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.

(CBC)   Meanwhile, in the gun-free utopia of Canada   (cbc.ca) divider line 164
    More: Scary, Vancouver Police, Vancouver, stabbing  
•       •       •

14383 clicks; posted to Main » on 02 Feb 2013 at 5:46 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-02 07:32:59 AM

edmo: Good point subs.  No gun deaths in that article.


I'm pretty sure you can own a Firearm in Canada, it's just highly regulated depending on what province you're in.
 
2013-02-02 07:33:00 AM

Fark_Guy_Rob: I don't understand the whole gun debate.  Honestly.

If I wanted to kill a lot of people....the most people possible.  I wouldn't use a gun.  I wouldn't use a knife.  I'd use explosives and fire.  And you can't regulate either of those things.  A can of gasoline, some chains, some locks, and you can kill everyone in the room.  The worst school killing in the US didn't involve guns.

Explosives are much harder to track, easier to get and can be set off in a variety of different ways.

Hell, if I were really desperate - I'd use a car.  Get a big pickup truck or something similar and just drive through a crowded pedestrian area.

I don't own a gun, I don't hang out at the gun range....I don't have stock in a gun company.  I don't care about guns.  But if I were insane, if I wanted to kill people, I can't fathom how gun regulation would stop me or any other psychopath who wants to kill people.


This.

Also, any limitation or regulation on firearms only serve to hamper/harass/limit law abiding citizens(aside from possible safety regulations, so they don't blow up in your face and such).  The lawless and crazy don't give 2 farks, apparently, about law and order. If they're bent on killing people, they WILL get it done.
 
2013-02-02 07:33:18 AM

Spiralmonkey: Yep, 6 people are injured, not dead.  What's your point, subby?


Traitor.
 
2013-02-02 07:33:32 AM

Spiralmonkey: Yep, 6 people are injured, not dead.  What's your point, subby?


Came here for this.
 
2013-02-02 07:37:26 AM
How can this be a real gun thread with no pics of ammo and weapons? I thought no one could tell a JHP unless there was an accompanying picture of what a box of such rounds looks like.
 
2013-02-02 07:37:53 AM

BronyMedic: Locks and chains are an inefficient spread type of projectile.


As they were mentioned, I figured they were to lock the doors, not be used as a weapon themselves...
 
2013-02-02 07:38:53 AM

omeganuepsilon: This.

Also, any limitation or regulation on firearms only serve to hamper/harass/limit law abiding citizens(aside from possible safety regulations, so they don't blow up in your face and such).  The lawless and crazy don't give 2 farks, apparently, about law and order. If they're bent on killing people, they WILL get it done.


So any limitations on the ability for the mentally ill to obtain legal firearms, which in many states can be done in a matter of five minutes, are useless because they'll buy them off the street? Laws are useless because people will break them anyway, that's your argument here?

And don't give me the crap about "they're prohibited from it". They're only prohibited if they've had a court-ordered involuntary commitment. Even if they checked themselves in for treatment of their Paranoid Schizophrenia where they think Obama is lurking in their bushes and sleep with a gun at night because of it, their only barrier to purchase is a single question on the NCIC Form.

While Lawful gun owners are not the problem, mentally ill people legally obtaining firearms IS a problem. I'm pretty OK with a restriction on that which doesn't depend on individual honesty.
 
2013-02-02 07:39:46 AM

omeganuepsilon: As they were mentioned, I figured they were to lock the doors, not be used as a weapon themselves...


I figured he'd meant them as projectiles.

A pipebomb with saran-wrapped nails around it can do horrific things to the human body.
 
2013-02-02 07:40:48 AM

BronyMedic: omeganuepsilon: This.

Also, any limitation or regulation on firearms only serve to hamper/harass/limit law abiding citizens(aside from possible safety regulations, so they don't blow up in your face and such).  The lawless and crazy don't give 2 farks, apparently, about law and order. If they're bent on killing people, they WILL get it done.

So any limitations on the ability for the mentally ill to obtain legal firearms, which in many states can be done in a matter of five minutes, are useless because they'll buy them off the street? Laws are useless because people will break them anyway, that's your argument here?

And don't give me the crap about "they're prohibited from it". They're only prohibited if they've had a court-ordered involuntary commitment. Even if they checked themselves in for treatment of their Paranoid Schizophrenia where they think Obama is lurking in their bushes and sleep with a gun at night because of it, their only barrier to purchase is a single question on the NCIC Form.

While Lawful gun owners are not the problem, mentally ill people legally obtaining firearms IS a problem. I'm pretty OK with a restriction on that which doesn't depend on individual honesty.


Where did I say we couldn't regulate mentally ill people?
I like how you fabricate the argument that you WANT to argue against, instead of reading and comprehending a post, and then replying in kind.
 
2013-02-02 07:41:14 AM

doglover: Spiralmonkey: Yep, 6 people are injured, not dead.  What's your point, subby?

You've never seen the aftermath of a knife attack, have you.

There's a reason the "coup de grace" was invented.


I imagine it looks better than a survived gunshot wound.
 
2013-02-02 07:41:34 AM

omeganuepsilon: Where did I say we couldn't regulate mentally ill people?
I like how you fabricate the argument that you WANT to argue against, instead of reading and comprehending a post, and then replying in kind.


If that's not what you're stating here, then I apologize in advance. It seems to be a common argument on FARK.
 
2013-02-02 07:44:41 AM
Laws are needed...as an abstract thought.  It is why we already have laws..  Piling on MORE laws, does nothing to address the problem.

That is the point.

Conflating that sentiment to the desire to be free of all law is also common on fark.
 
2013-02-02 07:45:20 AM

BronyMedic: omeganuepsilon: This.

Also, any limitation or regulation on firearms only serve to hamper/harass/limit law abiding citizens(aside from possible safety regulations, so they don't blow up in your face and such).  The lawless and crazy don't give 2 farks, apparently, about law and order. If they're bent on killing people, they WILL get it done.

So any limitations on the ability for the mentally ill to obtain legal firearms, which in many states can be done in a matter of five minutes, are useless because they'll buy them off the street? Laws are useless because people will break them anyway, that's your argument here?


We can still get coke, heroine, pot, and an assortment of pills, even though legal streams of distribution are cut off.  Why would guns be any different?  In terms of smuggling ease, guns aren't detected by dogs, in terms of manufacturing ease, for the price of just a few tools and metal stock, you can make your own.. anything.
 
2013-02-02 07:49:31 AM

Fark_Guy_Rob: If I wanted to kill a lot of people....the most people possible. I wouldn't use a gun. I wouldn't use a knife. I'd use explosives and fire. And you can't regulate either of those things. A can of gasoline, some chains, some locks, and you can kill everyone in the room. The worst school killing in the US didn't involve guns.


The Newtown shooter was confronted by two people as he entered the school. He shot them both. But I'm sure if he were instead carrying a can of gasoline, he would have managed to pour gas all over them, pull out his lighter and incinerate them without catching fire himself.
 
2013-02-02 07:50:42 AM
To amend that and state what I actually would rather see than more gun control...

I would prefer the focus to be on background checks, to include screening for mental health problems.

Make people get licensed to carry, much as it is now.  Just like a car, you have to show that you know how to use one, and are not psychotic, blind, dangerously retarded, etc.(Ideally anyhow, but our execution of such things when it comes to cars isn't all that great either, psychotic AND blind AND dangerously retarded people can pretty much get in a car and drive it into a farmers market)

Ideally, one has to qualify as possessing the capabilities of responsibility and safe use.  Quantifying that can be difficult, so we're stuck with what we have.
 
2013-02-02 07:53:18 AM

omeganuepsilon: Also, any limitation or regulation on firearms only serve to hamper/harass/limit law abiding citizens(aside from possible safety regulations, so they don't blow up in your face and such). The lawless and crazy don't give 2 farks, apparently, about law and order. If they're bent on killing people, they WILL get it done.


omeganuepsilon: Piling on MORE laws, does nothing to address the problem.


So, anyone for mentioning that the last two big mass-shootings in the U.S. involved weapons legally obtained?

Don't get me wrong here, I don't know for sure that "piling on more laws" will help either- particularly when you make it sound like a Saturday night Twister game gone wrong- but it's still kinda silly to suggest that laws meant to effect the legal acquisition of such weaponry would have no effect on these incidences.

Clearly, it would.  I don't know that it would solve for it, but it would have an effect.
 
2013-02-02 07:53:30 AM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: guns aren't detected by dogs


IIRC they can be trained to detect "them", ammo if not things like gun-oil.
 
2013-02-02 07:54:42 AM
Weekly shootings or rare knife fight. Think i'll take my chances in Canada.
 
2013-02-02 07:56:15 AM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: We can still get coke, heroine, pot, and an assortment of pills, even though legal streams of distribution are cut off.  Why would guns be any different?  In terms of smuggling ease, guns aren't detected by dogs,


It's a false comparison. Guns are not addictive substances - Adrenaline Junkies don't count - they don't alter mentation, or provide a sense of chemically induced euphoria. There isn't a black market for them in the United States.

There aren't multinational actors who make billions on the illegal trade of them in the United States.

At any rate, I'm not talking about BANNING firearms. I'm very much pro-gun ownership in general. I'm talking about making it harder for the mentally ill to get them legally.

BraveNewCheneyWorld: in terms of manufacturing ease, for the price of just a few tools and metal stock, you can make your own.. anything.


Let me stop you right there.

Very few people have the capability, knowledge, or skills in the United States - let alone the capital, to fashion an Automatic or Semi-Automatic weapon from scrap metal. It takes thousands of dollars alone of equipment to even bore a barrel from bar stock.

Even if guns were made illegal, this has NEVER been a problem in countries in the First World that do so.
 
2013-02-02 07:56:28 AM

doglover: You've never seen the aftermath of a knife attack, have you.

There's a reason the "coup de grace" was invented.


You're right, there is literally no way that modern medicine can possibly take care of lacerations!  You know what?  I wish that attacker had carried a gun and just killed the victims quickly, rather than forcing them through the horrible pain of getting stitches, applying neosporin and bandages, and from the torture of having visible scars on their skin.
 
2013-02-02 07:58:19 AM

evil saltine: Fark_Guy_Rob: If I wanted to kill a lot of people....the most people possible. I wouldn't use a gun. I wouldn't use a knife. I'd use explosives and fire. And you can't regulate either of those things. A can of gasoline, some chains, some locks, and you can kill everyone in the room. The worst school killing in the US didn't involve guns.

The Newtown shooter was confronted by two people as he entered the school. He shot them both. But I'm sure if he were instead carrying a can of gasoline, he would have managed to pour gas all over them, pull out his lighter and incinerate them without catching fire himself.


Method of deployment would change, but the impact could be just as great as far as body count and grievous wounds, and it wouldn't take a genius either.

Your ridiculous equivocation's inverse is just as absurd.  Pour bullets on people and throw an ignited zippo at them.
Come back when you get out of junior high, sparky.
 
2013-02-02 07:59:18 AM

omeganuepsilon: To amend that and state what I actually would rather see than more gun control...

I would prefer the focus to be on background checks, to include screening for mental health problems.


I would love to know exactly what that means- as my understanding of both recent cases I spoke of above don't suggest that either Lanza or Holmes would have thrown any "red flags" in this area.

omeganuepsilon: psychotic AND blind AND dangerously retarded


Said this before in other threads, it remains as true here: as much as you can't fix it, you also can't legislate or regulate stupidity.  Not unless you're willing to accept a barrage of assaults on freedoms in this country that are FAR more invasive, pervasive, and far-reaching than even the most stringent of proposed gun control statutes on the block right now.

Unless your definition of "dangerously retarded" meant something else.
 
2013-02-02 08:00:23 AM

BronyMedic: Very few people have the capability, knowledge, or skills in the United States - let alone the capital, to fashion an Automatic or Semi-Automatic weapon from scrap metal. It takes thousands of dollars alone of equipment to even bore a barrel from bar stock.


Citation needed.
 
2013-02-02 08:01:52 AM

HMS_Blinkin: doglover: You've never seen the aftermath of a knife attack, have you.

There's a reason the "coup de grace" was invented.

You're right, there is literally no way that modern medicine can possibly take care of lacerations!  You know what?  I wish that attacker had carried a gun and just killed the victims quickly, rather than forcing them through the horrible pain of getting stitches, applying neosporin and bandages, and from the torture of having visible scars on their skin.


Another reduction to absurdity.

Speaking of things that are popular on Fark..
 
2013-02-02 08:07:29 AM

omeganuepsilon: Method of deployment would change, but the impact could be just as great as far as body count and grievous wounds, and it wouldn't take a genius either.


So why'd he choose to use a gun? Since gasoline is so much easier to get.
 
2013-02-02 08:08:16 AM

Fark_Guy_Rob: I don't understand the whole gun debate.  Honestly.

If I wanted to kill a lot of people....the most people possible.  I wouldn't use a gun.  I wouldn't use a knife.  I'd use explosives and fire.  And you can't regulate either of those things.  A can of gasoline, some chains, some locks, and you can kill everyone in the room.  The worst school killing in the US didn't involve guns.

Explosives are much harder to track, easier to get and can be set off in a variety of different ways.

Hell, if I were really desperate - I'd use a car.  Get a big pickup truck or something similar and just drive through a crowded pedestrian area.

I don't own a gun, I don't hang out at the gun range....I don't have stock in a gun company.  I don't care about guns.  But if I were insane, if I wanted to kill people, I can't fathom how gun regulation would stop me or any other psychopath who wants to kill people.


You have a point, but there must be a reason why crazy people prefer guns to explosives.  Here are two reasons I can think of off the top of my head:

1. Crazy mass murderers aren't logical.  They aren't thinking "how can I kill the greatest number of people at the lowest possible risk to myself?"  That's the way rational people might look at it, but rational people don't go plotting these kinds of killings either (outside of military operations).  These people want to personally kill their victims and watch them die, and they want to be caught and killed by police or they want to kill themselves.  Leaving a bomb anonymously doesn't accomplish either of those goals.

2. Bombs aren't that easy to make.  You can acquire the materials easily enough, but the expertise required to build a high-yield bomb that blows up only when intended is pretty high.  Most crazy murderer types don't have that kind of skill.  The asshole in Newtown, for example, was an unemployed jackass with no real skills of any kind---he didn't have the know-how to build a good bomb. Think about the number of steps involved in the process of building a really good bomb---it'd be lengthy.  The steps for killing with a semi-auto gun are: (1) point, (2) pull trigger (3) repeat.  That's it.

So I think that guns give these crazy people the ease and personal touch they want, in a way that bombs just can't.  You say "if I were insane," but then describe a rational thought process.  That's the problem.  These people are FARKING INSANE, and we have to check our desire to find a rational motive at the door when we consider their mindset.
 
2013-02-02 08:09:20 AM

BronyMedic: BraveNewCheneyWorld: We can still get coke, heroine, pot, and an assortment of pills, even though legal streams of distribution are cut off.  Why would guns be any different?  In terms of smuggling ease, guns aren't detected by dogs,

It's a false comparison. Guns are not addictive substances - Adrenaline Junkies don't count - they don't alter mentation, or provide a sense of chemically induced euphoria. There isn't a black market for them in the United States.


They're not carrying out mass shootings because of an adrenaline rush, it's to send society a message.  There's other tools they can use to get that message out, many of them are worse than guns.

BronyMedic: Very few people have the capability, knowledge, or skills in the United States - let alone the capital, to fashion an Automatic or Semi-Automatic weapon from scrap metal. It takes thousands of dollars alone of equipment to even bore a barrel from bar stock.

Even if guns were made illegal, this has NEVER been a problem in countries in the First World that do so.


No, it's not very hard.  It's hard to make one of the same quality of a factory, but to carry out shootings like we've seen in recent mass shootings, a homemade gun will suffice.  But let's even assume you're right, they can still make bombs, they can still set crowded buildings on fire and block the exits.  All of these laws we're making aren't stopping anyone but sane people, and sane people aren't the ones doing these things in the first place.  Most of these killers don't do it on a whim, OKC was planned, Columbine was planned, VT was planned as well as others, so to assume they won't make some some horrible devices to carry it out in the year leading up to the kill spree isn't likely to be accurate.
 
2013-02-02 08:12:15 AM

lewismarktwo: Yeah, it's way better to be crippled for the rest of your life than go out quickly and in painless shock.


I've concluded three things from your post:

you believe it is impossible to be crippled from a gun shot.
you believe all bullet wounds anywhere on the body is an instant painless death.
you believe it is impossible to live a happy and fulfilling life as a "crippled".
 
2013-02-02 08:14:09 AM
www.cbc.ca

Why does this look so familiar ... ?

encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com
 
2013-02-02 08:14:27 AM

omeganuepsilon: Another reduction to absurdity.


What was absurd?  He implied that a knife wound is somehow worse than a bullet wound.  When he brought up the "coup-de-grace" he implied that victims of knife wounds need to be killed mercifully, since the wounds are un-treatable, and he chose to totally ignore the fact that the term comes from the late 1600s, and that medical technology has improved somewhat since then.
 
2013-02-02 08:14:28 AM

evil saltine: omeganuepsilon: Method of deployment would change, but the impact could be just as great as far as body count and grievous wounds, and it wouldn't take a genius either.

So why'd he choose to use a gun? Since gasoline is so much easier to get.


I'd imagine that the killers want to be more active in their event.  Pushing a button to set off a bomb doesn't give them the same level of immersion aiming at and shooting every individual.  Kind of like when people murder someone they hate, they tend to mutilate a person's face, instead of just shoot them in the heart an walk away.  Murders are emotionally charged events, they're not only looking at the end result of death.
 
2013-02-02 08:24:07 AM

Saners: lewismarktwo: Yeah, it's way better to be crippled for the rest of your life than go out quickly and in painless shock.

I've concluded three things from your post:

you believe it is impossible to be crippled from a gun shot.
you believe all bullet wounds anywhere on the body is an instant painless death.
you believe it is impossible to live a happy and fulfilling life as a "crippled".


What? You mean guns aren't instant death machines?  I've heard they are.   I'd rather not be crippled, but you can volunteer to be crippled if you want.
 
2013-02-02 08:25:07 AM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Murders are emotionally charged events, they're not only looking at the end result of death.


Not all are.

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Kind of like when people murder someone they hate, they tend to mutilate a person's face, instead of just shoot them in the heart an walk away.


This tends to be the result of familiarity.  When you have a corpse with 80+ incidences of blunt-force trauma, you typically start looking for your suspect among close relatives and friends- someone who knew the victim well.  It takes time to build the kind of hate that boils over that way.  And because of that, these tend to be rarer in occurrence.

On the other hand, when you have a "functional murder"- one in which the killer was efficient and swift, you tend to get the "shot in the heart and walked away" scenario.  This also tends to be the more common murder scenario.  Someone wanted someone dead, that's it.

I've heard from psychologists that the typical profile for a mass shooter isn't really either of the above.  The mission of "sending a message" usually translates in their minds to "causing the most damage\trauma\shock" and doing so quickly.

Schools are picked based on those preferences.  Killing children, killing a lot of them, and doing it quickly pretty much ticks off all those goals.  Schools are like a one-stop shop for this.
 
2013-02-02 08:28:31 AM
www.mcq.org

Knives. Bah. I'm armed with one of these. Try and break into my house, and I'll fork you....wait. That doesn't sound quite right.
 
2013-02-02 08:40:55 AM
Frankly, stabbing all those people sounds exhausting and time consuming. If only there was a way to injure them in a semi-automatic fashion...

/If I got stabbed by the douche in that photo, I think I'd be too embarrassed to tell anyone. Did somebody deny him bottle service at the Ultra Lounge?
 
2013-02-02 08:43:04 AM

Smashed Hat: Frankly, stabbing all those people sounds exhausting and time consuming. If only there was a way to injure them in a semi-automatic fashion...

/If I got stabbed by the douche in that photo, I think I'd be too embarrassed to tell anyone. Did somebody deny him bottle service at the Ultra Lounge?



Got you covered friend. Just add an air pig, or a small compressor and you're ready.

www.oysterknife.co.nz
 
2013-02-02 08:52:49 AM
I just hate all these cop outs like 'Well, criminals can still get guns if they are illegal.' or 'If I was crazy and wanted to kill someone not having a gun wouldn't stop me.' like they prove something!? Can we just do some ACTUAL research, get some ACTUAL experts (not only complete anti-gunners who had a kid die vs NRA leaders), and do something logical for once?

But all those little one liners really aren't doing it for me. When they set the speed limit they don't say 'Well, criminals will still speed even though there is a punishment.' or 'If I was crazy and wanted to drive my car really fast, running out of gas wouldn't stop me.'  The point isn't that those are the same, the point is that this is a topic we could do research on and we don't have to base all of our decisions on our feelings.

/and then the part that makes me even madder is the red herring: 'Our government is trying to disarm us and take over! It was all a set up! This is a conspiracy!'
 
2013-02-02 08:53:44 AM
we need to ban knives, Canada, fruit drinks
 
2013-02-02 08:59:13 AM
Canada is not gun-free, and is FAR from an utopia, I assure you.
 
2013-02-02 09:00:19 AM

SkunkWerks: Unless your definition of "dangerously retarded" meant something else.


does it mean trees and rivers, rocks n stuff?

lolz just kidding it means "Christians"

we need to ban christians, problem solved

encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com
 
2013-02-02 09:00:35 AM
Obsession with "collecting" guns is a mental illness. Track these people and lock them up.
 
2013-02-02 09:01:07 AM

I drunk what: SkunkWerks: Unless your definition of "dangerously retarded" meant something else.

does it mean trees and rivers, rocks n stuff?

lolz just kidding it means "Christians"

we need to ban christians, problem solved

[encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com image 181x279]


What an odd patriot you are, sacrificing the first for the second.
 
2013-02-02 09:06:35 AM

BronyMedic: What an odd patriot you are, sacrificing the first for the second.


fark em both

it's the only rational  logical choice
 
2013-02-02 09:07:21 AM
Gun-free? Which head-up-his-own-ass yank posted this?
 
2013-02-02 09:08:04 AM

I drunk what: does it mean trees and rivers, rocks n stuff?


It means "I've become a parody of myself".  Possibly "roots and twigs".
 
2013-02-02 09:11:29 AM

bingethinker: Subby is a moron. There are plenty of guns in Canada. We just have fewer nutcases who feel it's their God-given right to kill a bunch of people for no apparent reason.


There always these comparison with the states and other first world countries that citizens are allowed guns and the US is on the short end of the stick. The thing I find interesting is that they forget to mention that all of these countries other than the US has socialized healthcare...

Basically yes guns are force multipliers but they aren't the reason people are doing what they do. The issue is a very complex problem and banning guns won't fix it. shiat happens. Pray to god you aren't nearby.

duckpoopy: Obsession with "collecting" guns is a mental illness. Track these people and lock them up.

FTFY any obsession falls into that category.
 
2013-02-02 09:14:32 AM

duckpoopy: Obsession with "collecting" owning guns is a mental illness. Track these people and lock them up.


and who owns the most guns? that's right

encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com

these "adults" actually believe in angels ;D

this is what we refer to (in the clinical medical field) as "completely retarded" and yet here we are actually debating on whether or not they should be allowed to own guns?!?

is this the stone ages?

This world needs some progress.

For Evolution!
 
2013-02-02 09:16:38 AM

I drunk what: duckpoopy: Obsession with "collecting" owning guns is a mental illness. Track these people and lock them up.

and who owns the most guns? that's right

[encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com image 181x279]

these "adults" actually believe in angels ;D

this is what we refer to (in the clinical medical field) as "completely retarded" and yet here we are actually debating on whether or not they should be allowed to own guns?!?

is this the stone ages?

This world needs some progress.

For Evolution!


www.patentspostgrant.com
 
2013-02-02 09:29:32 AM

SkunkWerks: It means "I've become a parody of myself".


why are you parody yourself?

if you are referring to my fark login, some people have been confusing me with this "IDW" idiot, who used to post here a looooong time ago, but i can assure you he isn't here, he abandoned this place, so i thought i would use his account to repair the damage he left behind

think of me as the anti-IDW

you may have heard him warning people to not read ANY posts coming from this account, but i think that he was just afraid of Progress and Evolution, that would come from me undoing all of his BS

just like a typical christian, so retarded, afraid of things he cannot understand

but you don't have to worry about that anymore, now I am a rational and logical FREE THINKER

i've joined the Intelligence Brigade:

www.thesmokingtire.com
 
2013-02-02 09:36:23 AM

I drunk what: why are you parody yourself?


I dunno, why do you keep hitting yourself?

I drunk what: if you are referring to my fark login


Nope.

I drunk what: some people have been confusing me


I can see that.
 
Displayed 50 of 164 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report