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.

(Atlanta Journal Constitution)   NRA's Wayne LaPierre gets skewered. FARK: On Fox News   (blogs.ajc.com) divider line 194
    More: Interesting, justifiable homicide, Fox News  
•       •       •

13212 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Feb 2013 at 2:51 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-03 01:00:16 PM  
That hardly seemed like a skewering. LaPierre is correct; if you're rich, you generally have security in public and limiting public access to high capacity magazines (easily replicated with minimal tooling) while everyone in power has them is hypocritical. Wallace was also correct; gangs aren't committing mass murders on school children (they're killing each other and police, generally). They ARE, however, able and probably willing to supply these psychotics with the weapons if they've got the money.

/And the debate rages on
 
2013-02-03 01:34:04 PM  
Why is this "fark"?  Fox proves time and again that they are fair and balanced.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-02-03 01:45:22 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Why is this "fark"?  Fox proves time and again that they are fair and balanced.


Being able to say "fair and balanced" in connection with Fox wile keeping a straight face is worthy of the Fark reference.

But I imagine it's more likely that the NRA is too radical even for Fox.  Sort of like Glenn Beck.
 
2013-02-03 01:48:06 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Why is this "fark"?  Fox proves time and again that they are fair and balanced.


And Fox and Friends prove over and over again that they are deranged.
 
2013-02-03 02:10:55 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Why is this "fark"? Fox proves time and again that they are fair and balanced.


This alt is getting stale.
 
2013-02-03 02:13:08 PM  

ajgeek: LaPierre is correct; if you're rich, you generally have security in public and limiting public access to high capacity magazines (easily replicated with minimal tooling) while everyone in power has them is hypocritical.


1) citation needed that standard security and not SWAT use high capacity mags.

2) how is it hypocritical to say that high profile, high risk targets are allowed to have highly trained, specially dedicated security personnel, while saying that the average untrained civilian, who is not a particular target, has a right to the same weaponry as trained security. That's the same argument as saying that since the military has RPGs, it's hypocritical that I can't have one.
 
2013-02-03 02:38:32 PM  
No idea how Ailes feels but isn't Murdoch a proponent of more regulation?
 
2013-02-03 02:39:39 PM  

nmrsnr: 2) how is it hypocritical to say that high profile, high risk targets are allowed to have highly trained, specially dedicated security personnel, while saying that the average untrained civilian, who is not a particular target, has a right to the same weaponry as trained security. That's the same argument as saying that since the military has RPGs, it's hypocritical that I can't have one.


Because there are way too many (I won't even say most) untrained citizens who think that by simply having a gun, they are a potential hero. You know, like that sniper who was murdered at a gun range. That is a really sad story and it goes to show that it doesn't matter who has the bigger gun or the better training, whoever draws first is likely to win.
 
2013-02-03 02:48:46 PM  

Di Atribe: Because there are way too many (I won't even say most) untrained citizens who think that by simply having a gun, they are a potential hero. You know, like that sniper who was murdered at a gun range. That is a really sad story and it goes to show that it doesn't matter who has the bigger gun or the better training, whoever draws first is likely to win.


Yeah, that story was really sad.

/totally unrelated, who are you rooting for in the Superbowl, or do you not care anymore?
 
2013-02-03 02:54:58 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Why is this "fark"?   Fox proves time and again that they are fair and balanced.


Now I know for sure that you're just trolling us.
 
2013-02-03 02:55:50 PM  
I heard Fox was changing the name to "Ministry of Truth," so people wouldn't confuse them with a news agency.
 
2013-02-03 02:57:51 PM  

nmrsnr: Yeah, that story was really sad.


It's not just a story about losing a man who had a lot of service to this country, but also about the way our military is falling behind on the mental health of their soldiers.

nmrsnr: /totally unrelated, who are you rooting for in the Superbowl, or do you not care anymore?


I don't REALLY care who wins, but I always kind of root for Joe Flacco. People are so mean to him. I also think that Kaepernick is a good QB, but he hasn't really cried yet. He needs some stripes. Some battle scars.  But mostly, you know. good game. :)  YAY FOOTBALL CHRISTMAS
 
2013-02-03 02:59:42 PM  

ajgeek: That hardly seemed like a skewering. LaPierre is correct; if you're rich, you generally have security in public and limiting public access to high capacity magazines (easily replicated with minimal tooling) while everyone in power has them is hypocritical. Wallace was also correct; gangs aren't committing mass murders on school children (they're killing each other and police, generally). They ARE, however, able and probably willing to supply these psychotics with the weapons if they've got the money.

/And the debate rages on


So is it not hypocritical for lapierre to criticize Obama for having security follow his high-profile target children when he himself (and his family) goes pretty much everywhere with a private armed security detail?
 
2013-02-03 03:00:01 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: No idea how Ailes feels but isn't Murdoch a proponent of more regulation?


He commented that there should be a ban on automatic weapons.

Take that however you will.
 
2013-02-03 03:00:21 PM  

nmrsnr: 1) citation needed that standard security and not SWAT use high capacity mags.


Most modern semiautomatic handguns are sold standard with "high capacity" magazines.  Only one of my handguns, a subcompact Glock 26, came with a 10-round magazine.  All the others came with stock 13-17 round magazines.  I have trouble believing that security guard specifically seek out the lower capacity handguns and not use the normal Berettas, Rugers, Glocks, etc.
 
2013-02-03 03:00:24 PM  
it would have been better if  Chris Wallace didn't feel the need to apologize to him before and after every question.
 
2013-02-03 03:01:10 PM  

Di Atribe: I don't REALLY care who wins, but I always kind of root for Joe Flacco. People are so mean to him. I also think that Kaepernick is a good QB, but he hasn't really cried yet. He needs some stripes. Some battle scars.  But mostly, you know. good game. :)  YAY FOOTBALL CHRISTMAS


Yay Ravens.

Also, I think the 49ers need some karma to bite them for what they did to Alex Smith, but yeah, here's to a good game tonight.

/end threadjack
 
2013-02-03 03:03:28 PM  

msupf: ajgeek: That hardly seemed like a skewering. LaPierre is correct; if you're rich, you generally have security in public and limiting public access to high capacity magazines (easily replicated with minimal tooling) while everyone in power has them is hypocritical. Wallace was also correct; gangs aren't committing mass murders on school children (they're killing each other and police, generally). They ARE, however, able and probably willing to supply these psychotics with the weapons if they've got the money.

/And the debate rages on

So is it not hypocritical for lapierre to criticize Obama for having security follow his high-profile target children when he himself (and his family) goes pretty much everywhere with a private armed security detail?


Why would it be?  Is LaPierre telling people that that armed security doesn't work and is not the answer?  It seems that LaPierre is doing for himself what he believes should be allowed for others.  Obama is doing for himself what he believes should be denied for others.
 
2013-02-03 03:08:04 PM  

RickN99: msupf: ajgeek: That hardly seemed like a skewering. LaPierre is correct; if you're rich, you generally have security in public and limiting public access to high capacity magazines (easily replicated with minimal tooling) while everyone in power has them is hypocritical. Wallace was also correct; gangs aren't committing mass murders on school children (they're killing each other and police, generally). They ARE, however, able and probably willing to supply these psychotics with the weapons if they've got the money.

/And the debate rages on

So is it not hypocritical for lapierre to criticize Obama for having security follow his high-profile target children when he himself (and his family) goes pretty much everywhere with a private armed security detail?

Why would it be?  Is LaPierre telling people that that armed security doesn't work and is not the answer?  It seems that LaPierre is doing for himself what he believes should be allowed for others.  Obama is doing for himself what he believes should be denied for others.


BECAUSE HE'S THE GOT-DAMN PRESIDENT

Seriously, this "LOLZ Fartbongo wants to take your gun but he has armed guards" line is beyond retarded.  If anything, with the level of the crazy, angry derp that Obama's rather tame gun control proposals has stirred up, he probably should get a few more guards.  Some of the vitriol aimed at him now is just terrifying.
 
2013-02-03 03:08:52 PM  
FTA: Let's review the hard data, shall we? Each year, the FBI reports, some 200 justifiable homicides are committed with a firearm. That's a tiny, tiny number, given the estimated 300 million firearms in circulation. That's one justifiable homicide for each 1.5 million firearms. That's the basis on which these fantasies are built. (And for the record, I recognize and support the constitutional right to possess firearms for home defense, etc.)
On the other hand, some 10,000 people are murdered each year with a firearm.

Successfully defending myself or family with a firearm only counts if I kill the other person?  Let's ignore all the non-homicide defensive uses as irrelevant; you gotta blow them away.

The mother in Atlanta who hid in the closet with her kids and shot the home invader -- doesn't count.  He lived.
The single woman in Atlanta who was surprised in the shower by a home invader and got to her gun and shot the guy -- doesn't count.  He lived.
 
2013-02-03 03:09:14 PM  
The President gets upwards of 500 death threats a month.  That's why his kids need armed security and ours don't.

/The NRA is doing a fantastic of de-legitimizing the NRA.  Every day, they're destroying their own influence.  It's an amazing thing to watch.
 
2013-02-03 03:11:23 PM  

ajgeek: That hardly seemed like a skewering. LaPierre is correct; if you're rich, you generally have security in public and limiting public access to high capacity magazines (easily replicated with minimal tooling) while everyone in power has them is hypocritical. Wallace was also correct; gangs aren't committing mass murders on school children (they're killing each other and police, generally). They ARE, however, able and probably willing to supply these psychotics with the weapons if they've got the money.

/And the debate rages on


im still curious why they keep using the mass shootings as the fuel for gun control when thousands more die as single murder victims. and i got a hunch its by handguns, not AR15's and shiat.
 
2013-02-03 03:13:52 PM  

RickN99: FTA: Let's review the hard data, shall we? Each year, the FBI reports, some 200 justifiable homicides are committed with a firearm. That's a tiny, tiny number, given the estimated 300 million firearms in circulation. That's one justifiable homicide for each 1.5 million firearms. That's the basis on which these fantasies are built. (And for the record, I recognize and support the constitutional right to possess firearms for home defense, etc.)
On the other hand, some 10,000 people are murdered each year with a firearm.

Successfully defending myself or family with a firearm only counts if I kill the other person?  Let's ignore all the non-homicide defensive uses as irrelevant; you gotta blow them away.

The mother in Atlanta who hid in the closet with her kids and shot the home invader -- doesn't count.  He lived.
The single woman in Atlanta who was surprised in the shower by a home invader and got to her gun and shot the guy -- doesn't count.  He lived.


And how many people get shot in gun crimes and don't die?  Far far more.  The percentages stay the same if you widen the net.
 
2013-02-03 03:15:47 PM  

Vegan Meat Popsicle: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: No idea how Ailes feels but isn't Murdoch a proponent of more regulation?

He commented that there should be a ban on automatic weapons.

Take that however you will.


I take it to mean Murdoch is all in favor of the network saying whatever fleeces the rubes out of the most money, but still has personal opinions.
 
2013-02-03 03:15:53 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Why is this "fark"?  Fox proves says time and again that they are fair and balanced.


FTFY
 
2013-02-03 03:16:21 PM  
this was not a skewering, this was the NRA guy being reasonable and fox going "BUT BUT BUT, WHAT ABOUT THIS"

The argument should be that what is good for the president and the rich is good for the commoner and the poor. If obama does not want people to have firearms he should relinquish his guards firearms first. He is a citizen first, president second.
 
2013-02-03 03:17:24 PM  
That really wasn't much of a skewering.
Both the interviewer and interviewee are douchebags with obvious agenda goals in mind.  Big farking deal.  How about, we get some moderate minded people together to discuss solutions like adults?  Oh, that's right, those people won't bring in the ratings or headlines.
 
2013-02-03 03:17:32 PM  

atomicmask: If obama does not want people to have firearms he should relinquish his guards firearms first.


Well good thing he never said that or else he'd be a hypocrite huh?
 
2013-02-03 03:19:38 PM  

RandomRandom: The President gets upwards of 500 death threats a month.  That's why his kids need armed security and ours don't.

/The NRA is doing a fantastic of de-legitimizing the NRA.  Every day, they're destroying their own influence.  It's an amazing thing to watch.


That does not take away from the fact that he is a citizen, under the govern of the same laws and rules as the poorest safest man. If he believes the poorest safest man is to safe to own firearms, then he himself should have his guards relinquish all firearms. This is not an issue of threat, it is an issue of law. ONE law for all men, not one for the rich and one for the rest of us.
 
2013-02-03 03:19:56 PM  

atomicmask: this was not a skewering, this was the NRA guy being reasonable and fox going "BUT BUT BUT, WHAT ABOUT THIS"

The argument should be that what is good for the president and the rich is good for the commoner and the poor. If obama does not want people to have firearms he should relinquish his guards firearms first. He is a citizen first, president second.


So he's a hypocrite based on the things that you completely made up about him?

It's not him that looks stupid here.
 
2013-02-03 03:20:48 PM  

RickN99: FTA: Let's review the hard data, shall we? Each year, the FBI reports, some 200 justifiable homicides are committed with a firearm. That's a tiny, tiny number, given the estimated 300 million firearms in circulation. That's one justifiable homicide for each 1.5 million firearms. That's the basis on which these fantasies are built. (And for the record, I recognize and support the constitutional right to possess firearms for home defense, etc.)
On the other hand, some 10,000 people are murdered each year with a firearm.

Successfully defending myself or family with a firearm only counts if I kill the other person?  Let's ignore all the non-homicide defensive uses as irrelevant; you gotta blow them away.

The mother in Atlanta who hid in the closet with her kids and shot the home invader -- doesn't count.  He lived.
The single woman in Atlanta who was surprised in the shower by a home invader and got to her gun and shot the guy -- doesn't count.  He lived.


Congress at the behest of the NRA has barred all federal funding for any study regarding gun injuries and lowering gun violence since around 1973 out of fear the data could be used to regulate firearm sales.  You might consider that before you spout off about "fantasies".
 
2013-02-03 03:21:31 PM  

Tigger: atomicmask: this was not a skewering, this was the NRA guy being reasonable and fox going "BUT BUT BUT, WHAT ABOUT THIS"

The argument should be that what is good for the president and the rich is good for the commoner and the poor. If obama does not want people to have firearms he should relinquish his guards firearms first. He is a citizen first, president second.

So he's a hypocrite based on the things that you completely made up about him?

It's not him that looks stupid here.


No, he is not a hypocrite, everyone saying "But he has threats!" as for the reason why his armed guards wont conform to the same laws as the ones suggested for the rest of us is.

The police should follow the same laws, as well as the military.
 
2013-02-03 03:22:21 PM  

RandomRandom: The NRA is doing a fantastic of de-legitimizing the NRA.  Every day, they're destroying their own influence.


How? I heard they gained a quarter of a million new members after the Newtown shootings. That's a massive increase and pretty much the opposite of losing influence.
 
2013-02-03 03:22:31 PM  

atomicmask: RandomRandom: The President gets upwards of 500 death threats a month.  That's why his kids need armed security and ours don't.

/The NRA is doing a fantastic of de-legitimizing the NRA.  Every day, they're destroying their own influence.  It's an amazing thing to watch.

That does not take away from the fact that he is a citizen, under the govern of the same laws and rules as the poorest safest man. If he believes the poorest safest man is to safe to own firearms, then he himself should have his guards relinquish all firearms. This is not an issue of threat, it is an issue of law. ONE law for all men, not one for the rich and one for the rest of us.


You're an idiot.
 
2013-02-03 03:22:37 PM  

Craps the Gorilla: ...
im still curious why they keep using the mass shootings as the fuel for gun control when thousands more die as single murder victims. and i got a hunch its by handguns, not AR15's and shiat.



Because the only way to have even a chance at getting enough support to get ANY gun law passed is to point at all the dead (white) children and say "we gotta do SUMTHIN!!!"

It's gotta be sensational and fresh in peoples minds to get us to give up our fundamental liberties for a little security.

Before you dismiss me, ask yourself: did all that "we gotta do sumthin" after 9/11 leave us with true security or just a bunch of uniformed buffoons taking nudie pics of us while we silently comply and let them grope our children for fear of getting on the DoNotFly list?
 
2013-02-03 03:23:32 PM  

atomicmask: The police should follow the same laws, as well as the military.


So you should have nuclear launch codes, or the military should decomission all of them?
 
2013-02-03 03:23:55 PM  

Daemonik: atomicmask: RandomRandom: The President gets upwards of 500 death threats a month.  That's why his kids need armed security and ours don't.

/The NRA is doing a fantastic of de-legitimizing the NRA.  Every day, they're destroying their own influence.  It's an amazing thing to watch.

That does not take away from the fact that he is a citizen, under the govern of the same laws and rules as the poorest safest man. If he believes the poorest safest man is to safe to own firearms, then he himself should have his guards relinquish all firearms. This is not an issue of threat, it is an issue of law. ONE law for all men, not one for the rich and one for the rest of us.

You're an idiot.


Says the man in favor of two different laws, one that is for the rich and elite and the other for the poor and common.

Not just an idiot, a pile of shiat.
 
2013-02-03 03:25:00 PM  

RickN99: msupf: ajgeek: That hardly seemed like a skewering. LaPierre is correct; if you're rich, you generally have security in public and limiting public access to high capacity magazines (easily replicated with minimal tooling) while everyone in power has them is hypocritical. Wallace was also correct; gangs aren't committing mass murders on school children (they're killing each other and police, generally). They ARE, however, able and probably willing to supply these psychotics with the weapons if they've got the money.

/And the debate rages on

So is it not hypocritical for lapierre to criticize Obama for having security follow his high-profile target children when he himself (and his family) goes pretty much everywhere with a private armed security detail?

Why would it be?  Is LaPierre telling people that that armed security doesn't work and is not the answer?  It seems that LaPierre is doing for himself what he believes should be allowed for others.  Obama is doing for himself what he believes should be denied for others.


Lapierre's repeated stance is that Obama is an elitist because he has armed security. Nothing obama has done would restrict others from hiring a properly trained security detail. Lapierre himself has armed security... So is he or is he not part of that elitist culture? Or are certain people maybe justified in having a higher level of visible and persistent security in public because of what they do for a living?
 
2013-02-03 03:26:19 PM  

nmrsnr: atomicmask: The police should follow the same laws, as well as the military.

So you should have nuclear launch codes, or the military should decomission all of them?


You do know that the average person could not afford the WIRING in a nuclear bomb, let alone the entire thing?

Cost of a nuke is far more then your favorite episode of 24 lets on.

And yes I am in favor of letting private citizens own everything the military has, being as the cost of such things would limit them greatly in how they could use them, and enough laws exist that make misuse of such items instant rectification for stripping them of said items.

Stop being such a coward, the world is not as crazy and irresponsible as you think. YOU are not the only sane responsible person.
 
2013-02-03 03:26:35 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Why is this "fark"?  Fox proves time and again that they are fair and balanced.


My five-year-old also repeats slogans from commercials. But even she knows that commercials are usually lying.
 
2013-02-03 03:26:45 PM  

msupf: RickN99: msupf: ajgeek: That hardly seemed like a skewering. LaPierre is correct; if you're rich, you generally have security in public and limiting public access to high capacity magazines (easily replicated with minimal tooling) while everyone in power has them is hypocritical. Wallace was also correct; gangs aren't committing mass murders on school children (they're killing each other and police, generally). They ARE, however, able and probably willing to supply these psychotics with the weapons if they've got the money.

/And the debate rages on

So is it not hypocritical for lapierre to criticize Obama for having security follow his high-profile target children when he himself (and his family) goes pretty much everywhere with a private armed security detail?

Why would it be?  Is LaPierre telling people that that armed security doesn't work and is not the answer?  It seems that LaPierre is doing for himself what he believes should be allowed for others.  Obama is doing for himself what he believes should be denied for others.

Lapierre's repeated stance is that Obama is an elitist because he has armed security. Nothing obama has done would restrict others from hiring a properly trained security detail. Lapierre himself has armed security... So is he or is he not part of that elitist culture? Or are certain people maybe justified in having a higher level of visible and persistent security in public because of what they do for a living?


In fact, I"m not seeing anything at all in Obama's proposals that really goes after the fundamental right to own guns.  It sets certain restrictions on that right, but there are restrictions and limitations on every right we have.  I have no idea why the 2nd Amendment should be completely unfettered when the 1st isn't.
 
2013-02-03 03:27:04 PM  

atomicmask: this was not a skewering, this was the NRA guy being reasonable and fox going "BUT BUT BUT, WHAT ABOUT THIS"

The argument should be that what is good for the president and the rich is good for the commoner and the poor. If obama does not want people to have firearms he should relinquish his guards firearms first. He is a citizen first, president second.


Wow, you really don't get it.  LOL

THIS is why you're losing.  THIS is why the NRA is getting their clock cleaned.  You're so completely out of touch that you have absolutely no awareness just how out of touch you are.

Here's a clue.  The President of the farking United States needs armed guards because statistically, it's perhaps the single most dangerous job in the United States.  Nearly 10% of US Presidents have been killed on the job.  Many more have been the targets of assassins.

The President of the United States gets upwards of FIVE HUNDRED death threats each and every month.

How many do you get?  Your kids?

See the difference?  See why El Presidente's kids might need armed guards while the rest of us don't?

No?  You don't see the difference?  FANTASTIC (I mean this honestly).  That means the NRA is going to continue losing this battle.
 
2013-02-03 03:27:33 PM  

clkeagle: tenpoundsofcheese: Why is this "fark"?  Fox proves time and again that they are fair and balanced.

My five-year-old also repeats slogans from commercials. But even she knows that commercials are usually lying.


800-588-2300
 
2013-02-03 03:28:18 PM  

atomicmask: The police should follow the same laws, as well as the military.


So you're saying the military should not have automatic weapons or any other form of heavy weaponry?
Are you on crack?
 
2013-02-03 03:28:21 PM  

RandomRandom: atomicmask: this was not a skewering, this was the NRA guy being reasonable and fox going "BUT BUT BUT, WHAT ABOUT THIS"

The argument should be that what is good for the president and the rich is good for the commoner and the poor. If obama does not want people to have firearms he should relinquish his guards firearms first. He is a citizen first, president second.

Wow, you really don't get it.  LOL

THIS is why you're losing.  THIS is why the NRA is getting their clock cleaned.  You're so completely out of touch that you have absolutely no awareness just how out of touch you are.

Here's a clue.  The President of the farking United States needs armed guards because statistically, it's perhaps the single most dangerous job in the United States.  Nearly 10% of US Presidents have been killed on the job.  Many more have been the targets of assassins.

The President of the United States gets upwards of FIVE HUNDRED death threats each and every month.

How many do you get?  Your kids?

See the difference?  See why El Presidente's kids might need armed guards while the rest of us don't?

No?  You don't see the difference?  FANTASTIC (I mean this honestly).  That means the NRA is going to continue losing this battle.


I think he's trolling.

He has to be. It would sadden me to think that there are people that stupid out there.
 
2013-02-03 03:28:22 PM  

DigitalSorceress: Craps the Gorilla: ...
im still curious why they keep using the mass shootings as the fuel for gun control when thousands more die as single murder victims. and i got a hunch its by handguns, not AR15's and shiat.

Because the only way to have even a chance at getting enough support to get ANY gun law passed is to point at all the dead (white) children and say "we gotta do SUMTHIN!!!"

It's gotta be sensational and fresh in peoples minds to get us to give up our fundamental liberties for a little security.

Before you dismiss me, ask yourself: did all that "we gotta do sumthin" after 9/11 leave us with true security or just a bunch of uniformed buffoons taking nudie pics of us while we silently comply and let them grope our children for fear of getting on the DoNotFly list?


Hey I understand what you're saying. We are screwed either way. I think the 9\11 hubbub is all superficial security. But who knows
 
2013-02-03 03:29:53 PM  

RandomRandom: atomicmask: this was not a skewering, this was the NRA guy being reasonable and fox going "BUT BUT BUT, WHAT ABOUT THIS"

The argument should be that what is good for the president and the rich is good for the commoner and the poor. If obama does not want people to have firearms he should relinquish his guards firearms first. He is a citizen first, president second.

Wow, you really don't get it.  LOL

THIS is why you're losing.  THIS is why the NRA is getting their clock cleaned.  You're so completely out of touch that you have absolutely no awareness just how out of touch you are.

Here's a clue.  The President of the farking United States needs armed guards because statistically, it's perhaps the single most dangerous job in the United States.  Nearly 10% of US Presidents have been killed on the job.  Many more have been the targets of assassins.

The President of the United States gets upwards of FIVE HUNDRED death threats each and every month.

How many do you get?  Your kids?

See the difference?  See why El Presidente's kids might need armed guards while the rest of us don't?

No?  You don't see the difference?  FANTASTIC (I mean this honestly).  That means the NRA is going to continue losing this battle.


WOW LOL YOU REALLY GET IT TOO..

Numb nuts I do not care how dangerous his position is, I do not care how many threats he gets. 1 or 1 million, he is a citizen first, subject to the same laws and regulations as all other citizens. You are so stupid you do not see that you are making the position of president akin to the position of king in 1600's england. One set of laws for the common, one for the lords, and none for the king. fark that, everyone is equal, scary dangerous (and extremely profitable) position as president or not.
 
2013-02-03 03:30:21 PM  

Mrtraveler01: RandomRandom: atomicmask: this was not a skewering, this was the NRA guy being reasonable and fox going "BUT BUT BUT, WHAT ABOUT THIS"

The argument should be that what is good for the president and the rich is good for the commoner and the poor. If obama does not want people to have firearms he should relinquish his guards firearms first. He is a citizen first, president second.

Wow, you really don't get it.  LOL

THIS is why you're losing.  THIS is why the NRA is getting their clock cleaned.  You're so completely out of touch that you have absolutely no awareness just how out of touch you are.

Here's a clue.  The President of the farking United States needs armed guards because statistically, it's perhaps the single most dangerous job in the United States.  Nearly 10% of US Presidents have been killed on the job.  Many more have been the targets of assassins.

The President of the United States gets upwards of FIVE HUNDRED death threats each and every month.

How many do you get?  Your kids?

See the difference?  See why El Presidente's kids might need armed guards while the rest of us don't?

No?  You don't see the difference?  FANTASTIC (I mean this honestly).  That means the NRA is going to continue losing this battle.

I think he's trolling.

He has to be. It would sadden me to think that there are people that stupid out there.


The thing is, though, I can't imagine the NRA going with this absolutely insane and beyond retarded line as the centerpiece of their argument against the President's proposals if they didn't think it was going to work.
 
2013-02-03 03:30:47 PM  
RickN99:

The mother in Atlanta who hid in the closet with her kids and shot the home invader -- doesn't count.  He lived.
The single woman in Atlanta who was surprised in the shower by a home invader and got to her gun and shot the guy -- doesn't count.  He lived.


Or the people who just had to show a gun in order to scare off an intruder/attacker.

We also don't hear about the stories in which somebody almost got killed by a "defense" gun in the house. Like the curious toddler who finds a loaded .45 in the parents' bedroom -- but luckily, one of the parents grabbed it from his little hand before he could put it in his mouth and pull the trigger. Or the guy who gets drunk and argumentative at a party, starts waving his gun around and has it taken away by more sober friends. Or "Don't point that thing at me, idiot!" "Don't worry. It's not loaded. See?" and a hole gets shot in the wall instead.
 
2013-02-03 03:30:53 PM  

RickN99: msupf: ajgeek: That hardly seemed like a skewering. LaPierre is correct; if you're rich, you generally have security in public and limiting public access to high capacity magazines (easily replicated with minimal tooling) while everyone in power has them is hypocritical. Wallace was also correct; gangs aren't committing mass murders on school children (they're killing each other and police, generally). They ARE, however, able and probably willing to supply these psychotics with the weapons if they've got the money.

/And the debate rages on

So is it not hypocritical for lapierre to criticize Obama for having security follow his high-profile target children when he himself (and his family) goes pretty much everywhere with a private armed security detail?

Why would it be?  Is LaPierre telling people that that armed security doesn't work and is not the answer?  It seems that LaPierre is doing for himself what he believes should be allowed for others.  Obama is doing for himself what he believes should be denied for others.




Peasants do not have the right to defend themselves with arms. They should be farming and nothing else. Leave the thinking to our betters. If you want to have arms, joing the army.
 
Displayed 50 of 194 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report