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.

(Breitbart.com)   FBI: more people get killed with hammers than guns. Still unknown: whether more houses are built with firearms or carpentry tools, how many people seduced by false equivalencies   (breitbart.com) divider line 431
    More: Dumbass  
•       •       •

8347 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Jan 2013 at 11:14 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-03 08:59:25 PM  

Uranus Is Huge!: simplicimus: Uranus Is Huge!: The_Sponge: Uranus Is Huge!: I would think that a responsible gun owner wouldn't mind jumping through a few hoops if it meant making it harder for criminals.


And what kind of "hoops" are you talking about?

Mandatory background checks for ALL firearms purchases.

That's a good place to start.

We already have that, except for the gun show loophole, which needs to be closed.

Perfect. Considering the nature of this loophole makes is very difficult to determine how many sales occur through it, I'd say that's the place to start.


Sorry, but that sadly isn't true. In October, I went to a reputable sporting goods store and bought myself a new shotgun and duck hunting license on the same day. They happened in that order and were separate purchases.

I had to produce a government issued photo ID and my hunter/firearm safety training certificate in order to buy the duck hunting license. I didn't have to produce dick for the shotgun, other than my wallet. And unlike an airplane ticket, I'm allowed to pay for it in cash. I did register it, but there was ZERO background check as it isn't required. That's a shame.

The majority of legal gun-owners are reasonable people and do not resemble the stereotypes that some people wish them to be. It makes this debate much more entertaining for them that way.

But for the rest of us, we recognize that the truly politically feasible goal is to keep guns in the hands of the good guys, AND get them out of the hands of the bad guys. That means ending the gun show loophole, mandatory mental and criminal background checks of both parties before a transaction, and regular (maybe yearly) firearms permit recertification.

Regulate that all sales, including private sales, must have their paperwork notarized a local police department or at least a state certified gun dealer or before the transaction can complete. It'll basically be treated like a car title transfer, except all parties must have a valid license too. All transaction procedures should be regulated to include confirming the firearm's serial number and running a stolen gun check on every firearm.

Gun owners should also be required by law to report all stolen firearms in a timely fashion. Maintaining certification requires regularly checking all firearms are accounted for. Gun owners will be able to let the police know exactly what guns were stolen, including serial numbers (even if they forgot) because they'll be on file from the prior registration.

Finally, if someone chooses to ignore the rules and sells, fails to report stolen, or otherwise "loses" their gun without going through the legal steps, then if that firearm is used in the commission of a crime, they will be held at least partially accountable. Not for the crime itself, but for gross negligence.

This should help make burglarizing a home and stealing guns to be not so lucrative and help return more truly stolen guns back to their rightful owners. It should also end the era of loose gun laws that made Fast and Furious possible. It really gets me that Fox News was all in a tissy-fit that the 0FARTBAMA was sinisterly ALLOWING guns to go to Mexico.... Well, duh! It's no surprise guns were flowing into Mexico when any American meth head is perfectly within their legal right to buy 50 farking guns for "himself", take 3 steps outside the gun store, "decide" he doesn't want them anymore, and privately sell them (or "lose" them) to front men for Mexican drug cartels.

US citizens DO NOT have the right to privately sell firearms to people that have no 2nd amendment protection, and enabling criminals, foreign or otherwise, to shop for any gun they want with impunity is insane.
 
2013-01-03 09:33:53 PM  

oldass31: Uranus Is Huge!: simplicimus: Uranus Is Huge!: The_Sponge: Uranus Is Huge!: I would think that a responsible gun owner wouldn't mind jumping through a few hoops if it meant making it harder for criminals.


And what kind of "hoops" are you talking about?

Mandatory background checks for ALL firearms purchases.

That's a good place to start.

We already have that, except for the gun show loophole, which needs to be closed.

Perfect. Considering the nature of this loophole makes is very difficult to determine how many sales occur through it, I'd say that's the place to start.

Sorry, but that sadly isn't true. In October, I went to a reputable sporting goods store and bought myself a new shotgun and duck hunting license on the same day. They happened in that order and were separate purchases.

I had to produce a government issued photo ID and my hunter/firearm safety training certificate in order to buy the duck hunting license. I didn't have to produce dick for the shotgun, other than my wallet. And unlike an airplane ticket, I'm allowed to pay for it in cash. I did register it, but there was ZERO background check as it isn't required. That's a shame.

The majority of legal gun-owners are reasonable people and do not resemble the stereotypes that some people wish them to be. It makes this debate much more entertaining for them that way.

But for the rest of us, we recognize that the truly politically feasible goal is to keep guns in the hands of the good guys, AND get them out of the hands of the bad guys. That means ending the gun show loophole, mandatory mental and criminal background checks of both parties before a transaction, and regular (maybe yearly) firearms permit recertification.

Regulate that all sales, including private sales, must have their paperwork notarized a local police department or at least a state certified gun dealer or before the transaction can complete. It'll basically be treated like a car title transfer, except all parties must ...


Sounds like we agree. What am I missing?
 
2013-01-03 10:02:42 PM  

Uranus Is Huge!: oldass31:
But for the rest of us, we recognize that the truly politically feasible goal is to keep guns in the hands of the good guys, AND get them out of the hands of the bad guys. That means ending the gun show loophole, mandatory mental and criminal background checks of both parties before a transaction, and regular (maybe yearly) firearms permit recertification.

Regulate that all sales, including private sales, must have their paperwork notarized a local police department or at least a state certified gun dealer or before the transaction can complete. It'll basically be treated like a car title transfer, except all pa ...

Sounds like we agree. What am I missing?


Nothing we can't work out. It'd help if people in mass media learned a little more about guns. I was watching Piers Morgan on CNN talking about gun control. He had a panel of experts on. One said something like, "now relax, we don't want to take away the hunting guns that hunters are using and enjoying". Another chimed in, "just all the semi-automatic weapons, because those represent the majority of gun-related murders".

Hearing that scares the shiat out of hunters like me and makes me very apprehensive of people in mass media professing for more gun control when they keep spewing nuanced conflictions like that. Every firearm I own is used by me for hunting, is primarily marketed for hunting, and is a semi-automatic. My deer rifle is 45 years old. Guess what? Semi-automatic. My point is that by not being very clear when speaking about proposed regulations to such a culturally sensitive subject, what we'll get is a political climate that is ultimately toxic and destructive to the future of any sensible gun laws.

Just a word of caution to the Piers Morgans out there.
 
2013-01-03 10:02:49 PM  
Phinn:

They just want the only people who have guns to collect a government paycheck (which you and I will pay for, by the way).

They do this because they want everyone to be as dependent on the State as possible.

Dependent for the money supply. Dependent for retirement income. Dependent for old age medical care, and now for all medical care.


queencityfamilyman.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-01-03 10:22:13 PM  
If more sane people were armed, the crazy people would get off fewer shots.
 
2013-01-03 10:26:32 PM  

oldass31: Uranus Is Huge!: oldass31:
But for the rest of us, we recognize that the truly politically feasible goal is to keep guns in the hands of the good guys, AND get them out of the hands of the bad guys. That means ending the gun show loophole, mandatory mental and criminal background checks of both parties before a transaction, and regular (maybe yearly) firearms permit recertification.

Regulate that all sales, including private sales, must have their paperwork notarized a local police department or at least a state certified gun dealer or before the transaction can complete. It'll basically be treated like a car title transfer, except all pa ...

Sounds like we agree. What am I missing?

Nothing we can't work out. It'd help if people in mass media learned a little more about guns. I was watching Piers Morgan on CNN talking about gun control. He had a panel of experts on. One said something like, "now relax, we don't want to take away the hunting guns that hunters are using and enjoying". Another chimed in, "just all the semi-automatic weapons, because those represent the majority of gun-related murders".

Hearing that scares the shiat out of hunters like me and makes me very apprehensive of people in mass media professing for more gun control when they keep spewing nuanced conflictions like that. Every firearm I own is used by me for hunting, is primarily marketed for hunting, and is a semi-automatic. My deer rifle is 45 years old. Guess what? Semi-automatic. My point is that by not being very clear when speaking about proposed regulations to such a culturally sensitive subject, what we'll get is a political climate that is ultimately toxic and destructive to the future of any sensible gun laws.

Just a word of caution to the Piers Morgans out there.


Can we agree that handguns are for shooting targets or people?
 
2013-01-04 12:35:41 AM  

Uranus Is Huge!: oldass31: Uranus Is Huge!:
Sounds like we agree. What am I missing?

Nothing we can't work out. It'd help if people in mass media learned a little more about guns. I was watching Piers Morgan on CNN talking about gun control. He had a panel of experts on. One said something like, "now relax, we don't want to take away the hunting guns that hunters are using and enjoying". Another chimed in, "just all the semi-automatic weapons, because those represent the majority of gun-related murders".

Hearing that scares the shiat out of hunters like me and makes me very apprehensive of people in mass media professing for more gun control when they keep spewing nuanced conflictions like that. Every firearm I own is used by me for hunting, is primarily marketed for hunting, and is a semi-automatic. My deer rifle is 45 years old. Guess what? Semi-automatic. My point is that by not being very clear when speaking about proposed regulations to such a culturally sensitive subject, what we'll get is a political climate that is ultimately toxic and destructive to the future of any sensible gun laws.

Just a word of caution to the Piers Morgans out there.

Can we agree that handguns are for shooting targets or people?


Absolutely. There is a small percentage of hunters that actually use them for hunting game when regulations allow, but the reasons are exceedingly exceptional. And handguns represent a disproportionately large percent of gun-related homicides in the US. Kinda like motorcycle fatalities.
 
2013-01-04 12:45:12 AM  
Well then why aren't we talking about handguns instead of ARs and SKSs?
 
2013-01-04 01:11:42 AM  

Uranus Is Huge!: Well then why aren't we talking about handguns instead of ARs and SKSs?


Sadly, it's because these mass murderers are using AR-15s with some frequency and because the mass media is only interested in covering mass murder. The MSM doesn't really care if a dozen innocent black or latino kids are being randomly gunned down in his or her own neighborhood every single day. And ostensibly, neither does the audience, or at least not enough to make a difference.

If the Sandy Hook shooter had used handguns like the Virginia Tech shooter did, things might be different. Also, extremists aren't interested in steering conversation and debating for the sake of finding common ground and a trying workable solution. They're in it for the sake of debating, arguing, and calling each other "idiot".
 
2013-01-04 01:48:58 AM  

oldass31: Uranus Is Huge!: oldass31: Uranus Is Huge!:
Can we agree that handguns are for shooting targets or people?

Absolutely. There is a small percentage of hunters that actually use them for hunting game when regulations allow, but the reasons are exceedingly exceptional. And handguns represent a disproportionately large percent of gun-related homicides in the US. Kinda like motorcycle fatalities.


Point of order - I carry a handgun (.44 Redhawk) out in the Alaskan bush for defense, not hunting. Grant you, my 300 winmag or 308 would be better up against a 600+ pound bear, but it's hard to strap a hunting rifle to your hip while tending camp.

Not nit-picking, just saying handguns are useful for more than just "killin people".
 
2013-01-04 03:14:41 AM  
Given the NRA's very specific definition of rifle as opposed to any other firearm, I'm not surprised.

Statistical deception is still lying. Because most NRA members consider themselves to be Christians, I sure they are using Jesus as an example. After all, Jesus was a f**king liar just like them. Am I right? I have yet to have a "Christian" prove to me, by example, that Jesus was not a liar. Ever.
 
2013-01-04 03:24:49 AM  

Skyd1v: oldass31: Uranus Is Huge!: oldass31: Uranus Is Huge!:
Can we agree that handguns are for shooting targets or people?

Absolutely. There is a small percentage of hunters that actually use them for hunting game when regulations allow, but the reasons are exceedingly exceptional. And handguns represent a disproportionately large percent of gun-related homicides in the US. Kinda like motorcycle fatalities.

Point of order - I carry a handgun (.44 Redhawk) out in the Alaskan bush for defense, not hunting. Grant you, my 300 winmag or 308 would be better up against a 600+ pound bear, but it's hard to strap a hunting rifle to your hip while tending camp.

Not nit-picking, just saying handguns are useful for more than just "killin people".


Yes, of course. While you're not using the .44 explicitly for hunting, your reason for carrying it is most certainly exceptional! And there are always exceptions. Without exception. Exception.
 
2013-01-04 08:08:20 AM  

Chummer45: The only thing you can use a 5.56 assault rifle to hunt is maybe coyotes or other varmints


That must explain why its the weapon of choice for the US Military to kill human beings up to 500 yards+ out... because its only good for shooting varmints.

Im not suggesting its a popular hunting rifle. I'm just suggesting you're stupid. It's none of your damn business why I have an ar-15. Maybe I enjoy target shooting a weapon you can drive nails with using iron sites at 300 yards. Maybe after 8 years in the Marines I'm entitled to own a dummed-down version of the weapon I used for 8 years.
Maybe I feel that yes.. at some point in the next 50 years of my life...a few more fiscal cliffs & deficits soaring until our economy callapses or we get invaded successfully... its concievable that defending my home & family from everything from roving gangs of ararchal (is that a word ? ) vagrants... or foreign troops might actually be a possibilty.

Maybe you're only suggesting we just take ar-15/ ak-47s... which in itself is bad enough. But the legislation reaches MUCH further. Actually reading and understanding what they're trying to ban would shut most poeple up that keep saying "BUT THEY ONLY WANT MILITARY ASSAULT RIFLES??? WHY DO U NEED AN UZI >?????"

But explaining it to someone that clearly doesn't understand guns can be exhausting.
 
2013-01-04 08:16:46 AM  

rosebud_the_sled: Given the NRA's very specific definition of rifle as opposed to any other firearm, I'm not surprised.

Statistical deception is still lying. Because most NRA members consider themselves to be Christians, I sure they are using Jesus as an example. After all, Jesus was a f**king liar just like them. Am I right? I have yet to have a "Christian" prove to me, by example, that Jesus was not a liar. Ever.


Assault rifles are rifles genius and are therefore included in these statistics. Note... INCLUDED... not entirely responsibile.. just INCLUDED.

You're trying to legislate out of existence a type of weapon that... a couple tragic incidents aside... is NOT responsible for a statistically signifigant number of deaths. You are doing this NOT in the name of saving lives... but in the name of making scary looking guns illegal and disarming a signifigant percentage of the population which interestingly enough tend to be people on the opposite end of the political spectrum from the folks proposing & supporting the legislation.
 
2013-01-04 08:32:51 AM  

BHShaman: Chummer45: 5.56

You don't use 5.56 ASSAULT (anything) to hunt. Assault = full auto.

The use of the word ASSAULT is a slight of hand marketing term used to attach thoughts of military and terrorist activities to otherwise non-descript semi-auto firearms.

Instead of saying things like; detachable magazine, folding stock, high capacity magazines that people would hear about and say... "well, my little .22 has a detachable high capacity magazine".... they say ASSAULT RIFLE.

My little .22. Remington Nylon 66 from the 70s will be negated.

Amazingly some people use firearms for target shooting, not activities that actually kill anything.
For those people the 5.56 is a good medium round. Not quite so light as the .22 but not so expensive as the .30cal rounds.

I know it escapes some people, but not all firearms are used for hunting/killing...
as not all vehicles are used for commuting back and forth to work.



Oh ok. I see. You don't like the term "assault" because it makes AR-15s seem more scary. You want to make them seem less scary/effective. Good PR effort on your part.

I was just wondering one thing, though.... what exactly does the "AR" stand for in "AR-15?"
 
2013-01-04 08:36:12 AM  
Jesus, this thread is full of derp.

"BUT GUNS ARE REALLY COOL AND FUN! MY HOBBY IS TOTALLY WORTH HAVING SO MANY MASS SHOOTINGS! DON'T TREAD ON ME!"

Everyone keep farking that chicken.
 
2013-01-04 08:36:29 AM  

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: DeathCipris: Alright everyone, repeat after me.

Everything can be used as a weapon. There is no way you are going to stop people from killing each other. It is human nature.

What happens when you take away anything remotely dangerous?
See Kung Fu

Is it wrong that I want to see a grown man stroll into a school and try to kung-fu everybody to death?

No. It's not wrong. Because it would be comical as all hell, I'm certain.


I think you covered it here.
 
2013-01-04 08:42:00 AM  

Chummer45: Jesus, this thread is full of derp.

"BUT GUNS ARE REALLY COOL AND FUN! MY HOBBY IS TOTALLY WORTH HAVING SO MANY MASS SHOOTINGS! DON'T TREAD ON ME!"

Everyone keep farking that chicken.


The mass shootings are a consequence of freedom. The only way to reduce the danger is to reduce freedoms. I err on the side of not reducing freedoms for the chirrin.

/not being snarky.
 
2013-01-04 08:46:20 AM  

Chummer45:
Oh ok. I see. You don't like the term "assault" because it makes AR-15s seem more scary. You want to make them seem less scary/effective. Good PR effort on your part.

I was just wondering one thing, though.... what exactly does the "AR" stand for in "AR-15?"


AR stands for ArmaLite (the company that designed it along with many other AR-# guns). Don't let that stop your derp though.


The AR-15 is based on the 7.62 mm AR-10, designed by Eugene Stoner, Robert Fremont, and L. James Sullivan of the Fairchild ArmaLite corporation.[9] The AR-15 was developed as a lighter, 5.56 mm version of the AR-10. The "AR" in AR-15 comes from the ArmaLite name. ArmaLite's AR-1, AR-5, and some subsequent models were bolt action rifles, the AR-7 a semiautomatic survival rifle and there are shotguns and pistols whose model numbers include the "AR" prefix.[9]
 
2013-01-04 08:47:53 AM  

rosebud_the_sled: Given the NRA's very specific definition of rifle as opposed to any other firearm, I'm not surprised.

Statistical deception is still lying. Because most NRA members consider themselves to be Christians, I sure they are using Jesus as an example. After all, Jesus was a f**king liar just like them. Am I right? I have yet to have a "Christian" prove to me, by example, that Jesus was not a liar. Ever.


By the NRA do you actually mean the FBI? Because that is where the statistics come from. But please continue ranting on.
 
2013-01-04 09:09:18 AM  

Chummer45: "BUT GUNS ARE REALLY COOL AND FUN! MY HOBBY IS TOTALLY WORTH HAVING SO MANY MASS SHOOTINGS! DON'T TREAD ON ME!"


Actually, it's far more important to be able to kill people who are trying to kill you.

But please, continue with your argument about how rare it is that someone may try to kill you, at the same time you go hysterical about how frequently people are being killed.
 
2013-01-04 09:11:34 AM  

oldass31: Uranus Is Huge!: Well then why aren't we talking about handguns instead of ARs and SKSs?

Sadly, it's because these mass murderers are using AR-15s with some frequency and because the mass media is only interested in covering mass murder. The MSM doesn't really care if a dozen innocent black or latino kids are being randomly gunned down in his or her own neighborhood every single day. And ostensibly, neither does the audience, or at least not enough to make a difference.

If the Sandy Hook shooter had used handguns like the Virginia Tech shooter did, things might be different. Also, extremists aren't interested in steering conversation and debating for the sake of finding common ground and a trying workable solution. They're in it for the sake of debating, arguing, and calling each other "idiot".


More to the point, its about who owns the guns.
Conservatives currently own a big number of the gun votes (gun ownership being big among traditionalists). Liberals are attacking the evil AR as an inroad into banning what the left sees as a luxury item.
Unfortunately for them, machining has advanced and turned the armalite into the standard for civilian carbines. The right sees the left going after the very hunting and self defense rifles they previously claimed to have no interest in.

This brings out the slippery slope and don't tread on me responses.
Emotional arguments beget equally emotional counter arguments.
 
2013-01-04 09:17:07 AM  

oldass31:

Sorry, but that sadly isn't true. In October, I went to a reputable sporting goods store and bought myself a new shotgun and duck hunting license on the same day. They happened in that order and were separate purchases.

I had to produce a government issued photo ID and my hunter/firearm safety training certificate in order to buy the duck hunting license. I didn't have to produce dick for the shotgun, other than my wallet. And unlike an airplane ticket, I'm allowed to pay for it in cash. I did register it, but there was ZERO background check as it isn't required. That's a shame.



*cough*bullshiat*cough*

A "reputable" sporting goods store buying and selling firearms has a Fedeal Firearms license and is required by Federal law to have you complete a form 4473 and submit you to a background check. Some states have an exemption for the background check portion for certain permit holders but they are not exempt from the 4473 process.

A non-reputable sporting goods store buys and sell firearms without a Federal Firearms license and would not follow the process outlined above.

So did you go to a reputable store or not? Please provide the name of the establishment and the state in which it operates.

Also, please tell us how you registered your new shotgun.
 
2013-01-04 09:23:29 AM  

way south: This brings out the slippery slope and don't tread on me responses.
Emotional arguments beget equally emotional counter arguments.


As I see it, it's more like "The Left has so thoroughly demonstrated that they are fully prepared to lie about their true agenda that their pattern of deception begets everyone else realizing that negotiating with liars and control freaks is pointless and deciding not to trust them any longer."

This is what happens when you have no credibility. Watching a Progg attempt to persuade you that his latest Progg agenda idea is motivated by a sincere desire to save lives, it's sorta like watching a guy who weighs 600 pounds and eats KFC morning, noon and night trying to sell you his quick and easy fitness and nutrition plan. No credibility.

When you run out of credibility, the only thing left to get your way is brute force.
 
2013-01-04 09:29:42 AM  

Delectatio Morosa: oldass31:

Sorry, but that sadly isn't true. In October, I went to a reputable sporting goods store and bought myself a new shotgun and duck hunting license on the same day. They happened in that order and were separate purchases.

I had to produce a government issued photo ID and my hunter/firearm safety training certificate in order to buy the duck hunting license. I didn't have to produce dick for the shotgun, other than my wallet. And unlike an airplane ticket, I'm allowed to pay for it in cash. I did register it, but there was ZERO background check as it isn't required. That's a shame.


*cough*bullshiat*cough*

A "reputable" sporting goods store buying and selling firearms has a Fedeal Firearms license and is required by Federal law to have you complete a form 4473 and submit you to a background check. Some states have an exemption for the background check portion for certain permit holders but they are not exempt from the 4473 process.

A non-reputable sporting goods store buys and sell firearms without a Federal Firearms license and would not follow the process outlined above.

So did you go to a reputable store or not? Please provide the name of the establishment and the state in which it operates.

Also, please tell us how you registered your new shotgun.


Yes, I was just questioning his story myself. As a FFL holder, I can tell you NOTHING goes out of my shop without a call for a NICS check first. M&P 15 or single shot 410. Doesn't matter.
 
2013-01-04 12:15:43 PM  

thetubameister: thetubameister:

Banning an AR-15, however, doesn't seem ludicrous, because the cowardly could still own their 12 gauge or rifle and still "hunt" and "target practice"... but they wouldn't take out quite so many bystanders when someone takes their parking spot. And they'd still have their "kicking Uncle Sam's ass" fantasies to masturbate to.


I own an "AR-15", and I enjoy shooting it at the range. 1.How exactly does that make me a coward and 2. since it is legal for me to own and use responsibly, why wouldn't I find it ludicrous to have my own personal property banned?

You want to ban stuff, fine...but maybe try and make a point beyond "gun owners are horrible people".
 
2013-01-04 02:26:35 PM  

Mikey1969: thetubameister: Mikey1969: thetubameister: Actually, this diatribe and "powerful" defense marks one of us a coward... and it ain't me. I know, for instance, that CT was an anomaly. And I also think you will get what you expect from people and society. So... I'm not planning to be shot, and I'm not walk around afraid with a weapon. Courage... what does it mean again?

Go practice your bogeyman removal device...

So what you're saying is that you don't have an answer...

Thanks for playing.

He asked a question?

Here, I'll quote it for you and explain how you would recognize a question in a crowded room...

Why is target practice in quotes? Regardless of WHY someone is at the range, whether it is to shot your pussy, paranoid, scared little church girl ass, or if it is just a hobby, they are still out improving their aim with the weapon. It's still target practice, no matter what you think of guns in general.

See that little symbol that has been bolded and supersized?
So which is it?

/^^^^^Look, it's another question mark!!^^^^^


Didn't think it merited a response... I thought it rhetorical... but I put target practice in quotes because it's practice not, IMHO for inanimate targets but for biological ones.
 
2013-01-04 02:43:32 PM  

thetubameister: Didn't think it merited a response... I thought it rhetorical... but I put target practice in quotes because it's practice not, IMHO for inanimate targets but for biological ones.


Good thing your humble opinion doesn't really matter, then.


BTW, it's STILL target practice, whether I'm going to shoot elk, or am content to plug away at paper targets. Not that I expect you to understand these higher grade concepts.
 
2013-01-04 02:48:04 PM  

Mikey1969: thetubameister: Didn't think it merited a response... I thought it rhetorical... but I put target practice in quotes because it's practice not, IMHO for inanimate targets but for biological ones.

Good thing your humble opinion doesn't really matter, then.


BTW, it's STILL target practice, whether I'm going to shoot elk, or am content to plug away at paper targets. Not that I expect you to understand these higher grade concepts.


Kind of like not being able to infer an obvious explanation...
 
KIA
2013-01-04 07:07:55 PM  

12monkeys: Keep pulling those stats out of your ass and falsely claiming that your source is the FBI! It's really helping your case, gun advocates!


Way to cherry-pick data from ten years ago when the rates have been falling for the past ten years. Check your own data post-2005 and after the expiration of the prior AWB.
 
2013-01-04 07:40:37 PM  

Phinn: This is what happens when you have no credibility. Watching a Progg attempt to persuade you that his latest Progg agenda idea is motivated by a sincere desire to save lives, it's sorta like watching a guy who weighs 600 pounds and eats KFC morning, noon and night trying to sell you his quick and easy fitness and nutrition plan. No credibility.


Not really, the KFC guy might have actually done some research in the interest of losing weight before he explodes like a water balloon full of grease. It's more like the guy tries to sell people on a weight loss pill that he proclaims truly works, because he tested it and lost weight down to a slim 180 pounds (no pictures, though), plus it totally doesn't have any tapeworm eggs in it, like all those other weight loss pills had.

/eating less and exercising is so old and busted
//bad for the environment too, the food you don't eat just ends up rotting, and the food you do eat is all GM to be low-calorie
 
Displayed 31 of 431 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
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