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.

(Gawker)   Gun Appreciation Day celebrated with accidental shootings at two different gun shows   (gawker.com) divider line 639
    More: Obvious, Gun Appreciation, North Carolina, shootings, guns  
•       •       •

7881 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 Jan 2013 at 10:18 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-20 01:32:57 AM

Dimensio: My AR-15 rifle could be used for hunting and in fact some hunters do use AR-15 pattern rifles, however I do not hunt at all and I use the rifle only for target shooting; should it be confiscated from me?


Then they are not hunters. An AR-15 vs. a deer? Even a bear? Come on, what they hell are they hunting, Godzilla?
 
2013-01-20 01:33:31 AM

Coelacanth:
85% of the children in the world who die from gunshot wounds die here. Let's ban assault weapons and high capacity magazines.


More children die in car crashes and drowning accidents. Ban cars and swimming pools.
 
2013-01-20 01:33:36 AM

pedrop357: No, moron. I'm pointing out that on the most armed, publicly carrying day on record and there were two accidents reported anywhere.

The hundreds of thousands of gun rights supporters who came out today are not responsible for the dumb behavior of 2 people.


Here's my ultimate point: Yes, they are responsible.

There's a responsibility entrusted in the Second Amendment. You bear Arms and you're expected to come defend the country if attacked. With that right comes the duty to uphold the public safety. THAT is what the Founders intended.

In our world the gun issue has been mishandled by its supporters; they want the gun but they don't want to put in the homework that goes with keeping it. They refuse to be regulated but they also refuse to regulate themselves: they let their lunatics walk openly in their communities and gun stores and don't pass on warnings to authorities. They expect the only precaution against mass murders is the faith that someone else with a gun will kill the killer at the scene. This doesn't work.

Let's be clear: I don't want to take away anyone's guns. But THESE ARE GUNS, the most modern tool of warfare in human history, capable of killing any human with a single bullet. The gun community has shown time and again that their culture lacks a fundamental respect for how their weapons impact our society. I believe the gun community needs to aggressively police itself.

But I'm the 'moron' and the people who didn't know their guns were loaded are the proud and sensible patriots.
 
2013-01-20 01:33:36 AM

Frank N Stein: Haliburton Cummings: pedrop357: Haliburton Cummings:


But the gun control nuts who repeatedly talk about penises and penis size don't have a sexual dysfunction?

what a "gun control nut" problem family might look like:

"Steve come quick!"
"Linda what happened???"
"Little Tony was playing...by the bookcase...and the dictionary..it went off!"
"QUICK CALL BOOKMOBILE!!!"
"HIDE THE THESAURUS!!"


most rational folks are rational...most gun nuts are yelling screaming emotionally unstable fraidy cats.

cold dead hands etc... they have old queens like Heston come out and shill for them...

I grew up in a house in which I had access to a shotgun and shells. I somehow avoided blowing my head off. It's not that hard to teach a kid gun safety.


not my point.

good for you.

i have owned and operated legal firearms, never had a problem either. in fact, i know a fair deal about them as well...

but see, the idea that because you stand on a piece of dirt, stolen via genocide and think that entitles every moran on that dirt to own every weapon under the sun is madness..

when they shoot your kids, your tune will change...

but hey, you gun nuts..go start at nabisco, work your way down to exxon and when you are done with your right to depose the despots, lemme know... i'll bake you all a cake.

but right now, it's fat, stupid, scared and entitled american trash with guns...mostly...

go depose your dictators first...the real ones...the people who buy democracy away from you..

the directions to the Remington plant are on google maps...
 
2013-01-20 01:33:43 AM

Dimensio: cameroncrazy1984: Dimensio: cameroncrazy1984: Dimensio: Confabulat: You can't even suggest background checks without the gun nuts screaming THEY'RE TRYING TO TAKE MY GUNS AWAY!

I mean, talk about hysterical children.

I believe that the common objections to your statements relate to your advocacy of banning a class of firearms that you cannot actually define and to your continued irrelevant and inappropriate references to your penis.

Seems to me that New York has defined it pretty well. Not sure what that has to do with background checks, though.

I am certain, then, that you will be able to demonstrate that a Ruger Mini-14 that does not qualify as an "assault weapon" by New York state law is a legitimate civilian firearm, while a Ruger Mini-14 equipped with a stock that features a pistol grip is a "kill-em-all weapon" suitable only for "killing as many folks as possible as quickly as possible". Please do so.

Well considering that I've never said those things, no, I won't.

Then your claim that "New York has defined it pretty well" was false. For what reason did you issue the claim?


I claimed that New York defined assault rifles pretty well. I did not say anything about them being "kill-em-all" weapons" suitable for "killing as many folks as quickly as possible."

The fact that you must resort to hyperbole does not speak well to your side of the argument.
 
2013-01-20 01:34:05 AM
I think it's time for us to just hand it over to Darwin and say, 'Darwin, you're going to have to fix this.'
 
2013-01-20 01:34:33 AM

Fubini: Confabulat: Dimensio: I believe that the common objections to your statements relate to your advocacy of banning a class of firearms that you cannot actually define and to your continued irrelevant and inappropriate references to your penis.

My penis is never irrelevant. And you're right, I'm ignorant on the topic, because I've gone my whole damn life and never needed any sort of assault weaponry.

Go figure. So why is so important to you? Be specific. I understand having hunting rifles, a shotgun, and a small personal firearm. Perfectly logical.

Why in God's green earth have you ever needed more?

I'll tell you why I need an assault weapon as soon as you acknowledge that they're statistically the safest type of weapon in the US, and this is including all injuries and deaths from all causes, criminal or not. The fact that two lunatics went psycho with them doesn't change that, by the way.

Also, even if you just look at the lunatic psychos, more people are killed/injured with pistols and shotguns than they are with "assault weapons." As far as I know, there have only ever been two psycho-spree-shootings that have ever involved an "assault weapon," and both of them happened this year.


I take that last bit back, now that I think about it I believe that the Columbine shooters used a Tec-9 pistol that would have been considered an assault weapon.
 
2013-01-20 01:35:43 AM

Allen. The end.: Then they are not hunters. An AR-15 vs. a deer? Even a bear? Come on, what they hell are they hunting, Godzilla?


*facepalm*

You do realize that .223, the round most commonly chambered for the AR-15, is an intermediate cartridge that is much smaller than the most typical deer hunting caliber, the 30-06, right?
 
2013-01-20 01:36:02 AM

pedrop357: IT FAILED in NY with that felon shooting firefighters.


The only reason it failed in NY is because he likely didn't buy it in NY. A federal ban would make it much more difficult for someone like him to purchase firearms. Especially now with the increased mental health checks and information.

Or did you not realize that we just tightened the ban in light of that information?

That the law failed does not mean we should have repealed it. It (rightly) meant that we should strengthen it. Again, you cannot stop EVERY mass shooting. But you can curtail them.
 
2013-01-20 01:36:20 AM

spacelord321: derpy: pedrop357: Confabulat: Why do you need anything more? Be very specific. What are you needing an arsenal for, other than the penis size issue?

DRiNK!

Why should we be denied anything more? Please be very specific.

Because you live in an otherwise civilized world.

You know what other nation claimed to be the civilized world?


I give up. Switzerland?
 
2013-01-20 01:36:33 AM

redmid17: IlGreven: Doc Daneeka: Three more responsible gun owners heard from!

On Gun Appreciation Day, no less!

And the shotgun guy was selling his, and I bet he wasn't a registered gun dealer, so he didn't have to perform a background check on whoever wanted to buy it.

/But no, there's no such thing as a "gun show loophole".

Yes because you can do that outside of a gun show. If you felt the need to buy my Remington 870 in my home state, I could sell it to you with nary a check just about anywhere you wanted outside of courthouses, school, and a few other places. Calling it a gun show exception is like saying there's a free way exception to driving.


Well, okay then, we'll call it the "non-dealer loophole". And it's still one that needs to be closed. And it can without any infringement on 2nd Amendment rights (Keep and Bear != buy and sell).
 
2013-01-20 01:36:44 AM

Allen. The end.: Dimensio: My AR-15 rifle could be used for hunting and in fact some hunters do use AR-15 pattern rifles, however I do not hunt at all and I use the rifle only for target shooting; should it be confiscated from me?

Then they are not hunters. An AR-15 vs. a deer? Even a bear? Come on, what they hell are they hunting, Godzilla?


As I never claimed that an AR-15 is a suitable firearm for hunting deer or bears, your reference to such animals is irrelevant. Your claim that hunters who use AR-15 pattern rifles "are not hunters" is an appeal to the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.
 
2013-01-20 01:36:54 AM

Dimensio: Then your claim that "New York has defined it pretty well" was false. For what reason did you issue the claim?


VERHLIDAERT DERP PERSITERNZ!!!!

/runs away mad
 
2013-01-20 01:37:44 AM

PaLarkin: Coelacanth:
85% of the children in the world who die from gunshot wounds die here. Let's ban assault weapons and high capacity magazines.

More children die in car crashes and drowning accidents. Ban cars and swimming pools.


It's not about the number; it's about the scale.
 
2013-01-20 01:37:58 AM

cameroncrazy1984: So the anti-gun control crowd is into logical fallacies? Neat.


really? The people pushing gun control were saying not 6 years ago that the 2nd amendment was not an individual right. These same people repeatedly support laws in the 80s and 90s to ban and confiscate ALL handguns or ALL semi-auto firearms. They supported as reasonable, the bans on handguns and semi-automatic firearms in DC, and the ban on handguns in Chicago.

They created out of thin air, the definition of 'assault weapon' and pretended that the weapons THEY defined with that new term were somehow uniquely worthy of being banned. Since they created that term in the 1980s, they've revised to cover more and more makes/models of guns.

So when someone says that the gun control proposals are simply a 1st step towards full out bans, they're not being hyperbolic.

When a politicians who has pushed for outright bans on abortion now suddenly pushes smaller limits on abortion and calle them 'reasonable', are the pro-choice people wrong for mistrusting his intentions?
 
2013-01-20 01:38:21 AM

Haliburton Cummings: not my point.

good for you.

i have owned and operated legal firearms, never had a problem either. in fact, i know a fair deal about them as well...

but see, the idea that because you stand on a piece of dirt, stolen via genocide and think that entitles every moran on that dirt to own every weapon under the sun is madness..

when they shoot your kids, your tune will change...

but hey, you gun nuts..go start at nabisco, work your way down to exxon and when you are done with your right to depose the despots, lemme know... i'll bake you all a cake.

but right now, it's fat, stupid, scared and entitled american trash with guns...mostly...

go depose your dictators first...the real ones...the people who buy democracy away from you..

the directions to the Remington plant are on google maps...


What you just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
 
2013-01-20 01:39:27 AM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Friday, January 18, 2013 | Larry Ward | Gun Appreciation Day
A word of caution for tomorrow:

There is likely to be opposition at the events that you folks took the time to organize and promote whether it be at a gun range, gun show, gun shop or at the state capitals to defend your right to keep and bear arms.

The media is also likely to attend your events.

They will be looking for confrontational sound bites and video clips. Let's not give them any. It is important that we demonstrate to the rest of the country and the world (as the world will be watching) that gun owners and advocates are peaceful, ordinary citizens who love our liberty.

This is our opportunity to shine. We must draw the line in the sand to protect our rights as guaranteed in Our Constitution. Let's do it with class.

Thank you all for your efforts and your support. It truly means the world.

Larry Ward
Ordinary Citizen
2nd Amendment Advocate


It's so sad how they're convinced that they're going to lose all of their guns. They're convinced that everyone around them is screaming "NO GUNS NEVER!" and are about to strip them of every firearm they own. And no mater how much you explain otherwise, they just go deeper and deeper into the conspiracy theories and absolution that Obama's only reason for existing is to take away all their guns.
 
2013-01-20 01:39:35 AM

pedrop357: The people pushing gun control were saying not 6 years ago that the 2nd amendment was not an individual right


Strawman.

pedrop357: These same people repeatedly support laws in the 80s and 90s to ban and confiscate ALL handguns or ALL semi-auto firearms.


Strawman

pedrop357: They created out of thin air, the definition of 'assault weapon' and pretended that the weapons THEY defined with that new term were somehow uniquely worthy of being banned.


Strawman

pedrop357: Since they created that term in the 1980s, they've revised to cover more and more makes/models of guns.


[citation needed]

Yeah, I think you're done here.
 
2013-01-20 01:40:51 AM

cameroncrazy1984: Dimensio: cameroncrazy1984: Dimensio: cameroncrazy1984: Dimensio: Confabulat: You can't even suggest background checks without the gun nuts screaming THEY'RE TRYING TO TAKE MY GUNS AWAY!

I mean, talk about hysterical children.

I believe that the common objections to your statements relate to your advocacy of banning a class of firearms that you cannot actually define and to your continued irrelevant and inappropriate references to your penis.

Seems to me that New York has defined it pretty well. Not sure what that has to do with background checks, though.

I am certain, then, that you will be able to demonstrate that a Ruger Mini-14 that does not qualify as an "assault weapon" by New York state law is a legitimate civilian firearm, while a Ruger Mini-14 equipped with a stock that features a pistol grip is a "kill-em-all weapon" suitable only for "killing as many folks as possible as quickly as possible". Please do so.

Well considering that I've never said those things, no, I won't.

Then your claim that "New York has defined it pretty well" was false. For what reason did you issue the claim?

I claimed that New York defined assault rifles pretty well. I did not say anything about them being "kill-em-all" weapons" suitable for "killing as many folks as quickly as possible."

The fact that you must resort to hyperbole does not speak well to your side of the argument.


Confabulat advocated "a ban on the extreme kill-em-all weaponry that exists only to kill a large number of folks in a short amount of time". I requested a means of identifying such weaponry, and Confabulat has since admitted an inability to explicitly describe how such a definition may be derived. I then made reference to this inability. You responded to this reference by claiming that "New York has defined it pretty well"; within that context, "it" referred to Confabulat's phrase "extreme kill-em-all weaponry that exists only to kill a large number of folks in a short amount of time". As such, my statement is a direct response to your assertion, and it is not "hyperbole".
 
2013-01-20 01:41:04 AM

Frank N Stein: Haliburton Cummings: not my point.

good for you.

i have owned and operated legal firearms, never had a problem either. in fact, i know a fair deal about them as well...

but see, the idea that because you stand on a piece of dirt, stolen via genocide and think that entitles every moran on that dirt to own every weapon under the sun is madness..

when they shoot your kids, your tune will change...

but hey, you gun nuts..go start at nabisco, work your way down to exxon and when you are done with your right to depose the despots, lemme know... i'll bake you all a cake.

but right now, it's fat, stupid, scared and entitled american trash with guns...mostly...

go depose your dictators first...the real ones...the people who buy democracy away from you..

the directions to the Remington plant are on google maps...

What you just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.


10/10
i think it's as cogent as most of the nut ramble in here...

and not as nutty as God for sure..

but you aren't too bright so your validation means zip to me...

go polish your guns now...
 
2013-01-20 01:41:22 AM

IlGreven: redmid17: IlGreven: Doc Daneeka: Three more responsible gun owners heard from!

On Gun Appreciation Day, no less!

And the shotgun guy was selling his, and I bet he wasn't a registered gun dealer, so he didn't have to perform a background check on whoever wanted to buy it.

/But no, there's no such thing as a "gun show loophole".

Yes because you can do that outside of a gun show. If you felt the need to buy my Remington 870 in my home state, I could sell it to you with nary a check just about anywhere you wanted outside of courthouses, school, and a few other places. Calling it a gun show exception is like saying there's a free way exception to driving.

Well, okay then, we'll call it the "non-dealer loophole". And it's still one that needs to be closed. And it can without any infringement on 2nd Amendment rights (Keep and Bear != buy and sell).


Actually keep and bear are pretty much tantamount to buy and sell, but I have few reservations amending that particular part of the codified law if they open up the NICS to private citizens and don't charge for it.
 
2013-01-20 01:42:44 AM

Keizer_Ghidorah: It's so sad how they're convinced that they're going to lose all of their guns. They're convinced that everyone around them is screaming "NO GUNS NEVER!" and are about to strip them of every firearm they own. And no mater how much you explain otherwise, they just go deeper and deeper into the conspiracy theories and absolution that Obama's only reason for existing is to take away all their guns.


There is plenty of new gun control in the works including a new assault weapons ban, which is supported by Obama. While not every gun owner owns an "assault weapon", they don't want to see them banned because they view it as an affront to the right to keep and bear arms. So yeah, no one is going to take all the guns away, but they do want to take some of the most popular rifles away.
 
2013-01-20 01:42:59 AM

cameroncrazy1984: At any rate, you're never going to completely eliminate mass-shootings, but you can damn well cut them down and make them less deadly over time. No solution is going to be immediate. But any solution will be better than the status quo.


Please tell me at what level do you consider there to be an acceptable level of mass-shootings? There are well under 50 people killed in mass shootings in an average year. We have, on average, less than two spree-style mass shootings per year.

One shooting every other year? Every three or four years? These things are already incredibly rare. They're so incredibly rare that it defies description how rare it is. I tried to point out in another thread that you're more likely to be killed by lightning than a spree shooter and people called me a liar, I guess because they didn't want to hear it.

But please, give us a specific threshold and a set of reccomendations for that threshold, and we'll have something more concrete to work with than "We think banning assault weapons might cause this to go down in the long run."

Even if some gun control action did have an effect on mass shootings, it wouldn't be measurable because they're already so rare.
 
2013-01-20 01:43:25 AM

cameroncrazy1984: The only reason it failed in NY is because he likely didn't buy it in NY. A federal ban would make it much more difficult for someone like him to purchase firearms. Especially now with the increased mental health checks and information.

Or did you not realize that we just tightened the ban in light of that information?

That the law failed does not mean we should have repealed it. It (rightly) meant that we should strengthen it. Again, you cannot stop EVERY mass shooting. But you can curtail them.


Get back to me when you know where that gun actually came from. He didn't buy it for starters, someone else illegally bought it for him.

We've seen what strengthening gun control has done in DC, Chicago, Maryland, New Jersey, etc. has done and it's not pretty. We've seen what loosening gun laws has done and it's resulted in a 30-40% drop in murders with handguns since the 1980s.

Tightening stupid laws is still stupid.

Since 1987 some 35 states have changed their concealed carry laws from non issue or discirminatory issue to objective shall issue, meaning more people can legally carry guns today than at just about any point in the last 100 years in this country. We've seen an idiotic, ineffective ban on scary-looking guns come and go, and have seen more people than ever buying guns, and we've seen crime with and without firearms drop like a rock in that time.
 
2013-01-20 01:43:54 AM

Frank N Stein: Haliburton Cummings:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acLW1vFO-2Q

have at that....
 
2013-01-20 01:44:20 AM

Haliburton Cummings: i think it's as cogent as most of the nut ramble in here...

and not as nutty as God for sure..

but you aren't too bright so your validation means zip to me...

go polish your guns now...


You cant even use proper grammar and format your sentences in anyway that makes sense.
 
2013-01-20 01:44:55 AM

cameroncrazy1984: pedrop357: The people pushing gun control were saying not 6 years ago that the 2nd amendment was not an individual right

Strawman.


pedrop357: These same people repeatedly support laws in the 80s and 90s to ban and confiscate ALL handguns or ALL semi-auto firearms.

Strawman   

pedrop357: They created out of thin air, the definition of 'assault weapon' and pretended that the weapons THEY defined with that new term were somehow uniquely worthy of being banned.

Strawman

pedrop357: Since they created that term in the 1980s, they've revised to cover more and more makes/models of guns.

[citation needed]  http://catalog.library.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?BOOL1=any+of + these&FLD1=ISBN+(ISBN)&DB=local&CNT=25&SAB1=0927291002

Yeah, I think you're done here.
 
2013-01-20 01:45:52 AM
 
2013-01-20 01:46:03 AM

PaLarkin: Confabulat: PaLarkin: The gun control crowd wants to ban guns

Only a very extreme fringe wants to ban all guns. Most people are rational and are just considering background checks, or a ban on the extreme kill-em-all weaponry that exists only to kill a large number of folks in a short amount of time.

Gun nuts and the NRA cannot talk rationally about the topic though, because even these common-sense measures are greeted with "OUT OF MY COLD DEAD HANDS" and other paranoid bullshiat. They can't be reasoned with.

The anti gun control crowd knows that this so called reasonable gun control is just a step on the road to a total ban of guns just like the pro abortion crowd knows the slightest regulation or restriction on abortion is a step on the road to banning abortion. So the pro abortion people are just as reluctant to compromise what they perceive as their right to an abortion as the pro gun people are about their right to own guns.

People who oppose being groped and sexually assaulted by the TSA drones don't like the loss of their 4th amendment rights to protection against unreasonable search and seizure.


Conspiracy theories are not a good basis for anything.
 
2013-01-20 01:47:14 AM

Frank N Stein: Haliburton Cummings: i think it's as cogent as most of the nut ramble in here...

and not as nutty as God for sure..

but you aren't too bright so your validation means zip to me...

go polish your guns now...

You cant even use proper grammar and format your sentences in anyway that makes sense.


stop trying so hard
 
2013-01-20 01:47:23 AM
Hey, gun nuts. Here's the secret tactic we who favor more gun regulation are using on you.

We say we don't need any more of these:

www.bushmaster.com

or thirty round magazines or hundred round drums and you start up on cosmetics and ammo and tech specs and a lot of anal retentive bs and generally go fnckin' nuts.

The vast middle moderate majority sees that and says, "Those people are fnckin' nuts."

It's got nothing to do with banning "assault weapons" and everything to do with discrediting you.

So keep up the good work.
 
2013-01-20 01:47:28 AM

cameroncrazy1984: PaLarkin: Coelacanth:
85% of the children in the world who die from gunshot wounds die here. Let's ban assault weapons and high capacity magazines.

More children die in car crashes and drowning accidents. Ban cars and swimming pools.

It's not about the number; it's about the scale.


What exactly do you mean by scale? Any given gun is far less likely to end up injuring a child over it's lifetime than any given pool, and in terms of absolute numbers children are injured far less often by guns than either of those things above.

Any random car is more likely to kill a child than any random gun is.
 
2013-01-20 01:48:23 AM

cameroncrazy1984: pedrop357: The people pushing gun control were saying not 6 years ago that the 2nd amendment was not an individual right

Strawman.

pedrop357: These same people repeatedly support laws in the 80s and 90s to ban and confiscate ALL handguns or ALL semi-auto firearms.

Strawman

pedrop357: They created out of thin air, the definition of 'assault weapon' and pretended that the weapons THEY defined with that new term were somehow uniquely worthy of being banned.

Strawman

pedrop357: Since they created that term in the 1980s, they've revised to cover more and more makes/models of guns.

[citation needed]

Yeah, I think you're done here.


The Brady group, Feinstein, Lautenberg, Schumer, etc. were not claiming that the 2nd amendment was
not individual right?

Dianne Feintstein did not introduce bills to ban and require handguns to be turned over to the government? Other congresspeople did not introduce similar bills in the 1990s?

The Violence Policy Center and 'Handgun Control Inc.' did not simply create the term 'assault weapon' and apply it semi-auto firearms?

Start with CA's 1989 ban on 'assault weapons', then CT's 1993 ban which was copied to the 94 federal ban, then look at CA's 2000 ban, and then finally look at the proposed federal bans they've introduced since 1995. The definition gets broader each time.

I notice you failed to address my claim that they supported the DC handgun and semi-auto ban, or the Chicago handgun ban.
 
2013-01-20 01:49:02 AM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Hey, gun nuts. Here's the secret tactic we who favor more gun regulation are using on you.

We say we don't need any more of these:

[www.bushmaster.com image 850x302]

or thirty round magazines or hundred round drums and you start up on cosmetics and ammo and tech specs and a lot of anal retentive bs and generally go fnckin' nuts.

The vast middle moderate majority sees that and says, "Those people are fnckin' nuts."

It's got nothing to do with banning "assault weapons" and everything to do with discrediting you.

So keep up the good work.


The problem is "you" want to ban specific models and not the actual technology itself. At best it makes you look ignorant. At worst it means you're doing it just for the political points.
 
2013-01-20 01:49:08 AM

Keizer_Ghidorah: PaLarkin: The gun control crowd wants to ban guns because criminals use them to kill people and idiots who own one but aren't careful with it cause accidents that hurt or kill people.

The extremists, you mean. Everyone else only wants some regulation, some better training and knowledge of safety, maybe getting rid of the assault-type weapons that you don't reasonably need unless you're a collector or something, because going hunting or protecting your home with a machine gun seems a little extreme. You'll still have pistols and handguns and shotguns and other non-assault-type guns.

But people like you seem to think that any attempt to address and perhaps reduce the amount of gun-based violence and death = "OBAMA AND DA LIBS TAKE ALL MAH GUNZ AWAAAAAAAAAY!!", and thus refuse to think rationally and do anything helpful.


You're wrong. There are other ways to deal with gun violence other than taking away peoples' second amendment rights. When someone commits a gun crime, don't give them a slap on the wrist sentence and turn them loose.

Also some people want guns to protect themselves. There was the case a few days ago in Georgia. A woman was home with her kids when some guy started trying to force the door open. She took the kids, went upstairs and hid with a gun. She called her husband. He picked up another phone and called 911. While he was on the phone with the 911 operator, the bad guy found the woman and kids. On the tape you can hear the man telling the operator his wife is shooting at the guy. The cops didn't get there until after the woman finished shooting the guy. He was dead when the cops got there.

If she did not have a gun, she would not have been able to defend herself and the guy might have killed her and the kids.

Look at the anti smoking movement. Forty years ago you could smoke anywhere, in airplanes, in restaurants and just about anywhere else. Now look at all the places where smoking is banned. Look at the taxes on cigarettes now vs 40 years ago. In the early 70s cigarette advertizing on tv was still legal. What happened to the cigarette industry shows what can happen beginning with just one common sense restriction.
 
2013-01-20 01:49:41 AM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Hey, gun nuts. Here's the secret tactic we who favor more gun regulation are using on you.

We say we don't need any more of these:

[www.bushmaster.com image 850x302]

or thirty round magazines or hundred round drums and you start up on cosmetics and ammo and tech specs and a lot of anal retentive bs and generally go fnckin' nuts.

The vast middle moderate majority sees that and says, "Those people are fnckin' nuts."

It's got nothing to do with banning "assault weapons" and everything to do with discrediting you.

So keep up the good work.


Thank you for admitting that you are intentionally relying upon dishonest tactics, rather than working to improve public safety. Few firearm restriction advocates admit such freely.
 
2013-01-20 01:50:27 AM

Fubini: As far as I know, there have only ever been two psycho-spree-shootings that have ever involved an "assault weapon," and both of them happened this year.


Of course you mean last year.

extras.mnginteractive.comtimenewsfeed.files.wordpress.comstatic.guim.co.ukwww.gannett-cdn.com
 
2013-01-20 01:50:31 AM

Haliburton Cummings: stop Stop trying so hard

.

Sorry about your learning disability.
 
2013-01-20 01:50:49 AM

elchip: I heard five people at three shows.


My best friend's sister's boyfriend's brother's girlfriend heard from this guy who knows this kid who's going with the girl who saw Ferris get shot at 31 Flavors last night. I guess it's pretty serious.
 
2013-01-20 01:50:55 AM

Dimensio: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Hey, gun nuts. Here's the secret tactic we who favor more gun regulation are using on you.

We say we don't need any more of these:

[www.bushmaster.com image 850x302]

or thirty round magazines or hundred round drums and you start up on cosmetics and ammo and tech specs and a lot of anal retentive bs and generally go fnckin' nuts.

The vast middle moderate majority sees that and says, "Those people are fnckin' nuts."

It's got nothing to do with banning "assault weapons" and everything to do with discrediting you.

So keep up the good work.

Thank you for admitting that you are intentionally relying upon dishonest tactics, rather than working to improve public safety. Few firearm restriction advocates admit such freely.


Just one more reason I'm glad Nina's worthless ass is on my ignore list.
 
2013-01-20 01:51:07 AM

redmid17: The problem is "you" want to ban specific models and not the actual technology itself. At best it makes you look ignorant. At worst it means you're doing it just for the political points.


He's desperate for attention. Just leave it alone.
 
2013-01-20 01:51:30 AM

elchip: I heard five people at three gun shows.


We heard the CT shooter's mother was a teacher at the school too.
 
2013-01-20 01:51:56 AM

Frank N Stein: Keizer_Ghidorah: It's so sad how they're convinced that they're going to lose all of their guns. They're convinced that everyone around them is screaming "NO GUNS NEVER!" and are about to strip them of every firearm they own. And no mater how much you explain otherwise, they just go deeper and deeper into the conspiracy theories and absolution that Obama's only reason for existing is to take away all their guns.

There is plenty of new gun control in the works including a new assault weapons ban, which is supported by Obama. While not every gun owner owns an "assault weapon", they don't want to see them banned because they view it as an affront to the right to keep and bear arms. So yeah, no one is going to take all the guns away, but they do want to take some of the most popular rifles away.


Still got pistols, handguns, rifles, and shotguns. Plus period guns. Banning one class of weapon =/= THEY TAKE ALL MY GUNS AWAY!, and thinking it's some stepping stone towards a defenseless population and the New World Order is simple conspiracy theory.
 
2013-01-20 01:53:37 AM

Keizer_Ghidorah: Still got pistols, handguns, rifles, and shotguns. Plus period guns. Banning one class of weapon =/= THEY TAKE ALL MY GUNS AWAY!, and thinking it's some stepping stone towards a defenseless population and the New World Order is simple conspiracy theory.


Arbitrarily creating a class of firearms and pretending that they're uniquely worth of being banned, THEN periodically expanding the scope of that definition sure as hell looks like something a person would do if they want to ban all guns.

Also, there are more kinds of infringements than the full out confiscation.
 
2013-01-20 01:53:54 AM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Of course you mean last year.


Yeah, last year was a banner year for psychos that want to kill random people. Doesn't mean anything substantive has changed.

Like I said above, when you have 0-2 of these events yearly it's hard to tell whether having 4 of them means something is different or it's just a blip. I don't mean to sound crass, but when you're talking about restricting rights that 80 million Americans use you better be damn sure it's not just a blip.
 
2013-01-20 01:53:56 AM
these gun threads are getting farking old BM

/yeah. real FARKING old
 
2013-01-20 01:55:19 AM

Keizer_Ghidorah: Frank N Stein: Keizer_Ghidorah: It's so sad how they're convinced that they're going to lose all of their guns. They're convinced that everyone around them is screaming "NO GUNS NEVER!" and are about to strip them of every firearm they own. And no mater how much you explain otherwise, they just go deeper and deeper into the conspiracy theories and absolution that Obama's only reason for existing is to take away all their guns.

There is plenty of new gun control in the works including a new assault weapons ban, which is supported by Obama. While not every gun owner owns an "assault weapon", they don't want to see them banned because they view it as an affront to the right to keep and bear arms. So yeah, no one is going to take all the guns away, but they do want to take some of the most popular rifles away.

Still got pistols, handguns, rifles, and shotguns. Plus period guns. Banning one class of weapon =/= THEY TAKE ALL MY GUNS AWAY!, and thinking it's some stepping stone towards a defenseless population and the New World Order is simple conspiracy theory.


It's not even a real class.They're just rifles. I can't speak for other people's conspiracy theories and whatnot, but as someone that *doesn't* own an "assault rifle", I don't want to see them banned. Not only is it pointless, considering that they only account for some 3% of homicides, but I also believe it to be a stepping stone to further gun control.
 
2013-01-20 01:55:30 AM

Frank N Stein: Haliburton Cummings: stop Stop trying so hard.

Sorry about your learning disability.


0/1000
 
2013-01-20 01:57:03 AM

derpy: spacelord321: derpy: pedrop357: Confabulat: Why do you need anything more? Be very specific. What are you needing an arsenal for, other than the penis size issue?

DRiNK!

Why should we be denied anything more? Please be very specific.

Because you live in an otherwise civilized world.

You know what other nation claimed to be the civilized world?

I give up. Switzerland?


derpy: spacelord321: derpy: pedrop357: Confabulat: Why do you need anything more? Be very specific. What are you needing an arsenal for, other than the penis size issue?

DRiNK!

Why should we be denied anything more? Please be very specific.

Because you live in an otherwise civilized world.

You know what other nation claimed to be the civilized world?

I give up. Switzerland?


Pretty much all of 'em.
 
2013-01-20 01:58:25 AM
Farkin tab.
 
Displayed 50 of 639 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report