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  
•       •       •

11860 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 | « | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-09 07:55:20 PM  

whidbey: This also is not a satisfactory response. I really do not care about splitting hairs.


you are pushing for restrictions on firearms, yet you cant define what these restrictions are going to be because you know nothing about firearms. Kind of like old, worn out republicans writing legislation on vaginas. I know that makes you angry so there's your parallel
 
2013-01-09 07:55:26 PM  

whidbey: Apparently not. Else we wouldn't be wasting huge amounts of posts on this bullshiat.


I've "known" you on here for quite a few years now, and never has it occurred to me that you don't know the difference between an automatic rifle and a semi-automatic rifle. Please tell me I haven't completely misjudged you.
 
2013-01-09 07:55:28 PM  

here to help: Yes... yes I have. With a revolver you can't reload as quickly.


Bull honkey. Revolvers can be reloaded plenty quickly. This argument also conveniently ignores the fact that with the exception of one solitary incident, reloading and reloading speed has not been a factor in killing sprees.

here to help: With a regular shotgun or rifles you can't conceal them


And? I'm walking into a building intent on killing as many people as possible. Why again do I care how hard it is to hide my weapon?

here to help: or again reload as quickly.


See above.

here to help: You'd be taken down far more quickly and with less loss of life if you decide to go nuts with that stuff.


If you say so.

here to help: Also, if you can't take down an intruder in your home with that amount of firepower... well, you suck at guns and probably shouldn't have them in the first place.


What does this have to do with anything? Personal defense is just one reason out of many that I have guns.

/I'm still not going to get an answer to 'what is a hunting rifle?' am I?
 
2013-01-09 07:55:29 PM  

whidbey: EatenTheSun: whidbey: I don't know the reason for the distinction.

This right here is a huge part of the problem.

How so? Why should I care about the specifics? And why couldn't they be hashed out when drafting a gun law?


If you are going to argue that there should be legislation against something, shouldn't you at least know a little bit about what that something is before writing the legislation?

I know AR-15s can look scary to some people, and that they look just like the guns the military uses, but they are not military weapons.
 
2013-01-09 07:57:08 PM  

whidbey: o5iiawah: whidbey: I question as to why we need them in our society

I could go through your house and find dozens of things that you dont "need"
Semi-automatic weapon technology is around 130 years old.

That same busted false analogy gets old, o5iiawah.

Why do we need automatic weapons in the hands of civilians?

Try to come up with a different response.


Automatic weapons are already federally restricted and are not readily available to civilians.
 
2013-01-09 07:57:23 PM  

here to help: Noticeably F.A.T.: here to help: You want a gun? You NEED a gun? Go through the proper channels. That is that.

I did. Now there is serious talk of regulation that would take a good portion of them away, even though I've done nothing wrong with them. Then when I raise questions about said regulations, the people advocating them throw their hands in the air and yell about how I'm unwilling to consider any solution.

IMO you should be able to get by with one or two revolvers, a shotgun and couple hunting rifles. If you need more than that I have no sympathy... because you don't.


For a moment, ignore the lethality of a gun and look at is as a tool (yes, to kill, but a tool.)

Different jobs require different tools. Offf the top of my head I can think of the following:

PISTOLS
.22 - basic target shooting, teaching others (your kids)
.38 revolver - wife' pistol, also step up from .22
.40 semiauto - duty weapon (I worked a nevada casino and had to provide my own gun under guidelines)
.45 - personal carry (or .357)

SHOTGUNS
12 guage pump - basic home defense, bird
20gauge over under - kids use under supervision

RIFLES
.22L - same as .22 pistol
.223 caliber - varmit/small game pest control. Also a step up from .22L
30-06 - medium game
.338 - larger game

That is 10 firearms just based on caliber. Different manufacurues or brands have different pro/cons. Also, what if you are hunting with your child? Family outing to the range?
 
2013-01-09 07:57:24 PM  

LookForTheArrow: OOPS looks like someone has an alt


I suppose misquoting me and therefore declaring victory is one way to back away from a losing argument.
 
2013-01-09 07:57:34 PM  

whidbey: Apparently not. Else we wouldn't be wasting huge amounts of posts on this bullshiat.


You're the only one pushing the argument about the need to ban automatic firearms whilst everyone who has the slightest idea of what firearms are is calling you a complete and utter dumbass for knowing nothing of what you're trying to sound so smart talking about.
 
2013-01-09 07:57:40 PM  

Xcott: ectron: He just made Smith and Wesson's first quarter, a bang on one.

Well, unless he plans on tripling the price by declaring a 200 PERCENT FIREARM TAX.

Actually, that wouldn't be bad public policy. Newtown happened not because "guns are legal," but because a schizo kid had a goddamn arsenal right there in his house. And that happened because it's become a teatard fad for everyone and your mother to have a badass arsenal for recreational shooting and because society's about to collapse. One of those oodles of heavily armed people is bound to have a schizo kid.

To combat this, what you need to do is have a policy that lets people keep and bear arms, but somehow reduces the raw number of weapons and "enthusiasts" stockpiling assault rifles on every block. A massive tax would probably serve that purpose.


Let's see...
A POLL TAX is illegal because it prevents the poor from voting.  And voting isn't even a right mentioned in the Constitution.
The right to bear arms is a natural right and enumerated in the Constitution.  Taxing firearms would also prevent the poor from owning them.  So....  A firearms tax only hurts the poor?

Xcott must be a 1 percenter.

/everyone, now discuss...
 
2013-01-09 07:58:52 PM  
Quiz time!

1. Which three people in recorded history killed more than anybody else?
2. What did all three people do regarding gun control right before their killings?

Luckily there is Google to answer these, otherwise I'd bet 99% of people on this site would not know.
 
2013-01-09 07:58:56 PM  

whidbey: Noticeably F.A.T.: whidbey: You mean you just don't care for the solution--that you would not be able to own or shoot military-grade weaponry.

No, I don't care for the solution, but that's besides the fact that more than a few 'solutions' (Feinstien's being the most public at the moment) go well beyond 'military grade weaponry' (whatever the hell that is).

Military-grade weaponry?

You really don't know what I mean by the term?


Gun nuts love semantic arguments. Its really all they have. "You can't pick a line I find acceptable therefore no line can/should be drawn at all." Such a tired line of thinking...
 
2013-01-09 07:59:11 PM  
They are already triple if you are lucky enough to find one.. So do you mean 9 times then?

My co-worker works with some of his friends on his spare time at their gun shop and doing the shows. They have had to skip a few shows because they have no stock left due to everything being sold and nothing to be had from distributors.
 
2013-01-09 07:59:19 PM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: here to help: Yes... yes I have. With a revolver you can't reload as quickly.

Bull honkey. Revolvers can be reloaded plenty quickly. This argument also conveniently ignores the fact that with the exception of one solitary incident, reloading and reloading speed has not been a factor in killing sprees.

here to help: With a regular shotgun or rifles you can't conceal them

And? I'm walking into a building intent on killing as many people as possible. Why again do I care how hard it is to hide my weapon?

here to help: or again reload as quickly.

See above.

here to help: You'd be taken down far more quickly and with less loss of life if you decide to go nuts with that stuff.

If you say so.

here to help: Also, if you can't take down an intruder in your home with that amount of firepower... well, you suck at guns and probably shouldn't have them in the first place.

What does this have to do with anything? Personal defense is just one reason out of many that I have guns.

/I'm still not going to get an answer to 'what is a hunting rifle?' am I?


See now? This is the point where you just start annoying me with disingenuous nonsense. You know bloody well what I'm talking about.

Anyway, it been a slice. I'm hungry and this is boring.

Later.
 
2013-01-09 07:59:19 PM  

Xcott: Dimensio: Had Ms. Lanza properly secured her firearms to prevent access by an individual whom she knew to be violent and mentally unstable, the incident may have been averted without any alteration in her hobbies.

You're a single mom living with a schizophrenic young adult. How do you "properly secure" your firearms?

Couldn't he just overpower you when you open the gun safe, or make you open it by physical force? And really, what are the odds that you're going to keep a teenager from spying the combination to anything?


Note that I did use the conditional word "may". I suggest only that proper storage would have reduced the likelihood of the incident, not that it would have caused the probability of the incident to be zero.
 
2013-01-09 07:59:49 PM  

whidbey: Military-grade weaponry?

You really don't know what I mean by the term?


I have an idea. I also have an idea of just how much overlap there is between what you would call 'military grade' and what you would consider acceptable for a civilian to own.

whidbey: How am I "wrong," exactly? We're still talking about a weapon that can cause a lot of destruction.


You mean my hunting rifle?

LookForTheArrow: OOPS looks like someone has an alt


The hell are you going on about now kid?
 
2013-01-09 08:00:00 PM  

EatenTheSun: If you are going to argue that there should be legislation against something, shouldn't you at least know a little bit about what that something is before writing the legislation?


If I were writing the legislation, yes.

To me, an assault rifle is dangerous enough that I do not feel that knowing the kind of distinction you're talking about is the point. The question is whether such a rifle should be readily available to the public, especially if it looks and acts like a military weapon.
 
2013-01-09 08:00:42 PM  

Xcott: umad: Exactly. Prohibition will totally work this time. Black markets don't apply to things like guns, and stuff.

Do you honestly think the Newton shooter's mom would have bought guns on the black market?

I suspect instead that if it wasn't legal, she would have gotten into some other hobby.


I suspect all pot heads moved on to booze and cigarettes too.
 
2013-01-09 08:00:45 PM  

justtray: Gun nuts love semantic arguments. Its really all they have.


A statement like "We should ban automatic firearms" is as mind-numbingly misinformed as saying "Wow, she must really need a lot of birth control for all those guys she has sex with"
 
2013-01-09 08:00:47 PM  

o5iiawah: whidbey: Why do we need automatic weapons in the hands of civilians?

We dont have automatic weapons in the hands of civilians.


Technically... we do. But they are far more heavily controlled. Federal background checks are required to take possession, transfer taxes have to be paid, and there are a limited pool since future production of such weapons that were permitted in civilian possession was cut off in May of 1986. Those are referred to as "Pre-86 transferrables".

If you can pass a federal background check, pay the $200 transfer tax, own such a weapon under your state's laws, and pay the ridiculously inflated price for a registered transferable weapon (usually many thousands of dollars), you can in fact own one.

There are just shy of half a million in circulation, nationally. Some states prohibit them entirely in state law.

There have been less than three crimes committed with legally owned and possessed (ie,t illegally converted or stolen) machine guns since 1934 - and one of those was by a police officer. There may have been only one more besides that, I would have to check my research.

But those specific Title 2 firearms are not involved in this debate.
 
2013-01-09 08:01:05 PM  

LasersHurt: Dimensio: Senator Feinstein stated it, and in doing so she explicitly expressed a desire to "take" guns.

And after saying it, was it ever put in writing and brought to any level of the Congress? No, it was not. She just said it.


That it was never brought to any "level" of Congress is irrelevant; the statement itself is sufficient to prove the claim that "Nobody wants to take your guns. Nobody of any merit or in any position of power, that is." to be false; Senator Feinstein explicitly expressed such a "want".
 
2013-01-09 08:01:10 PM  

LookForTheArrow: Noticeably F.A.T.: whidbey: You mean you just don't care for the solution--that you would not be able to own or shoot military-grade weaponry.

No, I don't care for the solution, but that's besides the fact that more than a few 'solutions' (Feinstien's being the most public at the moment) go well beyond 'military grade weaponry' (whatever the hell that is).


GoldSpider:

(Feinstien's being the most public at the moment) go well beyond 'military grade weaponry' (whatever the hell that is).


OOPS looks like someone has an alt


ROFL. Alt outed.
 
2013-01-09 08:01:24 PM  
(NOT illegally converted or stolen)*
 
2013-01-09 08:01:33 PM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: whidbey: How am I "wrong," exactly? We're still talking about a weapon that can cause a lot of destruction.

You mean my hunting rifle?


I don't know. Is your hunting rifle comparable to what the shooter at Sandy Hook used? Or it a lesser powered weapon more suitable to hunting deer?
 
2013-01-09 08:02:11 PM  

Dimensio: LasersHurt: Dimensio: Senator Feinstein stated it, and in doing so she explicitly expressed a desire to "take" guns.

And after saying it, was it ever put in writing and brought to any level of the Congress? No, it was not. She just said it.

That it was never brought to any "level" of Congress is irrelevant; the statement itself is sufficient to prove the claim that "Nobody wants to take your guns. Nobody of any merit or in any position of power, that is." to be false; Senator Feinstein explicitly expressed such a "want".


Sorry, I thought it was obvious that what I meant was "This is an absolutely retarded thing to worry about, because nobody is TRYING to take your guns, and there is no popular support for the idea of taking your guns."
 
2013-01-09 08:02:28 PM  

Dimensio: Xcott: Dimensio: Had Ms. Lanza properly secured her firearms to prevent access by an individual whom she knew to be violent and mentally unstable, the incident may have been averted without any alteration in her hobbies.

You're a single mom living with a schizophrenic young adult. How do you "properly secure" your firearms?

Couldn't he just overpower you when you open the gun safe, or make you open it by physical force? And really, what are the odds that you're going to keep a teenager from spying the combination to anything?

Note that I did use the conditional word "may". I suggest only that proper storage would have reduced the likelihood of the incident, not that it would have caused the probability of the incident to be zero.


FWIW, she could have called her local police department and explained the situation. Crazy son she's trying to have committed, and guns in the house. They probably would have been more than happy to secure her weapons(s) until such time as he was out of the house and she left safe to have them around.
 
2013-01-09 08:02:29 PM  

whidbey: To me, an assault rifle is dangerous enough that I do not feel that knowing the kind of distinction you're talking about is the point.


You can't even define what it is that you fear, yet still feel qualified to opine on the subject.
 
2013-01-09 08:03:57 PM  

o5iiawah: whidbey: Apparently not. Else we wouldn't be wasting huge amounts of posts on this bullshiat.

You're the only one pushing the argument about the need to ban automatic firearms whilst everyone who has the slightest idea of what firearms are is calling you a complete and utter dumbass for knowing nothing of what you're trying to sound so smart talking about.


No they're not. And you're just jumping on a bandwagon.

You don't want to talk about the real issue, so you harp on semantics and jump my ass if I don't conduct the discussion the way you want. The honorable thing to do is cut it out.
 
2013-01-09 08:04:09 PM  

GoldSpider: whidbey: To me, an assault rifle is dangerous enough that I do not feel that knowing the kind of distinction you're talking about is the point.

You can't even define what it is that you fear, yet still feel qualified to opine on the subject.


I know what a first grader is.
 
2013-01-09 08:04:12 PM  
I don't know why the gun owners are upset.

Now they can do what they've been keeping their stockpile of weapons for.

If the government starts restricting guns in ways they don't like, they can start killing every police officer, member of the armed forces, and government official.

You know, to protect us. From us.
 
2013-01-09 08:04:24 PM  

Jaws_Victim: a liberal is intent on getting their point across in a dignified manner that is meant to respect all parties and Piers did that admirably.


"You are an incredibly stupid man"
 
2013-01-09 08:04:46 PM  

DORMAMU: That is 10 firearms just based on caliber. Different manufacurues or brands have different pro/cons. Also, what if you are hunting with your child? Family outing to the range?


How did you get into my cabinet?

justtray: Gun nuts love semantic arguments


It's not a semantic argument at all, and your refusal to believe that won't change that fact.

here to help: You know bloody well what I'm talking about.


I really don't, and I'm pretty damn certain you don't either. Responding to my argument with a 'Pfft, whatever' doesn't make the facts any less true. Refusing to do even a little bit of research on a subject doesn't mean the facts aren't out there for you to find. Ignoring the facts when they are presented to you makes you the person unwilling to have a reasonable discussion.
 
2013-01-09 08:05:03 PM  

GoldSpider: whidbey: To me, an assault rifle is dangerous enough that I do not feel that knowing the kind of distinction you're talking about is the point.

You can't even define what it is that you fear, yet still feel qualified to opine on the subject.


You too. Talk about the real issue, and stop trying to trip people up in semantics.

I question why we need military-grade weapons in the hands of civilians. Deal with it.
 
2013-01-09 08:05:05 PM  
images2.dailykos.com
 
2013-01-09 08:05:20 PM  

o5iiawah: justtray: Gun nuts love semantic arguments. Its really all they have.

A statement like "We should ban automatic firearms" is as mind-numbingly misinformed as saying "Wow, she must really need a lot of birth control for all those guys she has sex with"


But he didn't say that. And no less than 5 posts instantly jumped on the semantic argument. Military grade weaponry would be weapons that the military uses. You know, because they have a high level of lethality? Such as an AR-15, as one example.

The fact that you have to harp on semantic definitions of guns shows you have no honest attempt at debate. Just nitpicking anything you can to shout down the opposition. Like I said, the 5+ people that instantly jumped on it prove it so.
 
2013-01-09 08:05:21 PM  

justtray: ROFL. Alt outed.


WTF would be the point of using two accounts to post similar arguments in the same thread??

I do have an alt, by the way, but haven't posted on it in years.
 
2013-01-09 08:05:41 PM  

whidbey: Noticeably F.A.T.: whidbey: How am I "wrong," exactly? We're still talking about a weapon that can cause a lot of destruction.

You mean my hunting rifle?

I don't know. Is your hunting rifle comparable to what the shooter at Sandy Hook used? Or it a lesser powered weapon more suitable to hunting deer?


Is this were I mention that most rifles used for deer are usually more powerful than a .223?
 
2013-01-09 08:07:22 PM  

JRoo: I don't know why the gun owners are upset.

Now they can do what they've been keeping their stockpile of weapons for.

If the government starts restricting guns in ways they don't like, they can start killing every police officer, member of the armed forces, and government official.

You know, to protect us. From us.


Nailed 'em!

new-pakistan.com

Mission accomplished, you can go home how.
 
2013-01-09 08:07:25 PM  

whidbey: I question why we need military-grade weapons in the hands of civilians. Deal with it.


I happen to agree. Except my definition of a "military-grade" weapon is based on what actually is a military-grade weapon, and yours is based on what you imagine one to be.
 
2013-01-09 08:08:14 PM  

whidbey: Noticeably F.A.T.: whidbey: You mean you just don't care for the solution--that you would not be able to own or shoot military-grade weaponry.

No, I don't care for the solution, but that's besides the fact that more than a few 'solutions' (Feinstien's being the most public at the moment) go well beyond 'military grade weaponry' (whatever the hell that is).

Military-grade weaponry?

You really don't know what I mean by the term?


We know exactly what you mean by it. It is any scary looking gun that fires a bullet bigger than a .22 and isn't bolt action. Your "reasonable" restrictions would be like fighting against drunk driving by banning liquor, capping beer and wine at 1% abv and limiting sales to 40 oz. per person per day. You guys and your outright ignorance are laughable.
 
2013-01-09 08:08:21 PM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: DORMAMU: That is 10 firearms just based on caliber. Different manufacurues or brands have different pro/cons. Also, what if you are hunting with your child? Family outing to the range?

How did you get into my cabinet?

justtray: Gun nuts love semantic arguments

It's not a semantic argument at all, and your refusal to believe that won't change that fact.

here to help: You know bloody well what I'm talking about.

I really don't, and I'm pretty damn certain you don't either. Responding to my argument with a 'Pfft, whatever' doesn't make the facts any less true. Refusing to do even a little bit of research on a subject doesn't mean the facts aren't out there for you to find. Ignoring the facts when they are presented to you makes you the person unwilling to have a reasonable discussion.


The irony. Please proceed Noticably GoldSpider.
 
2013-01-09 08:08:32 PM  

Government Fromage: Is this were I mention that most rifles used for deer are usually more powerful than a .223?


Or that many (most, even?) hunting rifles can pierce armor?
 
2013-01-09 08:08:39 PM  

whidbey: EatenTheSun: If you are going to argue that there should be legislation against something, shouldn't you at least know a little bit about what that something is before writing the legislation?

If I were writing the legislation, yes.

To me, an assault rifle is dangerous enough that I do not feel that knowing the kind of distinction you're talking about is the point. The question is whether such a rifle should be readily available to the public, especially if it looks and acts like a military weapon.


Assault rifles are already federally restricted by the National Firearms Act of 1934. They are not readily available to civilians.
 
2013-01-09 08:09:45 PM  

LasersHurt: Dimensio: LasersHurt: Dimensio: Senator Feinstein stated it, and in doing so she explicitly expressed a desire to "take" guns.

And after saying it, was it ever put in writing and brought to any level of the Congress? No, it was not. She just said it.

That it was never brought to any "level" of Congress is irrelevant; the statement itself is sufficient to prove the claim that "Nobody wants to take your guns. Nobody of any merit or in any position of power, that is." to be false; Senator Feinstein explicitly expressed such a "want".

Sorry, I thought it was obvious that what I meant was "This is an absolutely retarded thing to worry about, because nobody is TRYING to take your guns, and there is no popular support for the idea of taking your guns."


Then you should have stated such, rather than stating the much more generalized (and demonstrably false) claim that no such desire exists.
 
2013-01-09 08:09:49 PM  

Government Fromage: whidbey: Noticeably F.A.T.: whidbey: How am I "wrong," exactly? We're still talking about a weapon that can cause a lot of destruction.

You mean my hunting rifle?

I don't know. Is your hunting rifle comparable to what the shooter at Sandy Hook used? Or it a lesser powered weapon more suitable to hunting deer?

Is this were I mention that most rifles used for deer are usually more powerful than a .223?


You might be losing some of your non protected rights to hunt deer then.
 
2013-01-09 08:09:54 PM  

GoldSpider: whidbey: I question why we need military-grade weapons in the hands of civilians. Deal with it.

I happen to agree. Except my definition of a "military-grade" weapon is based on what actually is a military-grade weapon, and yours is based on what you imagine one to be.


I seriously doubt there's much a difference. And you don't really come across as someone who's cool with gun regulation, not in this thread, anyway.
 
2013-01-09 08:10:01 PM  

whidbey: GoldSpider: whidbey: To me, an assault rifle is dangerous enough that I do not feel that knowing the kind of distinction you're talking about is the point.

You can't even define what it is that you fear, yet still feel qualified to opine on the subject.

You too. Talk about the real issue, and stop trying to trip people up in semantics.

I question why we need military-grade weapons in the hands of civilians. Deal with it.


Please explain to us exactly how the specific firearms you are referring to are fundamentally different from others - not in mere appearance, but in core mechanical function.
 
2013-01-09 08:10:11 PM  

whidbey: No they're not. And you're just jumping on a bandwagon.

You don't want to talk about the real issue, so you harp on semantics and jump my ass if I don't conduct the discussion the way you want. The honorable thing to do is cut it out.


It is possible for a civilian to get an automatic weapon but they are unbelievably expensive and cumbersome to acquire. a previous poster stated that only 3 crimes have been committed with an automatic weapon since 1938. Is this the "Real issue?" you'd like to pound? You call it semantics - everyone else calls it blatant ignorance of the subject you're trying to discuss. Nobody would think less if you retreated, educated yourself on what guns are, how they work and what features do what, then came back and made educated statements but you are right out in the open claiming you know not a thing but want to see scary, automatic, assault, military-grade guns banned yet cant define any of it.
 
2013-01-09 08:10:36 PM  

GoldSpider: Government Fromage: Is this were I mention that most rifles used for deer are usually more powerful than a .223?

Or that many (most, even?) hunting rifles can pierce armor?


And how most of them are designed to fire 30 rounds as fast as you can fire, because that's how you hunt.

No, wait, no...
 
2013-01-09 08:10:40 PM  
If my guns are going to be banned, can I at least get compensated for the loss of my property? They aren't cheap you know.
 
2013-01-09 08:11:02 PM  

whidbey: Noticeably F.A.T.: whidbey: How am I "wrong," exactly? We're still talking about a weapon that can cause a lot of destruction.

You mean my hunting rifle?

I don't know. Is your hunting rifle comparable to what the shooter at Sandy Hook used? Or it a lesser powered weapon more suitable to hunting deer?


Any firearm duited to kill deer is also suited wuite well to killing humans since our body mass is approximately the same.

Just an fyi
 
Displayed 50 of 1330 comments

First | « | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | » | 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