Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(Guardian)   Obama may issue executive order on gun control, which will immediately triple the price of assault weapons and popcorn   (guardian.co.uk) divider line 1330
    More: Interesting, assault weapons, Biden, presidential executive order, for sale by owner, force of law, semi-automatic rifle  
•       •       •

11857 clicks; posted to Main » on 09 Jan 2013 at 4:52 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



1330 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-09 06:02:36 PM  

Mrtraveler01: RDixon: It's not gun control they want; it's population control.

Oh this will be good...tell me how this is "population control"?


Well, duh, if Joe Sixpack doesnt have an assault rifle, he cant shoot at the planes laying down chemtrails.

/adjusts tinfoil
 
2013-01-09 06:02:43 PM  

buffalosoldier:

I will listen politely to an opposing viewpoint ON guns... but the MN is a fine weapon, good enough to have seen service as a sniper rifle as recently as WW2. Show some damned respect.


Got nothin but respect for nuggets.

i594.photobucket.com

I discussed them with my wife and some friends one time when somebody brought up cheap guns. They didnt believe me, until I did some quick searches for prices on the big screen. I used to actually have one about 25 years ago, had no idea what it was till I had long sold it. Paid $100 bucks, got $100 bucks, worth $60 bucks. Was a good rifle, chambered like a brick. Built like one.
 
2013-01-09 06:03:19 PM  

you have pee hands: I'm pro concealed carry (for the qualified) but presenting silly "facts" like 100,000 lives saved isn't useful.


On the other hand, even if you reduce the instances (not even "lives saved") by a couple of orders of magnitude, and give to the fact that maybe someone, somewhere saved their own life or that of someone else (recent theater shooting in Texas, maybe?), it does something to counter the statement that it's worth doing to save a single life.

But let's not be disingenuous about this. If we actually do care about saving lives - if that's the primary value in this question - might we not be better served looking at things that kill more people? For example errors at hospitals, errors with pharmaceuticals, alcohol abuse, tobacco abuse, drone strikes (if we don't have to keep the conversation under the rubric of U.S. citizens' lives), depleted uranium, wars and other "kinetic actions"?

But that's not what this conversation is really about. Somehow, it's become politicized and polarized. Any idea why? That is a question worth answering honestly.

Finally, if saving lives being taken by guns is the absolute imperative (granted warranting argument), what about risk/reward? It's an easy thing for a gun nut to mumble something about cold dead fingers. It's an easy thing for an enlightened soul to say good riddance. However, if it is about the body count and only that, has anyone done any analysis about the effects of a ban or partial ban on the body count in the U.S.? I think I read somewhere that it cost between 1000 and 3000 lives in Australia. How many, if any, are we willing to risk and/or lose here for this notion?

Solutions to societal problems seldom are binary things. I don't have any answers, of course, but because this is a pretty emotional issue for many right now, I do think that needs to be taken into account.
 
2013-01-09 06:04:07 PM  

ghare: cameroncrazy1984: pmdgrwr: Those against guns have this delusion that state and police will protect them. The state and police can not and will not protect you, you have to protect yourself

Yet another loon who thinks this is the Old West for some reason.

Yep, they can ALL whip out their weapon so fast they can take out the guy with a gun who has the drop on them...and has squeezed off a dozen rounds before they even know what's happening.


These overweight white trash can barely get out of their recliners. They are all rambos in fantasy land though.
 
2013-01-09 06:04:14 PM  

ghare: cameroncrazy1984: pmdgrwr: Those against guns have this delusion that state and police will protect them. The state and police can not and will not protect you, you have to protect yourself

Yet another loon who thinks this is the Old West for some reason.

Yep, they can ALL whip out their weapon so fast they can take out the guy with a gun who has the drop on them...and has squeezed off a dozen rounds before they even know what's happening.


So guns are so dangerous that anyone who owns them is a madman risking their own life and guns are totally useless in self-defense?
 
2013-01-09 06:04:27 PM  

Dimensio: GoldSpider: What do we need to do? IMO, to start off, eliminate the gun show loopholes. Require background checks for all transfers. ...

This entire exchange restores in me a glimmer of hope that rational people exist to steer this national debate.

Rational individuals do not author legislation, nor are they prominently visible on either side of the current discussion.


Unfortunately you're right. I think half of the legislation comes from people who get all their insight about guns from the movies, and the ones vocally against it are complete loons.

Stuck in the middle are those of us who might own a few guns that we use for plinking or hunting and actually know about them...but get tossed in with the crazies and told we shouldn't have what we have.
 
2013-01-09 06:04:35 PM  

pmdgrwr: To ask another person to give up their guns so you can feel safer is a cowardly thing to do. Those against guns have this delusion that state and police will protect them. The state and police can not and will not protect you, you have to protect yourself. Automatic weapons are needed to keep governments at bay they are the last defense of a out of control state and police force. But those against guns will never ask the state or police to give up their guns just the citizens.

You know who liked gun control Hitler did. Seems like gun control nuts like Hitler's ideas after all.

i0.kym-cdn.com
 
2013-01-09 06:04:36 PM  
Smart Diplomacy: Saying "Nobody's going to take your guns away" until the military has recalled enough troops to start going door to door.

/contrary to popular belief, the result will not be a better world
//"And the burnt fool's bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the fire"
 
2013-01-09 06:04:47 PM  
Science and Engineering in the USA already is metric.

It the consumer side that isn't.
 
2013-01-09 06:05:21 PM  
Dear, every fooking idiot who compares alcohol/tobacco deaths to gun deaths...

If I drink and smoke MYSELF to death that's my god damned problem. If YOU go on a shooting rampage or leave your penis extensions laying around for your psychotic crotchbooger f*ck trophies or Cracky McCrackenstein to steal then YOU are the problem.

Your pathetic attempts to justify your need for more than a revolver in the nightstand to protect your family are exactly that... pathetic.

G0BOOGER!
 
2013-01-09 06:05:32 PM  

sprawl15: Fark It: Blowing up children to protect our freedoms: It's only bad when Republicans do it

Hey look, a total moron missing the point. Must be a Loud and Proud Fark Independent(tm)


Please tell me how Obama gives a damn about the well-being of children. I love how anybody who doesn't tow your hysterical party line is now a conservative. I'm an atheist who supports gay marriage, abortion, and single-payer. But please, keep calling me a Republican, it's very amusing.
 
2013-01-09 06:06:10 PM  
To serve humanity.

4.bp.blogspot.com

IT'S A COOK BOOK!
 
2013-01-09 06:07:22 PM  

Government Fromage: Stuck in the middle are those of us who might own a few guns that we use for plinking or hunting and actually know about them...but get tossed in with the crazies and told we shouldn't have what we have.


Amen to that...
 
2013-01-09 06:07:47 PM  

Insatiable Jesus: HeWhoHasNoName: Insatiable Jesus: HeWhoHasNoName: I've put 20 hits on 10 targets with three reloads in less than a 90 seconds.

[ih1.redbubble.net image 413x550]

All I'm pointing out is that the ability to put a lot of rounds on target quickly isn't unique to magazine-fed "assault weapons"... and in fact a 100+ year old bolt action rifle is easily capable of it. Which cleanly undermines the fallacious argument that "assault weapons" are somehow significantly more deadly in that regard. They're not, and it's a clear sign of ignorance about the subject matter to claim so.

Then again, I can tell you're not actually interested in rational, calm discourse.

If you're trying to make the argument that bolt action is as deadly as a semi-auto, you are something else. Ridiculous on its face.


I think he was.leaning towards the: "mag fed semi autos are more lethal then bolt action, but not as much as is claimed."

Another (sad) way to look at it is assume the latest shooting, the perp only had a bolt action. Would it be a mass (child) casuality event, given a similar time frame? Another minute worth of shooting before police arrived (i dont know the response time in this incident)?

The moses lake frontier jr high shooting in the mid 90's was done with a bolt action rifle if memory serves. on mobile or would post link.

/grew up in moses lake general area and in high school when it happenef.
 
2013-01-09 06:07:57 PM  

EatenTheSun: Insatiable Jesus: EatenTheSun: Insatiable Jesus: HeWhoHasNoName: Insatiable Jesus: HeWhoHasNoName: I've put 20 hits on 10 targets with three reloads in less than a 90 seconds.

[ih1.redbubble.net image 413x550]

All I'm pointing out is that the ability to put a lot of rounds on target quickly isn't unique to magazine-fed "assault weapons"... and in fact a 100+ year old bolt action rifle is easily capable of it. Which cleanly undermines the fallacious argument that "assault weapons" are somehow significantly more deadly in that regard. They're not, and it's a clear sign of ignorance about the subject matter to claim so.

Then again, I can tell you're not actually interested in rational, calm discourse.

If you're trying to make the argument that bolt action is as deadly as a semi-auto, you are something else. Ridiculous on its face.

I have some of each. Which one do you feel like running from? I'll even let you pick the caliber.


Homicidal ideation in a Gunfapper? I am SHOCKED people!

Nah, I have no desire to kill you. But if I did, it wouldn't make much difference which rifle I brought.



i.qkme.me
 
2013-01-09 06:08:34 PM  
We have to act. We don't know what it is yet. We don't know what we can legally do. But, we have to act. And we will. We'll do something, definitely. For sure.
 
2013-01-09 06:09:33 PM  

Tatterdemalian: Smart Diplomacy: Saying "Nobody's going to take your guns away" until the military has recalled enough troops to start going door to door.

/contrary to popular belief, the result will not be a better world
//"And the burnt fool's bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the fire"


The way this country is divided politically, if a Republican ever gets elected president again it may cause some on the left to rethink gun ownership for themselves.
 
2013-01-09 06:10:14 PM  

Clash City Farker: RulerOfNone: Is a 444 Raging Bull considered an "assault weapon"?

What about a 1966 Beatles Revolver?


Only three hits in 28 minutes so probably not.
 
2013-01-09 06:10:56 PM  
Shockingly, the people who fear guns out of ignorance also fear gun owners for the same reason. The paranoid, gun-hoarding whackjobs represent a rather small slice of the whole gun violence picture.
 
2013-01-09 06:11:25 PM  
Not going to happen. Any executive order would be taken to the SCOTUS, and Roberts isn't going to side with the President on this one.

I would be very surprised if any gun control was enacted without some kind of concession to the far right 20%.
 
2013-01-09 06:11:27 PM  

Infernalist: Good. Long overdue.

Suck it, gun nuts.


Why do I get the feeling you posted that comment sipping a latte in a Starbucks? By the way, are those skinny jeans comfortable?
 
2013-01-09 06:12:05 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Clash City Farker: RulerOfNone: Is a 444 Raging Bull considered an "assault weapon"?

What about a 1966 Beatles Revolver?

Only three hits in 28 minutes so probably not.


Okay that was hilarious
 
2013-01-09 06:12:23 PM  

Fark It: I'll consider more restrictions on my guns once they kill as many children as Obama's drone attacks.

/voted for him in 2008, gave money to his campaign
//never again, 3rd party for me here on out


Drone strikes have killed about 200 children worldwide since 2004.

Guns Killed 5,728 kids in America in 2008-2009.

So... You ready to come to the table now?
 
2013-01-09 06:13:01 PM  

Infernalist: HeadLever: Infernalist: Most of the farking retards who stock up on guns and ammo wouldn't know how to change the oil in their cars.

Sure they would. Not hard. Right now reloading supplies are just as hard to find right now as ammo. Besides, many would get rich in the newly created black market.

I personally think it's a miracle worth mentioning that most of them don't choke to death on their own tongues, so perhaps you have a higher degree of optimism regarding their ability to adapt and change.

I think that when it finally happens, 99.999% of the 'from my cold dead hands!' crowd will squeal like a bunch of piglets, hire a bunch of lawyers and when that fails them, they'll wail and scream and gnash their teeth and hide their guns...

And do exactly jack shiat other than whimper and cry to each other on internet message boards.


i have been on fark virtually since it's inception...and i have no problem saying that your posts in this thread are among the stupidest and most ill-informed posts i have ever read on fark.

and that's saying something.  my god you are an idiot.  and no, i'm not a right wing nutjob.
 
2013-01-09 06:13:23 PM  

Jaws_Victim: tnpir: Jaws_Victim: Good. And when crazy pants people like that yelling dude on cnn decide to retaliate, we can put them away forever and make the world a better place.

So were you also waiting and hoping Piers Morgan would rear back and coldcock that motherfarker upside the head?

I would've liked him to call the man unhinged and ended with "Is this the kind of man you really want to own assault weapons?" but I draw the line at physical violence. I felt he held his own against a yelling maniac pretty well.


I used to draw such a line. I don't anymore. Some people simply need to have their face rearranged because reason fails.
 
2013-01-09 06:13:34 PM  

Infernalist: Again, most of the drool-cup champs that cling to their guns are lucky not to get lost in their local Super Walmart and you think they'd be able to learn how to reload ammo that doesn't explode upon firing.


Reloading ammo is actually pretty simple and with a progressive press it can be done in comparatively little time. You might make a bad round once in awhile but it is pretty easily avoided you just have to watch your powder charge.
 
2013-01-09 06:13:39 PM  

GoldSpider: Shockingly, the people who fear guns out of ignorance also fear gun owners for the same reason. The paranoid, gun-hoarding whackjobs represent a rather small slice of the whole gun violence picture.


I said it in another thread and I'll say it again: the vast majority of gun hoarders have more in common with the guy that collects model trains than the guy advocating for personal statehood. It's a different kind of hobby to them. I'd say the second most common group of gun hoarders are actually gold-style investors, but I have no real data to back that up.
 
2013-01-09 06:14:33 PM  

Mr.BobDobalita: duffblue: All things that I don't completely agree with are scary, and I wish to deprive 315 million other people of their 2nd amendment rights as a result of my own fear, ignorance and cowardice

YEp. This is what it boils down to. As I've said, all rifle murders in 2011 amounted to 400. "Assault rifles" were a subset of that already small number. What we're talking about with the anti-"assault" rifle people here is LITERALLY trampling the rights of tens of millions of people over 400 deaths.

The absurdity boggles the mind.


No one is taking away your right to be armed. You're framing the conversation in a dishonest light.

There's a proposal to reduce the type of guns. You don't have a constitutional right to every gun. Now, you're insisting on maintaining a certain privilege at the cost of, by your own numbers, 400 deaths a year.
 
2013-01-09 06:15:08 PM  

Fubini: Not going to happen. Any executive order would be taken to the SCOTUS, and Roberts isn't going to side with the President on this one.

I would be very surprised if any gun control was enacted without some kind of concession to the far right 20%.


As I've said before, I won't be surprised one bit if whatever is offered by the left is traded down to reinstatement of the AWB/high capacity magazine bans as well as a few more token things like extended waiting periods on purchases. 'Assault weapons' are a fraction of a fraction of gun crime, but for some reason people want to jerk themselves off into dehydration over that debate rather than focusing on the vast majority of gun crime that's committed with handguns or looking at some of the social causes for the vast majority of gun crime like the illegal drug trade.

But those would take effort. And it's far easier to just make fun of a Bushmaster ad or declare the opposition gun grabbers.
 
2013-01-09 06:15:12 PM  

odinsposse: ghare: cameroncrazy1984: pmdgrwr: Those against guns have this delusion that state and police will protect them. The state and police can not and will not protect you, you have to protect yourself

Yet another loon who thinks this is the Old West for some reason.

Yep, they can ALL whip out their weapon so fast they can take out the guy with a gun who has the drop on them...and has squeezed off a dozen rounds before they even know what's happening.

So guns are so dangerous that anyone who owns them is a madman risking their own life and guns are totally useless in self-defense?


Owning them? Hell, if you demonstrate a knowledge of them that goes beyond the typical Journalist's Guide, you are obviously a hardened killer and should be regarded with the same wariness as the homeless guy who's wearing about eight layers of furs in the middle of July. Ownership status does not have to come into play.

/I have been told this
//by otherwise smart people, to boot
///Sometimes I laugh. Sometimes I wonder how the hell they made it out of bed in the morning
 
2013-01-09 06:15:12 PM  
It only takes one of the crazy-sounding ones to shoot a shiatload of people. That's why people are freaked out by "gun nuts".
 
2013-01-09 06:15:16 PM  

stir22: i have been on fark virtually since it's inception...and i have no problem saying that your posts in this thread are among the stupidest and most ill-informed posts i have ever read on fark.


Cut and paste.
Cut and paste.
Cut and paste.
Cut and paste.
Cut and paste.
 
2013-01-09 06:15:24 PM  

Insatiable Jesus: EatenTheSun: Insatiable Jesus: EatenTheSun: Insatiable Jesus: HeWhoHasNoName: Insatiable Jesus: HeWhoHasNoName: I've put 20 hits on 10 targets with three reloads in less than a 90 seconds.

[ih1.redbubble.net image 413x550]

All I'm pointing out is that the ability to put a lot of rounds on target quickly isn't unique to magazine-fed "assault weapons"... and in fact a 100+ year old bolt action rifle is easily capable of it. Which cleanly undermines the fallacious argument that "assault weapons" are somehow significantly more deadly in that regard. They're not, and it's a clear sign of ignorance about the subject matter to claim so.

Then again, I can tell you're not actually interested in rational, calm discourse.

If you're trying to make the argument that bolt action is as deadly as a semi-auto, you are something else. Ridiculous on its face.

I have some of each. Which one do you feel like running from? I'll even let you pick the caliber.


Homicidal ideation in a Gunfapper? I am SHOCKED people!

Nah, I have no desire to kill you. But if I did, it wouldn't make much difference which rifle I brought.


Never made any such claim. But feel free to answer my question.
 
2013-01-09 06:15:39 PM  

Vectron: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Giltric: Insatiable Jesus: Mr.BobDobalita: So we've got 100k-ish defensive gun uses (DGU) where lives were probably saved.... and we've got around 12k gun murders.... 100k lives saved to 12k lives lost.... ummmmm.... maybe I"m bad at math, but seems to me guns save more people than kill.


How many DGUs would have been unnecessary if the other party didn't have a gun?


Did the guy in Atlanta who was shot by the woman hiding with her 2 kids in the closet have a gun?

I mean maybe he just wanted to scare her or play mousetrap with her kids....

He had a crowbar.

And likely would have moved on had she answered the door or made her presence known.


Oh puh-leeze.


An Oalkand woman used her cell phone to record video of a crook robbing her house moments before he raped her.
"I'm sorry, can you leave," she is heard saying.
"Yeah," he mumbles in response.
The she got some nice rapey-rape.


I don't see how I could keep up a woodie while raping a conscious chick. I'd feel really bad about all the crying and would go limp.

Now if she were unconscious, that's a different story...
 
2013-01-09 06:15:43 PM  

orclover: CynicalLA: orclover: Insatiable Jesus: Dimensio: Oldiron_79:

t2.gstatic.com



Wow, y'know... it's incredible... where did you get that pic? I've heard most women have exactly that same reaction when I sext them my junk.

/I even use the same caption
 
2013-01-09 06:16:22 PM  
The second amendment guarantees the only right we have that is physically tangible. Unlike the freedom to travel, our freedom of speech, and our freedom to pursue happiness (which have all been infringed upon for the last 50 years), they will have to pry my "rights" from my cold dead farking hands.
 
2013-01-09 06:16:54 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: pmdgrwr: Those against guns have this delusion that state and police will protect them. The state and police can not and will not protect you, you have to protect yourself

Yet another loon who thinks this is the Old West for some reason.


Says the poster who thinks that more gun control, more legislation, more governemnt is the answer.

At least I do not fool myself into thinking that morality can be legislated.

Where was the police when all of the shootings we have had. No place to be found.
 
2013-01-09 06:17:04 PM  

Vectron: You base too many of your opinions from what you see on TV. Get out in the world more.


I don't watch TV...not violent enough
 
2013-01-09 06:17:16 PM  

Now That's What I Call a Taco!: Fark It: I'll consider more restrictions on my guns once they kill as many children as Obama's drone attacks.

/voted for him in 2008, gave money to his campaign
//never again, 3rd party for me here on out

Drone strikes have killed about 200 children worldwide since 2004.

Guns Killed 5,728 kids in America in 2008-2009.

So... You ready to come to the table now?


How many of those kids were really teenagers involved in gang activity, and how am I in any way responsible for them? Why is it that whenever a bunch of ghetto animals shoot at each other as a result of the drug war or some lunatic goes on a shooting rampage we look to gun owners (80 million Americans) and say 'bite the pillow, for the children!'
 
2013-01-09 06:17:17 PM  

Xaneidolon: On the other hand, even if you reduce the instances (not even "lives saved") by a couple of orders of magnitude, and give to the fact that maybe someone, somewhere saved their own life or that of someone else (recent theater shooting in Texas, maybe?), it does something to counter the statement that it's worth doing to save a single life.


I think there's truth there. Saving a person's life from a domestic abuser (and I think this is the most common case where guns save lives - very few people are going to be vigilant/paranoid enough to be on alert all the time unless they know there's a specific threat) is worth something. On the other hand, there's 800-1000 accidental firearm deaths a year. Whatever it would do to other crime rates, having fewer guns around should certainly reduce that.

But let's not be disingenuous about this. If we actually do care about saving lives - if that's the primary value in this question - might we not be better served looking at things that kill more people? For example errors at hospitals, errors with pharmaceuticals, alcohol abuse, tobacco abuse, drone strikes (if we don't have to keep the conversation under the rubric of U.S. citizens' lives), depleted uranium, wars and other "kinetic actions"?

I think we should look at all of those things. Tobacco abuse might be the best model. Deaths from that are way down just by public stigmatization without having to pass laws that make criminals out of big parts of the population and I don't think anyone's lost for it but the growers.

But that's not what this conversation is really about. Somehow, it's become politicized and polarized. Any idea why? That is a question worth answering honestly.

Finally, if saving lives being taken by guns is the absolute imperative (granted warranting argument), what about risk/reward? It's an easy thing for a gun nut to mumble something about cold dead fingers. It's an easy thing for an enlightened soul to say good riddance. However, if it is about the body count and only that, has anyone done any analysis about the effects of a ban or partial ban on the body count in the U.S.? I think I read somewhere that it cost between 1000 and 3000 lives in Australia. How many, if any, are we willing to risk and/or lose here for this notion?

Solutions to societal problems seldom are binary things. I don't have any answers, of course, but because this is a pretty emotional issue for many right now, I do think that needs to be taken into account.


I don't really have any good answer to it either. I hadn't heard about a body count in Australia so I can't comment. I'm not sure the cost of a potential seizure is really a realistic issue yet anyway because despite all the grandstanding and strawmanning in every Fark gun thread the likelihood of anything more than a semi-useless assault rifle ban and the closing of the so called "gun show loophole" is IMO roughly zero.
 
2013-01-09 06:17:29 PM  
License every last person who wants to own guns. Any guns. They have to register every single one of their guns. Any guns found on people who a) do not have a license or b) did not register that gun gets their guns confiscated and depending on the circumstance get charged.

F*ck this sh*t. If you truly ARE a responsible gun owner this should not be a problem. No more a problem than having a drivers license and owning vehicles... which by the way actually serve a purpose OTHER than destroying things.
 
2013-01-09 06:18:12 PM  

pmdgrwr: cameroncrazy1984: pmdgrwr: Those against guns have this delusion that state and police will protect them. The state and police can not and will not protect you, you have to protect yourself

Yet another loon who thinks this is the Old West for some reason.

Says the poster who thinks that more gun control, more legislation, more governemnt is the answer.

At least I do not fool myself into thinking that morality can be legislated.

Where was the police when all of the shootings we have had. No place to be found.


If you do your own research, you will discover that SCOTUS has upheld the ruling that the police actually have zero duty to protect and or serve.
 
2013-01-09 06:18:51 PM  

HartRend: The second amendment guarantees the only right we have that is physically tangible. Unlike the freedom to travel, our freedom of speech, and our freedom to pursue happiness (which have all been infringed upon for the last 50 years), they will have to pry my "rights" from my cold dead farking hands.


Your terms are acceptable...
 
2013-01-09 06:19:29 PM  

Okie_Gunslinger: Infernalist: Again, most of the drool-cup champs that cling to their guns are lucky not to get lost in their local Super Walmart and you think they'd be able to learn how to reload ammo that doesn't explode upon firing.

Reloading ammo is actually pretty simple and with a progressive press it can be done in comparatively little time. You might make a bad round once in awhile but it is pretty easily avoided you just have to watch your powder charge.


CSB
Got to laugh at a buddy that completly forgot the powder. one small little *snap* and nothing. the primer was enough to push the bullet out and lodge it in the lands. Since no one had a cleaning rod, he got to watch the rest of us have fun until we got back to the truck and was able to knock the bullet out of the barrel.
/CSB
 
2013-01-09 06:19:30 PM  

Fark It: Bontesla: Fark It: I'll consider more restrictions on my guns once they kill as many children as Obama's drone attacks.

/voted for him in 2008, gave money to his campaign
//never again, 3rd party for me here on out

So, it's better that we reach the maximum amount of deaths rather than reduce it? Got it.

What does that even mean?


That we need to bomb more brown children, I think.
 
2013-01-09 06:19:36 PM  
CRIMINALS DO NOT FOLLOW LAWS

OUTLAWING GUNS DOES NOT DO A DAMN THING TO THE BAD GUYS

ONLY THE GOOD GUYS FOLLOW THE LAW

OUTLAWING GUNS ONLY TAKES AWAY FROM THE GOOD GUYS
 
2013-01-09 06:19:47 PM  

HartRend: If you do your own research, you will discover that SCOTUS has upheld the ruling that the police actually have zero duty to protect and or serve.


I'm pretty sure that was his point.
 
2013-01-09 06:20:03 PM  

Dimensio: ghare: RickN99: Damn it! I've been trying to buy an AR-15 for 3 months as my Christmas present to myself. Between the empty shelves and the jacked-up prices, I have been waiting for things to settle down.

This is not helping!

I wouldn't admit to having a small penisi n a public forum, but you go on ahead.

Your obsession with RickN99's penis, and your baseless speculation upon the size thereof, is of no relevance to the current discussion.


How do you know its baseless?
 
2013-01-09 06:20:21 PM  

Now That's What I Call a Taco!: Fark It: I'll consider more restrictions on my guns once they kill as many children as Obama's drone attacks.

/voted for him in 2008, gave money to his campaign
//never again, 3rd party for me here on out

Drone strikes have killed about 200 children worldwide since 2004.

Guns Killed 5,728 kids in America in 2008-2009.

So... You ready to come to the table now?


Youre making the mistake of assuming hes arguing from an honest position. He, like the rest of the gun nuts are not. They are simply shouting down all gun control under any disguise available at the time, regardless of the coginitive dissonance and/or hypocrisy required.
 
2013-01-09 06:20:26 PM  

occamswrist: Vectron: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Giltric: Insatiable Jesus: Mr.BobDobalita: So we've got 100k-ish defensive gun uses (DGU) where lives were probably saved.... and we've got around 12k gun murders.... 100k lives saved to 12k lives lost.... ummmmm.... maybe I"m bad at math, but seems to me guns save more people than kill.


How many DGUs would have been unnecessary if the other party didn't have a gun?


Did the guy in Atlanta who was shot by the woman hiding with her 2 kids in the closet have a gun?

I mean maybe he just wanted to scare her or play mousetrap with her kids....

He had a crowbar.

And likely would have moved on had she answered the door or made her presence known.


Oh puh-leeze.


An Oalkand woman used her cell phone to record video of a crook robbing her house moments before he raped her.
"I'm sorry, can you leave," she is heard saying.
"Yeah," he mumbles in response.
The she got some nice rapey-rape.

I don't see how I could keep up a woodie while raping a conscious chick. I'd feel really bad about all the crying and would go limp.

Now if she were unconscious, that's a different story...



media.comicvine.com
 
Displayed 50 of 1330 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
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