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.

(CBS Sacramento) NewsFlash Shots fired in Sacramento during NYE celebration, multiple people killed. Fireworks cancelled and Old Town Sacramento being evacuated. Subby on site (Updated article w/video)   (sacramento.cbslocal.com) divider line 822
    More: NewsFlash, nye, Old Town Sacramento, shots  
•       •       •

33145 clicks; posted to Main » on 01 Jan 2013 at 2:18 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»


Want to get NewsFlash notifications in email?

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

Archived thread

First | « | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-01 10:33:46 AM  

Infernalist: Judging by the flow of history? No, not really. Unless you can point to a civilized nation that descended into anarchy and such in recent history.


This has to be recent history? Why? What is the time range allowable for this line of argument? It wouldn't just so happen to be less than the number of years since the last tyrannical government was in place, would it? You have a strangely warped sense of humanity. If you think people are somehow less greedy or power hungry than they were in "ancient history" then you need to get out more.
 
2013-01-01 10:34:23 AM  

Infernalist: letrole: letrole: You don't have a fooken clue.

Infernalist: I'm saying, and still am saying, that the only way to stop the gun violence problem is to remove the guns from society. You've yet to offer up anything that proves otherwise.

This fallacy is known as petitio principii, or "begging the question".

You've taken part of what you must prove, *the argument that guns must be banned*, and used it to support another part of what you must prove, *the proper way to ban guns*.

Guns are not the problem. Guns are a tool, nothing more. The problem is people.

Protractors and Triangles don't create blueprints, draughtsmen do.

They are indeed tools. Tools of murder and nothing more.

Can a draftsman create a blueprint without his triangle? Certainly. It's not as easy, but he can do it.

Can a murderer kill without a handgun? Certainly. It's not as easy, but he can do it.

Thank you for proving my point.


Ok so you don't have anything against people killing each other, just the method of how it is done?

You feel like murders need to be a little more boot strappy?
 
2013-01-01 10:34:55 AM  
Infernalist That's cute. I don't care. If you want to have a freaky discussion regarding slavery and its pros and cons, by all means, go do that with yourself, elsewhere. I don't give a single fark.

But you in fact do care. The problem is that you have neither the basic knowledge nor the rhetorical skills to make a passible reply that advances your argument. Your response was a bit better than "I know you are so what am I?"

but not by much.
 
2013-01-01 10:35:47 AM  

Giltric: Infernalist: way south: Someone here doesn't know that most guns are made overseas. It varies by model but many companies import parts for final assembly in the US (to skirt import bans).
Izhmash is Russia, Glock is Austria, FN is Belgium, Springfield is Croatia. Other makers like Utas don't even export to the US. Other nations buy plenty of weapons to keep the factories open.

The domestic gun ban plan doesn't stay on our side of the line. Which is why its about as realistic as a memo from the UN politely asking people to stop killing each other.
It's an ivory tower ideal that sounds like a great idea until you actually try implementing it. Then a bunch to other nations statesmen, crooks, and arms dealers are going to rub your nose in its impracticalities.

Other nations are pretty free and easy about the possession of powerful narcotics. Some even specialize in the creation of them and selling to other nations that outlaw them. Pretty much every civilized nation has banned these hard narcotics.

By your logic, we should simply make them all legal since black marketeers and foreign importers are going to get them into the country.

Guns are no different and should be treated no different.

What are your views on self defense?

Does a person have a right to defend themself or does a person have to let the assault/rape/robbery happen to them because they have no right to self defense?


I feel that defense should be proportional. I have no problem with people having dogs, tasers, batons, clubs, alarm systems, pepper spray, bars on their windows and/or advanced hand to hand defensive training. I think these should be owned by everyone who feels the need to have them. None of these things are life-threatening in and of themselves.

Now, if some douchnozzle trains his dog to kill people trespassing on his land, then a healthy stint in prison is warranted, but I have no problem with people having defenses or defending themselves as long as they don't use it as an excuse to murder someone.
 
2013-01-01 10:37:33 AM  

JSam21:
Ok so you don't have anything against people killing each other, just the method of how it is done?

You feel like murders need to be a little more boot strappy?


It's like downloading pirated software. If it wasn't so bloody easy, not as many people would do it.
 
2013-01-01 10:38:56 AM  

Infernalist: Other nations are pretty free and easy about the possession of powerful narcotics. Some even specialize in the creation of them and selling to other nations that outlaw them. Pretty much every civilized nation has banned these hard narcotics.

By your logic, we should simply make them all legal since black marketeers and foreign importers are going to get them into the country.

Guns are no different and should be treated no different.


As far as I'm concerned, they should be legal. The bans are obviously not stopping anyone from indulging in them, and all they manage to do is create a black market, which not only fertilizes violent crime, but also manufactures the drugs with no regulation or oversight, leading to worker abuse and the manufacture of drugs cut with lethally poisonous substances.

I don't think your attempts to link the two are helpful. Drugs hurt the drug-user, while guns hurt whomever the gun is pointed at. Drugs create a chemical dependency that doesn't exist for gun ownership. They are different beasts.
 
2013-01-01 10:39:10 AM  

trappedspirit: Infernalist: Judging by the flow of history? No, not really. Unless you can point to a civilized nation that descended into anarchy and such in recent history.

This has to be recent history? Why? What is the time range allowable for this line of argument? It wouldn't just so happen to be less than the number of years since the last tyrannical government was in place, would it? You have a strangely warped sense of humanity. If you think people are somehow less greedy or power hungry than they were in "ancient history" then you need to get out more.


Because we're not living in the Middle Ages anymore, son. We've evolved, society has evolved. How many wars of conquest have there been in the last 50 years? Tibet? An attempt on Kuwait? What else? When was the last open act of ethnic cleansing? Some half-assed incompetent attempt in Yugoslavia that never really got off the ground?

I'm sorry, but I don't see any reason to be terrified of a government that is more concerned with selling us stuff than trying to enslave us.
 
2013-01-01 10:40:44 AM  

Infernalist: Giltric: Infernalist: way south: Someone here doesn't know that most guns are made overseas. It varies by model but many companies import parts for final assembly in the US (to skirt import bans).
Izhmash is Russia, Glock is Austria, FN is Belgium, Springfield is Croatia. Other makers like Utas don't even export to the US. Other nations buy plenty of weapons to keep the factories open.

The domestic gun ban plan doesn't stay on our side of the line. Which is why its about as realistic as a memo from the UN politely asking people to stop killing each other.
It's an ivory tower ideal that sounds like a great idea until you actually try implementing it. Then a bunch to other nations statesmen, crooks, and arms dealers are going to rub your nose in its impracticalities.

Other nations are pretty free and easy about the possession of powerful narcotics. Some even specialize in the creation of them and selling to other nations that outlaw them. Pretty much every civilized nation has banned these hard narcotics.

By your logic, we should simply make them all legal since black marketeers and foreign importers are going to get them into the country.

Guns are no different and should be treated no different.

What are your views on self defense?

Does a person have a right to defend themself or does a person have to let the assault/rape/robbery happen to them because they have no right to self defense?

I feel that defense should be proportional. I have no problem with people having dogs, tasers, batons, clubs, alarm systems, pepper spray, bars on their windows and/or advanced hand to hand defensive training. I think these should be owned by everyone who feels the need to have them. None of these things are life-threatening in and of themselves.

Now, if some douchnozzle trains his dog to kill people trespassing on his land, then a healthy stint in prison is warranted, but I have no problem with people having defenses or defending themselves as long as they don't use it as an excuse to murder someone.


So you dont believe in private property? Well who does property belong to?

But you believe in using firearms for self defense...as a proportional measure?
 
2013-01-01 10:40:47 AM  

JSam21: Infernalist: letrole: letrole: You don't have a fooken clue.

Infernalist: I'm saying, and still am saying, that the only way to stop the gun violence problem is to remove the guns from society. You've yet to offer up anything that proves otherwise.

This fallacy is known as petitio principii, or "begging the question".

You've taken part of what you must prove, *the argument that guns must be banned*, and used it to support another part of what you must prove, *the proper way to ban guns*.

Guns are not the problem. Guns are a tool, nothing more. The problem is people.

Protractors and Triangles don't create blueprints, draughtsmen do.

They are indeed tools. Tools of murder and nothing more.

Can a draftsman create a blueprint without his triangle? Certainly. It's not as easy, but he can do it.

Can a murderer kill without a handgun? Certainly. It's not as easy, but he can do it.

Thank you for proving my point.

Ok so you don't have anything against people killing each other, just the method of how it is done?

You feel like murders need to be a little more boot strappy?


If it was harder to do, fewer incidents would happen. It's easy to pull a trigger from 100 feet than it is to put a knife in someone's throat face to face.
 
2013-01-01 10:41:04 AM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Infernalist: Other nations are pretty free and easy about the possession of powerful narcotics. Some even specialize in the creation of them and selling to other nations that outlaw them. Pretty much every civilized nation has banned these hard narcotics.

By your logic, we should simply make them all legal since black marketeers and foreign importers are going to get them into the country.

Guns are no different and should be treated no different.

As far as I'm concerned, they should be legal. The bans are obviously not stopping anyone from indulging in them, and all they manage to do is create a black market, which not only fertilizes violent crime, but also manufactures the drugs with no regulation or oversight, leading to worker abuse and the manufacture of drugs cut with lethally poisonous substances.

I don't think your attempts to link the two are helpful. Drugs hurt the drug-user, while guns hurt whomever the gun is pointed at. Drugs create a chemical dependency that doesn't exist for gun ownership. They are different beasts.


drug prohibition creates the opportunity for unethical business
 
2013-01-01 10:41:09 AM  

Infernalist: I feel that defense should be proportional. I have no problem with people having dogs, tasers, batons, clubs, alarm systems, pepper spray, bars on their windows and/or advanced hand to hand defensive training. I think these should be owned by everyone who feels the need to have them. None of these things are life-threatening in and of themselves.

Now, if some douchnozzle trains his dog to kill people trespassing on his land, then a healthy stint in prison is warranted, but I have no problem with people having defenses or defending themselves as long as they don't use it as an excuse to murder someone.


So what about the 100-120lb young ladies out there? How are they going to reliably defend themselves against the much larger and stronger guys? Tasers don't always work (if they attacker is wearing a thick shirt the electrodes might not penetrate, the first shot might miss, etc). Mace can backfire, if there's wind or something, and it doesn't always work. One cannot hide behind bars all the time. The simple fact is that firearms are great equilizers to help offset natural imbalances in strength.

There is no good nor moral reason to put the potential victim on a lesser footing than their attacker. None whatsoever.
 
2013-01-01 10:41:14 AM  

Infernalist: Giltric: Infernalist: way south: Someone here doesn't know that most guns are made overseas. It varies by model but many companies import parts for final assembly in the US (to skirt import bans).
Izhmash is Russia, Glock is Austria, FN is Belgium, Springfield is Croatia. Other makers like Utas don't even export to the US. Other nations buy plenty of weapons to keep the factories open.

The domestic gun ban plan doesn't stay on our side of the line. Which is why its about as realistic as a memo from the UN politely asking people to stop killing each other.
It's an ivory tower ideal that sounds like a great idea until you actually try implementing it. Then a bunch to other nations statesmen, crooks, and arms dealers are going to rub your nose in its impracticalities.

Other nations are pretty free and easy about the possession of powerful narcotics. Some even specialize in the creation of them and selling to other nations that outlaw them. Pretty much every civilized nation has banned these hard narcotics.

By your logic, we should simply make them all legal since black marketeers and foreign importers are going to get them into the country.

Guns are no different and should be treated no different.

What are your views on self defense?

Does a person have a right to defend themself or does a person have to let the assault/rape/robbery happen to them because they have no right to self defense?

I feel that defense should be proportional. I have no problem with people having dogs, tasers, batons, clubs, alarm systems, pepper spray, bars on their windows and/or advanced hand to hand defensive training. I think these should be owned by everyone who feels the need to have them. None of these things are life-threatening in and of themselves.

Now, if some douchnozzle trains his dog to kill people trespassing on his land, then a healthy stint in prison is warranted, but I have no problem with people having defenses or defending themselves as long as they don't use it as an excuse to murder someone.


Correct... because the use of force has to be proportional. Thats why I preach training for gun owners and even possible mandatory military service for all citizens.

Not only would it get people training on use of firearms thus limiting irresponsible use of them it would also weed out some of those with mental health issues. If you're washed out of the process due to mental illness, you can't privately own a gun.
 
2013-01-01 10:41:30 AM  

Giltric: Infernalist: Giltric: Infernalist: way south: Someone here doesn't know that most guns are made overseas. It varies by model but many companies import parts for final assembly in the US (to skirt import bans).
Izhmash is Russia, Glock is Austria, FN is Belgium, Springfield is Croatia. Other makers like Utas don't even export to the US. Other nations buy plenty of weapons to keep the factories open.

The domestic gun ban plan doesn't stay on our side of the line. Which is why its about as realistic as a memo from the UN politely asking people to stop killing each other.
It's an ivory tower ideal that sounds like a great idea until you actually try implementing it. Then a bunch to other nations statesmen, crooks, and arms dealers are going to rub your nose in its impracticalities.

Other nations are pretty free and easy about the possession of powerful narcotics. Some even specialize in the creation of them and selling to other nations that outlaw them. Pretty much every civilized nation has banned these hard narcotics.

By your logic, we should simply make them all legal since black marketeers and foreign importers are going to get them into the country.

Guns are no different and should be treated no different.

What are your views on self defense?

Does a person have a right to defend themself or does a person have to let the assault/rape/robbery happen to them because they have no right to self defense?

I feel that defense should be proportional. I have no problem with people having dogs, tasers, batons, clubs, alarm systems, pepper spray, bars on their windows and/or advanced hand to hand defensive training. I think these should be owned by everyone who feels the need to have them. None of these things are life-threatening in and of themselves.

Now, if some douchnozzle trains his dog to kill people trespassing on his land, then a healthy stint in prison is warranted, but I have no problem with people having defenses or defending themselves as long as they ...


Nowhere in there did I say that I didn't believe in private property. Are you retarded?
 
2013-01-01 10:42:54 AM  

ronaprhys: Infernalist: I feel that defense should be proportional. I have no problem with people having dogs, tasers, batons, clubs, alarm systems, pepper spray, bars on their windows and/or advanced hand to hand defensive training. I think these should be owned by everyone who feels the need to have them. None of these things are life-threatening in and of themselves.

Now, if some douchnozzle trains his dog to kill people trespassing on his land, then a healthy stint in prison is warranted, but I have no problem with people having defenses or defending themselves as long as they don't use it as an excuse to murder someone.

So what about the 100-120lb young ladies out there? How are they going to reliably defend themselves against the much larger and stronger guys? Tasers don't always work (if they attacker is wearing a thick shirt the electrodes might not penetrate, the first shot might miss, etc). Mace can backfire, if there's wind or something, and it doesn't always work. One cannot hide behind bars all the time. The simple fact is that firearms are great equilizers to help offset natural imbalances in strength.

There is no good nor moral reason to put the potential victim on a lesser footing than their attacker. None whatsoever.


If tasers don't work, then they need to be improved.
 
2013-01-01 10:43:27 AM  
Infernalist: They are indeed tools. Tools of murder and nothing more.

Sometimes, they're tools of justifiable homicide. Sometimes, they're tools of punching holes in cardboard targets.

You see, there's more to being absolute than just stating a binary. You have to actually form a workable choice.

It's quite amusing to see those who normally preach about everything being a shade of grey suddenly decide that hey, some things are indeed Black and White.
 
2013-01-01 10:44:19 AM  
And while I'm having fun punching holes in ideas and playing theoretical games with people, I need to get back to the serious business of finding something to eat before company gets here.

Try not to kill anyone, you lovable gun nuts.
 
2013-01-01 10:44:56 AM  

JSam21: Infernalist: Giltric: Infernalist: way south: Someone here doesn't know that most guns are made overseas. It varies by model but many companies import parts for final assembly in the US (to skirt import bans).
Izhmash is Russia, Glock is Austria, FN is Belgium, Springfield is Croatia. Other makers like Utas don't even export to the US. Other nations buy plenty of weapons to keep the factories open.

The domestic gun ban plan doesn't stay on our side of the line. Which is why its about as realistic as a memo from the UN politely asking people to stop killing each other.
It's an ivory tower ideal that sounds like a great idea until you actually try implementing it. Then a bunch to other nations statesmen, crooks, and arms dealers are going to rub your nose in its impracticalities.

Other nations are pretty free and easy about the possession of powerful narcotics. Some even specialize in the creation of them and selling to other nations that outlaw them. Pretty much every civilized nation has banned these hard narcotics.

By your logic, we should simply make them all legal since black marketeers and foreign importers are going to get them into the country.

Guns are no different and should be treated no different.

What are your views on self defense?

Does a person have a right to defend themself or does a person have to let the assault/rape/robbery happen to them because they have no right to self defense?

I feel that defense should be proportional. I have no problem with people having dogs, tasers, batons, clubs, alarm systems, pepper spray, bars on their windows and/or advanced hand to hand defensive training. I think these should be owned by everyone who feels the need to have them. None of these things are life-threatening in and of themselves.

Now, if some douchnozzle trains his dog to kill people trespassing on his land, then a healthy stint in prison is warranted, but I have no problem with people having defenses or defending themselves as long as they don't use it as an excuse to murder someone.

Correct... because the use of force has to be proportional. Thats why I preach training for gun owners and even possible mandatory military service for all citizens.

Not only would it get people training on use of firearms thus limiting irresponsible use of them it would also weed out some of those with mental health issues. If you're washed out of the process due to mental illness, you can't privately own a gun.


And lethal force can't be used to defend property... so Mr. Nozzle would be going to prison anyway.
 
2013-01-01 10:45:53 AM  

letrole: Infernalist: They are indeed tools. Tools of murder and nothing more.

Sometimes, they're tools of justifiable homicide. Sometimes, they're tools of punching holes in cardboard targets.


Why not use a pellet gun? Or a paintball gun? Or some other non-lethal form of target shooting?
 
2013-01-01 10:45:56 AM  

Infernalist: trappedspirit: Infernalist: Judging by the flow of history? No, not really. Unless you can point to a civilized nation that descended into anarchy and such in recent history.

This has to be recent history? Why? What is the time range allowable for this line of argument? It wouldn't just so happen to be less than the number of years since the last tyrannical government was in place, would it? You have a strangely warped sense of humanity. If you think people are somehow less greedy or power hungry than they were in "ancient history" then you need to get out more.

Because we're not living in the Middle Ages anymore, son. We've evolved, society has evolved. How many wars of conquest have there been in the last 50 years? Tibet? An attempt on Kuwait? What else? When was the last open act of ethnic cleansing? Some half-assed incompetent attempt in Yugoslavia that never really got off the ground?

I'm sorry, but I don't see any reason to be terrified of a government that is more concerned with selling us stuff than trying to enslave us.


I'm not saying this current government of ours is the one to be fearful of. There are governments in the world that need uprisings against them at this very moment. If you think the human race has somehow evolved into an era of peace and respect of rights then I'm going to need a moment to clean off my keyboard and monitor.
 
2013-01-01 10:46:02 AM  

Infernalist: ronaprhys: Infernalist: I feel that defense should be proportional. I have no problem with people having dogs, tasers, batons, clubs, alarm systems, pepper spray, bars on their windows and/or advanced hand to hand defensive training. I think these should be owned by everyone who feels the need to have them. None of these things are life-threatening in and of themselves.

Now, if some douchnozzle trains his dog to kill people trespassing on his land, then a healthy stint in prison is warranted, but I have no problem with people having defenses or defending themselves as long as they don't use it as an excuse to murder someone.

So what about the 100-120lb young ladies out there? How are they going to reliably defend themselves against the much larger and stronger guys? Tasers don't always work (if they attacker is wearing a thick shirt the electrodes might not penetrate, the first shot might miss, etc). Mace can backfire, if there's wind or something, and it doesn't always work. One cannot hide behind bars all the time. The simple fact is that firearms are great equilizers to help offset natural imbalances in strength.

There is no good nor moral reason to put the potential victim on a lesser footing than their attacker. None whatsoever.

If tasers don't work, then they need to be improved.


Hell - sometimes they do work, but a person needs to be tased twice. One shot or two shot defense mechanisms are unreliable. Again, no moral nor good reason to put a victim at a disadvantage vs their attacker.

Unless you personally happen to like young ladies getting raped.
 
2013-01-01 10:46:13 AM  

Infernalist: And while I'm having fun punching holes in ideas and playing theoretical games with people, I need to get back to the serious business of finding something to eat before company gets here.

Try not to kill anyone, you lovable gun nuts.


This whole "try and shout a zinger over your shoulder while you run full-tilt for the door" maneuver has never really worked out for anyone.
 
2013-01-01 10:46:16 AM  
Wow. Someone above appears to have snapped.
 
2013-01-01 10:46:36 AM  

Infernalist: ronaprhys: Infernalist: I feel that defense should be proportional. I have no problem with people having dogs, tasers, batons, clubs, alarm systems, pepper spray, bars on their windows and/or advanced hand to hand defensive training. I think these should be owned by everyone who feels the need to have them. None of these things are life-threatening in and of themselves.

Now, if some douchnozzle trains his dog to kill people trespassing on his land, then a healthy stint in prison is warranted, but I have no problem with people having defenses or defending themselves as long as they don't use it as an excuse to murder someone.

So what about the 100-120lb young ladies out there? How are they going to reliably defend themselves against the much larger and stronger guys? Tasers don't always work (if they attacker is wearing a thick shirt the electrodes might not penetrate, the first shot might miss, etc). Mace can backfire, if there's wind or something, and it doesn't always work. One cannot hide behind bars all the time. The simple fact is that firearms are great equilizers to help offset natural imbalances in strength.

There is no good nor moral reason to put the potential victim on a lesser footing than their attacker. None whatsoever.

If tasers don't work, then they need to be improved.


Can't be improved anymore and many people want them to go away because in a fraction of Taser deployments a suspect has died.
 
2013-01-01 10:46:39 AM  

at80eighty: because a constitution could never be wrong AMENDED


Amended that for you
 
2013-01-01 10:46:47 AM  

adeist69: Phins: Real Women Drink Akvavit: adeist69: So, how are those strict gun laws and high capacity magazine bans working out for you California?

Our gun laws aren't as strict as people seem to think  they are. I have enough firepower to take out a small European country. Also, high capacity magazines are very much a part of gun ownership here. When those things were banned, along with "assault weapons", if you already had one,  you got to keep it. You were grandfathered in. There was lag between when the law was passed and when it took effect, so a lot of people went out and stocked up or made purchases before the  law into effect. We' probably just as heavily armed, if not more so because of the bans, than your average Texan here in Cali. Plus, we have tofu and wheat grass. YAY!

/loves California
//weirdness has its own special charm

So why do you have enough firepower to take out a small European country? This is a serious question. Why do you think you need that?


Thousands of people are killed in car wrecks every year. Jay Leno probably owns enough cars to equip every family in Lichtenstein with an automobile. Why don't you ask him why he needs that many cars?


It's a free country, and cars don't discharge lethal lumps of metal at supersonic velocities.
 
2013-01-01 10:49:36 AM  

WippitGuud: letrole: Infernalist: They are indeed tools. Tools of murder and nothing more.

Sometimes, they're tools of justifiable homicide. Sometimes, they're tools of punching holes in cardboard targets.

Why not use a pellet gun? Or a paintball gun? Or some other non-lethal form of target shooting?


Distance shooting? Skeet shooting? Or learning to deal with the recoil of your firearm when shooting? Or just because people want to target shoot with firearms. That's the fun part about a right - need is not a requirement.
 
2013-01-01 10:50:41 AM  

Infernalist: And while I'm having fun punching holes in ideas and playing theoretical games with people, I need to get back to the serious business of finding something to eat before company gets here.

Try not to kill anyone, you lovable gun nuts.


In other words your girlfriend is tired of telling you what to type.
 
2013-01-01 10:50:59 AM  

ParaHandy: adeist69: Phins: Real Women Drink Akvavit: adeist69: So, how are those strict gun laws and high capacity magazine bans working out for you California?

Our gun laws aren't as strict as people seem to think  they are. I have enough firepower to take out a small European country. Also, high capacity magazines are very much a part of gun ownership here. When those things were banned, along with "assault weapons", if you already had one,  you got to keep it. You were grandfathered in. There was lag between when the law was passed and when it took effect, so a lot of people went out and stocked up or made purchases before the  law into effect. We' probably just as heavily armed, if not more so because of the bans, than your average Texan here in Cali. Plus, we have tofu and wheat grass. YAY!

/loves California
//weirdness has its own special charm

So why do you have enough firepower to take out a small European country? This is a serious question. Why do you think you need that?


Thousands of people are killed in car wrecks every year. Jay Leno probably owns enough cars to equip every family in Lichtenstein with an automobile. Why don't you ask him why he needs that many cars?

It's a free country, and cars don't discharge lethal lumps of metal at supersonic velocities.


Right cars are lumps of metal traveling at lethal speeds... just saying. If one wanted to they could kill 20 people with their car easily.
 
2013-01-01 10:51:22 AM  

ParaHandy: adeist69: Phins: Real Women Drink Akvavit: adeist69: So, how are those strict gun laws and high capacity magazine bans working out for you California?

Our gun laws aren't as strict as people seem to think  they are. I have enough firepower to take out a small European country. Also, high capacity magazines are very much a part of gun ownership here. When those things were banned, along with "assault weapons", if you already had one,  you got to keep it. You were grandfathered in. There was lag between when the law was passed and when it took effect, so a lot of people went out and stocked up or made purchases before the  law into effect. We' probably just as heavily armed, if not more so because of the bans, than your average Texan here in Cali. Plus, we have tofu and wheat grass. YAY!

/loves California
//weirdness has its own special charm

So why do you have enough firepower to take out a small European country? This is a serious question. Why do you think you need that?


Thousands of people are killed in car wrecks every year. Jay Leno probably owns enough cars to equip every family in Lichtenstein with an automobile. Why don't you ask him why he needs that many cars?

It's a free country, and cars don't discharge lethal lumps of metal at supersonic velocities.


Yet, comparatively, the vast vast majority of legally-purchased firearms don't, either.
 
2013-01-01 10:51:47 AM  
Infernalist: If it was harder to do, fewer incidents would happen. It's easy to pull a trigger from 100 feet than it is to put a knife in someone's throat face to face.

Of course, you ninny. This is why guns are The Great Equaliser. You don't have to be bigger than your oppressor. You hold in your hand the wherewithal to make that belligerent man step aside.

The problem is not the gun.
 
2013-01-01 10:52:18 AM  

Infernalist: Giltric: Infernalist: Giltric: Infernalist: way south: Someone here doesn't know that most guns are made overseas. It varies by model but many companies import parts for final assembly in the US (to skirt import bans).
Izhmash is Russia, Glock is Austria, FN is Belgium, Springfield is Croatia. Other makers like Utas don't even export to the US. Other nations buy plenty of weapons to keep the factories open.

The domestic gun ban plan doesn't stay on our side of the line. Which is why its about as realistic as a memo from the UN politely asking people to stop killing each other.
It's an ivory tower ideal that sounds like a great idea until you actually try implementing it. Then a bunch to other nations statesmen, crooks, and arms dealers are going to rub your nose in its impracticalities.

Other nations are pretty free and easy about the possession of powerful narcotics. Some even specialize in the creation of them and selling to other nations that outlaw them. Pretty much every civilized nation has banned these hard narcotics.

By your logic, we should simply make them all legal since black marketeers and foreign importers are going to get them into the country.

Guns are no different and should be treated no different.

What are your views on self defense?

Does a person have a right to defend themself or does a person have to let the assault/rape/robbery happen to them because they have no right to self defense?

I feel that defense should be proportional. I have no problem with people having dogs, tasers, batons, clubs, alarm systems, pepper spray, bars on their windows and/or advanced hand to hand defensive training. I think these should be owned by everyone who feels the need to have them. None of these things are life-threatening in and of themselves.

Now, if some douchnozzle trains his dog to kill people trespassing on his land, then a healthy stint in prison is warranted, but I have no problem with people having defenses or defending themselves as long as they ...

Nowhere in there did I say that I didn't believe in private property. Are you retarded?


No im just someone who can argue a position without resorting to name calling. You cant seem to argue your position without resorting to it though based on that and other responses, but maybe its a self esteem issue...Or inferiority complex....take your pick.

People who dont believe in private property usually use tresspassing as an example of a crime that should be ignored.

Why should some crime be ignored or go unpunished?
 
2013-01-01 10:52:39 AM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Pincy: "Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop," one witness said. "It sounded like a Glock."

Waiting for the gun experts to come in and argue over what a Glock really sounds like.

Actually, that sounds more like a Redenbacher.


Because a Glock all sounds the same no matter what caliber.
/NHA beat me to the popcorn joke
 
2013-01-01 10:53:34 AM  
Apples to Apples comparison people. Firearm deaths to alcohol related vehicle deaths? Both being used illegally. And go
 
2013-01-01 10:56:00 AM  
I'm just glad that this bar patron/NYE reveler had a semiautomatic pistol on him for self-defense.

Otherwise, that one guy in the bar might have kicked his ass! He could have been killed, assuming that 20-year old employee couldn't hold him back! And that woman was probably trying to kill him too!

Sure, it's unfortunate that the employee died, and then the woman got shot, and that the Armed Security Guard who was on hand to keep order and protect everyone mistakenly thought this man, just because he had a gun on him, was a threat, got shot as well, but... that's the price of liberty.

Self Defense, people!

/the guy was probably carrying the pistol in case some whack job came along with an assault rifle and wanted to spray the crowd, he could have stopped him, obviously his aim is very good, 4/4 targets hit, 2/4 killed...
 
2013-01-01 10:56:44 AM  
i.imgur.com

/kity howling because sad.
 
2013-01-01 10:56:47 AM  

JSam21: Not a mass shooting... the article says it was a fight and a male Hispanic suspect was seen running. Ban Hispanics?


Ban running shoes!
 
2013-01-01 10:58:17 AM  
There is no deal to be made, no compromise. The answer is no, you will not take my rights away.
 
2013-01-01 10:59:06 AM  

Molavian: There is no deal to be made, no compromise. The answer is no, you will not take my rights away.


I want my right to own slaves back! That was in the Constitution!
 
2013-01-01 11:00:01 AM  
we should ban holidays
 
2013-01-01 11:02:34 AM  
Just out of curiosity - America is flooded with guns. And people have their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness revoked by some douchebag shooting them. But it's pretty tough to get a hand grenade and the general public isn't being terrorized with hand grenades.

Taking the second amendment into account, why don't I have access to hand grenades the same as almost any gun I want? Almost every argument that can be made for the individual right to bear arms can be made for hand grenades. Should we be allowed more access to hand grenades? Would more hand grenades make us safer?

Just asking the question...seems the restriction on hand grenades works better than more guns.
 
2013-01-01 11:05:21 AM  
Farkomatic: Taking the second amendment into account, why don't I have access to hand grenades the same as almost any gun I want? Almost every argument that can be made for the individual right to bear arms can be made for hand grenades.


Right there. Asked and Answered.
 
2013-01-01 11:07:31 AM  

Farkomatic: Just out of curiosity - America is flooded with guns. And people have their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness revoked by some douchebag shooting them. But it's pretty tough to get a hand grenade and the general public isn't being terrorized with hand grenades.

Taking the second amendment into account, why don't I have access to hand grenades the same as almost any gun I want? Almost every argument that can be made for the individual right to bear arms can be made for hand grenades. Should we be allowed more access to hand grenades? Would more hand grenades make us safer?

Just asking the question...seems the restriction on hand grenades works better than more guns.


You can own hand grenades....it just takes a bit more paper work.
 
2013-01-01 11:07:36 AM  

vudukungfu: blueswoman: wow. i can no longer tell how many of you are drunk, or really think that way.

*enlarges apocalypse cave*
*dives for cover*

happy new year, kid


oh my GAWD VOODOOOOOOO!!! how you doin', sugar?!
 
2013-01-01 11:08:25 AM  

Farkomatic: Just out of curiosity - America is flooded with guns. And people have their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness revoked by some douchebag shooting them. But it's pretty tough to get a hand grenade and the general public isn't being terrorized with hand grenades.

Taking the second amendment into account, why don't I have access to hand grenades the same as almost any gun I want? Almost every argument that can be made for the individual right to bear arms can be made for hand grenades. Should we be allowed more access to hand grenades? Would more hand grenades make us safer?

Just asking the question...seems the restriction on hand grenades works better than more guns.


Not... really...

You can hunt with a rifle; can't effectively kill one with a grenade. You'd be insane to set one off at the distances you'd encounter if you had to face a burglar in your home.
 
2013-01-01 11:08:26 AM  

WippitGuud: Molavian: There is no deal to be made, no compromise. The answer is no, you will not take my rights away.

I want my right to own slaves back! That was in the Constitution!


who gets the front? i hardly think it's fair to split them up that way. i bet you're in favor of just-top muffins, too!
 
2013-01-01 11:09:18 AM  

Marine1: Farkomatic: Just out of curiosity - America is flooded with guns. And people have their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness revoked by some douchebag shooting them. But it's pretty tough to get a hand grenade and the general public isn't being terrorized with hand grenades.

Taking the second amendment into account, why don't I have access to hand grenades the same as almost any gun I want? Almost every argument that can be made for the individual right to bear arms can be made for hand grenades. Should we be allowed more access to hand grenades? Would more hand grenades make us safer?

Just asking the question...seems the restriction on hand grenades works better than more guns.

Not... really...

You can hunt with a rifle; can't effectively kill one with a grenade. You'd be insane to set one off at the distances you'd encounter if you had to face a burglar in your home.


And by "one", I mean any game animal you choose.

/it's early
//on NYD
 
2013-01-01 11:09:30 AM  

Farkomatic: why don't I have access to hand grenades the same as almost any gun I want?


Practically? Because a grenade will hit people randomly, and people using firearms for personal/public safety don't miss and hit the wrong person...

Legally? NRA & Friends might actually accept the argument that "arms" covers guns but not "ordnance" like explosives.
 
2013-01-01 11:09:32 AM  

JSam21: JSam21: Infernalist: Giltric: Infernalist: way south: Someone here doesn't know that most guns are made overseas. It varies by model but many companies import parts for final assembly in the US (to skirt import bans).
Izhmash is Russia, Glock is Austria, FN is Belgium, Springfield is Croatia. Other makers like Utas don't even export to the US. Other nations buy plenty of weapons to keep the factories open.

The domestic gun ban plan doesn't stay on our side of the line. Which is why its about as realistic as a memo from the UN politely asking people to stop killing each other.
It's an ivory tower ideal that sounds like a great idea until you actually try implementing it. Then a bunch to other nations statesmen, crooks, and arms dealers are going to rub your nose in its impracticalities.

Other nations are pretty free and easy about the possession of powerful narcotics. Some even specialize in the creation of them and selling to other nations that outlaw them. Pretty much every civilized nation has banned these hard narcotics.

By your logic, we should simply make them all legal since black marketeers and foreign importers are going to get them into the country.

Guns are no different and should be treated no different.

What are your views on self defense?

Does a person have a right to defend themself or does a person have to let the assault/rape/robbery happen to them because they have no right to self defense?

I feel that defense should be proportional. I have no problem with people having dogs, tasers, batons, clubs, alarm systems, pepper spray, bars on their windows and/or advanced hand to hand defensive training. I think these should be owned by everyone who feels the need to have them. None of these things are life-threatening in and of themselves.

Now, if some douchnozzle trains his dog to kill people trespassing on his land, then a healthy stint in prison is warranted, but I have no problem with people having defenses or defending themselves as long as they don't use it as an excuse to murder someone.

Correct... because the use of force has to be proportional. Thats why I preach training for gun owners and even possible mandatory military service for all citizens.

Not only would it get people training on use of firearms thus limiting irresponsible use of them it would also weed out some of those with mental health issues. If you're washed out of the process due to mental illness, you can't privately own a gun.

And lethal force can't be used to defend property... so Mr. Nozzle would be going to prison anyway.


Yes it can....castle doctrine.
 
2013-01-01 11:09:56 AM  

Farkomatic: Just out of curiosity - America is flooded with guns. And people have their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness revoked by some douchebag shooting them. But it's pretty tough to get a hand grenade and the general public isn't being terrorized with hand grenades.

Taking the second amendment into account, why don't I have access to hand grenades the same as almost any gun I want? Almost every argument that can be made for the individual right to bear arms can be made for hand grenades. Should we be allowed more access to hand grenades? Would more hand grenades make us safer?

Just asking the question...seems the restriction on hand grenades works better than more guns.


the hand grenades are a tad harder to aim, i'd imagine; and they are of relatively-newer make, ergo use. old habits die hard.*

but with the encouragement of forward-thinkers like you, who knows what tomorrow may bring!


*see what i did there?
 
2013-01-01 11:10:26 AM  
I'm a little late, but anyway...

img694.imageshack.us
 
Displayed 50 of 822 comments

First | « | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report