violentsalvation: doglover: Anti-gun people are like creationists.

"I don't know anything and I have no experience, but based on some crap I heard once on TV and some youtube videos I didn't watch the whole way through here's Jesus riding a dinosaur a bunch of things that won't stop crime but would me feel good because I'm very ignorant."

They would no longer be anti-gun people if they would take the time to learn about the guns that they are so very afraid of, the existing gun laws, and the blah weapons sparse appearance in violent crime.

But they won't do that anymore than creationists will pass a science class.

You can lead a fool to water, but you can't make him think.

way south: Princess Ryans Knickers: Pro-gun people are like creationists:

Anti-gun people are even more like creationists.
They have a theory they've never seen work in America but will gladly provide unrelated examples from other nations as proof.

/specific nations anyway.
/the moment we start pulling up the full list they go Bevets on your arse.

And just like Creationists, their idiocy and/or ignorance does not automatically make the other side sane.

Here is an idea for you lib gun haters out there.
We divide off the country, put everyone that hates guns, wants them banned on
one side of the country. Put the gun lovers on the other side. Then erect a 100 FOOT
wall. 50 feet high, and 50 feet deep. NO ONE is allowed to move from one side or
the other. Then, in a few years we see how many people on the gun lovers side end up
dead from "bad guys", versus how many anti gun lovers are still alive, have any of their
property etc. In a few years, the pro gun lovers can then come tear down the wall, and
have the fun of shooting up the bad guys on the anti gun lovers side, because, once
the bad guys find out there is absolutely NO WEAPONS on the anti gun side, they will
have a field day raping and destroying everything on the anti gun side.

way south: Prince

But we have seen the pro-gun theory work.. in Somalia!

Surpheon: Based on current trend lines, deaths by guns will surpass deaths from automobile accidents in the US by 2015.

Yeah. That'll happen.

Without Fail: I spend my time deep stroking my curly red-haired bubble butt equipped wife.

I see no sense in banning or taxing guns. First, unreasonable taxation as a means if societal control was the reason America started in the first place. Second, weapon technology has been the primary driver of human success since we were smart enough to use then. Denial of any part of human essence, and yes I am claiming that weaponry is an inalienable part of human nature, is a waste of time. The 2nd amendment was not a mistake nor was it wrong at the time nor is it wrong today. It's the basic right of a person to be able to equip themselves with the most efficient individual weaponry that humans have been able to mass produce so far. However, we are hundreds of years away from the time it was written and somehow we are less civilized. Guns are not new technology but we have lost respect and understanding of what it means to use lethal force. Education and discipline are the tools we need to use to stim irrational violence. It is not a problem that can ever be eliminated but focusing on the tools and not the human wielding them is the wrong approach.

Also how close are we to ray guns? I'm tired of bullets.

aegean: Once again, dumbmitter, the 2nd amendment is not about hunting.

Lately I've been reading that it's a response to when the Brits tried to ban gun ownership in the Colonies, so I guess it's also like when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor.

Oh look, it's this thread.

DubtodaIll: Also how close are we to ray guns?

Ray guns don't work in atmosphere.

duffblue: If gun control advocates want to actually have meaningful discussion and debate about the "assault weapon" and "high capacity" ban, they MUST address these questions

Holy shiat. I think I briefly dated you in college.

If you want to protect gun rights, you need to suggest why they are worth protecting even at the cost of kindergarterners being literally blown to pieces by a crazy guy with a military assault weapon (one with excellent gun control - he put in range time from the reports) .

Sorry, 20 dead kindergartners puts the ball in your court a hell of a lot more than a black teen armed with a pack of Skittles. If you don't comprehend how, you have completely lost the battle. It's just a matter of time before you lose your gun rights. Welcome to a meritocracy. Stupid tends to lose in the long run.

neenerist: Without Fail: I spend my time deep stroking my curly red-haired bubble butt equipped wife.

[i48.tinypic.com image 450x505]

I admit that the hair is about the same. Everything else in that picture is horribly different.

p51d007: We divide off the country, put everyone that hates guns, wants them banned on
one side of the country.

Why not just split off the states that have the toughest gun control laws now rather than dividing it 50/50? With the exception of Texas, you'll have just made a third world nation with an economy smaller than Mexico's. But I'm sure it's just coincidence those lib states have higher average income, property values, industry, education level, etc...

FlashHarry: i wonder if adam lanza had one on order...

I doubt it.. now Nancy on the other hand probably had 2 already in transit.

Dancin_In_Anson: FlashHarry: FTFY

You know, I'm curious about something here. There seem to be a few of you who have deemed themselves penis experts and I can only assume that you are one of them seeing as you have made such a post. Since you are such an aficionado of the penis and the sizes of them when it comes to the types of firearms that one might or might not own, how exactly do you determine what the firearm/penis size is? I mean does an average dick qualify for a .22 single shot rifle or maybe a Derringer handgun and a bigger wang get you a Red Rider BB gun while a smaller dangle score you a larger caliber weapon? Or does there some other criteria that you use not based on size vs caliber but size vs rate of fire? How many penises did you study to arrive at your determination? Did you consider them while flaccid or turgid? Was this done in person or were lots of pictures enough for you?  If in person did you hold them or was a good long look enough? One of the guys I work with is in the market for a new handgun. Perhaps he could send you a picture of his cock and you could tell him what would work best for him. Let me know eh?

Here we have lucked out and been granted a glimpse into the mind of the ever-petulant internet gun jockey. When presented with a clearly juvenile but ultimately harmless jab at the "stereotypical gun owner"'s penis size he does not ignore. He does not resort to internet tough guy speak (initially at least). He immediately jumps into a diatribe about cocks in an attempt - in his mind - to 1) showcase the perceived obsession with male genitalia that gun control advocates display and 2) hopes to belittle the offending party by implying that they have a predilection to penis, hoping this will be taken as a slight to their manhood. What the internet gun jockey fails to realize is that in his own post he has mentioned penis far more than the initial offender ever did and at the same time he has sunk to a level of debate equivalent to, "No you're gay!" In short, the internet gun jockey has not only embarrassed himself to anyone other than those who would react upon hearing his speech in a manner not unlike, "You tell um Skeeter!" but also has not succeeded in enlarging the size of his microphallus. And the sad March of the Derp continues with us only able to be witnesses.

Surpheon: military assault weapon

AR-15 = millitary assault weapon



My sides are killing me! Keep talking. I haven't heard anyone this dumb since... well yesterday when that idiot they dug up for Piers Morgan to yell at was on TV, but you're even dumber than he is. It's great!

Lenny_da_Hog: They are not intentionally criminal cases -- things like DUI aren't considered intentionally criminal. If you intentionally murder someone with your car,

What happened to the arguement that the majority of guns used to kill people are stolen? Adam Lanza's mom was intentionally criminal when she stockpiled military grade hardware and didn't properly secure it from her crazy son?

Seriously, do you think this is a winning argument you're making? It's like you're a Mormon in Utah.

doglover: Anti-gun people are like creationists.
So this is a Linux versus Microsoft versus Google versus Apple thread?

Those who beat their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not.

what the fark is wrong with people, why would you need or want that? I'm sorry but that's excessively stupid and can only result in bad things

anarchy_x: Those who beat their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not.

Not when they use some of what they grow to support a proper military under civilian control. But that's just reality.

Off to bed for me. The Internet Tough Guys sure showed me good.

/Actually support gun rights, but just barely now I'm getting a feel for the depth of idiocy on this side

doglover: DubtodaIll: Also how close are we to ray guns?

Ray guns don't work in atmosphere.

Aw man really? Well why the hell not? I'm just antsy for the next step forward in personal weapon technology. And no strapping a computer to a bullet firing gun doesn't count. I'm talking lasers or electromagnetic manipulation or deatomization or something we don't even have words for yet.

vpb: oldfarthenry: Wouldn't it be easier (& cheaper) to just learn how to aim guns? You'd have to stop waving them above your head while you pontificate to do it.

Nah.  Not macho enough for the little Rambos.

R.A.Danny: FlashHarry: i wonder if adam lanza had one on order...

Nah, you can't hit the side of a school from the inside using one of those.

It would be great for a flock of first graders though.

Not really. After the first five rounds or so the recoil would have you shooting over them and into the wall.

I own one of these and it's incredibly fun, but expensive to shoot.

Surpheon: duffblue: If gun control advocates want to actually have meaningful discussion and debate about the "assault weapon" and "high capacity" ban, they MUST address these questions

Holy shiat. I think I briefly dated you in college.

If you want to protect gun rights, you need to suggest why they are worth protecting even at the cost of kindergarterners being literally blown to pieces by a crazy guy with a military assault weapon (one with excellent gun control - he put in range time from the reports) .

Sorry, 20 dead kindergartners puts the ball in your court a hell of a lot more than a black teen armed with a pack of Skittles. If you don't comprehend how, you have completely lost the battle. It's just a matter of time before you lose your gun rights. Welcome to a meritocracy. Stupid tends to lose in the long run.

What military uses a semiautomatic ar-15? The US is a nation that suffers 75,000 alcohol related deaths a year. A few dead kids is a drop in the barrel in a nation responsible for the deaths of millions due to imperialism. Nice treyvon reference, I bet you think it's okay to assault somebody for following you down the street.

p51d007: Here is an idea for you lib gun haters out there.
We divide off the country, put everyone that hates guns, wants them banned on
one side of the country. Put the gun lovers on the other side. Then erect a 100 FOOT
wall. 50 feet high, and 50 feet deep. NO ONE is allowed to move from one side or
the other. Then, in a few years we see how many people on the gun lovers side end up
dead from "bad guys", versus how many anti gun lovers are still alive, have any of their
property etc. In a few years, the pro gun lovers can then come tear down the wall, and
have the fun of shooting up the bad guys on the anti gun lovers side, because, once
the bad guys find out there is absolutely NO WEAPONS on the anti gun side, they will
have a field day raping and destroying everything on the anti gun side.

EXCEPT there is a big giant flaw in your hypothetical scenerio which you didn;t take into account. I would assume said bad guys are also 'gun lovers' therefore most if not all of them would be on your side. Have fun dealing with all the gun lovers who are members of MS-13, Bloods, Crips and your paranoid racist anti govermment militia types.
I myself am not anti gun but in your 'experiment' I think I would rather go to the no-gun side of the fence since as you said no one from each side can cross over.

aegean: Once again, dumbmitter, the 2nd amendment is not about hunting.

It's also not about self defense, over throwing the federal government, or some other ridiculous horseshiat. But that doesn't stop the Gun Lobby from repeating that and the hunting garbage over and over and over again. But then the NRA only gives a damn about selling guns and gun accessories, and nothing else, and they will do and say anything to push that agenda...logic or classrooms full of dead children be damned.

One of my pets is diabetic. In order to purchase the tiny ass syringes needed to administer her 2 insulin shots per day, I have to show 2 forms of ID and play 20 questions at the drug store, every goddamn time...meanwhile I can walk into any gunshow in the country and buy as big an arsenal as I can afford, no ID, no questions asked.

Priorities...what the fark are those?

Lenny_da_Hog:
It's easy to figure out. We use the Lenny Scale.

If you are exactly like me -- that is, if you are me -- you have precisely the perfectly sized penis. It is so large that it satisfies all women without appearing to be the result of plastic surgery or Satanic pacts. Therefore, everything I own represents that perfect penis.

If you own something slightly more macho than what I have, it is because your penis is too small.

If you own something slightly less macho than what I have, it is because you are gay.

These are not mutually exclusive. You can be both gay and have a small penis, depending on your consumer choices. For example, you own both a 4x4 3/4-ton pick-up AND a Mazda Miata.

Ford 1 ton dually and a wheezy little Honda Accord. Crap.

/guess I better go break the bad news to D1vwife...

Without Fail: neenerist: Without Fail: I spend my time deep stroking my curly red-haired bubble butt equipped wife.

[i48.tinypic.com image 450x505]

I admit that the hair is about the same. Everything else in that picture is horribly different.

Oh, ok. You ARE married to Ronald McDonald.

I was wondering when the media would start to make hay from bump fire...

duffblue: A few dead kids is a drop in the barrel in a nation responsible for the deaths of millions due to imperialism.

Please give me the names and addresses of a few American kids who don't matter.
Maybe some young relatives of yours?

Just 20 for now. A drop in the barrel.

Thanks.

Stratohead: aegean: Once again, dumbmitter, the 2nd amendment is not about hunting.

It's also not about self defense, over throwing the federal government, or some other ridiculous horseshiat. But that doesn't stop the Gun Lobby from repeating that and the hunting garbage over and over and over again. But then the NRA only gives a damn about selling guns and gun accessories, and nothing else, and they will do and say anything to push that agenda...logic or classrooms full of dead children be damned.

One of my pets is diabetic. In order to purchase the tiny ass syringes needed to administer her 2 insulin shots per day, I have to show 2 forms of ID and play 20 questions at the drug store, every goddamn time...meanwhile I can walk into any gunshow in the country and buy as big an arsenal as I can afford, no ID, no questions asked.

Priorities...what the fark are those?

Have you ever purchased a firearm or are you just going off of the piers morgan version of reality?

DubtodaIll: doglover: DubtodaIll: Also how close are we to ray guns?

Ray guns don't work in atmosphere.

Aw man really? Well why the hell not? I'm just antsy for the next step forward in personal weapon technology. And no strapping a computer to a bullet firing gun doesn't count. I'm talking lasers or electromagnetic manipulation or deatomization or something we don't even have words for yet.

Well we have ray weapons. The navy has laser guns that can blow a missile in flight. But the reason only the navy has that is because only the nave has floating multi-ton weapons platforms with nuclear reactors generating infinite electricity. Scaled up, rays work.

But anything you can carry? It's too little oomph to be effective. The best you can do is a laser that break optics.

Stratohead: aegean: Once again, dumbmitter, the 2nd amendment is not about hunting.

It's also not about self defense, over throwing the federal government, or some other ridiculous horseshiat. But that doesn't stop the Gun Lobby from repeating that and the hunting garbage over and over and over again. But then the NRA only gives a damn about selling guns and gun accessories, and nothing else, and they will do and say anything to push that agenda...logic or classrooms full of dead children be damned.

One of my pets is diabetic. In order to purchase the tiny ass syringes needed to administer her 2 insulin shots per day, I have to show 2 forms of ID and play 20 questions at the drug store, every goddamn time...meanwhile I can walk into any gunshow in the country and buy as big an arsenal as I can afford, no ID, no questions asked.

Priorities...what the fark are those?

Being that prescription drug abuse is an exponentially more fatal and epidemic problem than gun violence, I'd say it's ok.

lewismarktwo: I was wondering when the media would start to make hay from bump fire...

bump firing from the hip is one thing, this is kind of different dont you think. hip fire in inaccurate, that "add-on" is accurate.

Dr Jack Badofsky: Oh, ok. You ARE married to Ronald McDonald.

Actually, she used to mime and juggle at the Renaissance Festival. Does that count?

Der Poopflinger: lewismarktwo: I was wondering when the media would start to make hay from bump fire...

bump firing from the hip is one thing, this is kind of different dont you think. hip fire in inaccurate, that add-on is "accurate".

Not really.

Without Fail: duffblue: A few dead kids is a drop in the barrel in a nation responsible for the deaths of millions due to imperialism.

Please give me the names and addresses of a few American kids who don't matter.
Maybe some young relatives of yours?

Just 20 for now. A drop in the barrel.

Thanks.

Why? are you going to murder some kids to prove a point? How progressive of you.

t3knomanser: I don't understand the reasoning that something must be useful in order to be ownable. I own a few firearms. I would never turn them on another human being or animal, not even in self defense (okay, maybe an animal in self defense).

Is there anything inherently wrong with chucking 900 rounds of lead downrange in a controlled environment if that's what you want to do? I think it's incredibly silly, but it's a kind of neat engineering challenge.

The problem with firearms is one of externalities. Firearms create an attractive nuisance- we are all measurably less safe because firearms exist and are common in the US. Between accidents, outlier incidents like mass shootings (which, by population, are exceedingly rare), and crime (which usually doesn't involve legally owned firearms, which makes new laws on the subject difficult).

So let's apply economics to the problem: each firearm carries with it a risk that it is used in a negative fashion. Each negative application carries with it a social cost- deaths, medical bills, public fear, and so on. This gives us a strategy for attacking the problem in a fashion far more nuanced than "2nd Amendment, biatches!" and "Ban (some/most/all) guns!"

A gun tax, for example, would be perfectly reasonable- an assessment at the point of purchase for the total social costs of allowing firearms to be owned. It could be adjusted based on its ability to enact costs- high fire rates and large magazines would be taxed more steeply. Similarly, requiring firearm owners to carry insurance would create a social net system.

This allows us to restrict access to firearms without taking active steps to ban anything, it allows us to evaluate our measures based on measurable economic values, it creates a new class of charge to be brought against those who use firearms illegally. It addresses things in terms of externalities.

Two things:

1. Great job on the well thought out post. Your intelligent reasoning will be ignored here and the hating will continue. Let the plebes cower in the corner at the scary black guns. They don't want to actually think about their position which is ok, because this is a web site and it doesn't matter what they think. I once heard that people project their own self-image on others. It makes all the penis references more entertaining. Some people just want to buy a gun for some reason other than murdering children/brown people/doomsday prepping/etc... It takes a real pussy-clown (and developmentally-challenged adult) to equate ownership of an object to penis size. I guess that says a lot about their secret desire to own one too.

2. You can't tax rights...because they're RIGHTS and all.

C. Not trying to give you a hard time. Good post.

Meh, wake me up when we see these mentioned in the news and a new high score has been set for US mass killings.

Der Poopflinger: lewismarktwo: I was wondering when the media would start to make hay from bump fire...

bump firing from the hip is one thing, this is kind of different dont you think. hip fire in inaccurate, that "add-on" is accurate.

Although not this particular device, I've seen a few similar things at the range over the years. They usually make things pretty inaccurate and not very reliable.

GungFu: Meh, wake me up when we see these mentioned in the news and a new high score has been set for US mass killings.

Now THAT would make for a highly rated news cycle.