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.

(NYPost)   State of NY to legal firearms owners, "Register your weapons, it's the law." Legal firearms owners to the State of NY, "Guns? I don't own any guns, and you can't prove it so go fark yourselves"   (nypost.com) divider line 1301
    More: Hero, New York, civil disobedience, Association of Baptist Churches in Ireland  
•       •       •

17845 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Jan 2013 at 4:26 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



1301 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-26 06:27:48 PM

PsiChick: no one's touching your farking guns, just creating a new registry.


What's the registry for, anyway? How is it useful?
 
2013-01-26 06:28:07 PM

PsiChick: And you know, even if this bill completely passed,  no one's touching your farking guns, just creating a new registry.



Does it provide sufficient protection that no future politician can enact a retroactive ban and confiscation, as has already happened in some states and proposed in others?
 
2013-01-26 06:28:26 PM

Pelvic Splanchnic Ganglion: GAT_00:

What legitimate reason is there to not register?

Hurricane Katrina? Where the police confiscated guns to "prevent looting". Ironic, that.


And they did it to the well-off suburbs while the inner city drowned.

Why would anyone use the government's actions post Katrina as a positive example for their side is beyond me.
 
2013-01-26 06:28:52 PM

muck4doo: PsiChick: And you know, even if this bill completely passed, no one's touching your farking guns, just creating a new registry.

You should be registered to post on the internet.


Government can find out who and where I am whenever they want through my ISP.

Put a GPS tracker in all of your guns.
 
2013-01-26 06:29:08 PM

vpb: not having to register them like a car or a motorcycle is more important than preventing mass shootings?


You do not have to register your car or motorcycle if you are only going to drive it on private property. You only have to register it when you want to drive it on state roads.
 
2013-01-26 06:29:20 PM
"[There is] a duty in refusing to cooperate in any undertaking that violates the Constitutional rights of the individual. " -- Albert Einstein

"One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws." -- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
 
2013-01-26 06:29:22 PM
In my state you don't have to register guns sold person to person. Bought 2 pistols off of our security guard 15 years ago. He died of a massive heart attack 4 years ago so I have 2 throwaways if needed. Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!

//but seriously I'm a law-abiding citizen and have no plans to become a criminal.
 
2013-01-26 06:29:43 PM

here to help: Government can find out who and where I am whenever they want through my ISP.

Put a GPS tracker in all of your guns.



As soon as you put one in all of your books and your car(s).
 
2013-01-26 06:29:59 PM

vartian: You sound like a child. Which would not be such a bad thing, except that you are probably armed.


I couldn't help but notice that your little ad hominem utterly failed to refute his argument.

How would gun registration prevented that shooting?
 
2013-01-26 06:30:10 PM
It was wrong for southern states to pass laws that violated peoples' civil rights in the old days. It's equally wrong for states to pass laws that violates people's civil rights today. It is a citizen's right to be possessed of the means to protect themself. Just because it's fashionable to be against this civil right (just like it was fashionable to be against "the darkies" way back when) doesn't mean it's any more right.

A person's civil rights can't be magically turned into a crime no matter how much some wish it could be done.
 
2013-01-26 06:31:02 PM

here to help: muck4doo: PsiChick: And you know, even if this bill completely passed, no one's touching your farking guns, just creating a new registry.

You should be registered to post on the internet.

Government can find out who and where I am whenever they want through my ISP.

Put a GPS tracker in all of your guns.


7 Proxies, biatch.
 
2013-01-26 06:31:27 PM

pedrop357: here to help: Government can find out who and where I am whenever they want through my ISP.

Put a GPS tracker in all of your guns.


As soon as you put one in all of your books and your car(s).


You seem to spend hours daily in these threads. How much you makin' off this?
 
2013-01-26 06:31:35 PM

Cheviot: I love the fact that all the so-called "law abiding" gun owners in this thread are proving the point of the anti-gun crowd. They're all ready to commit weapon offenses, citing the constitution, over a law that in no way infringes upon their right to keep or bear arms.

It's a shame they didn't make it a felony rather than a misdemeanor. That would deal with the problem in a much more final way.


I'm not really a gun person, but I have a problem in general with passing new laws that require a citizen to take action in response or face jail. Someone who already legally owned a weapon becomes a criminal by doing nothing but what they're currently doing.

There are already so many ways to break the law without actually harming anyone and I take a dim view of government creating more ways to become a criminal.
 
2013-01-26 06:32:07 PM

dahmers love zombie: Would it be acceptable to have gun registration if there were a change in the Constitution forbidding the Federal government (or any lesser government) to ever use such lists for the purpose of confiscation?

I'm not arguing for or against it.  I'm just wondering if those who worry about registration being a "grab list" would be happier if there were specific language that would essentially forever ban just what they are worried about.


That's an interesting idea,one I've not seen.The problem is that if the government became intent on tyranny those listed gun owners would be first on the list. A "hit list",if you will.
 
2013-01-26 06:32:22 PM

Tsar_Bomba1: In my state you don't have to register guns sold person to person. Bought 2 pistols off of our security guard 15 years ago. He died of a massive heart attack 4 years ago so I have 2 throwaways if needed. Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!

//but seriously I'm a law-abiding citizen and have no plans to become a criminal.


The sensible response is to find some way to make you a criminal.
 
2013-01-26 06:32:33 PM

muck4doo: 7 Proxies, biatch.


Pierre Poutine? Is that you?
 
2013-01-26 06:33:16 PM

xynix: Harry Knutz: If an extended magazine is so inconsequential, so... harmless, as you suggest, perhaps it's not actually an "arm" as defined by the Second Amendment.

Because in about a month a very determined person could easily learn how to do this:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAFxgQmxbGI

So based on that what difference does clip size make? Extended clips have been available since the roaring 20s so why this debate now? I haven't even practiced to do this but I'm pretty sure if I tried I could change the clip out in my .45 in less than a second. I have no reason to do so therefor I won't practice doing it because frankly I don't dick around with my guns like that. I don't play cowboy games with them either but if I wanted to learn how it wouldn't take much more dexterity than say.. Pounding Tyson's head in on Fightnight 4 via my Xbox controller.

The frustration that gun owners feel that is making anti-gun people call us all "gun nuts" is that people like you (not you harry but generally speaking) are talking about things without having any level of context. You think an extended mag somehow means someone can shoot more when in fact they could always shoot the same amount with a little practice. You think that registering a gun will change anything because you don't realize they are already registered when you buy them. I'm not afraid of people taking my guns away .. I'm annoyed that people without any facts or knowledge of my life-long hobby want to create some bullshiat organization to make me pay more taxes.


But that's the entire point. There are responsible, educated gun owners who could train themselves to swap out magazines in a split second if they had to. They don't have to. What extended magazines do is enable anyone to unload a deadly hail of bullets. Without training. Without thought. It's not unreasonable to question the necessity of an extended magazine in this context. I don't personally know you, obviously, but I do not begrudge you your hobby in the slightest. You have all the appearance of being exactly the type of person I would want to own guns, if anybody is to own them. So why can't we sit down together and come up with some common sense restrictions that strike a fair balance?
 
2013-01-26 06:34:08 PM
I like how authoritarians are now all for having to register practicing a right. I bet these same asstards were against having to show ID while voting.
 
2013-01-26 06:34:42 PM

here to help:
Government can find out who and where I am whenever they want through my ISP.

Put a GPS tracker in all of your guns.



Sounds good to me, as long as the option to remove said tracker is just as legal as the option to use a proxy to hide my location.
 
2013-01-26 06:34:46 PM
Cold dead hands...

celebsview.info
 
2013-01-26 06:34:49 PM

craig328: It was wrong for southern states to pass laws that violated peoples' civil rights in the old days. It's equally wrong for states to pass laws that violates people's civil rights today. It is a citizen's right to be possessed of the means to protect themself. Just because it's fashionable to be against this civil right (just like it was fashionable to be against "the darkies" way back when) doesn't mean it's any more right.

A person's civil rights can't be magically turned into a crime no matter how much some wish it could be done.


In what way is your right to keep and bear arms infringed by requiring you to tell the government which arms you keep? To be more clear, in what way does being forced to register a weapon prevent you from owning it or firing it?
 
2013-01-26 06:34:58 PM

chuggernaught: xynix: cameroncrazy1984: That's why I refuse to register my car. It only makes it easier for the government to take it. For some reason. I guess.

Wow I didn't realize cars where in the constitution.. ? Which amendment is that covered under anyway? It's certainly not in the bill of rights. Guess your constitution is a more updated version that the one I'm used to. Is the right to have an internet in there too?

Internet? See 1st Amendment. You know. The 1st one. The one that actually keeps us free. Not the next one down that has turned into the playground for greedy, petulant children.


Sorry, 1st amendment only applies to the printing press and speaking on a street corner.
If the 2nd amendment doesn't apply to modern 'arms', then the 1st amendment doesn't apply to modern 'speech.'
 
2013-01-26 06:35:12 PM
If people are so worried about mass shootings, then nut up and push for a ban on any firearm that accepts a magazine.

Good luck with that!
 
2013-01-26 06:35:16 PM

dahmers love zombie: I'm just wondering if those who worry about registration being a "grab list" would be happier if there were specific language that would essentially forever ban just what they are worried about.



We already have that language. It reads "shall not be infringed upon". Srsly, it's there. Look it up.
 
2013-01-26 06:35:32 PM

enry: When your "knowings" about an organization you don't like are all from that organization's enemies, you just might get an inaccurate picture of what that organization actually stands for.

Guess I struck too close to home.

Lemme put it this way: Having Wayne LaPierre hold a press conference blaming everything but guns for a mass shooting (involving guns) in a school does nothing to help you. He could have talked about mental health issues as it pertains to gun ownership and safety, he could have talked about closing loopholes, he could have talked about responsible gun ownership.



Guess you missed my point. Imagine my surprise.

Guns are pieces of metal, wood, and plastic. They don't actually do anything by themselves. Weird, but true. Criminals, on the other hand, are people who do bad things, usually in an escalating pattern of evilness.

Instead of taking my 20 round magazines away, or saying I can't buy more of them, which had NO effect in the 10 years the last time your people tried this, could we please, just stay with me here, could we please just have manditory 5 year jail time add-ons for anyone using a gun in a crime?

See, what I'm thinking, is that way we punish the bad guys, and don't punish the 99.999% of gun owners who, you know, aren't criminals.

Virginia enjoyed a double-digit drop in violent crime for every year that Project Exile was in place. It punishes the bad people, and doesn't punish or disarm their victims. Can you come up with any coherent reason why this shouldn't be the first thing we institute nationally?

If you want to punish the law abiding people rather than the criminals, I'm REALLY confused as to what you hope to accomplish, and how you think doing so would be better than putting the bad guys in jail.
 
2013-01-26 06:36:11 PM
Everybody with a firearm should e-mail the President and inform him that today you did not commit any crimes with your guns. Every single day.
 
2013-01-26 06:38:56 PM

sweet-daddy-2: The 2nd ammendment is intended as a deterant to our government becoming tyrannical.


It was not intended to let a bunch of derp-tards overthrow or resist a democratically elected representative government, just because they don't like the way the people voted.

Nevermind that the 2nd amendment is ostensibly written "for the security of a free state." It's there so you can defend your country, not so you can attack it or shoot cops and American soldiers.

/And what is it with traitors wrapping themselves in the constitution, anyway? Does that even make sense?
 
2013-01-26 06:39:12 PM

Cheviot: In what way is your right to keep and bear arms infringed by requiring you to tell the government which arms you keep? To be more clear, in what way does being forced to register a weapon prevent you from owning it or firing it?



In and of itself, registration is not a problem. What IS a problem is that quite a few politicians have used registrations to enact retroactive bans and confiscate guns made illegal under the new law.
 
2013-01-26 06:40:17 PM

StreetlightInTheGhetto: Fark It: If there's one constant in the gun control debate it's that the people who support bans and confiscation will always, without fail, overreach.

Because according to gun nuts ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING IS OVERREACHING.  It's REGISTRATION, NOT banning or confiscating.  Some of us don't support bans or confiscating and still see no f--king reason why registration and background checks for everyone and reasonable restrictions are SO GODDAMNED OFFENSIVE TO SUGGEST.

Hell, even DISCUSSING guns was called overreaching ("too soon!!!").

GodDAMN I'm sick of it.


Take a breath, sweetie, you don't want to end up fainting.
 
2013-01-26 06:41:06 PM

Pelvic Splanchnic Ganglion: GAT_00:

What legitimate reason is there to not register?

Hurricane Katrina? Where the police confiscated guns to "prevent looting". Ironic, that.


ko_kyi: PsiChick: no one's touching your farking guns, just creating a new registry.

What's the registry for, anyway? How is it useful?


the ha ha guy: PsiChick: And you know, even if this bill completely passed,  no one's touching your farking guns, just creating a new registry.


Does it provide sufficient protection that no future politician can enact a retroactive ban and confiscation, as has already happened in some states and proposed in others?



 And you know, even if this bill completely passed, no one's touching your farking guns, just creating a new registry.

You should be registered to post on the internet.

Hai, guize, want to know how I didn't know you read the part where I said a lawsuit would work? Yeah, there's a reason for that...this law is probably illegal. Not to mention a logical error the size of Manhatten.

But yeah, keep arguing with me, I'm sure I'm not agreeing with you enough.
 
2013-01-26 06:41:21 PM

djh0101010: How about instead of blaming the millions of us who have never, and will never, do anything wrong, we institute a "Project Exile", like Virginia did in the 1990s?


Too sensible. Doesn't fit the real agenda of general disarmament, but would probably reduce gun violence in the US by a significant percentage.
 
2013-01-26 06:42:11 PM

Securitywyrm: chuggernaught: xynix: cameroncrazy1984: That's why I refuse to register my car. It only makes it easier for the government to take it. For some reason. I guess.

Wow I didn't realize cars where in the constitution.. ? Which amendment is that covered under anyway? It's certainly not in the bill of rights. Guess your constitution is a more updated version that the one I'm used to. Is the right to have an internet in there too?

Internet? See 1st Amendment. You know. The 1st one. The one that actually keeps us free. Not the next one down that has turned into the playground for greedy, petulant children.

Sorry, 1st amendment only applies to the printing press and speaking on a street corner.
If the 2nd amendment doesn't apply to modern 'arms', then the 1st amendment doesn't apply to modern 'speech.'


California and the SKS

California passes law requiring all SKS owners to 'register' this type of weapon.
California then passes new law banning SKS ownership, and has a 'hit list' of people who now own something 'illegal.' Especially in a place like New York, that's 'sufficient cause' for a search warrant shortly after the second law gets passed.

How about this for a god damn reasonable compromise

"No law shall restrict the right of a law abiding citizen to bear arms of greater restriction than those placed upon law enforcement." There you go. Police can have a handgun? I can have a handgun. Police can have an AR-15? I can have an AR 15. Police can't have a rocket launcher? Guess what, I CAN'T have a rocket launcher.
Unless you want the police to be better armed than law-abiding citizens, which indicates the police are there to oppress rather than protect.
 
2013-01-26 06:42:32 PM

Cheviot: craig328: It was wrong for southern states to pass laws that violated peoples' civil rights in the old days. It's equally wrong for states to pass laws that violates people's civil rights today. It is a citizen's right to be possessed of the means to protect themself. Just because it's fashionable to be against this civil right (just like it was fashionable to be against "the darkies" way back when) doesn't mean it's any more right.

A person's civil rights can't be magically turned into a crime no matter how much some wish it could be done.

In what way is your right to keep and bear arms infringed by requiring you to tell the government which arms you keep? To be more clear, in what way does being forced to register a weapon prevent you from owning it or firing it?



Perhaps you were out of class the day they discussed the word "infringed"...as in "shall not be infringed upon". That said, in what way was being required to pay a poll tax infringing upon the means for certain folks to vote? How about all the "separate but equal" accommodations when it came to public transit? Those were all odious restrictions on people's rights and they were wrong. But this will be okay because you personally don't feel like that right impacts you?

How about an even better question: what exactly does a registry allow the government (since they're the ones pushing for such a thing) to do? It does absolutely zero to deter any crime in any way. It's a list of those who own a gun and where they live. Why not also have Google keep a registry of all the terms you search on and submit that to the government? How about your ISP submits the list of sites you've visited? You know...per some kind of anti-terrorist thingy?
 
2013-01-26 06:42:42 PM

PsiChick: Pelvic Splanchnic Ganglion: GAT_00:

What legitimate reason is there to not register?

Hurricane Katrina? Where the police confiscated guns to "prevent looting". Ironic, that.

ko_kyi: PsiChick: no one's touching your farking guns, just creating a new registry.

What's the registry for, anyway? How is it useful?

the ha ha guy: PsiChick: And you know, even if this bill completely passed,  no one's touching your farking guns, just creating a new registry.


Does it provide sufficient protection that no future politician can enact a retroactive ban and confiscation, as has already happened in some states and proposed in others?


 And you know, even if this bill completely passed, no one's touching your farking guns, just creating a new registry.

You should be registered to post on the internet.
Hai, guize, want to know how I didn't know you read the part where I said a lawsuit would work? Yeah, there's a reason for that...this law is probably illegal. Not to mention a logical error the size of Manhatten.

But yeah, keep arguing with me, I'm sure I'm not agreeing with you enough.


Register your post with the government.
 
2013-01-26 06:42:52 PM
But what if I'm attacked by an angry mob that's been enraged by a "disgusting," offensive YouTube video?

We all know that YouTube has LOTS of offensive videos on it. I know all about it, since I put some of them there.

Obama went before the UN and Joy Behar and all kinds of Very Important People to tell us how easily this can happen -- angry, offended mobs of well-armed men can spontaneously form, and attack you and burn your shiat down and murder you. That's what he said.

And now we know the government is incapable of providing security for these situations.

We need our guns to protect ourselves from the threat of spontaneous "protests" in reaction to offensive videos.

I'm only going by what our Benevolent Leaders tell us.
 
2013-01-26 06:42:52 PM

Mock26: Everybody with a firearm should e-mail the President and inform him that today you did not commit any crimes with your guns. Every single day.


I like this idea.
 
2013-01-26 06:43:11 PM

PsiChick: But yeah, keep arguing with me, I'm sure I'm not agreeing with you enough.


I wasn't arguing, just trying to understand what a registry would accomplish.
 
2013-01-26 06:43:33 PM

captainktainer: I used to be a lot more in favor of ensuring that gun ownership stayed legal, but hearing from all these gun nuts is driving me further and further into the outright confiscation of everything camp...


1/10
 
2013-01-26 06:44:53 PM

vpb: Amos Quito:

"All those school shootings" combined are but a fraction of a percentage of all gun-related crimes.

So they don't matter and there's no point in doing anything about them, right?



The point is that school shootings are extreme outliers in the entire 'gun crime' argument.  Trying to find a solution for extremes is just a waste of time, and all you end up doing is stomping on the rights of millions of legal, law-abiding citizens who just want to go about their lives without egregious government intervention.

It'd be like your state saying that all persons with a heart condition are prohibited from driving, because a couple people had serious crashes after having heart attacks while driving.  Would a law like that be beneficial for all persons on the road, because you removed a hazard?  Yes.  Is is good law, good practice, or sensible? Not in the least.
 
2013-01-26 06:45:39 PM

GAT_00: And if cars are so much more dangerous, yet we register them, why is it so horrible that we register guns?


Can you show me the Constitutional amendment that prohibits the government from infringing on your right to own a car?
Of course, it would probably be a horse or mule when it was written, so either will work.
 
2013-01-26 06:45:57 PM

Krab: I think it was a Jews had to "register" thing not a gun point he was making.


oh it's not about guns..but in a gun thread ....
so it's a census issue?

so..Jews shouldn't vote because......they have to register?

man oh man...
 
2013-01-26 06:46:19 PM

Fark It: If there's one constant in the gun control debate it's that the people who support bans and confiscation will always, without fail, overreach.


If there's one constant about gun nuts, it's that their over-reaching zeal enables lunatics to go on killing sprees. Then they blame everyone but the over-reaching gun nuts who defiled the 2nd Amendment and turned "a well regulated militia" into a mob of paranoid fanatics with delusions of persecution.

Go fark yourself. You are personally to blame for Newtown. You and all your verminous ilk who insist the Constitution says something it clearly does not say.
 
2013-01-26 06:46:36 PM

Xcott: sweet-daddy-2: The 2nd ammendment is intended as a deterant to our government becoming tyrannical.

It was not intended to let a bunch of derp-tards overthrow or resist a democratically elected representative government, just because they don't like the way the people voted.

Nevermind that the 2nd amendment is ostensibly written "for the security of a free state." It's there so you can defend your country, not so you can attack it or shoot cops and American soldiers.

/And what is it with traitors wrapping themselves in the constitution, anyway? Does that even make sense?


You anti gun folks are starting to lose it.
 
2013-01-26 06:46:45 PM

djh0101010:

Instead of taking my 20 round magazines away, or saying I can't buy more of them, which had NO effect in the 10 years the last time your people tried this, could we please, just stay with me here, could we please just have manditory 5 year jail time add-ons for anyone using a gun in a crime?


What a smashing idea! I'm certain that'll deter those pesky psychos who go into a school with a couple of drum magazines, empty-up and then save the last bullet for themselves.
"If it jams, I might get an extra 5 years! Better not bother then."

:| really?
 
2013-01-26 06:47:25 PM

pedrop357: LavenderWolf: So issues of scale mean nothing in your world?

Smaller rights violations are still violations, pretending they don't count because they didn't go all out is disingenuous.


Never said they weren't.

There's a difference, though, between small scale events, and taking guns en masse from a society that will have no part in that.
 
2013-01-26 06:47:29 PM

djh0101010: It's interesting that you're obsessed with thinking that the 99.999% of law abiding gun owners, would want to do that sort of thing. Project much,
BronyMedic?

/apparently, I'm not allowed to attack you in suitably strong linguistic terms. Hopefully the modiots will let this go through.

//seriously, Brony, do you actually understand how much you come across as being a pompous, judgmental ass?


Project? So now you're saying I fantasize about murdering elementary school children because I was rather blunt about the capabilities of a bolt action hunting rifle versus a rifle specifically designed to be used in close-quarters combat? And please don't debate the design intentions and origins of Armalite's rifles.

At any rate, I'm clearly not talking about the vast majority of gun owners if your statement is that 99.999% of them don't commit crimes, now am I?

I'm just calling a potato a potato, and your derp what it is.

Given your behavior in this thread and many others on FARK, you have no right to judge OR lecture others about being a "pompous, judgemental ass". It's about like Skinnyhead giving us all a lecture on moral integrity.
 
2013-01-26 06:47:33 PM

here to help: You seem to spend hours daily in these threads. How much you makin' off this?


In other words, you've got nothing.
 
2013-01-26 06:48:46 PM
i1121.photobucket.com

These handy stats from the FBI might help some of the SHARPER kids in the class understand why BANNING SCARY ASSAULT weapons is actually nothing more than an appeal to EMOTION - a flaccid jerk-off.

Of course the s-l-o-w-e-r kids in the class won't get it, but they're too busy looking for their galoshes and sun-screen anyway.

Here's a link to the FBI page
 
2013-01-26 06:49:00 PM

shArkh: djh0101010:

Instead of taking my 20 round magazines away, or saying I can't buy more of them, which had NO effect in the 10 years the last time your people tried this, could we please, just stay with me here, could we please just have manditory 5 year jail time add-ons for anyone using a gun in a crime?


What a smashing idea! I'm certain that'll deter those pesky psychos who go into a school with a couple of drum magazines, empty-up and then save the last bullet for themselves.
"If it jams, I might get an extra 5 years! Better not bother then."

:| really?


Hang on...are you saying that a new law wouldn't prevent the psychos from doing psycho things?

/ keep going...you're almost there...just connect that last dot
 
2013-01-26 06:49:15 PM

AssAsInAssassin: Fark It: If there's one constant in the gun control debate it's that the people who support bans and confiscation will always, without fail, overreach.

If there's one constant about gun nuts, it's that their over-reaching zeal enables lunatics to go on killing sprees. Then they blame everyone but the over-reaching gun nuts who defiled the 2nd Amendment and turned "a well regulated militia" into a mob of paranoid fanatics with delusions of persecution.

Go fark yourself. You are personally to blame for Newtown. You and all your verminous ilk who insist the Constitution says something it clearly does not say.


What gun control measure would have prevented these massacres, you crazy person? Blaming all gun owners for the death of children is pretty disgusting.
 
Displayed 50 of 1301 comments

First | « | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report