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.

(Politico)   Bill Clinton to Democrats: Don't trivialize gun culture   (politico.com ) divider line 1115
    More: Advice, Bill Clinton, gun culture, Democrats, GOP House  
•       •       •

16599 clicks; posted to Main » on 20 Jan 2013 at 5:41 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



1115 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-20 05:41:14 PM  

gimmegimme: Sooo...can you point to any examples of a person walking into a school and killing two dozen kids with a case of beer?


I can point to an example of a stupid argument. ↑

whidbey: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Any infringement is necessarily unconstitutional.

You're welcome to cite the court case that backs up your point.

Otherwise, it is completely absurd. We have had judicial review almost as long as the 2nd Amendment for that matter.


So.. you don't understand that courts have reversed opinions many times in the past, and that if you want to understand what an amendment means, you should read the founding documents in their entirety, and have a dictionary from the late 1700's handy. Gotcha.

whidbey: Well I would drop that, not only because of the strawman fallacy in the first part, but making false comparisons is also a fallacious use of your debating skills.

So you have no real arguments. Just the emotional responses you tend to rail against in your opponents.


It's not a strawman fallacy, because as I said "as your side likes to claim, guns have no "valid use"", are you disagreeing that this is routinely brought up threads? I didn't attribute it to you specifically, so it's not a strawman.

whidbey: but making false comparisons is also a fallacious use of your debating skills.


What is false about the comparison? You asserted that this is the case, however you haven't provided a shred of reasoning backing the idea. This is known as a bald assertion, and is a logical fallacy on your part.

whidbey: So you have no real arguments. Just the emotional responses you tend to rail against in your opponents.


You have drawn a conclusion based on no factual argument, and my argument isn't based in emotionalism in the slightest. You can do better than this.

whidbey: Your inability to admit that firearms are in fact dangerous is also disturbing.


They can be dangerous, sure, but in reality, when you look at the actual data, they're safer than many things we all use in our daily lives, therefore any effort to restrict their ownership while ignoring the ownership of more dangerous objects is necessarily not born of reason.
 
2013-01-20 05:41:27 PM  

Amos Quito: Hi whidbey.

Got a few minutes?

Enjoy


I'm not going to address your blatant trolling, dude. Oh wait, 6/10 because I replied. Shiat.
 
2013-01-20 05:42:22 PM  

Amos Quito: Got a few minutes?


4 videos in 1 year?

Good offset to the 25 firearms-related murders committed on an average day.
 
2013-01-20 05:43:13 PM  

whidbey: CADMonkey79: The VT massacre was committed using handguns. Do think hand guns should be banned?

No I don't. But they could be.

Obviously we need to pour a lot of funding into understanding mental health issues as much as regulating firearms, but that means all the "but Socialism!" bullshiat about raising taxes and expanding social programs is going to have to stop.

And yeah, we're also going to have to cut the military budget to do it.


So what actual good will an AWB do? How will it make a difference?

Ok, I am fine with a military budget cut.
 
2013-01-20 05:43:16 PM  

Amos Quito: whidbey: HBK: If I felt that it was "no big deal" to have little or no gun regulation, then I would be guilty of basically living in my own Private Idaho and not paying attention to what's been going on in the outside world.

Ah, so because people don't overreact as much as you means that they're not paying attention? And not that you're jumping on the "emotional cause of the week."

It's not an overreaction. This has been building up for a long time now. We live in a very violent country, and part of the reason for that cycle of continuation of violence is because of our obsession with it.

Weapons need to be even more regulated than alcohol or other controlled substances. Part of the problem is that we're not enforcing laws we do have, that there is a notably ineffective policy for addressing gun violence. It is not a numbers game, it is not about how many were killed by assault rifles versus handguns, toys, cars or TVs.

The status quo is not working. Why do you choose to just shrug off this indefensible truth?


Hi whidbey.

Got a few minutes?

Enjoy


This is pretty cool, too.

Oh, and this one is good.

Enjoy
 
2013-01-20 05:44:18 PM  

gimmegimme: Whoa, chill, daddy-o. I'm just amused by conservatives who only want to follow the rules when it suits them. (Or before they've had a chance to rig them.)


Yeah, I'm so conservative that wanted Bush and Cheney thrown in jail. Did you notice my name? Ever read a book? Jesus man, way to derp!
 
2013-01-20 05:45:07 PM  

hubiestubert: Folks might want to listen to the Big Dog on this one.

Conflating the Idiot Brigade with all gun owners is a mistake. It can only alienate a chunk of folks, and at this point, it is a good way to send them into the arms of the Idiot Brigade, and the folks who really want to continue using them...


Well stated, but Fark is full of too many angry and extreme Democrats that wish to view everyone that isn't them in stereotypes. I've already been called a gun nut a few times and I don't even own guns.
 
2013-01-20 05:46:16 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: whidbey: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Any infringement is necessarily unconstitutional.

You're welcome to cite the court case that backs up your point.

Otherwise, it is completely absurd. We have had judicial review almost as long as the 2nd Amendment for that matter.

So.. you don't understand that courts have reversed opinions many times in the past, and that if you want to understand what an amendment means, you should read the founding documents in their entirety, and have a dictionary from the late 1700's handy. Gotcha.



Oh, so you just LOVE judicial activism. Why don't you marry it?
 
2013-01-20 05:48:16 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: whidbey: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Any infringement is necessarily unconstitutional.

You're welcome to cite the court case that backs up your point.

Otherwise, it is completely absurd. We have had judicial review almost as long as the 2nd Amendment for that matter.

So.. you don't understand that courts have reversed opinions many times in the past, and that if you want to understand what an amendment means, you should read the founding documents in their entirety, and have a dictionary from the late 1700's handy. Gotcha.


More like "Gotcha" you don't have a court case to back up your point.

The 2nd Amendment is subject to regulation via the 3 branches of government. DEAL with it, and stop using that same busted argument.

It's not a strawman fallacy, because as I said "as your side likes to claim, guns have no "valid use"", are you disagreeing that this is routinely brought up threads? I didn't attribute it to you specifically, so it's not a strawman.

It's bullshiat. There is no "side" that says any such thing. Stop using this "argument" as well. I insist.

whidbey: but making false comparisons is also a fallacious use of your debating skills.

What is false about the comparison? You asserted that this is the case, however you haven't provided a shred of reasoning backing the idea. This is known as a bald assertion, and is a logical fallacy on your part.


Guns are not cars. See above. You are making ridiculous arguments and when called out, you still cling to them.

You have drawn a conclusion based on no factual argument, and my argument isn't based in emotionalism in the slightest. You can do better than this.


I wouldn't be giving advice.

whidbey: Your inability to admit that firearms are in fact dangerous is also disturbing.

They can be dangerous, sure, but in reality, when you look at the actual data, they're safer than many things we all use in our daily lives, therefore any effort to restrict their ownership while ignoring the ownership of more dangerous objects is necessarily not born of reason.


This also is not an argument. We are talking about guns, which are actual weapons. Your argument here is also fallacious.

In short, your entire premise is bullshiat.
 
2013-01-20 05:48:38 PM  

gimmegimme: This is pretty cool, too.

Oh, and this one is good.

Enjoy


You know, you're right. We should pass a law stating that you shouldnt allow 8 year olds to fire fully automatic uzi's.

I dont think you'll get much opposition.
 
2013-01-20 05:49:30 PM  

Amos Quito: It is a proven fact that people with testicles commit far more crimes in all categories that those who are without.

Are you willing to surrender your testicles for the "greater good"? For the children???


Testicles and children in the same argument? You've now moved from crazy to creepy.
 
2013-01-20 05:49:30 PM  

Vegan Meat Popsicle: CADMonkey79: Fixed.

Oh, I'm sorry. You don't get it.

Your opinions are so stupid I feel no need to justify them with any sort of real response.

When I stop seeing idiotic arguments like "lol you have balls" being advanced from your side of the "debate" I'll reconsider my position.



I never accused YOU of having balls, Vegan Meat Popsicle.

Sorry for the misunderstanding.
 
2013-01-20 05:51:20 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: gimmegimme: Whoa, chill, daddy-o. I'm just amused by conservatives who only want to follow the rules when it suits them. (Or before they've had a chance to rig them.)

Yeah, I'm so conservative that wanted Bush and Cheney thrown in jail. Did you notice my name? Ever read a book? Jesus man, way to derp!


To be fair, your handle doesn't imply that immediately imply that Bush and Cheney should be locked up in The Hague. At least we agree on something.

I just don't understand why people are so reluctant to take positive action to address the gun problem and the culture of violence that is fostered by the crazy people.

cdn.crooksandliars.com
 
2013-01-20 05:51:51 PM  

Alonjar: There are over 2 million home invasion/burglaries commited in the United States every year


It's about 3.7 million burglaries, about a quarter of which someone was present for. About 7% (259,000) involved violence against a member of the household. That's about .082% of the population. [pdf]

TERROR! TERROR EVERYWHERE! QUICKLY! WET YOUR PANTS AND GRAB YOUR AK!

/ you're almost 6 times as likely just to be injured in a car crash as injured OR killed in a burglary
// but I'm sure the only thing you worried about when buying your car was safety and every second you spend on the road is spent maximizing your safety....
 
2013-01-20 05:54:38 PM  

Fart_Machine: Amos Quito: It is a proven fact that people with testicles commit far more crimes in all categories that those who are without.

Are you willing to surrender your testicles for the "greater good"? For the children???

Testicles and children in the same argument? You've now moved from crazy to creepy.



Are you ready to try the anti-Semite card again?

It's been a while.
 
2013-01-20 05:56:21 PM  

Alonjar: gimmegimme: This is pretty cool, too.

Oh, and this one is good.

Enjoy

You know, you're right. We should pass a law stating that you shouldnt allow 8 year olds to fire fully automatic uzi's.

I dont think you'll get much opposition.


static.guim.co.uk

Why do you hate the Second Amendment? Are you part of the Reptilian Kenyan Complex that has been putting mind control fluoride in our water? Brain drugs! Operation Aloysius. Oooooooh....the FBI doesn't like me talking about that. This country was founded because fathers were able to teach sons how to safely operate a firearm. People are killing each other with gravy boats in England! GRAVY BOATS!!!!111!!!

 
2013-01-20 05:59:06 PM  

Amos Quito: Vegan Meat Popsicle: CADMonkey79: Fixed.

Oh, I'm sorry. You don't get it.

Your opinions are so stupid I feel no need to justify them with any sort of real response.

When I stop seeing idiotic arguments like "lol you have balls" being advanced from your side of the "debate" I'll reconsider my position.


I never accused YOU of having balls, Vegan Meat Popsicle.

Sorry for the misunderstanding.


Should we also remove ovaries? Women commit a lot of crimes and murders, too.
 
2013-01-20 06:00:00 PM  
www.operatorchan.org
 
2013-01-20 06:00:58 PM  
Forget what I said about testicles.

Time to ban the boobies.
 
2013-01-20 06:01:35 PM  

CADMonkey79: whidbey: CADMonkey79: The VT massacre was committed using handguns. Do think hand guns should be banned?

No I don't. But they could be.

Obviously we need to pour a lot of funding into understanding mental health issues as much as regulating firearms, but that means all the "but Socialism!" bullshiat about raising taxes and expanding social programs is going to have to stop.

And yeah, we're also going to have to cut the military budget to do it.

So what actual good will an AWB do? How will it make a difference?

Ok, I am fine with a military budget cut.


Recognizing as a society that certain dangerous weapons should be legally unavailable to the public is a strong first step to addressing the violent culture in this country.

Also, there is a study available which concludes that the AWB had not been in effect long enough to achieve benefits. Here it is if you're interested. Sorry it's a PDF
 
2013-01-20 06:02:44 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: Amos Quito: Vegan Meat Popsicle: CADMonkey79: Fixed.

Oh, I'm sorry. You don't get it.

Your opinions are so stupid I feel no need to justify them with any sort of real response.

When I stop seeing idiotic arguments like "lol you have balls" being advanced from your side of the "debate" I'll reconsider my position.


I never accused YOU of having balls, Vegan Meat Popsicle.

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Should we also remove ovaries? Women commit a lot of crimes and murders, too.



I'm with you there, bub.

And the boobs as well.
 
2013-01-20 06:06:53 PM  

whidbey: CADMonkey79: whidbey: CADMonkey79: The VT massacre was committed using handguns. Do think hand guns should be banned?

No I don't. But they could be.

Obviously we need to pour a lot of funding into understanding mental health issues as much as regulating firearms, but that means all the "but Socialism!" bullshiat about raising taxes and expanding social programs is going to have to stop.

And yeah, we're also going to have to cut the military budget to do it.

So what actual good will an AWB do? How will it make a difference?

Ok, I am fine with a military budget cut.

Recognizing as a society that certain dangerous weapons should be legally unavailable to the public is a strong first step to addressing the violent culture in this country.

Also, there is a study available which concludes that the AWB had not been in effect long enough to achieve benefits. Here it is if you're interested. Sorry it's a PDF


Right, it's funny because "assault weapons" have never been a big problem in this country, There are thousands or fully automatic firearms in this country. I believe since the 30's there have only been one mass shooting with one, while handguns have been used far more often.

The AWB accomplished nothing because "assault weapons" were never that big of a threat any way, criminals don't carry around a rifle for the same reason they don't wear shirts that say "I'M A CRIMINAL" rifles and other long guns aren't concealable.
 
2013-01-20 06:07:18 PM  

Amos Quito: I never accused YOU of having balls, Vegan Meat Popsicle.


Yep.

Which side of the argument are the people on that are perpetually wetting their pants over big skeery criminals and imagined tyrants lurking around every corner?

Oh... right.

Keizer_Ghidorah: Should we also remove ovaries? Women commit a lot of crimes and murders, too.


That's actually his argument....

/ Poe's Law
 
2013-01-20 06:08:24 PM  

GUTSU: Right, it's funny because "assault weapons" have never been a big problem in this country, There are thousands or fully automatic firearms in this country. I believe since the 30's there have only been one mass shooting with one, while handguns have been used far more often.


All you're doing here is advocating a handgun ban.

I'm not.
 
2013-01-20 06:11:04 PM  

whidbey: Also, there is a study available which concludes that the AWB had not been in effect long enough to achieve benefits.



In order for any AWB - past or future - to show appreciable "benefits", there would have to be a significant percentage or firearms murders committed with these weapons.

This significant percentage did not exist then, and does not exist now, so it'll do about as much good as painting your toenails.
 
2013-01-20 06:11:40 PM  

whidbey: All you're doing here is advocating a handgun ban.

I'm not.


He's actually stating why he thinks an AWB is pointless and wont actually do anything to reduce gun violence.
 
2013-01-20 06:12:20 PM  

whidbey: GUTSU: Right, it's funny because "assault weapons" have never been a big problem in this country, There are thousands or fully automatic firearms in this country. I believe since the 30's there have only been one mass shooting with one, while handguns have been used far more often.

All you're doing here is advocating a handgun ban.

I'm not.


I'm not advocating a hand gun ban, all that I'm saying is that a firearms ban won't have any affect. The reason is that guns don't cause crimes, they merely make them slightly more expedient. Getting rid of poverty, teaching children responsibility, and a strong work ethic would probably do far more good than banning a firearm because it looks "scary"
 
2013-01-20 06:13:28 PM  

GUTSU: whidbey: GUTSU: Right, it's funny because "assault weapons" have never been a big problem in this country, There are thousands or fully automatic firearms in this country. I believe since the 30's there have only been one mass shooting with one, while handguns have been used far more often.

All you're doing here is advocating a handgun ban.

I'm not.

I'm not advocating a hand gun ban, all that I'm saying is that a firearms ban won't have any affect. The reason is that guns don't cause crimes, they merely make them slightly more expedient. Getting rid of poverty, teaching children responsibility, and a strong work ethic would probably do far more good than banning a firearm because it looks "scary"


To be fair, people don't want to ban certain firearms because they "look scary."
 
2013-01-20 06:13:48 PM  

GUTSU: Getting rid of poverty


Hey now, that actually would take effort, America ain't got time for that!
 
2013-01-20 06:13:54 PM  

gimmegimme: I just don't understand why people are so reluctant to take positive action to address the gun problem and the culture of violence that is fostered by the crazy people.


I'm all for addressing the violence, as long as you don't make my rights collateral damage. Want to stop violent people from getting guns, fine. Want to stop crazy people who have shown abnormal tendencies towards violence from getting guns, fine. Want to run background checks, fine. Want to stop EVERYONE from having an AR-15, NOT FINE. The thing is though, gun grabbers aren't happy until guns are actually grabbed from EVERYONE, not just the people who are the problem.  Any effort to restrict weapons or magazines, will never have my support.
 
2013-01-20 06:15:19 PM  

whidbey: GUTSU: Right, it's funny because "assault weapons" have never been a big problem in this country, There are thousands or fully automatic firearms in this country. I believe since the 30's there have only been one mass shooting with one, while handguns have been used far more often.

All you're doing here is advocating a handgun ban.

I'm not.



WTF are you doing, whidbey?
 
2013-01-20 06:16:37 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: gimmegimme: I just don't understand why people are so reluctant to take positive action to address the gun problem and the culture of violence that is fostered by the crazy people.

I'm all for addressing the violence, as long as you don't make my rights collateral damage. Want to stop violent people from getting guns, fine. Want to stop crazy people who have shown abnormal tendencies towards violence from getting guns, fine. Want to run background checks, fine. Want to stop EVERYONE from having an AR-15, NOT FINE. The thing is though, gun grabbers aren't happy until guns are actually grabbed from EVERYONE, not just the people who are the problem.  Any effort to restrict weapons or magazines, will never have my support.


So did you have a problem with any of the President's executive orders? I am guessing we would stand side-by-side on most issues. (Free speech and stuff, especially.) But the folks who are fetishizing guns are indeed a problem.
 
2013-01-20 06:16:42 PM  

gimmegimme: GUTSU: whidbey: GUTSU: Right, it's funny because "assault weapons" have never been a big problem in this country, There are thousands or fully automatic firearms in this country. I believe since the 30's there have only been one mass shooting with one, while handguns have been used far more often.

All you're doing here is advocating a handgun ban.

I'm not.

I'm not advocating a hand gun ban, all that I'm saying is that a firearms ban won't have any affect. The reason is that guns don't cause crimes, they merely make them slightly more expedient. Getting rid of poverty, teaching children responsibility, and a strong work ethic would probably do far more good than banning a firearm because it looks "scary"

To be fair, people don't want to ban certain firearms because they "look scary."


Yes, yes they do. Why do you think cosmetic features such as a pistol grip or a barrel shroud make a semi-automatic rifle magically turn into an "assault weapon"? The worst thing is that the people introducing these Assault weapon bans don't even know what the fark they are talking about http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ospNRk2uM3U
 
2013-01-20 06:16:51 PM  

GUTSU: Getting rid of poverty, teaching children responsibility, and a strong work ethic would probably do far more good than banning a firearm because it looks "scary"


The AWB is not about banning "scary" weapons. That's a bit disingenuous.

Otherwise, yes, we need to do those things. Guess who the biggest opposition is?

Social conservatives.
 
2013-01-20 06:17:05 PM  
Instead of adding new laws, how about enforce the ones that exist?
 
2013-01-20 06:18:42 PM  

GUTSU: a firearms ban won't have any affect


Even ignoring the fact that bit of your comment is idiotic and plain wrong based on the simple and irrefutable fact that if somehow there are no guns there can be no gun crimes, nobody's banning firearms. It's beyond unlikely that even certain firearms will get banned and not many people are even proposing such a thing.

But keep tilting at those windmills. I know if you guys actually put forward an honest and intelligent argument you'd probably burst into flames or something given your intense allergy to facts and reality.
 
2013-01-20 06:23:02 PM  

Vegan Meat Popsicle: I know if you guys actually put forward an honest and intelligent argument you'd probably burst into flames or something given your intense allergy to facts and reality.


Projecting?
 
2013-01-20 06:23:14 PM  
End the War On Drugs, and you will eliminate not only the violence associated with prohibition (gangs, turf wars, revenge killings, etc), but much of the street crime that is committed by users trying to feed their overpriced habits.

Obama?

OOoooBAMA?
 
2013-01-20 06:23:44 PM  

GUTSU: gimmegimme: GUTSU: whidbey: GUTSU: Right, it's funny because "assault weapons" have never been a big problem in this country, There are thousands or fully automatic firearms in this country. I believe since the 30's there have only been one mass shooting with one, while handguns have been used far more often.

All you're doing here is advocating a handgun ban.

I'm not.

I'm not advocating a hand gun ban, all that I'm saying is that a firearms ban won't have any affect. The reason is that guns don't cause crimes, they merely make them slightly more expedient. Getting rid of poverty, teaching children responsibility, and a strong work ethic would probably do far more good than banning a firearm because it looks "scary"

To be fair, people don't want to ban certain firearms because they "look scary."

Yes, yes they do. Why do you think cosmetic features such as a pistol grip or a barrel shroud make a semi-automatic rifle magically turn into an "assault weapon"? The worst thing is that the people introducing these Assault weapon bans don't even know what the fark they are talking about http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ospNRk2uM3U


No, people want to ban certain firearms because they have the potential to cause a vast amount of carnage in a short amount of time. Looking at an unloaded machine gun isn't scary. Walking into a Wal-Mart and seeing some random wingnut packing an assault rifle IS scary. (Particularly in light of the fact that even people at gun shows can't prevent accidental discharge.)

photos.lasvegassun.com
 
2013-01-20 06:26:18 PM  

Vegan Meat Popsicle: GUTSU: a firearms ban won't have any affect

Even ignoring the fact that bit of your comment is idiotic and plain wrong based on the simple and irrefutable fact that if somehow there are no guns there can be no gun crimes, nobody's banning firearms. It's beyond unlikely that even certain firearms will get banned and not many people are even proposing such a thing.



Then WTF ARE you arguing in favor of here, lad?

You're thrashing around in circles like you accidentally shot your Meat Popsicle with pepperspray.
 
2013-01-20 06:29:14 PM  

Amos Quito: Total number of homicides committed with rifles in 2011: 323  (This would include but is not limited to "Assault Rifles")

Compare to:

Knives or cutting instruments: 1,694
Blunt objects (clubs, hammers, etc): 496
Personal weapons (hands, feet, etc): 726

In spite of the emotionally hyped recent events, knives, blunt objects and HANDS AND FEET have all proven to be FAR more deadly than all rifles.


Yes, that's why we only had one Sandy Hook, compared to like five mass killings where a schizo kid forced his way into an elementary school and killed a couple dozen kids using dim mak, the touch of death.

That's why we have so many problems with murderers going on punching sprees in movie theaters. And then there was all those people who died in Tuscon when that guy started giving out noogies.

Clearly when we count up all the killing sprees of the last few years, almost all of them are accomplished using hands and feet, and maybe one of them might have involved a firearm. Anyone who stares at numbers on the Internet to the exclusion of all else can tell you that.

/I apologize for reminding you that Sandy Hook was a real thing that actually happened.
 
2013-01-20 06:29:55 PM  

Vegan Meat Popsicle: GUTSU: a firearms ban won't have any affect

Even ignoring the fact that bit of your comment is idiotic and plain wrong based on the simple and irrefutable fact that if somehow there are no guns there can be no gun crimes, nobody's banning firearms. It's beyond unlikely that even certain firearms will get banned and not many people are even proposing such a thing.

But keep tilting at those windmills. I know if you guys actually put forward an honest and intelligent argument you'd probably burst into flames or something given your intense allergy to facts and reality.


Are you supposing that just because something is banned it is unobtainable? Because I assure you the people using firearms in crimes don't normally follow laws, and yes people have been calling for a fire arms ban, in New York a great many of my rifles are not "assault weapons" and if I register them and then die the government will confiscate them. You're ignorance on this subject is astounding, either that or you're just ignoring the multitudes of examples of the government either taking legal weapons from citizens, or politicians our right stating that they want too.
 
2013-01-20 06:32:06 PM  

gimmegimme: Looking at an unloaded machine gun isn't scary. Walking into a Wal-Mart and seeing some random wingnut packing an assault rifle IS scary.


libertylinked.com

Only because you're not used to it,
 
2013-01-20 06:36:39 PM  

Amos Quito: gimmegimme: Looking at an unloaded machine gun isn't scary. Walking into a Wal-Mart and seeing some random wingnut packing an assault rifle IS scary.

[libertylinked.com image 600x446]

Only because you're not used to it,


Where is that, Somalia? Libya?
 
2013-01-20 06:38:06 PM  

Amos Quito: gimmegimme: Looking at an unloaded machine gun isn't scary. Walking into a Wal-Mart and seeing some random wingnut packing an assault rifle IS scary.

[libertylinked.com image 600x446]

Only because you're not used to it,


The crucial difference, my friend, is that those women were smart enough to remove the magazine, unlike the man in the earlier picture.
 
2013-01-20 06:41:27 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: Amos Quito: gimmegimme: Looking at an unloaded machine gun isn't scary. Walking into a Wal-Mart and seeing some random wingnut packing an assault rifle IS scary.

[libertylinked.com image 600x446]

Only because you're not used to it,

The crucial difference, my friend, is that those women were smart enough to remove the magazine, unlike the man in the earlier picture.


I think the biggest problem is that they have AR-15s. I mean really? look at all that shiatty plastic, now if they had wooden furniture... then we'd be talking. Although I'd prefer if they had a classier gun all together, but I suppose I can't get everything.
 
2013-01-20 06:44:27 PM  

gimmegimme: No, people want to ban certain firearms because they have the potential to cause a vast amount of carnage in a short amount of time. Looking at an unloaded machine gun isn't scary. Walking into a Wal-Mart and seeing some random wingnut packing an assault rifle IS scary. (Particularly in light of the fact that even people at gun shows can't prevent accidental discharge.)


This is doubly true if you read gun "enthusiast" forums. There's always some mall ninjas who insist that they must keep their gun loaded with a round chambered, because the whole world might turn Mad Max in 2 seconds instead of 5 seconds.
 
2013-01-20 06:46:15 PM  

Amos Quito: Then WTF ARE you arguing in favor of here, lad?


Nothing so far. I'm just mocking people like you. I have my opinions. But since I've yet to see a gun nut so far that's remotely honest I feel no real reason to share them since it would be completely unproductive. And if we're going to be unproductive, I'm just going to amuse myself.

GUTSU: Are you supposing that just because something is banned it is unobtainable?


No.

Next stupid question?
 
2013-01-20 06:46:38 PM  

Xcott: gimmegimme: No, people want to ban certain firearms because they have the potential to cause a vast amount of carnage in a short amount of time. Looking at an unloaded machine gun isn't scary. Walking into a Wal-Mart and seeing some random wingnut packing an assault rifle IS scary. (Particularly in light of the fact that even people at gun shows can't prevent accidental discharge.)

This is doubly true if you read gun "enthusiast" forums. There's always some mall ninjas who insist that they must keep their gun loaded with a round chambered, because the whole world might turn Mad Max in 2 seconds instead of 5 seconds.


Were they affiliated with nutnfancy? If so, that might be the reason.
 
2013-01-20 06:47:45 PM  

gimmegimme: So did you have a problem with any of the President's executive orders?

Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.


As long as they keep this to safety, and not propaganda designed to instill fear of certain types of guns.

Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.

Should we be limiting this to gun violence? Shouldn't we be looking at the root causes and prevention of all violence regardless of weapon used?

Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.

Unless you're eating your guns, a physician doesn't have a need to know about them.
 
Displayed 50 of 1115 comments

First | « | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | » | 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