012-12-30 04:37:41 PM
1 votes:
We should regulate weapons further because you have stupid friends?
2012-12-30 02:43:28 PM
1 votes:
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.
2012-12-30 01:59:19 PM
1 votes:
i1079.photobucket.com
...save those big fat funky whales
we'll save all the whales,
but shoot the seals...
 
Displayed 39 of 39 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report