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.

(KOB4)   The Guns Keep Us Safe Tour 2013 keeps chugging along with a stop in New Mexico where five people, including three children, were shot dead by a 15 year old boy   (kob.com) divider line 138
    More: Sad, New Mexico  
•       •       •

14496 clicks; posted to Main » on 20 Jan 2013 at 5:45 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Funniest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-01-20 03:11:02 PM
9 votes:

vpb: I think there must be a mistake.  It says he used an AR-15, but I have been assured that people only dislike them because they look "scary" and they can't actually hurt or kill anyone.


Well...  In the wrong hands, AR-15s are quite lethal.  I'm just thankful this kid didn't get his hands on a hammer.  Can you even begin to imagine the bloodbath had he found a hammer, or god forbid, the car keys?

Chilling to consider...  Absolutely chilling.

As it stands, YAY!  FIVE more reminders of the importance of our 2nd Amendment freedoms!
2013-01-20 02:54:53 PM
7 votes:
It seems we're overlooking the real problem here

/teenagers
2013-01-20 06:20:54 PM
6 votes:

gimmegimme: Soo....how do the bullets know who is innocent and who is a tyrant?


They don't need to. An innocent's body will reject the bullets.
2013-01-20 05:38:34 PM
6 votes:
What the world needs now is guns, more guns
they're the only thing that there's just too little of
What the world needs now is guns, more guns,
No not just for some but for everyone.

media.mlive.com
2013-01-20 05:18:57 PM
6 votes:

doglover: I'm not the one quoting dictionary.com like it was a source.


Yeah, Cameron.  How DARE you use a dictionary as a source for the definition of words n shiat.
2013-01-20 04:02:23 PM
6 votes:

jbuist: Pop the grenade on the end, load a blank, and fire the grenade. They're not exactly dangerous. Well, unless you have rifle grenades. I'd say the grenades are the dangerous part

...

But if you can't fire the grenade without the grenade launcher, and the grenade launcher has no use other than firing a grenade, the logical move would be to restrict the launcher. Grenades themselves aren't semiautomatic weapons appropriate to this legislation--I'm sure those are covered instead under the "No You Can't Have Some Goddamn Grenades Act" passed after WWII.
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-01-20 03:01:23 PM
6 votes:
I think there must be a mistake.  It says he used an AR-15, but I have been assured that people only dislike them because they look "scary" and they can't actually hurt or kill anyone.
2013-01-20 07:03:34 PM
5 votes:

WhippingBoy: Nobody's even shocked anymore...

Nice country you've got there, America!


It was like that when I got here.
2013-01-20 01:24:23 PM
5 votes:
If only those children had played more Black Ops and were armed, they would still be here today.
2013-01-20 06:30:28 PM
4 votes:

iq_in_binary: vpb: give me doughnuts: vpb: queezyweezel: cameroncrazy1984: queezyweezel: What's an "assault type rifle"?

When did they modify the definition to cover semiautomatic replicas?

There is no such thing as a "semi-automatic replica".  A semi-automatic assault rifle is an actual military assault rifle with the full auto portion omitted or disabled.

It's still an assault rifle, just as a car with a transmission that won't go into fifth gear is still a car.

There's no such thing as a semi-automatic assault-rifle. It can look like one, but if it isn't capable of full-automatic (or burst) fire, then it is is just a rifle.

Wrong.

A semi-automatic assault rifle is an assault rifle.  Do you think a selective fire rifle stops being an assault rifle when it is set to semi-auto?  In fact they are not that difficult to convert to full auto.  Just add the missing parts and any missing machining.

The argument based on the NRA's definition of assault rifle is one of the silliest I have ever heard.

You are so ignorant of the subject it's not even funny. Seriously, shut the fark up. My roommate's dog is more qualified to speak about this subject than you.


Just, you know, understand that if your roommate's dog is talking to you, you probably are the very type of person who shouldn't be allowed access to any firearms.
2013-01-20 06:14:55 PM
4 votes:

pedrop357: Guns aren't designed for murdering people, especially not children, they're designed for target shooting, hunting, self defense, waging war against defined enemies, and if necessary, fighting tyrannical governments.
THEY are not intended or designed to be used against innocent people.


Comedy gold, Jerry.
2013-01-20 06:12:54 PM
4 votes:
Why don't you gun nuts take up a more challenging hobby. Shooting is so easy even a 15 year old autistic kid can do it.
2013-01-20 06:01:51 PM
4 votes:
And what did YOU do to celebrate Gun Appreciation Day?
2013-01-20 05:51:09 PM
4 votes:
Why isn't the media reporting on all the guns that haven't killed someone yet?
2013-01-20 03:50:30 PM
4 votes:
i.imgur.com
2013-01-20 06:48:18 PM
3 votes:

MFAWG: gimmegimme: kriegfusion: [i129.photobucket.com image 822x1024]

So instead of foaming at the mouth in support of 2nd amendment rights as I might normally do ( or one opposed would do), I would like to ask something of our anti-gun brethren here. What would you do to ensure your rights from our government once you no longer have the immediate means to enforce your will upon the government? Do you rely on having defectors by the tens of thousands from the military? It is clear from history that you cannot expect our government to remain free; in fact, each day that passes we hear about more and more about more law; I don't think anyone can seriously argue we are in danger of becoming more free everyday. Everyday we hear about a new law coming out; does anyone really think a day will come where politicians won't do knee-jerk reactions and try to score political points after a shooting or any public unfortunate happening? Using this line of thinking, how can you not logically see where we are heading?

So, given the long view, we are clearly moving to a more overbearing government, and I know looking beyond the next 5 years is nearly impossible for people, but considering all this, unless we can somehow magically prevent this slide into a dictatorship or oligarchy, we will eventually, logically, have to assert ourselves forcefully one way or another. How do you propose we do this? Clearly the powers that be would laugh in your face at the minimum, or just send you to jail or just kill you.

On a side note, I think countries that have banned guns and haven't slid into despotism haven't because they know the US, and to a lesser extend the EU will help them and their people out. Once the US makes the slide itself, theres no 'worlds policeman' to stop them. I would predict the slide to happen quite fast, since no one would stop them. So, in effect, I see the US and its military presence as an invisible support to nations with gun control, and its not a factor that is eve ...



Basically he said the holocaust would have never happened if the Jews had hammers.
2013-01-20 06:18:33 PM
3 votes:
If only God was allowed in this home. This wouldn't have happened.
2013-01-20 06:09:23 PM
3 votes:
Weapon of Peace ™
2013-01-20 05:49:34 PM
3 votes:

Vodka Zombie: vpb: I think there must be a mistake.  It says he used an AR-15, but I have been assured that people only dislike them because they look "scary" and they can't actually hurt or kill anyone.

Well...  In the wrong hands, AR-15s are quite lethal.  I'm just thankful this kid didn't get his hands on a hammer.  Can you even begin to imagine the bloodbath had he found a hammer, or god forbid, the car keys?

Chilling to consider...  Absolutely chilling.

As it stands, YAY!  FIVE more reminders of the importance of our 2nd Amendment freedoms!


In another year, he would have been able to drive. Imagine what he could have done with a REAL weapon!
2013-01-20 03:15:56 PM
3 votes:

Vodka Zombie: I'm just thankful this kid didn't get his hands on a hammer. Can you even begin to imagine the bloodbath had he found a hammer,


i.imgur.com

R.I.P. MAXWELL'S SILVER HAMMER

2013-01-20 02:56:24 PM
3 votes:
Sort of like Pokemon... Except you have to kill them all.
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-01-20 02:51:15 PM
3 votes:
I'll bet they tried to make him eat vegetables.  Spinach is tyranny.
2013-01-21 01:15:51 AM
2 votes:
i.imgur.com
2013-01-20 09:56:16 PM
2 votes:

gimmegimme: Kit Fister: gimmegimme: Kit Fister: AH, but since the police have no mandate or duty to protect me as an individual from criminals, that job is left to me. I DO need a gun to defend myself should i become the target of such a person. I mean, I could use a knife or a baseball bat, but why break a sweat and get all bloody from hand to hand combat when I can just shoot the sonovabiatch?

GUTSU: Police are citizens just like everyone else, people with no obligation to help me when someone has a gun pointed in my face. I fail to see why police officers are "special" in your eyes, why they are more worthy of defending themselves than someone who isn't a LEO.

Great minds think alike.

Are we arguing that police DO in fact have a duty to protect the individual? Because this says you're wrong:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=0

So, if the cops are not going to protect me as an individual, who is? you?

I know, man. You're a lone wolf, hanging it out on the line. You don't give help and you don't ask for help. All you do is follow three simple rules. One, never underestimate your opponent. Expect the unexpected. Two, take it outside. Never start anything inside unless it's absolutely necessary. And three, be nice.

[blogs.amctv.com image 560x330]


Nobody gets fisted in the corner!
2013-01-20 09:41:43 PM
2 votes:
If we ban guns, how will we protect our drug supply?
2013-01-20 07:04:27 PM
2 votes:

pedrop357: bunner: Or that motor fuel, while not designed to be used as a weapon, CAN be. Most things can, I suppose. Although I'm pretty sure that the primary application for gasoline, as designed, isn't setting motherf*ckers on fire. Get it?

Guns aren't designed for murdering people, especially not children, they're designed for target shooting, hunting, self defense, waging war against defined enemies, and if necessary, fighting tyrannical governments.
THEY are not intended or designed to be used against innocent people.


photos1.blogger.com
2013-01-20 07:04:26 PM
2 votes:
The United States Constitution is widely regarded by the balance of the world to be one of the most functional, useful and well written documents as a basis for governance in history. The balance of the world has also, though, long ago grown weary of watching Americans use it as a pry bar, toilet paper, mommy's skirt and a hall pass for every form of bad behavior imaginable. Frankly, I am, too.
2013-01-20 06:42:17 PM
2 votes:

kriegfusion: [i129.photobucket.com image 822x1024]

So instead of foaming at the mouth in support of 2nd amendment rights as I might normally do ( or one opposed would do), I would like to ask something of our anti-gun brethren here. What would you do to ensure your rights from our government once you no longer have the immediate means to enforce your will upon the government? Do you rely on having defectors by the tens of thousands from the military? It is clear from history that you cannot expect our government to remain free; in fact, each day that passes we hear about more and more about more law; I don't think anyone can seriously argue we are in danger of becoming more free everyday. Everyday we hear about a new law coming out; does anyone really think a day will come where politicians won't do knee-jerk reactions and try to score political points after a shooting or any public unfortunate happening? Using this line of thinking, how can you not logically see where we are heading?

So, given the long view, we are clearly moving to a more overbearing government, and I know looking beyond the next 5 years is nearly impossible for people, but considering all this, unless we can somehow magically prevent this slide into a dictatorship or oligarchy, we will eventually, logically, have to assert ourselves forcefully one way or another. How do you propose we do this? Clearly the powers that be would laugh in your face at the minimum, or just send you to jail or just kill you.

On a side note, I think countries that have banned guns and haven't slid into despotism haven't because they know the US, and to a lesser extend the EU will help them and their people out. Once the US makes the slide itself, theres no 'worlds policeman' to stop them. I would predict the slide to happen quite fast, since no one would stop them. So, in effect, I see the US and its military presence as an invisible support to nations with gun control, and its not a factor that is ever brought out when the to ...


A little constructive criticism: if you want people to take you seriously, you might want to refrain from beginning your post with...pink Hitler.
2013-01-20 06:19:15 PM
2 votes:
But are the guns okay?

Please, won't somebody think of the guns?
2013-01-20 06:17:54 PM
2 votes:
Dictionaries have a known liberal bias.

I mean... it's filled with freaking words and their meanings and sh*t!

How much more libtarded can you GET?!

Don't even get me started on encyclopedias.
2013-01-20 06:15:00 PM
2 votes:
Can't wait to hear Huckabee's explanation for this one.
2013-01-20 06:11:59 PM
2 votes:

vpb: I think there must be a mistake.  It says he used an AR-15, but I have been assured that people only dislike them because they look "scary" and they can't actually hurt or kill anyone.


I prefer the term "Gun of Peace™." It does a bonus 2d20 troll damage against anyone who's ever used "Religion of Peace™," which tend to be the same people who are stockpiling AR-15s for when Fartbongo's intifadah... something something something.
2013-01-20 06:10:28 PM
2 votes:

Anal Tobacco Furnace: I think AR is an acronym for "automatic rifle".


Armalite.
2013-01-20 06:05:24 PM
2 votes:

pedrop357: In other news, about 80 kids under age 11 have died so far this month from child abuse, with just 1400 or so to go this year.

When that dad used fuel to kill his two sons and himself, I don't remember anyone talking about the fuel used
http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/07/justice/washington-powell-case/index.ht m l


I got nothing against responsible gun ownership, but all this false equivalency malarkey is making it's leading proponents come off like a pack of window lickers who smell of Doritos and their own flatulence.
2013-01-20 05:59:14 PM
2 votes:

ManofPeas: Hey Subby, it' OK to cry. Just let it out, Princess. Rant on a website, complain that Obama won't confiscate the guns FOR THE CHILDREN. There, there, does it feel better?

As long as you don't think your wailing amounts to more than a flea fart in a hurricane to Obama.

Suckers.


24.media.tumblr.com
2013-01-20 05:57:10 PM
2 votes:

born_yesterday: Vodka Zombie: vpb: I think there must be a mistake.  It says he used an AR-15, but I have been assured that people only dislike them because they look "scary" and they can't actually hurt or kill anyone.

Well...  In the wrong hands, AR-15s are quite lethal.  I'm just thankful this kid didn't get his hands on a hammer.  Can you even begin to imagine the bloodbath had he found a hammer, or god forbid, the car keys?

Chilling to consider...  Absolutely chilling.

As it stands, YAY!  FIVE more reminders of the importance of our 2nd Amendment freedoms!

In another year, he would have been able to drive. Imagine what he could have done with a REAL weapon!


Ha!  The only flaw in your otherwise impeccable logic is that cars aren't used to fight tyranny.  You can only fight tyranny with a bunch of guns.

So, since this 15 year old used a gun, we have no choice but to believe that this family was tyranny, and it was his patriotic duty to water the tree of liberty (which can only be watered with a gun and not a car).  I expect the NRA will be giving him a freedom medal.
2013-01-20 05:33:21 PM
2 votes:

doglover: Dictionary.com is... well, dictionary.com.


Dictionary.com gets their information from external sources.  The two definitions mentioned in this thread from dictionary.doc are from the 2013 edition of the Random House Dictionary and the 2009 Collins dictionary form HarperCollins.

So yeah, using dictionaries to define words and shiat.  How DARE he?

Plus you're confusing jargon with a lay term.   An "assault rifle" might mean one thing in military jargon and another thing to a layman.   Not knowing the jargon (or caring) doesn't invalidate anyone's opinion but it does make those people who rely on it to be pedantic seem like douchebags.
2013-01-20 05:09:06 PM
2 votes:

doglover: AR-15, the new AK-47.


XM-15.

Hey, here's an idea. Let's divert the discussion towards a nomenclature argument and avoid the real issue!
2013-01-20 05:01:17 PM
2 votes:
I see maxalt does not consider his own life as "precious" as that's some kind of limp wristed librul Gen X or whatever thing now.

[smiles nastily]
2013-01-20 04:38:51 PM
2 votes:
I prefer to be armed when confronted by a monster than to rely on harsh words and stern looks. If you don't want a gun it's easy don't buy one, control your actions concerning guns and I will control mine. I guess the latest generation views every life as precious, which is why abortion is so rare nowadays.
2013-01-21 07:08:05 PM
1 votes:
<b><a href="http://www.fark.com/comments/7546072/82012753#c82012753" target="_blank">vpb</a>:</b> <i>give me doughnuts: vpb: queezyweezel: cameroncrazy1984: queezyweezel: What's an "assault type rifle"?

When did they modify the definition to cover semiautomatic replicas?

There is no such thing as a "semi-automatic replica".  A semi-automatic assault rifle is an actual military assault rifle with the full auto portion omitted or disabled.

It's still an assault rifle, just as a car with a transmission that won't go into fifth gear is still a car.

There's no such thing as a semi-automatic assault-rifle. It can look like one, but if it isn't capable of full-automatic (or burst) fire, then it is is just a rifle.

Wrong.

A semi-automatic assault rifle is an assault rifle.  Do you think a selective fire rifle stops being an assault rifle when it is set to semi-auto?  In fact they are not that difficult to convert to full auto.  Just add the missing parts and any missing machining.

The argument based on the NRA's definition of assault rifle is one of the silliest I have ever heard.</i>

I guess that means a frisbee is also an assault rifle. You know, since all you need to do is just "add the missing parts and any missing machining".

The argument posed by "big-frisbee" is one of the silliest I've ever heard.
2013-01-21 06:30:40 PM
1 votes:

pedrop357: These guys should be the only ones to possess certain/any guns.


Another responsible gun owner heard from.
2013-01-21 08:13:44 AM
1 votes:
"He and his family are also well-known among a local Christian faith community in Albuquerque."

I think we're ignoring the real problem here.
2013-01-21 06:40:50 AM
1 votes:

david_gaithersburg: You believe that people should not stand up to tyranny, especially if its the glorious US government with all of their modern toys. As you pointed out, look how those who dared stand up to the US are still suffering. What Kennedy did to the people of Vietnam was wrong. What Kennedy did to the people of Cuba was wrong. What Bush did to the people of Iraq was wrong. What Obama did to the people of Libya was wrong.

I'm sorry, but I do not support the belief held by the far far left that human beings should bow to tyranny just because they don't happen to have the latest toys.


see, again...nutbar yack..

who said anything like that? i didn't..

and again, you like other nutbars seem to confuse policy with politicians..

go read a book or two about the history of american foreign policy.

Kennedy didn't do anything to Vietnam...Bush didn't do anything to Iraq..

I'll make a simple historical and factual example:

Guatemala. Jacobo Arbenz..

that was the United Fruit Company that started that...

The CIA did the black bag stuff, but it was paid for by UFC because they wanted to nationalize..

read up.

and you know who was responsible for the Iran Iraq fiasco? Miles Copeland..yeah.. Stewart Copelands dad...(drummer for the Police)

but you would actually have to KNOW something about how things work and you don't...

so, blame the actor....blame a president...whatever..but that ain't how it works...

and blame communism while you are at it...that's another false target...

American business interests come first and politicians second...
The "reason" is made up afterwards...

you are intellectually outgunned here to use a dirty pun...quit while you're ahead.
2013-01-21 06:36:49 AM
1 votes:
Dear graph-wielders:

Please understand that there are standards you need to meet. This isn't your 7th grade math class. Credible professionals use citations and all necessary disclaimers. If you don't know what to look for and are just reposting someone else's graph, you're likely a lot less informed than you think you are and consequently part of the problem.

Thanks
2013-01-21 05:35:59 AM
1 votes:

MithrandirBooga: You know, it's pretty delusional to think that you can defend yourself against a tyrannical government that owns this:


previews.agefotostock.com

www.tropicalisland.de

www.dreamstime.com

wvutoday.wvu.edu
2013-01-21 03:24:48 AM
1 votes:

The Southern Dandy: Popcorn Johnny: HBK: You've obviously never handled a gun, hunted, been burglarized, been raped, or been robbed, right?

I spent 8 years in the Army, have been shot at and have killed some of those men that were trying to kill me. I own no weapons and don't see any reason to.

I'm sure you see no reason to burn the flag, yet it is a freedom detailed in the 1st amendment, as is the freedom the keep and bear arms by the PEOPLE for the purpose of the security of the free state, detailed in the 2nd amendment.

You may not like when people exercise those freedoms, but that doesn't really matter.


Another phenomenon that's always fascinated me: The soldier who goes overseas to fight for my freedom, then comes home to fight against it.
2013-01-21 02:23:18 AM
1 votes:

rohar: Pete_T_Mann: Every single spree killer in recent history has been on Prozac

So has every recently successful or failed fund manager. Your point?


I was privy to a few HR/Health Coverage aggregate reports for a major corporation I worked for when designing their administration.

The coverage manager showed me that 80% of the policies covered at least one member of the family for anti-depressants. This doesn't equate to 80% of the employees, mind you -- each policy could cover any number of family members. Still, the number made us both do a Tex Avery Eyes.
2013-01-21 02:07:10 AM
1 votes:

justtray: I do want the second ammendment repealed. Why would I be ashamed of that? A few of then are total nonsense. Have you seen the third?


Then just *say* that, and learn to spell it. Then you don't have to worry about interpreting the constitution any longer. You simply aren't going to get your interpretation of "misinterpretation" to be readdressed by the Supreme Court. You will not be able to put proficiency testing as a qualifier before begging the Government to allow you to own a weapon unless you toss out the Second Amendment.

If that happens, I'll accept it and move on. I'm not too happy that Prohibition was repealed and that alcohol is our national drug, but I deal with it.

I'll also be eaten by bears on the Kenai River, more than likely, because that's my main reason for having firearms -- Bears. I'm old and can't fight them with my bare fists the way I used to.
2013-01-21 02:05:41 AM
1 votes:

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: [www.people-press.org image 600x960]


Wow...it was at 87% in favor the day after Newtown .....seems like it is trending down.

Hurry....time is running out! People are educating themselve and seeing through the wall of lies spouted by Feinstein and Cuomo and the Brady Campaigns!
2013-01-21 01:48:29 AM
1 votes:

pedrop357: rohar: I've already outlined them, read the thread backwards. Maybe read it more effectively than you read the Constitution?

Oh, you mean the part that doesn't actually say that some people are really 3/5 of a person, or the doubting that the 14th amendment had nothing at all to with the newly freed black me being deprive of arms.
http://www.guncite.com/journals/senhal14.html


You see, this is kinda my point. I'm a gun owner and you're finally starting to piss me off. I'm sorry dude, but if you're our defense of the 2nd amendment, this country is about to be completely disarmed. You've spent the entire evening on this issue. You've changed no minds in your favor and quite possibly have changed many against your position.

Please do all of us gun owners a huge favor and just shut the fark up.
2013-01-21 12:56:06 AM
1 votes:

USP .45: Lenny_da_Hog: USP .45: Lenny_da_Hog: Both the alcohol industry and the firearms industry have a heavy lobbying budget. Alcohol is especially influential at the state level.

I love this sudden concern for lobbying budgets when it concerns the firearms industry. Intellectual dishonesty extravaganza.

http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?indexType=s/a>

Who said it's sudden, knee-jerk? I hate all lobbyists, marketers, and advertisers -- this just happens to be the topic at the moment.

I dub thee: Patellar Reflex.

I didn't mean you specifically, but it's being tossed around like it's a relevant figure when compared to most lobbying efforts.


Uh-huh. I was talking about something very specific. You quoted me, but it wasn't aimed at me, it was at something general that nobody in this thread was talking about, that you saw someplace once or heard somebody else say, so you figured you had to...

Oh, right. That's a knee-jerk reaction.

You knee-jerked. You're a knee-jerker. You jerk at the knee. Now you look dumb because you knee-jerked. Maybe you should stop jerking at the knee, then you wouldn't be such a knee-jerker, knee-jerker.
2013-01-21 12:35:01 AM
1 votes:

Trapper439: Seems to me that you're a pretty piss-poor judge of character. You need to pick better friends, son.


Then those drunks wouldn't have me to be their role model. I sacrifice for them.
2013-01-20 11:59:45 PM
1 votes:

pedrop357: gimmegimme: You're going to love when you get to the unit on the Missouri Compromise in class. Don't worry; I won't give you any spoilers. But you'll love it; it's a page-turner.

Are you going to admit that my statement was correct, and that the 3/5 compromise was not about the personhood of slaves, or that nothing in the COTUS says that anyone was a fractional person?

What's this 'in class' shiat?


this is what, the third thread where you are getting schooled?
2013-01-20 11:57:30 PM
1 votes:

rohar: Again, from the Constitution, who has the power to interpret the Constitution?


I know! I know!

Lobbyists!
2013-01-20 11:43:04 PM
1 votes:
/make that "multiply" by 3/5.
//musician, only have to count to 4.
2013-01-20 11:39:11 PM
1 votes:

gimmegimme: pedrop357: Darth Macho: ignorance is his whole thing!!!

A better euphemism is pedrop357 has a 'GED in Patriotism'.

Try harder.

An AA in Republican Fantasy?

A Certificate of Participation in Glenn Beck U?

A License to BS and Misunderstand Everything You Read?


MAGNUM CUM LOAD
2013-01-20 11:29:12 PM
1 votes:

rohar: pedrop357: Where did you get that and the 3/5 of a person thing?

I, I've got no words. It's so stupid it's beautiful. It's like a double rainbow. WHAT DOES IT MEAN!?


It means we have another Passionate Defender Of What He Imagines Constitution To Be.
2013-01-20 11:29:12 PM
1 votes:

Haliburton Cummings: Lenny_da_Hog: pedrop357: Where did you get that and the 3/5 of a person thing?

You can't be this ignorant of US history. There's an amendment and everything.

ignorance is his whole thing!!!


A better euphemism is pedrop357 has a 'GED in Patriotism'.
2013-01-20 11:28:31 PM
1 votes:

BronyMedic: kriegfusion: Hey great, you can pull links of people more educated on the topic than you can. That doesn't make you educated, it simply makes you the Not-So-Great and Not-So-Powerful Lolmedic

Well, I guess when the historical facts of the matter don't support what your conjecturing, you can always resort to personal, childish insults,  kreigfusion.

kriegfusion: And in your own link it says in the very beginning "... the misappropriation of justice by the apparatus of terror (the Gestapo) assured the compliance of the German people How do you think that compliance came about? They could haul your jewish, non-aryan, revolt-inspiring arse off to jail, to interrogation, or just give you a noodle in the back of the neck and be done with it.

Are you joking, trolling, or purposely misrepresenting history? It was the rising influence of the Nazis in the Wiemar Republic which resulted in the re-legalization of private firearm ownership among the German people in the German Firearms Act of 1928. Prior to that, Germany as a whole was considered effectively disarmed by the Treaty of Versailles  which stated that ANY private ownership of firearms capable of being used to wage war was "illegal" unless they fit in the provisions of the treaty.

Here, I'll state that again.  The Nazis re-armed the very people you're inferring were disarmed in the first place by the Gestapo. I know, it's a deep concept, I'll let it sink in for a second, and then continue.

Secondly, that came about because the German people, INCLUDING THE JEWS, voted Hitler and his cronies into power in the 1930s because of his promises to restore the economy, and re-instate Germany as a dominant European power, and his rhetoric about the ubermensch being German. There was no armed revolt because THE POPULACE SUPPORTED HIS RISE TO POWER, for the most part the Gestapo was involved in silencing very limited criticism. (Actually the SA and SS. And boy, did they fark over the SA royally afterwords.) Hitler deliberate ...


You're the one calling people idiot. Fight fire with fire, so there you go. Ive seen enough of your tired rants and insults in other forums, i didn't want you thinking you could just drop a link and walk off thinking you're the victor; history is not that kind.

Your link states the people were rearmed. Fine, so what? Did he rearm everyone? No? And who gives a flying fark if the JEWS and everyone else voted him in? It's early 1933, concentration camps are unheard of. Hitler came in just as your linked book states, riding a wave of goodwill and public works programs. That is not the issue here. What is at issue here is what happened after all that. Yeah sure, he was voted in. Lots of people. Tell me buddy, how many jews were being thrown into the ovens and their last dying act was to say "hold just a minute, open the oven door...thank you. here is my vote card for Hitler. I'm still voting for him". Who cares how or when Hitler came into power. The ability to remove him was neigh impossible without arms for the people who wanted him removed.

That is our issue that we are talking about, needing guns for violent revolution if it gets that bad. The ability to remove a bad government and install a new one. In fact, here in my pocket, i've got something...yes here it is...an original copy of the Declaration of Independence. Here's a line that is much more eloquently well stated than anything I can ever write, and it hits the dodo right on the head. It reads:

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness".

I feel committed to the right to keep and bear arms for just this reason.

As someone else said in this thread, I believe to you, firearms were legalized for everyone, except of course, for those the state (Hitler) found to be "undesirable" basically anyone he didn't like, which conveniently turned out to be many of the same people who were.....drumroll....... thrown into camps and done away with.

My apologies good sir, theres no need to result to childish insults when dismissing you out of hand. You're doing a great job of embarrassing yourself in front of everyone. Please, do continue. I'll be here in the corner of my study, with my smoking jacket and pipe, boning up on some good historical texts. The room smells of rich mahogany, and there are many leather bound books.

i129.photobucket.com
2013-01-20 11:27:26 PM
1 votes:

Lenny_da_Hog: pedrop357: Where did you get that and the 3/5 of a person thing?

You can't be this ignorant of US history. There's an amendment and everything.


ignorance is his whole thing!!!
2013-01-20 11:25:34 PM
1 votes:

pedrop357: Where did you get that and the 3/5 of a person thing?


I, I've got no words. It's so stupid it's beautiful. It's like a double rainbow. WHAT DOES IT MEAN!?
2013-01-20 11:23:35 PM
1 votes:
i.imgur.com

YOU WILL PRY MY DEAD KITTEN FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS...
2013-01-20 10:46:44 PM
1 votes:

Kit Fister: Or, you know, we could teach kids, when they are age appropriate, to respect the scissors and to use them safely, and work to prevent them from misbehaving....


We were talking about rampaging toddlers, of course there'd be a difference if we could wait till they were older and could be reasoned with easier, but that wasn't the scenario...

anyhoo...

as for the rest of it, I reckon you'll never get your AR-15 banned no matter how ridiculous I think it is that you can get one (remember, I'm not american and the only people I know who have guns have bolt action 22's and shotguns).

I think that in light of the current climate in America the most you can hope for is mandatory safe storage to prevent kids and wacky familiy members from getting hold of them but unfortunately 1) most gun people will take that as being told to allow regular ass-rapings from gorillas and shooting whoever comes to inspect their mandatory storage and 2) most people will give their kids the code/location of the key cos it's not their kid that's gonna go nuts (until they do).

So no, nothing can or is going to happen, so don't worry about it.
2013-01-20 10:45:47 PM
1 votes:

Kit Fister: Haliburton Cummings: Kit Fister: I've also been attacked and stabbed in a highschool by two other kids who didn't like the fact that I was white

ooohhhh poooor you. why didn't you use the force?

Because blood loss and shock left me unconscious, woke up in the hospital the next day.


cool story bro..you should write romance novels for the victimized...

poor little snowflake...
2013-01-20 10:37:37 PM
1 votes:

Kit Fister: Haliburton Cummings: Kit Fister: I had a couple of people in a run-down car drive onto my property and hide behind my barn, one tire blown out, and acting shady as all hell. I called the cops and got my family inside with the doors locked. Cops response time was 25 minutes. The people had decided whatever they were running from had gone past and left well before the cops ever bothered to arrive.

So, sure, if you live just up the street from a police station, i guess that's fine. out away from town where the cops have to drive 20, 30 miles to get to your house...that doesn't help much, broseph.


sure you did....

*Shrugs* this is the internet. You believing me or not makes no difference to my life. But, shiat happens. I've also been attacked and stabbed in a highschool by two other kids who didn't like the fact that I was white and got good grades in the ghetto school.


Did you die?
2013-01-20 10:37:22 PM
1 votes:

Kit Fister: I've also been attacked and stabbed in a highschool by two other kids who didn't like the fact that I was white


ooohhhh poooor you. why didn't you use the force?
2013-01-20 10:31:03 PM
1 votes:

GUTSU: Uranus Is Huge!: GUTSU: gimmegimme:
That's why I'm fine with sane people having firearms for personal protection. If a person needs 30 rounds to take out an intruder, well, he probably shouldn't have a gun.

Are you scared of black helicopters?

Would you rather have 5 rounds or 30 to stop someone trying to kill you?

You sound frightened and paranoid.

Better lock & load.

Don't have the balls to answer a simple question?


Who the fark is trying to kill me? I literally spend zero time considering these fantasies. So far, not a scratch.
2013-01-20 10:26:00 PM
1 votes:

GUTSU: gimmegimme:
That's why I'm fine with sane people having firearms for personal protection. If a person needs 30 rounds to take out an intruder, well, he probably shouldn't have a gun.

Are you scared of black helicopters?

Would you rather have 5 rounds or 30 to stop someone trying to kill you?


Are you that blind kid they took hunting?
2013-01-20 10:25:38 PM
1 votes:

GUTSU: Would you rather have 5 rounds or 30 to stop someone trying to kill you?


Since my home firearm is a Browning Auto-5 with 4 shells of 00 Buckshot, I really don't see the need for 30 rounds, unless you want to leave something resembling a sponge for the cops to mop up.
2013-01-20 10:24:02 PM
1 votes:

GUTSU: gimmegimme: GUTSU:
Would you mind answering the question?

You (either singular or plural) are silly and paranoid. The JOB of the police is to run around and confront people who have guns. Therefore, they need more and bigger guns than a "normal" person. In spite of your paranoia, it is true. If you call 911 and point out you are in bodily danger, police are on their way, duder(s).
The police aren't obligated to do anything, that's the entire point. Why should I trust my life to someone who isn't obligated to help me, or protect me in any way? Why should I have to wait the 30+ minutes to see if the police made it out to my house? Why should I give up the right to defend myself? I'll just post the entire bill, who knows you might even read it.
"SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Citizens' Self-Defense Act of 2003'.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

The Congress finds the following:

(1) Police cannot protect, and are not legally liable for failing to protect, individual citizens, as evidenced by the following:

(A) The courts have consistently ruled that the police do not have an obligation to protect individuals, only the public in general. For example, in Warren v. District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App. 1981), the court stated: `[C]ourts have without exception concluded that when a municipality or other governmental entity undertakes to furnish police services, it assumes a duty only to the public at large and not to individual members of the community.'.

(B) Former Florida Attorney General Jim Smith told Florida legislators that police responded to only 200,000 of 700,000 calls for help to Dade County authorities.

(C) The United States Department of Justice found that, in 1989, there were 168,881 crimes of violence for which police had not responded within 1 hour.

(2) Citizens frequently must use firearms to defend themselves, as evidenced by the following ...


3.bp.blogspot.com

They're just waiting to put you in the FEMA camps and do experiments on you to turn you into a HUMANZEE...that's right. A human/chimpanzee hybrid. Think about it...why would so many leftist fascist communist public schools want to bring students to the zoo for a field trip. To prepare them for their humanzee future! Now, I'm not a big conspiracy guy. I'm just saying that the Illuminati approved Order 66. And they're coming for you. That's why you need to buy gold coins.
2013-01-20 10:21:37 PM
1 votes:

rohar: pedrop357: rohar: So let's repeal it. It'll be lots of fun. Just to add perspective, before the Dick act there was no national guard and each state managed their own militia. Seeing as that you're in NV, that would mean 4 to 6 weeks per year conscription. I'm cool with this if you are. It's not like you were doing anything productive anyway.

So, what section of the Constitution or Dick Act allow the government to forbid me from possessing a home made machine gun, or one purchased from a make in my state?

I've done enough of your homework for you tonight. As often as I point out that your positions are wrong, you just come up with more wrong positions. This is a trend I have very little interest continuing. You've been given the vague sources of what you're looking for and you have the collective knowledge of man at your fingertips to research through various search engines. Time to go read and do something you haven't done all night: think.


gawker.com


\surely you're late for an appointment?
2013-01-20 09:55:24 PM
1 votes:

Kit Fister: gimmegimme: Kit Fister: AH, but since the police have no mandate or duty to protect me as an individual from criminals, that job is left to me. I DO need a gun to defend myself should i become the target of such a person. I mean, I could use a knife or a baseball bat, but why break a sweat and get all bloody from hand to hand combat when I can just shoot the sonovabiatch?

GUTSU: Police are citizens just like everyone else, people with no obligation to help me when someone has a gun pointed in my face. I fail to see why police officers are "special" in your eyes, why they are more worthy of defending themselves than someone who isn't a LEO.

Great minds think alike.

Are we arguing that police DO in fact have a duty to protect the individual? Because this says you're wrong:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=0

So, if the cops are not going to protect me as an individual, who is? you?


I know, man. You're a lone wolf, hanging it out on the line. You don't give help and you don't ask for help. All you do is follow three simple rules. One, never underestimate your opponent. Expect the unexpected. Two, take it outside. Never start anything inside unless it's absolutely necessary. And three, be nice.

blogs.amctv.com
2013-01-20 09:46:23 PM
1 votes:

Lenny_da_Hog: I am for banning all models of weapons except for the ones I own, or the ones I decide to buy in the future.


And there you have it. A TRUE American.

cache.jezebel.com
2013-01-20 09:44:58 PM
1 votes:
[flings the plate of chitlins and the gravy boat after the potatoes, dances in the Harvard beets]
2013-01-20 09:44:39 PM
1 votes:

jbuist: PDid: Call of duty is big globally. No spree killers though hmmmm.

I have Norway on line 1.  They'd like to talk to you about that "spree killer" thing.


I wonder if their elementary schoolers have to go through farking metal detectors to learn how to read.
2013-01-20 09:43:29 PM
1 votes:

PDid: Call of duty is big globally. No spree killers though hmmmm.


I have Norway on line 1.  They'd like to talk to you about that "spree killer" thing.
2013-01-20 09:42:54 PM
1 votes:

bunner: I am a responsible, thoughtful and moral person. I just said so. On the internet. That's all you need know. therefore, I should be allowed to own and utilize a broad array of weaponry specifically designed to erase as many people from this planet at once as ammunition stocks allow. Now stop walking across my lawn or suffer the consequences of impinging upon upright, free men and their premises.


I am for banning all models of weapons except for the ones I own, or the ones I decide to buy in the future.
2013-01-20 09:40:49 PM
1 votes:

Kittypie070: [does a Cossack dance in the mashed potatoes]


Never leave here. you are necessary. : )
2013-01-20 09:40:04 PM
1 votes:

bunner: I am a responsible, thoughtful and moral person. I just said so. On the internet. That's all you need know. therefore, I should be allowed to own and utilize a broad array of weaponry specifically designed to erase as many people from this planet at once as ammunition stocks allow.


I'm sorry, you seem to be confused; in America, you don't need to be any of these three things in order to own guns.
BHK
2013-01-20 09:39:59 PM
1 votes:

GUTSU: gimmegimme: GUTSU: Kittypie070: GUTSU 2013-01-20 09:06:59 PM

Now if I have to stare down a hobo wielding a pipe wrench, why should a police officer eating a doughnut 30 feet away be able to carry a gun?

You're shiatting us, right?

I don't think you're worth listening to any longer, cuz that's even stupider than pedrop's garbl.

Well why should a police officer, a citizen just like you and me have a gun, if he's not obligated to protect me? Is a police officers life more valuable than mine? Than yours? Also if you can't take a joke about police officers eating doughnuts, maybe you're a bit to thin skinned for Fark.

Police officers have guns because their job is to confront people who have guns. (Sometimes guns that are bigger.) Your job is to push papers or fix cars or whatever. You don't need a gun for that, brosiah.

Police are citizens just like everyone else, people with no obligation to help me when someone has a gun pointed in my face. I fail to see why police officers are "special" in your eyes, why they are more worthy of defending themselves than someone who isn't a LEO.


The possession of a state-issued badge creates an aura about the person of the police officer or other agent, thus counteracting the demonic influence of the gun. Unlike a private citizen, who is easily influenced by the mere presence of a gun into become a raving lunatic hellbent on killing as many people as possible, and then himself, the agent is protected by the holy power of his office.

At least, that seems to be what is going on in the minds of the typical anti-gun bedwetter.
2013-01-20 09:39:14 PM
1 votes:

Fart_Machine: Wow almost 700 posts and nobody asked if the guns were hurt.


Well bloody FINE then!! If it's that kinda party!!

WERE THE POOR POOR GUNS HURTED!!??

[does a Cossack dance in the mashed potatoes]
2013-01-20 09:38:28 PM
1 votes:
There are marches against rape, abuse, and more. The GOP hates being reminded that they are pro-rape.
2013-01-20 09:34:25 PM
1 votes:
Wow almost 700 posts and nobody asked if the guns were hurt.
2013-01-20 09:09:46 PM
1 votes:

GUTSU: Now if I have to stare down a hobo wielding a pipe wrench, why should a police officer eating a doughnut 30 feet away be able to carry a gun?


There won't be any hobos. The sitar music, man. The sitar music.
2013-01-20 08:51:15 PM
1 votes:

pedrop357: Gyrfalcon: You know, you might be the single stupidest person ever. I've never met anyone so determined to defend guns as non-killing devices in my life. The only use of a gun is to shoot a bullet, okay, you win. Happy?

Yep, it's a designed to shoot a bullet. A car is designed to transport people.

It's all about the person operating it.


this is Sarah Palin, isnt it?
2013-01-20 08:50:03 PM
1 votes:

MithrandirBooga: Now, why, exactly, would a tyrannical government care if its people were revolting against it if they're already being tyrannical? IE: If the population is already revolting, we can safely assume that a tyrannical government would be using "no holds barred" tactics that wouldn't cripple us when we try to avoid collateral damage.


How would a government that cannot coordinate Hurricane Sandy relief coordinate something as complicated as putting down a full scale citizen revolt?
2013-01-20 08:23:26 PM
1 votes:

pedrop357: BronyMedic: pedrop357: I'm going to have to put up a lot of cash because the government is restricting the supply of new ones. That's the violation-the inability of anyone to make new ones.

Boo farking hoo. Stuff costs money.

Deal with it.

[i4.ytimg.com image 480x360]

/Yeah motherfarker.

fark off.


Well, that's just being a douche.  It seemed like a reasonable response to your sniveling about the price of guns.  If you can't afford your killing machines, get a second job or reassess your weird fetish.
2013-01-20 08:09:36 PM
1 votes:

pedrop357: fusillade762: The Hitler gun control lie

Gun rights activists who cite the dictator as a reason against gun control have their history dangerously wrong

Yeah, he expanded gun rights for everyone except the group he wanted to eliminate from the planet.

What a coincidence. It's almost as if it's hard to engage in mass murder or genocide when your target is armed and can fight back.


I love the part where he says "Gun control doesn't cause holocausts, oppressive regimes cause holocausts"....

Kinda hard to oppress those who can fight back....

He also states "Hitler forced the Jews into ghettos, should we ban ghettos?" (May be paraphrasing). Again, kinda hard to force someone to go where they don't want of they're disarmed....
2013-01-20 08:00:29 PM
1 votes:

pedrop357: rohar: I gotta know, if under the most stringent gun laws in a generation, you can still buy a weapon that will discharge 4000 rounds per minute, how have we lost any rights?

Yes, the right to buy new ones.


Really? Your argument for your position on gun control is the same as my wife's argument about purses? It's Friday and everyone's seen my last on I need a new one?
2013-01-20 07:55:38 PM
1 votes:
THis kid could have done this with a Winchester '94 or a $300 Wal*Mart shotgun. Hell, he could have done it with a .22 revolver. But look at his pictures, he's dressed in military-style fatigues and he used a military-style weapon. These guns are dangerous toys, noting more, nothing less. If hicks and lunatics can't play safely with these toys, they will lose them, and that's OK.

Ersatz military gear has no rational place in our civil society. We don't let idiots dress up like cops or firefighters or EMTs, either; you get arrested for that shiat. It should be the same if you want to dress up like a soldier. We can make an exception for re-enactors, since at least they seem to know that they're playing dress-up.

Otherwise, yes, you should lose your military toys at the drop of a hat and they should be regulated to whatever necessary level to keep them away from thugs, nitwits, halfwits, dimwits, vipers, snipers, con men, Indian agents, Mexican bandits, muggers, buggerers, bushwhackers, hornswogglers, horse thieves, bull dykes, train robbers, bank robbers, ass-kickers, shiat-kickers and Methodists.

It's only common sense.
2013-01-20 07:54:35 PM
1 votes:
Guns keep us safe in a similar way that meth helps us clean.
2013-01-20 07:49:39 PM
1 votes:
The second amendment was drafted and designed as a reaction to a very recent set of very troubling circumstances for a nation that barely had a standing army. That's not a problem anymore. The threat and it's source has changed. Or did a bunch of admittedly bright statesmen, farmers, political hacks, writers, inventors and bidnitmen actually just nail every damn thing imaginable for the ages in one swell foop? Because if they did, we need to get back on the gold standard, eradicate child labor laws, overturn Roe v. Wade and get back to the business of being constitutional Americans, lest we have troops quartered in our houses, err summer cometh.
2013-01-20 07:46:43 PM
1 votes:

pedrop357: The fact is that they were kept disarmed, and subsequently massacred. Had they been armed, things may have turned out very differently as we've seen in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam.


Wow...this is pretty stupid even for Fark. It's almost up there with that "if the black people in Africa had guns, they wouldn't have been slaves".

So a bunch of Jews would've been able to take on the massive Nazi Army?
2013-01-20 07:45:20 PM
1 votes:

iq_in_binary: And yet you don't see DMs or snipers using rifles chambered in 5.56. You see them using rifles chambered in .308.

5.56 was picked up because it wounds far more than it kills, using up more enemy resources to treat the wounded.

If our military wanted soldier carrying killing machines they'd still be issuing M1As, period.


What? the SAM-R and the SDM-R are both DM rifles chambered in 5.56 NATO being used by the US Military.
2013-01-20 07:30:17 PM
1 votes:

iq_in_binary: Darth Macho: pedrop357: bunner: Or that motor fuel, while not designed to be used as a weapon, CAN be. Most things can, I suppose. Although I'm pretty sure that the primary application for gasoline, as designed, isn't setting motherf*ckers on fire. Get it?

Guns aren't designed for murdering people, especially not children, they're designed for target shooting, hunting, self defense, waging war against defined enemies, and if necessary, fighting tyrannical governments.
THEY are not intended or designed to be used against innocent people.

Actually military ballistics like the 5.56mm NATO round are designed solely for the human anatomy, not deer, bear or gamefowl. Whether it's meant to be fired at 'bad guys' or 'innocent children' is irrelevant; its design intention is human-lethal and its primary operating environment is a battlefield.

That you think 5.56 NATO is designed to be human lethal proves your ignorance of the subject.

You do realize they still issue .308 rifles to people whose shots have to be lethal, right? I mean seriously, are you that stupid?


They were designed to tear humans to shreds in warfare.

The 5.56×45mm NATO cartridge with the standard 62 gr. steel core bullets (NATO: SS109; U.S.: M855) will penetrate approximately 15 to 20 in (38 to 51 cm) into soft tissue in ideal circumstances. As with all spitzer shaped projectiles it is prone to yaw in soft tissue. However, at impact velocities above roughly 2,500 ft/s (760 m/s), it may yaw and then fragment at the cannelure (the crimping groove around the cylinder of the bullet).[18] These fragments can disperse through flesh and bone, inflicting additional internal injuries.[19]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.56%C3%9745mm_NATO#Performance

The fragmentation didn't always go as planned, but they were absolutely designed to kill or excruciatingly wound a human opponent.
2013-01-20 07:25:22 PM
1 votes:

queezyweezel: What's an "assault type rifle"?


It's actually a misquote. They are referred to as "ass-hat type rifle", as only ass-hat types purchase and carry them.
2013-01-20 07:23:12 PM
1 votes:
15yo boy in question.

images2.makefive.com


/ he's a proud NRA member, too
2013-01-20 07:10:50 PM
1 votes:

computerguyUT: I find it moderately entertaining how every time a shooting occurrs, the Anti D-Bags have to go crazy with the same inane rhetoric, but the constant stream of people dying through other means which dwarfs the shooting numbers by orders of magnitude are somehow okay.

Oh, that's right, we're only paying attention to dead people that help you push your agenda.

So it's just fine and freaking dandy for litte sally to get wiped out in a car wreck, or beat to death by an abusive family member, but shot!
OUTRAGE!! THIS MUST NEVER HAPPEN AGAIN!! DERP WHARGARRBLLE.

Silly me.


Baby's First Argument...I love this story!
2013-01-20 07:01:41 PM
1 votes:
Nobody's even shocked anymore...

Nice country you've got there, America!
2013-01-20 06:59:02 PM
1 votes:

doglover: Laws are just words on parchment.


You mean like the constitution? George, is that you?

doglover: Schindler was a smuggler. George Washington was a traitor. Rosa Parks was ne'er do well who caused public disturbances.


Um, not so much.

doglover: A better aproach to life is to be a moral person.


You mean be decent? You mean there's a black letter AND spirit of the law? Yeah, I think the laws being written down sort of helps. You know, founding an entire civilization on the fact that linear print allows ideas to be held forth for the ages, unaltered by the telephone game of oral tradition, and all that, eh wot?
2013-01-20 06:58:27 PM
1 votes:

kriegfusion: [i129.photobucket.com image 822x1024]

So instead of foaming at the mouth in support of 2nd amendment rights as I might normally do ( or one opposed would do), I would like to ask something of our anti-gun brethren here. What would you do to ensure your rights from our government once you no longer have the immediate means to enforce your will upon the government? Do you rely on having defectors by the tens of thousands from the military? It is clear from history that you cannot expect our government to remain free; in fact, each day that passes we hear about more and more about more law; I don't think anyone can seriously argue we are in danger of becoming more free everyday. Everyday we hear about a new law coming out; does anyone really think a day will come where politicians won't do knee-jerk reactions and try to score political points after a shooting or any public unfortunate happening? Using this line of thinking, how can you not logically see where we are heading?

So, given the long view, we are clearly moving to a more overbearing government, and I know looking beyond the next 5 years is nearly impossible for people, but considering all this, unless we can somehow magically prevent this slide into a dictatorship or oligarchy, we will eventually, logically, have to assert ourselves forcefully one way or another. How do you propose we do this? Clearly the powers that be would laugh in your face at the minimum, or just send you to jail or just kill you.

On a side note, I think countries that have banned guns and haven't slid into despotism haven't because they know the US, and to a lesser extend the EU will help them and their people out. Once the US makes the slide itself, theres no 'worlds policeman' to stop them. I would predict the slide to happen quite fast, since no one would stop them. So, in effect, I see the US and its military presence as an invisible support to nations with gun control, and its not a factor that is ever brought out when the to ...


Alright... I'll bite a little here. First, there are few who are actually on the full weapon ban side. Most of us just want to add new rules and regulations. Banning all guns is not our agenda, the constitution is important to us as well. When you paint the issue as an all or nothing rule... then you have lost the discussion already. The world isn't black and white and no one will take you seriously. You will continue to be brushed off as a crazy... probably rightly so based on your argument that we are on this path to some sort of dictatorship. The government is NOT oppressing you, take some meds.
2013-01-20 06:53:46 PM
1 votes:
I am personally all in favor of drug dealers, gangstah boyees and every other tattooed tough monkey wanker - who sees the human race as a disposable commodity in their quest for super badasshood - to shoot it out with each other. I say we rope off 10,000 acres of WY, air drop bottled water, full auto rifles and enough ammo to erase an entire species and let Darwin put his feet up. There has always been the obvious fact that, should a given portion of the earth's population get greased and turned into mulch, it would be a nicer place to live for the remaining denizens. We have, however, as a species also realized that no one person is allowed to make that call as to who gets greased. Many have tried and they always turn out to be the bad guys. For better or worse, it's becoming painfully easier to precisely delineate who should end up in the lime pit, and on nothing more than the cursory review of their own behavior. The fact that this sort of behavior is becoming more common, and held as intractable in the view of our society, speaks to the problem far more than the toolkit they use. But I think the toolkit helps.
2013-01-20 06:53:28 PM
1 votes:

Into the blue again: And this is the point in which I add you to the ignore list. You make no arguments and are just threadshiatting. Your agenda is old and stale. Please... just stop.

Do not bother responding to this post as you are on ignore.



Not the ignore list, no!
2013-01-20 06:40:36 PM
1 votes:
i129.photobucket.com

So instead of foaming at the mouth in support of 2nd amendment rights as I might normally do ( or one opposed would do), I would like to ask something of our anti-gun brethren here. What would you do to ensure your rights from our government once you no longer have the immediate means to enforce your will upon the government? Do you rely on having defectors by the tens of thousands from the military? It is clear from history that you cannot expect our government to remain free; in fact, each day that passes we hear about more and more about more law; I don't think anyone can seriously argue we are in danger of becoming more free everyday. Everyday we hear about a new law coming out; does anyone really think a day will come where politicians won't do knee-jerk reactions and try to score political points after a shooting or any public unfortunate happening? Using this line of thinking, how can you not logically see where we are heading?

So, given the long view, we are clearly moving to a more overbearing government, and I know looking beyond the next 5 years is nearly impossible for people, but considering all this, unless we can somehow magically prevent this slide into a dictatorship or oligarchy, we will eventually, logically, have to assert ourselves forcefully one way or another. How do you propose we do this? Clearly the powers that be would laugh in your face at the minimum, or just send you to jail or just kill you.

On a side note, I think countries that have banned guns and haven't slid into despotism haven't because they know the US, and to a lesser extend the EU will help them and their people out. Once the US makes the slide itself, theres no 'worlds policeman' to stop them. I would predict the slide to happen quite fast, since no one would stop them. So, in effect, I see the US and its military presence as an invisible support to nations with gun control, and its not a factor that is ever brought out when the topic of the success of gun control is broached. I think this invisible pillar will quickly disappear, and the bankrupt idea of keeping weapons out of the hands of the people will be shown as a farce once again.
2013-01-20 06:32:55 PM
1 votes:

BronyMedic: WOOHOO! GUN THREAD!

/drink!


You gone die if you take a shot for every gun thread.
2013-01-20 06:27:12 PM
1 votes:

BronyMedic: Careful, son. Iraq was invaded on the suspicion of possession of less WMD-grade stupid than that.


You're seriously gonna defend that side of the little back and forth that happened there?

Dude... you like play with people insides and crap. Now THAT is frightening.

BAN ALL MEDICS WHO HAPPEN TO BE BRONIES!
2013-01-20 06:25:24 PM
1 votes:

pedrop357: Darth Macho: Actually military ballistics like the 5.56mm NATO round are designed solely for the human anatomy, not deer, bear or gamefowl. Whether it's meant to be fired at 'bad guys' or 'innocent children' is irrelevant; its design intention is human-lethal and its primary operating environment is a battlefield.

So you'll agree that the police and federal law enforcement officials should be denied possession of that round and the guns that fire it, right?


That is the dumbest thing I've read on fark today.

Unless the cops start having to arrest violent deer....
2013-01-20 06:25:19 PM
1 votes:

bunner: pedrop357: In other words, they have other uses just like fuel, cars, etc.

No, they have primary uses and applications by design. So, what is the primary usage by design of a gun, again? F*cking engineering, how does it work?


I know!  I know!  Let me take a stab at it.

Like the trebuchet and the long bow, guns were created to send messages very quickly and reliably in the days before radios and telephones existed.

It's their off-label use that keeps them from becoming obsolete.
2013-01-20 06:23:30 PM
1 votes:

LarryDan43: vpb: I think there must be a mistake.  It says he used an AR-15, but I have been assured that people only dislike them because they look "scary" and they can't actually hurt or kill anyone.

They jam often, so not good for home defense. They are good for small varmits, but so are a lot of guns, including those of the pellet variety. But if you need to clear out some children, there is no gun better. Good luck finding one though, they are selling out quickly. Children must be big problems in some areas.


You say "children" and "varmints" as if you classify them differently?
2013-01-20 06:22:44 PM
1 votes:
I meant GUN NUTS no fun nuts.

Damn autocorrect
2013-01-20 06:20:27 PM
1 votes:

vpb: I think there must be a mistake.  It says he used an AR-15, but I have been assured that people only dislike them because they look "scary" and they can't actually hurt or kill anyone.


They jam often, so not good for home defense. They are good for small varmits, but so are a lot of guns, including those of the pellet variety. But if you need to clear out some children, there is no gun better. Good luck finding one though, they are selling out quickly. Children must be big problems in some areas.
2013-01-20 06:19:42 PM
1 votes:

gimmegimme: Soo....how do the bullets know who is innocent and who is a tyrant?


They don't, anymore than the fuel knows its not going into a car but is instead being used to set people on fire. Cars don't know they're being driven by a drunk driver, nor do they know they're being used to transport murdered people to be dumped.
2013-01-20 06:19:18 PM
1 votes:

pedrop357: Show me where guns were designed to harm innocent people.


Show me the blueprints that outline the module in the weapon that causes it to have a conscience.
2013-01-20 06:17:43 PM
1 votes:

pedrop357: bunner: Or that motor fuel, while not designed to be used as a weapon, CAN be. Most things can, I suppose. Although I'm pretty sure that the primary application for gasoline, as designed, isn't setting motherf*ckers on fire. Get it?

Guns aren't designed for murdering people, especially not children, they're designed for target shooting, hunting, self defense, waging war against defined enemies, and if necessary, fighting tyrannical governments.
THEY are not intended or designed to be used against innocent people.


Soo....how do the bullets know who is innocent and who is a tyrant?
2013-01-20 06:17:26 PM
1 votes:

pedrop357: He wasn't really old enough to buy that gun, so it likely belongs to someone else and was unlawfully obtained by him.




freshbread.blogs.com
2013-01-20 06:16:54 PM
1 votes:

Dinki: AngryDragon: Which new gun law would have prevented this submittard?

The banning of possession, manufacturing, importation and selling of magazine fed guns.


Perhaps you missed the "15-year-olds in possession of firearms is already illegal" part. He already broke the farking law. Will breaking another make a difference?
2013-01-20 06:13:50 PM
1 votes:

bunner: Or that motor fuel, while not designed to be used as a weapon, CAN be. Most things can, I suppose. Although I'm pretty sure that the primary application for gasoline, as designed, isn't setting motherf*ckers on fire. Get it?


Guns aren't designed for murdering people, especially not children, they're designed for target shooting, hunting, self defense, waging war against defined enemies, and if necessary, fighting tyrannical governments.
THEY are not intended or designed to be used against innocent people.
2013-01-20 06:09:33 PM
1 votes:

bunner: So how's that culture of crime, violence and badassery working out so far?


bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com

"I'll let you know after I'm released for defending myself against an unarmed kid who was running away from me."
2013-01-20 06:09:13 PM
1 votes:

The Only Sane Man In Florida: Tymast: Why isn't the media reporting on all the guns that haven't killed someone yet?

Because it's much more fun to use fear and logical fallacy to erode the rights of the populous.


It would have been nice if all the gun rights advocates that are so concerned about our rights spoke up when the Supreme Court ruled that Miranda rights no longer have to be read. Or when OWS protesters were beaten to a pulp for exercising their right to peaceably assemble. Or when,the Bush administration set the precedent that torture is an acceptable mechanism to erradicate 5th amendment rights. Or when terrorism became a sufficient charge to detain indefinitely without charge or council. Or when warrant-less searches in the name of fighting terror became commonplace.

But yeah, that firearm will protect us all from tyranny.
2013-01-20 06:07:09 PM
1 votes:
Also on that same day approximately 311,591,860 people were NOT murdered with a firearm!
2013-01-20 06:07:08 PM
1 votes:

ZeroPly: Quit being stupid and just call it a magazine fed semiauto.


How about you gunnuts quit being asshats and stop trying to derail any meaningful limits on gun ownership with pathetic semantic BS?
2013-01-20 06:01:29 PM
1 votes:

Vodka Zombie: Ha! The only flaw in your otherwise impeccable logic is that cars aren't used to fight tyranny. You can only fight tyranny with a bunch of guns.

So, since this 15 year old used a gun, we have no choice but to believe that this family was tyranny, and it was his patriotic duty to water the tree of liberty (which can only be watered with a gun and not a car). I expect the NRA will be giving him a freedom medal.


Know how I know you're a trolling scumbag?
2013-01-20 05:59:29 PM
1 votes:
If only the 2 adults and 3 kids were packing heat this would have never happened.
2013-01-20 05:49:27 PM
1 votes:
♫This is my rifle. This is my gun. This is for fighting, and this is for fun♫

Now let's do the Clip vs Magazine argument...
2013-01-20 05:49:11 PM
1 votes:
WOOHOO! GUN THREAD!

/drink!
2013-01-20 05:14:55 PM
1 votes:

cameroncrazy1984: doglover: cameroncrazy1984: give me doughnuts: vpb: queezyweezel: cameroncrazy1984: queezyweezel: What's an "assault type rifle"?

When did they modify the definition to cover semiautomatic replicas?

There is no such thing as a "semi-automatic replica".  A semi-automatic assault rifle is an actual military assault rifle with the full auto portion omitted or disabled.

It's still an assault rifle, just as a car with a transmission that won't go into fifth gear is still a car.

There's no such thing as a semi-automatic assault-rifle. It can look like one, but if it isn't capable of full-automatic (or burst) fire, then it is is just a rifle.

False, I just posted the definition right up thread for you.

From dictionary.com? Really?

( T_T)\(^-^ ) Good jorb.

Would you prefer Merriam-Webster?

Definition of  ASSAULT RIFLE: any of various automatic or semiautomatic rifles with large capacity magazines designed for military use

Congratulations, you still lose.


I'm not the one quoting dictionary.com like it was a source.

And the AR--5 is not designed for military use, so by the Meriam-Webster version it is not an assault rifle.
2013-01-20 05:08:52 PM
1 votes:

doglover: cameroncrazy1984: give me doughnuts: vpb: queezyweezel: cameroncrazy1984: queezyweezel: What's an "assault type rifle"?

When did they modify the definition to cover semiautomatic replicas?

There is no such thing as a "semi-automatic replica".  A semi-automatic assault rifle is an actual military assault rifle with the full auto portion omitted or disabled.

It's still an assault rifle, just as a car with a transmission that won't go into fifth gear is still a car.

There's no such thing as a semi-automatic assault-rifle. It can look like one, but if it isn't capable of full-automatic (or burst) fire, then it is is just a rifle.

False, I just posted the definition right up thread for you.

From dictionary.com? Really?

( T_T)\(^-^ ) Good jorb.


Would you prefer Merriam-Webster?

Definition of  ASSAULT RIFLE: any of various automatic or semiautomatic rifles with large capacity magazines designed for military use

Congratulations, you still lose.
2013-01-20 04:57:17 PM
1 votes:
AR-15, the new AK-47.
2013-01-20 04:42:20 PM
1 votes:
Makh: It was his own family he shot. Multiple guns in the house, everyone was armed so it was ok. They should have been able to prevent it, right?

/I mean this is the argument right?


yes, that is the argument, so it will be interesting what the guntards come up with now.
2013-01-20 04:40:48 PM
1 votes:

ekdikeo4: Has there been a gun incident in the last 3 months that wasn't initially reported as someone carrying an AR15 pitbull?

2013-01-20 04:09:31 PM
1 votes:

Somacandra: jbuist: Pop the grenade on the end, load a blank, and fire the grenade. They're not exactly dangerous. Well, unless you have rifle grenades. I'd say the grenades are the dangerous part...

But if you can't fire the grenade without the grenade launcher, and the grenade launcher has no use other than firing a grenade, the logical move would be to restrict the launcher. Grenades themselves aren't semiautomatic weapons appropriate to this legislation--I'm sure those are covered instead under the "No You Can't Have Some Goddamn Grenades Act" passed after WWII.


This. We need more Acts named for what they really are.
2013-01-20 04:06:24 PM
1 votes:
Has there been a gun incident in the last 3 months that wasn't initially reported as someone carrying an AR15?
2013-01-20 03:40:58 PM
1 votes:
img.meetone.com

A picture of said murderer.    This should be interesting.
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-01-20 03:39:30 PM
1 votes:

violentsalvation: vpb: I think there must be a mistake.  It says he used an AR-15, but I have been assured that people only dislike them because they look "scary" and they can't actually hurt or kill anyone.

That goes in the category of "shiat no one has ever said".


Nope.  I people here on Fark have claimed that they are "safe and fun".

Maybe they were using some new definition of the word safe.
2013-01-20 03:29:57 PM
1 votes:

vpb: I think there must be a mistake.  It says he used an AR-15, but I have been assured that people only dislike them because they look "scary" and they can't actually hurt or kill anyone.


That goes in the category of "shiat no one has ever said".
2013-01-20 03:02:06 PM
1 votes:
I just watched the latest episode of W Kamau Bell's show. Good show if you're a liberal. I laugh at most of it, but one thing he did was go on a poetic type rant where he said we should just have no guns at all.

And I agree with him...but only if EVERYBODY throws all their guns in the ocean, and all gun manufacturers dismantle their assembly lines, and we don't even keep "collector's items" in the slightest.

Since that won't ever ever ever ever happen, I say we all get a gun. No restrictions. If you have a pulse, you get a gun. Yes, somebody will shoot one of your loved ones. You'll have plenty of people to share your grief with and you'll get over it.
2013-01-20 01:52:39 PM
1 votes:

queezyweezel: What's an "assault type rifle"?


From dictionary.com:

assault riflenoun1.a military rifle capable of both automatic and semiautomati c fire,utilizing an intermediate-power cartridge.2.a nonmilitary weapo n modeled on the military assault rifle,usually modified to allow only  semiautomatic fire.Origin:
1970-75

Any other questions?
 
Displayed 138 of 138 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report