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.

(SocialNewsDaily)   Social app shows which Congress members have accepted gun lobby cash, and "you can tweet these elected officials to demand gun control legislation, call them out for hypocrisy, or heck, tell them 'job well done' if you're fond of the 2nd"   (socialnewsdaily.com) divider line 116
    More: Interesting, congresses, Illinois General Assembly, Brady Campaign, gun rights  
•       •       •

3885 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 Jan 2013 at 4:50 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-05 06:31:00 PM

jso2897: Damn, Drew. You're going to pump this gun thing till it's coont bleeds, aren't you?
[i18.photobucket.com image 384x400]


You realize they bleed anyway, right?
 
2013-01-05 06:35:29 PM

yingtong: Gun control policies from people who think like you invariably boil down to "rich people get guns, poor people don't"


Who said anything about the rich getting all the guns? I just think that it's grotesque that it's easier to get a gun than it is to get mental health care in the US.

IMO, all you really need is two guns max and that's it? One gun for each hand Mister Carbine McShooty.

What? You gonna wrap your wanger around a TOW Rocket Launcher as well as hold a .50 in each hand?
 
2013-01-05 06:35:41 PM
How 'bout we give you wacky liberals gay marriage and you agree to leave our guns alone.
 
2013-01-05 06:36:01 PM

TV's Vinnie: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." - 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America

This article was intended for:

A: Guys like this


or


B: Guys like this


I'm not sure which guys the article was intended for, but I DO know which guys I'd rather party with.
 
KIA
2013-01-05 06:50:20 PM

RandomAxe: centrist


I do not think that word means what you think it does.
 
2013-01-05 06:50:54 PM

CuttySupreme: How 'bout we give you wacky liberals gay marriage and you agree to leave our guns alone.


Ah jeez...the social conservative's heads would explode with a deal like that.

Sorta like the folks arming up to protect themselves and Real America™ from tyranny...while at the same time fighting any attempt to reduce the US Military's budget - that same military that the ever elusive tyrannical government would use to take their guns.
 
2013-01-05 06:53:20 PM

jso2897: Damn, Drew. You're going to pump this gun thing till it's coont bleeds, aren't you?


I propose a drinking game based on Fark gun threads.
 
2013-01-05 06:56:07 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: radarlove: Actually, I'm growing less fond of the 2nd as the conversation drags on.

Pro-gun folks are beginning to push the undecided and ambivalent like myself into the anit-gun fringes. They really aren't doing themselves any favors.

My spidey sense is telling me that you were pro gun control all along. Sorry, but while the gun control people are content to ignore the top 6 preventable causes of death, they're not convincing anyone who is truly impartial that they care about life, and they have absolutely no evidence to support the idea that an assault weapons ban will work, even though we tried one for 10 years.


I was never pro gun control, but I am leaning toward *some* now. I think that having a permit to acquire firearms should be mandatory for all guns, not just pistols.

Although, I still am having a tough time with how limited gun control would help against complete idiotic choices that some citizens make. Case in point Nancy Lanza.

I certainly don't want a ban on assault weapons. I have been looking at buying one myself, as they are fun to target shoot. Especially with a huge clip. Sadly, I probably won't buy one now that the prices and availability on the good ones is high and near nonexistent.
 
2013-01-05 07:00:58 PM

CuttySupreme: How 'bout we give you wacky liberals gay marriage and you agree to leave our guns alone.


How 'bout you mind your own business and quit giving guns to criminals and crazy people?
 
2013-01-05 07:03:34 PM
Especially with a huge clip.

Ugh, it's a MAGAZINE. Be a responsible gun owner and learn the difference
 
2013-01-05 07:20:01 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: CuttySupreme: How 'bout we give you wacky liberals gay marriage and you agree to leave our guns alone.

How 'bout you mind your own business and quit giving guns to criminals and crazy people?


In case you aren't aware, criminals usually obtain their guns illegally.
 
2013-01-05 07:21:29 PM

CuttySupreme: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: CuttySupreme: How 'bout we give you wacky liberals gay marriage and you agree to leave our guns alone.

How 'bout you mind your own business and quit giving guns to criminals and crazy people?

In case you aren't aware, criminals usually obtain their guns illegally.


Not from me, they don't.
 
2013-01-05 07:23:34 PM

juvandy: Especially with a huge clip.

Ugh, it's a MAGAZINE. Be a responsible gun owner and learn the difference


Or, you could choose to be more accepting that nothing here that has more than 10 sec of effort put into it. So, lighten up Francis.
 
2013-01-05 07:31:01 PM
I wasn't even that interested in owning an assault rifle until all of the hype...now I have to have one. Good job.
 
2013-01-05 07:32:36 PM

radarlove: Actually, I'm growing less fond of the 2nd as the conversation drags on.

Pro-gun folks are beginning to push the undecided and ambivalent like myself into the anit-gun fringes. They really aren't doing themselves any favors.


I know.

I've done my share of plinking and whatnot over the years, but since Connecticut, the pro-gun people and friends are really showing a side I never noticed before. I hate to say it, but many of them are acting downright paranoid and are showing a thinner skin than even I have.

When you're trying to show how responsible gun owners can be, I don't think flying off the handle at every opportunity and using hyperbole, exaggeration, and silly logic tricks to try and make your point does anything but alienate those without Confederate flags in their bedroom or gun racks on their trucks.
 
2013-01-05 07:32:52 PM
Or, you could choose to be more accepting that nothing here that has more than 10 sec of effort put into it. So, lighten up Francis.

In my experience, people not willing to learn the correct terminology are also the same people who don't follow the safety rules strictly, and I end up getting a gun pointed at me from across the range, or a gun shot from behind me at said range (luckily it just put a hole in the roof, not in me). So no, I won't lighten up, douchenozzle. Do it right, do it safe, or don't do it.
 
2013-01-05 07:33:01 PM

m0ther_farker: I wasn't even that interested in owning an assault rifle until all of the hype...now I have to have one. Good job.


You still won't own an assault rifle, not for less than 5 digits. You'll have an "assault weapon".
 
2013-01-05 07:37:07 PM
Politicians sell there votes? Who knew?
 
2013-01-05 07:57:53 PM

SomeoneDumb: I've done my share of plinking and whatnot over the years, but since Connecticut, the pro-gun people and friends are really showing a side I never noticed before. I hate to say it, but many of them are acting downright paranoid and are showing a thinner skin than even I have.


Because being concerned that people are going to take our rights away, when there's a lot of people saying they want to take our rights away is "paranoid".

SomeoneDumb: When you're trying to show how responsible gun owners can be, I don't think flying off the handle at every opportunity and using hyperbole, exaggeration, and silly logic tricks to try and make your point does anything but alienate those without Confederate flags in their bedroom or gun racks on their trucks.


Who's being hyperbolic? Is it the people who point out it's unfair to punish hundreds of millions of Americans because such a small segment of Americans kills less people than are killed by alcohol each year? Or is it the people who discuss how much of a problem guns are, and that they should be banned as they drink their martinis?
 
2013-01-05 08:22:05 PM

SomeoneDumb: radarlove: Actually, I'm growing less fond of the 2nd as the conversation drags on.

Pro-gun folks are beginning to push the undecided and ambivalent like myself into the anit-gun fringes. They really aren't doing themselves any favors.

I know.

I've done my share of plinking and whatnot over the years, but since Connecticut, the pro-gun people and friends are really showing a side I never noticed before. I hate to say it, but many of them are acting downright paranoid and are showing a thinner skin than even I have.

When you're trying to show how responsible gun owners can be, I don't think flying off the handle at every opportunity and using hyperbole, exaggeration, and silly logic tricks to try and make your point does anything but alienate those without Confederate flags in their bedroom or gun racks on their trucks.


Actually I have heard these exaggerated responses from the other side of the isle. Hell, I was told to my face from someone that I used to respect "I think you should be sent to Gitmo. You own an AR-15, and only crazy militia types who want to overthrow the government, own those." So when us pro gun guys start getting worried, this is why.
 
2013-01-05 08:26:40 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: ...

Because being concerned that people are going to take our rights away, when there's a lot of people saying they want to take our rights away is "paranoid".


Seeing confiscation plans everywhere and responding furiously to anything that even hints at a discussion to consider things that can be done to deal with gun violence is something I consider paranoid, yeah. There's concern and then there's unhealthy concern.


Who's being hyperbolic? Is it the people who point out it's unfair to punish hundreds of millions of Americans because such a small segment of Americans kills less people than are killed by alcohol each year? Or is it the people who discuss how much of a problem guns are, and that they should be banned as they drink their martinis?


I was thinking mostly of all the "Obama's plan all along was to strip gun rights in his second term" or "Conn was a plot to begin confiscating legal weapons" conspiracy theories when I called some of the discussions hyperbolic. Not everything mentioned by gun supporters is outrageous, but some claims are and the insistency and frequency with which I see them repeated aren't doing much good for showing how reasonable gun owners are.
 
2013-01-05 08:32:18 PM
I'm going to say job well done. I actually believe in the 2nd amendment. No, I don't think tanks or SAWs are supported by the second amendment.

Btw, facts don't support control or the banning of semi automatic scary looking weapons.
 
2013-01-05 08:32:50 PM
Anyway, yeah, it's a hot issue with passion on both sides. I just think if everyone toned things down a handful of notches maybe we could talk.

Now I need to make sure my TV still works.
 
2013-01-05 08:35:11 PM

SomeoneDumb: Seeing confiscation plans everywhere and responding furiously to anything that even hints at a discussion to consider things that can be done to deal with gun violence is something I consider paranoid, yeah. There's concern and then there's unhealthy concern.


I think we've compromised enough by outlawing full auto weapons. It's time to find solutions that don't impact the 2nd amendment. I see a lot of people who are unwilling to recognize that the assault weapons ban of the 90's did nothing to curb related violence, and insist on further restrictions. It's willful ignorance, and I don't think anyone is "unreasonable" for refusing to entertain their ill informed notions.

SomeoneDumb: I was thinking mostly of all the "Obama's plan all along was to strip gun rights in his second term" or "Conn was a plot to begin confiscating legal weapons" conspiracy theories when I called some of the discussions hyperbolic. Not everything mentioned by gun supporters is outrageous, but some claims are and the insistency and frequency with which I see them repeated aren't doing much good for showing how reasonable gun owners are.


I don't believe I've seen anyone claim this. In fact, I only saw people assuming that this is what gun owners believe. Of course those people were pro gun control, which makes having a reasoned discussion with them rather difficult.
 
2013-01-05 08:41:05 PM

enforcerpsu: Btw, facts don't support control or the banning of semi automatic scary looking weapons.


In general, reality has a liberal bias, however on this subject conservatism is more in line with reality. It only shows that the left is just as willing to abandon facts and logic, when facts and logic don't support their desired opinion as the right has been over the past several years. It would be amusing if it wasn't so sad.
 
2013-01-05 08:57:46 PM
Bahahahaha the anti gun douchebaggery is strong in this thread.

The only thing I can say to the Anti's is that if you start the ball rolling by giving up one of "our" Constitutional rights regardless of your rationale.....be prepared for the government to take them all in turn based on your precedent.

Do I believe that civil rights are more important than the unfortunate taking of lives of some children by a sick wacko?
With a tear in my eye, I say yes.

That is all.
 
2013-01-05 09:14:56 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: CuttySupreme: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: CuttySupreme: How 'bout we give you wacky liberals gay marriage and you agree to leave our guns alone.

How 'bout you mind your own business and quit giving guns to criminals and crazy people?

In case you aren't aware, criminals usually obtain their guns illegally.

Not from me, they don't.


Of course they don't. Criminals love people like you who don't own firearms.
You've probably never even touched a gun and are terrified of them. You probably think the police will protect you when someone breaks into your home.
 
2013-01-05 09:21:16 PM

CuttySupreme: Criminals love people like you who don't own firearms.


Not the ones looking for guns.

/or money...
 
2013-01-05 09:32:09 PM

juvandy: Or, you could choose to be more accepting that nothing here that has more than 10 sec of effort put into it. So, lighten up Francis.

In my experience, people not willing to learn the correct terminology are also the same people who don't follow the safety rules strictly, and I end up getting a gun pointed at me from across the range, or a gun shot from behind me at said range (luckily it just put a hole in the roof, not in me). So no, I won't lighten up, douchenozzle. Do it right, do it safe, or don't do it.


Wow, quite the leap there. From terminology nazi to accusations of gun safety. Oh, and throwing in naughty word. Nothing says classy intellectual giant like pulling out swear words to make your point.

/Here is hoping "Sydney" means Australia.
 
2013-01-05 10:25:30 PM

CuttySupreme: How 'bout we give you wacky liberals gay marriage and you agree to leave our guns alone.


I would be willing to throw in the right to stir their guts with coat hangers, posses marijuana, and purchase sudaphed without infringement, just to let em know we're serious.

too much?
 
2013-01-05 10:26:47 PM
maybe even rape reduced air travel.
 
2013-01-05 10:30:12 PM
Look, I let them have my hand grenades and my Tommy gun. Now I can barely defend my home or hunt wild pigs.

Wild pigs. They haunt my soul.
 
2013-01-05 10:41:28 PM

Uranus Is Huge!: Look, I let them have my hand grenades and my Tommy gun. Now I can barely defend my home or hunt wild pigs.

Wild pigs. They haunt my soul.


You're not alone.
 
2013-01-05 10:42:30 PM
Sometimes I just have to smile when faced with anti-gun propagandists, regardless of the vicious statements they make, because I know from years of past experience in this debate that because of their deep rooted hypocrisy, they WILL inevitably make my pro-gun case for me. All I have to do is sit back and wait for them to contradict themselves...

After the Sandy Hook attacks, the NRA responded with the suggested measure of establishing armed security guards at public schools in order to ensure there is a defensive presence in place to meet any violent threat. I personally agree with the idea, though I believe it doesn't go far enough. Frankly, allowing teachers to legally carry on school grounds would be a much more effective deterrent, promoting the ability of average citizens to protect themselves rather than constantly relying on some uniformed official.

The Obama Administration, of course, responded negatively to the NRA's position and has yet to even address or acknowledge the idea of armed teachers. Obama shrugged off the NRA, claiming he was "skeptical" of the armed security concept, all while sending his own children to a private school protected by at least 11 armed sentries not counting Secret Service agents:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/12/23/School-Obama-s-Dau g hters-Attend-Has-11-Armed-Guards-Not-Counting-Secret-Service

So, Obama is "skeptical" of an armed presence at your children's school, but not his own children's school? Yes, it's incredibly hypocritical. My question to the president would be: If armed guards don't make a difference, why have your children surrounded by them? I would be interested to hear his response. Perhaps he believes his children are more important than our own...

Then there's that wretched gun grabbing swamp hag, Senator Diane Feinstein; a true anti-gun zealot who has openly admitted that if she thought she could get away with it, she would pursue the complete disarmament of the entire U.S. citizenry. The same zealot who after the Oklahoma City bombing had this to say at a senate hearing:

"I know the sense of helplessness that people feel. I know the urge to arm yourself because that's what I did. I was trained in firearms. I walked to the hospital when my husband was sick. I carried a concealed weapon and I made the determination if somebody was going to try and take me out, I was going to take them with me..."
Apparently she saw the need for firearms in the defense of her own life, but not the need for the average citizen to have the same opportunity.

And what about Senator Chuck Schumer, who called for the president to use the excuse of "national security" and terrorism to force through restrictive gun legislation? The man who also voted against a bill which would have prevented outside entities like the UN from asserting gun control treaties that affect the American public? Well, Chuck has his own concealed carry permit in the state of New York, of all places, and still continues his antigun rhetoric. Again, do they see themselves as part of a higher and more valuable class of people? How do they explain these contradictions in their position?

What about media gigolo Michael Moore and his theater of the absurd? Playing the role of gun fan while at the same time incessantly promoting gun control rhetoric using skewed information and disingenuous talking points? The same man who suggested that the sound of a racking shotgun on tape is as effective as having the real thing uses bodyguards armed with THE REAL THING, one of whom was recently arrested for carrying an unlicensed weapon into JFK Airport:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,144921,00.html#ixzz2FnQC65J3

But anti-gun propagandists with armed bodyguards are nothing new. In fact, anti-gun mayor Michael Bloomberg travels with a cadre of five to six bodyguards, all packing heat. Why do these people who say they despise guns and gun ownership continue surrounding themselves with the same "devilish weaponry"? It's simple; because the mere reality of gun ownership deters criminal attack. If it didn't, they wouldn't rely on firearms at all.

Apparently, this same fact has suddenly dawned on The Journal News in New York, which has received a flurry of attention (mostly negative) for their insane idea of publishing maps of New York suburban neighborhoods "outing" the names and addresses of all those who have concealed carry permits. The Journal News has yet to officially address why they chose to do this, but the paper is, needless to say, anti-gun; publishing articles that call for ALL firearms owners, not just those with CCW, to be cataloged and mapped:

http://www.lohud.com/article/20121223/NEWS04/312230056/The-gun-owner- n ext-door-What-you-don-t-know-about-the-weapons-in-your-neighborhood

http://www.lohud.com/article/20130104/OPINION/301040031/Editorial-Pus h -more-permit-data-free-gun-locks-too

Their rationale? All gun owners should be mapped so that anti-gun citizens can "know who their neighbors are" and the "possible danger that surrounds them". The assertion that the newspaper is making is that all gun owners should be treated as potential threats, like convicted pedophiles. Their philosophy is to consider us guilty until proven innocent.

It is an interesting and manipulative strategy. The intent is first to promote a national firearms database, which just happens to be a primary part of Diane Feinstein's coming gun control legislation, as well as to cultivate a kind of "culture of shame" surrounding gun ownership. The Journal News motto should be: "Own a gun? We'll make sure everyone knows what a monster you are..."

The paper follows with the argument that people should be allowed to know who in a neighborhood is armed so that they can make an "informed decision" on whether or not they want to live there. As I have stated in recent articles on the gun control issue, the anti-gun fears of terrified yuppies are not our concern. They should be required to control THEIR fear, not allowed to control OUR guns. Their fears do not and should not override our constitutional liberties, and frankly, I couldn't care less if they want to live in a gun free neighborhood or not.

Using the gun map philosophy, a universe of invasive collectivist enforcement becomes available. Why not, for instance, create a map of every person who has been diagnosed by a psychiatrist and given psychotropic medications? Since almost every person who has committed atrocities like Sandy Hook in the course of the past two decades was under the influence of psychotropics at the time it only follows that everyone on these drugs is a potential threat according to the logic of The Journal News. I suspect though that at least half of their staff, just like half of New York, is highly medicated, and probably would not endorse such a measure.

County Officials in New York State are now revolting against the gun map initiatives of The Journal News, denying them further information on permit holders in other counties in order to avoid possible danger to those citizens. Reuters has responded to this unexpectedly reasonable response by, surprise, attacking it:

http://blogs.reuters.com/jackshafer/2013/01/02/lets-not-go-crazy-over - publishing-gun-lists/

State officials denying The Journal access to permit holder names and addresses is so far one of the only sane things being done in the state of New York when it comes to the gun debate, but according to the Reuters opinion piece, such an action is "crazy". Is permit holder information a matter of public record? Yes, for now. Does that mean that The Journal News should be allowed to exploit that information to satiate their own personal zealotry while making it easy for criminals to devise threat assessments? The State of New York doesn't seem to think so. Honestly, if I was a non-gun owning citizen in New York, I would be much more upset at The Journal than if I was on their list. Essentially, the newspaper has just advertised who on their map is a potentially easy target...

Finally, displaying their own grand level of hypocrisy, The Journal News has hired ARMED security guards to protect them from the possible wrath of the angry populace they put at risk:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/02/us-usa-guns-newspaper-idUSB R E9010R820130102

Is the staff of the newspaper in danger? Well...yes, of course they are! That kind of blind idiocy and hubris tends to attract wild fury in response. However, the point remains; when faced with conceivable violence, they turned to the practical solution of armed intervention, just like ANYONE with any sense would. They admonish us for wanting the right to defend ourselves in the most efficient way available (private firearms ownership) while at the same time surrounding themselves with a shield of guns.

The gun grabber personality is interminably flawed, but it could be summarized thus:

They believe the whole of society should cater to their personal concerns. That we should give up our rights just to make them feel safer. And, that they are somehow a step above the rest of us, and do not need to practice what they preach. My question is, why should we go out of our way to please such weaklings and frauds? I have yet to hear a good reason...


http://www.alt-market.com/articles/1254-anti-gun-newspaper-hires-arme d -guards--reveals-its-own-hypocrisy
 
2013-01-05 10:43:52 PM
How come in addition to "Smart" and "Funny" Fark doesn't have a "Tard" button? We could use it for both sides of the aisle in these threads.
 
2013-01-05 10:44:19 PM
sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2013-01-05 10:45:38 PM
Since I rather like my constitutional rights, feel free to count me among the crowd that's ok with this.

/Well, not exactly OK with politicians taking money to do what they should have been doing for free.
/But its not like congress hasn't been taking money hand over fist for every other goddamned thing.
/At least we should know how much their votes are worth.
/Any plans to do this with the hundred and fifty million dollar insurance lobby? ...Or do they get a pass for being "pro-scam artist"?
 
2013-01-05 10:57:28 PM
In all the fevered rush to punish the American people with the loss or at least another huge infringement on their constitutional rights, how many people think that Lanza got those guns legaly and used a rifle to kill kids?

1) Adam Lanza was, like every single other shooter, on an SSRI drug. He stole those guns from his law abiding mother and killed her first.

2) With all the press about the scary looking rifle we are being led to believe that he used an AR-15 variant to quickly and efficiently kill small children. The truth is that while he had a rifle with him he left it in the car in the parking lot. He used a pair of 9mm pistols with standard capacity magazines to perform his crimes.

The real problem is NOT the guns. It is in fact the drugs. They are more pervasive than bottled water. We have a pill for everything. If drugs are so bad that we need to imprison people for their use and posession why do we have a pill for everything? SSRI drugs have a huge number of side effects. Suicide ideation is a major one. If you are going to leave early, why go alone? Is that thought a huge step for someone on a brain warping chemical?

Most of you who are begging to give up your rights are the same ones who screamed for Bushes head when it was plain that Saddam had nothing to do with 9-11.

Please think before you act. When you give up a right you never get it back.
 
2013-01-05 11:06:59 PM

m0ther_farker: I wasn't even that interested in owning an assault rifle until all of the hype...now I have to have one. Good job.


Food luck finding one for under $2k

/I've found ONE gun shop who got an M4orgery in
/$2800....no thanks
 
2013-01-05 11:09:33 PM

TV's Vinnie: Actually, that's a photo of the Ohio National Guard. You know, a MILITIA???


Actually THEY ARE NOT THE MILITIA, they are part of the US Military which most definitely is not the militia
 
2013-01-05 11:10:40 PM
Still no word on the gun-control lobby spending app?
 
2013-01-05 11:13:05 PM

Fail in Human Form: /$2800....no thanks


No shiat? I've got like 10 of them in the cabinet. Time to get to selling some of them off.
 
2013-01-05 11:19:58 PM

TV's Vinnie: ElLoco: As the first picture depicts soldiers in the military at a federal level... that would mean that out of the two choices you presented, it would be intended for selection (B).
Or do people really still believe that the founding fathers felt it necessary to include an amendment, within the Bill of Rights mind you, that guarantees the ability of the government to arm members of their own military? Seriously? Yea. I'm sure that's exactly what they were thinking when they were whipping up those first few amendments: "Hey, guys? You know this will probably never come up, but let's just say... what if, what if someone tries to make it illegal for our troops or law enforcement to possess firearms? Or to prevent the government of this shiny new nation from possessing and distributing arms as they see fit? See where I'm going with this guys? That could be a trainwreck if the civilian population decided to do that to us. We need to make sure this sort of thing is covered in one of these riders we're gonna attach to the front."

Right.

Actually, that's a photo of the Ohio National Guard. You know, a MILITIA???


Which can be under the command of POTUS with the stroke of a pen. Can you list out the rights in the Bill of Rights and identify which ones were rights that the government has and not people?
 
2013-01-05 11:20:16 PM

radarlove: Actually, I'm growing less fond of the 2nd as the conversation drags on.

Pro-gun folks are beginning to push the undecided and ambivalent like myself into the anit-gun fringes. They really aren't doing themselves any favors.


I'm still pro-2nd Amendment and always will be, but I do not feel so eager to ever give any money to the NRA anymore.
 
2013-01-05 11:21:06 PM

Molavian: Fail in Human Form: /$2800....no thanks

No shiat? I've got like 10 of them in the cabinet. Time to get to selling some of them off.


Put 9 of them up on gun broker and buy a new car.

/Prices are insane right now
 
2013-01-05 11:21:12 PM

Azlefty: TV's Vinnie: Actually, that's a photo of the Ohio National Guard. You know, a MILITIA???

Actually THEY ARE NOT THE MILITIA, they are part of the US Military which most definitely is not the militia


Compare the number of foreign invaders repelled by privately owned handguns to the number of heads blown off due to "nubian Moments".

I really don't see how the 2nd Amendment has come in handy.
 
2013-01-05 11:23:41 PM

TV's Vinnie: Azlefty: TV's Vinnie: Actually, that's a photo of the Ohio National Guard. You know, a MILITIA???

Actually THEY ARE NOT THE MILITIA, they are part of the US Military which most definitely is not the militia

Compare the number of foreign invaders repelled by privately owned handguns to the number of heads blown off due to "nubian Moments".

I really don't see how the 2nd Amendment has come in handy.


"The beauty of the second amendment is that it won't be needed until they try to take it." - Thomas Jefferson
 
2013-01-05 11:24:14 PM

Nemo's Brother: radarlove: Actually, I'm growing less fond of the 2nd as the conversation drags on.

Pro-gun folks are beginning to push the undecided and ambivalent like myself into the anit-gun fringes. They really aren't doing themselves any favors.

I'm still pro-2nd Amendment and always will be, but I do not feel so eager to ever give any money to the NRA anymore.


Should say ever. I have not given NRA any money in the past.
 
2013-01-05 11:26:41 PM

simon_bar_sinister: 1) Adam Lanza was, like every single other shooter, on an SSRI drug. He stole those guns from his law abiding mother and killed her first.

2) With all the press about the scary looking rifle we are being led to believe that he used an AR-15 variant to quickly and efficiently kill small children. The truth is that while he had a rifle with him he left it in the car in the parking lot. He used a pair of 9mm pistols with standard capacity magazines to perform his crimes.


He took the weapons from the home he shared with a responsible gun owner.

And you're wrong about which guns he used. He left a shotgun in the car.

The rest of your post is equally useful.
 
2013-01-05 11:28:41 PM
Another thing I've noticed is that the gun folks don't seem to mind derping themselves into such a foaming frenzy that prices shoot through the roof. They all claim it's going to make them rich, but there have to be buyers. And the casual buyer isn't the one paying two grand for an SKS.
 
Displayed 50 of 116 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report