Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(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  
•       •       •

13276 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Feb 2013 at 2:51 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
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.
 
2013-02-03 03:31:06 PM  
There are lots of people in the US who live in bumblefark little towns where everyone knows everyone else and sees no problems with everyone owning 300 firearms for "hunting" and keeping an eye on that black family that just moved in.  In NRA terms, their heartland.  These people will NEVER agree with even the most basic restraints on firearms, because they live in fear 24/7.  Fear of the government taking away their trailers, fear of brown people, fear of change, fear fear fear.

That is the sad truth.  They will rather that children go to school wearing ballistic armor than give up that fear.
 
2013-02-03 03:33:14 PM  
When you end up claiming that private citizens should be allowed to own nuclear weapons in order to preserve the integrity of your argument, there's a good chance what you have is a shiatty argument that isn't worth preserving.
 
2013-02-03 03:34:45 PM  

Daemonik: There are lots of people in the US who live in bumblefark little towns where everyone knows everyone else and sees no problems with everyone owning 300 firearms for "hunting" and keeping an eye on that black family that just moved in.  In NRA terms, their heartland.  These people will NEVER agree with even the most basic restraints on firearms, because they live in fear 24/7.  Fear of the government taking away their trailers, fear of brown people, fear of change, fear fear fear.

That is the sad truth.  They will rather that children go to school wearing ballistic armor than give up that fear.


Know what is funny about this? You are the most ignorant backwoods retard I  have ever met, and I live in one of these areas you stereotype and hate openly.

We don't live in fear because we know each other, we tend to like each other, and if we dont, we tend to avoid one another. Ever wonder why every shooting happens in one of your GLORIOUS and enlightened bastions of education and liberal utopias known as big cities? Because you are generally just as slackjawed, stupid, and hateful as you stereotype the rural individuals to be, except you have the distinct illusion that your shiat don't stink because you pack like rats into run down apartments and swear its the good life. Ever wonder why racial hate crimes take place in medium to large cities and less, far far less, in rural areas? Because we get to know the "black folk" we live with and tend to get along well with them. Perhaps if you spent less time stereotyping people and more time getting to know them, you wouldn't come across as so god damn wrong and so stupid.
 
2013-02-03 03:35:11 PM  

Mrtraveler01: I think he's trolling.

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


Um, noooo.  Not trolling, not even a little.

How exactly is it "stupid" to accept that the President of the United States, a man who receives upwards of 500 death threats a month, a job with a 10% rate of assassination, might be just a little more deserving of a higher level of security than the average joe, who gets, on average zero death threats in a lifetime.

/You guys are so out of touch you really have no grasp the way the rest of America sees your positions.  I guess you won't even realize you've lost until the laws start getting passed.
 
2013-02-03 03:35:22 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?


Is the training free?
 
2013-02-03 03:35:22 PM  

Mrtraveler01: 800-588-2300


So you're saying Obama wants to begin an "Empire"....
 
2013-02-03 03:35:28 PM  

Craps the Gorilla: 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.


The FBI would agree with you.  My personal belief is that people who want gun control are trying to get a group of weapons that most people would agree deserve strict scrutiny.  I'm with you--we should be focusing more on handguns and the ease with which people can get them--but I also understand where some people are trying to get a winnable fight before going after things that may be more controversial.
 
2013-02-03 03:35:39 PM  

Daemonik: and keeping an eye on that black family that just moved in.


Can't they just hire George Zimmermann for that? I hear he's super effective.
 
2013-02-03 03:35:43 PM  

nmrsnr: 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.


I shoot USPSA and IDPA. (Look it up...), and am former military.

The civilian sector is, has been, and always will be the "go to" guys for all things shooting, with either rifle or pistol. Out of ALL our military organizations, the ONLY guys who can actually shoot worth a shiat are in either the special operations community, or in a dedicated marksmanship unit (AMU for example). These organizations hire and use CIVILIAN SHOOTERS to train their trainers, and their individual team members.

Why?

Time, money, motivation.

Armed "professions" CAN not, DO not, and in some cases, simply WILL not dedicate the time and money to train their forces to any decent standard, and even those that DO have decent training programs don't fund SUSTAINMENT training to keep the edge sharp. Instead, they rely on small "specialized" units to shoulder the load, and provide them with enough training to make them mediocre compared to their civilian counterparts.

Even if they DID have the time, and cash to fund training, the overwhelming majority of "armed professionals" are NOT "gun" people, and have NO motivation to do ANYTHING but meet the absolute MINIMUM standards of performance. To the overwhelming majority of them I have encountered, what they do is just a way to earn a paycheck, and that's it.

So you CAN'T argue that civilians don't get the kind of training that "armed professionals" do, because the civilian sector IS the primary source of GOOD training for any "armed profession" worthy of the name.

If anything, citizens should be pissed that the "armed professions" are about as skilled and "professional" as are our "professional" waste disposal crews.


Shoot some matches and see what happens when a cop, or a "soldier", or any other individual shows up thinking they are an "armed professional". They usually SUCK, and get their asses handed to them by the C and D shooters. I know a couple of master class shooters that are cops, but they became master class shooters thanks to the training and sustainment provided by our CIVILIAN shooting club and matches as opposed to their "professional" cop training.

So, no, the government doesn't have the market on firearm training, proficiency, OR safety, far from it.
It is the CIVILIAN sector that has, and always SHOULD, set the standard for the tax funded shooters out there.
 
2013-02-03 03:35:57 PM  

atomicmask: 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.


I'm honestly having trouble believing that you are a real person, who actually believes this. Do you honestly think terrorist organizations and hostile governments don't have the capital to purchase such things were they readily available? Do you honestly believe that they don't have simpathizers in the US who would willingly buy and use such devices? Do you honestly believe that the punishment of life imprisonment and "we won't let you play with them anymore" in any way mitigates the effect of someone launching a missile into a building, just a normal one, not even a nuke?

Call me a coward? I am not afraid of reasonable danger, but I also don't have surgery performed on me by my next door neighbor. Why? Not because I'm a coward, but because it's a recklessly and ridiculously stupid idea on its face, and I treat it as such.
 
2013-02-03 03:36:05 PM  

atomicmask: Daemonik: There are lots of people in the US who live in bumblefark little towns where everyone knows everyone else and sees no problems with everyone owning 300 firearms for "hunting" and keeping an eye on that black family that just moved in.  In NRA terms, their heartland.  These people will NEVER agree with even the most basic restraints on firearms, because they live in fear 24/7.  Fear of the government taking away their trailers, fear of brown people, fear of change, fear fear fear.

That is the sad truth.  They will rather that children go to school wearing ballistic armor than give up that fear.

Know what is funny about this? You are the most ignorant backwoods retard I  have ever met, and I live in one of these areas you stereotype and hate openly.

We don't live in fear because we know each other, we tend to like each other, and if we dont, we tend to avoid one another. Ever wonder why every shooting happens in one of your GLORIOUS and enlightened bastions of education and liberal utopias known as big cities? Because you are generally just as slackjawed, stupid, and hateful as you stereotype the rural individuals to be, except you have the distinct illusion that your shiat don't stink because you pack like rats into run down apartments and swear its the good life. Ever wonder why racial hate crimes take place in medium to large cities and less, far far less, in rural areas? Because we get to know the "black folk" we live with and tend to get along well with them. Perhaps if you spent less time stereotyping people and more time getting to know them, you wouldn't come across as so god damn wrong and so stupid.


You need help.
 
2013-02-03 03:38:08 PM  
That wasn't a skewering, that was a limp hand job with no clean up.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-02-03 03:38:11 PM  

nmrsnr: 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.


The same way it's hypocritical to say that elites like President Obama should have launch authority for nuclear weapons but the homeless dude who talks to himself shouldn't.
 
2013-02-03 03:38:13 PM  

atomicmask: 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.


It's so much easier to shill when you remove nuance and see everything as just black or white. When it's convenient to do so, at least.
 
2013-02-03 03:38:35 PM  
I would say atomicmask isn't very good at this, but then again he's continuing to derail the thread.
 
2013-02-03 03:39:04 PM  

ReverendJasen: 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?


Actually, this I kind of agree with.  The increasing militarization of the Police throughout our country is why we have so many situations of the police killing innocent people.  Take the police's guns away and have them go back to relying on state or federal SWAT teams for situations where high firepower are necessary.  Why do we expect our local police to be prepared to single handedly fight a small war anyway?
 
2013-02-03 03:39:04 PM  

nmrsnr: atomicmask: 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.

I'm honestly having trouble believing that you are a real person, who actually believes this. Do you honestly think terrorist organizations and hostile governments don't have the capital to purchase such things were they readily available? Do you honestly believe that they don't have simpathizers in the US who would willingly buy and use such devices? Do you honestly believe that the punishment of life imprisonment and "we won't let you play with them anymore" in any way mitigates the effect of someone launching a missile into a building, just a normal one, not even a nuke?

Call me a coward? I am not afraid of reasonable danger, but I also don't have surgery performed on me by my next door neighbor. Why? Not because I'm a coward, but because it's a recklessly and ridiculously stupid idea on its face, and I treat it as such.


Do you honestly believe uranium, or weapons grade plutonium, is easy enough to get your hands on it does not require a billion dollar factory to even produce the stuff? Do you not think that the high cost of creating accompanied by the extremely dangerous nature of getting such would not lead to very very strict methods (Which are already in place) of legally owning and getting such materials? Let alone the costs of weapons parts to even make such a bomb? You farkers need to stop watching 24 so damn much, its not that easy.
 
2013-02-03 03:39:40 PM  
It's fun watching Fox News eat their own.
It's fun watching Republicans realize that corporate profits used to fuel their campaign are higher & mightier than their campaign. Public viewpoints are changing and Fox News will not be a mouthpiece for whatever isn't selling, no matter how much they've sold it before.
 
2013-02-03 03:40:09 PM  

atomicmask: Daemonik: There are lots of people in the US who live in bumblefark little towns where everyone knows everyone else and sees no problems with everyone owning 300 firearms for "hunting" and keeping an eye on that black family that just moved in.  In NRA terms, their heartland.  These people will NEVER agree with even the most basic restraints on firearms, because they live in fear 24/7.  Fear of the government taking away their trailers, fear of brown people, fear of change, fear fear fear.

That is the sad truth.  They will rather that children go to school wearing ballistic armor than give up that fear.

Know what is funny about this? You are the most ignorant backwoods retard I  have ever met, and I live in one of these areas you stereotype and hate openly.

We don't live in fear because we know each other, we tend to like each other, and if we dont, we tend to avoid one another. Ever wonder why every shooting happens in one of your GLORIOUS and enlightened bastions of education and liberal utopias known as big cities? Because you are generally just as slackjawed, stupid, and hateful as you stereotype the rural individuals to be, except you have the distinct illusion that your shiat don't stink because you pack like rats into run down apartments and swear its the good life. Ever wonder why racial hate crimes take place in medium to large cities and less, far far less, in rural areas? Because we get to know the "black folk" we live with and tend to get along well with them. Perhaps if you spent less time stereotyping people and more time getting to know them, you wouldn't come across as so god damn wrong and so stupid.


What an inferiority complex looks like.
 
2013-02-03 03:40:14 PM  
FTA: "UPDATE: I've dealt with this several times in the comments below, but let me post it here as well. Yes, the circumstances of Kyle's death suggest that he was given no real chance by his killer to defend himself. But the sad truth is, that's almost always the case anyway. The good guy almost never gets the drop on the bad guy; the Keith Ratliff murder here in Georgia is another example of that reality.
In almost every case, the person who draws the weapon first has an overwhelming advantage, and most of the time the person who pulls first is the criminal. If you're getting robbed at gunpoint on the street, for example, having a concealed weapon in your shoulder holster does you no good at all, and if it tempts you to try something stupid, it could end up getting you and others killed.
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."


Think about that the next time you start fantasizing about "killin' someone whut's breakin inta ya house"... the criminal will already have his gun drawn and pointed at the first sucker who comes down the stairs. I know I would, because I would assume that they are armed, even if only with a baseball bat.  He will almost always have the drop on you, which is why out of the thousands of people killed with guns each year and the millions of guns in circulation, relatively few incidents turn out like those NRA fantasies suggest.

Yet they keep pushing that string.
 
2013-02-03 03:40:26 PM  

Scorpitron is reduced to a thin red paste: I would say atomicmask isn't very good at this, but then again he's continuing to derail the thread.


Which just goes to show that his debate opponents aren't very good at this either.
 
2013-02-03 03:41:21 PM  

ox45tallboy: Mrtraveler01: 800-588-2300

So you're saying Obama wants to begin an "Empire"....


kristinhoppe.files.wordpress.com
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-02-03 03:42:43 PM  

Craps the Gorilla: 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.


Because they don't have the money do do both even though both need to be done.
 
2013-02-03 03:45:22 PM  

Daemonik: Actually, this I kind of agree with. The increasing militarization of the Police throughout our country is why we have so many situations of the police killing innocent people. Take the police's guns away and have them go back to relying on state or federal SWAT teams for situations where high firepower are necessary. Why do we expect our local police to be prepared to single handedly fight a small war anyway?


Well, I was only talking military.
I agree, normal police units do not need to be armed for combat.  They should never be involved in combat.  Problem is, they sure think that's their job now.
 
2013-02-03 03:46:26 PM  
Is it me or does Chris Wallace sound like a 50s newscaster? I guess it points to the Fox News target demographic.
 
2013-02-03 03:46:39 PM  
Look I do not want the government deciding who is worthy of personal defense and who is not. I think the law should apply to all people, risk or not, wealth or not, position or not.

I do not get how this is considered insane or trolling. It is farking frightening to me that you all are so backwards you honestly think that private rights and defense and equal protection under the law is trolling...
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-02-03 03:47:02 PM  
StoPPeRmobile:

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.

I think it's cute how you think trying to frame it as a class issue will make people want to have Rambo toys.
 
2013-02-03 03:47:55 PM  

vpb: Craps the Gorilla: 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.

Because they don't have the money do do both even though both need to be done.


Yea it's a hazy topic and noone always clearly right. It's a shame a tragedy must hit us in order for shiat to get done. Nothing new though
 
2013-02-03 03:47:58 PM  

Matrix Flavored Wasabi: Is it me or does Chris Wallace sound like a 50s newscaster? I guess it points to the Fox News target demographic.


He tries too much to be like his dad.

Which is hard to do when you work for a partisan media outlet.
 
2013-02-03 03:48:02 PM  

Hagenhatesyouall: I shoot USPSA and IDPA. (Look it up...), and am former military...


Your argument doesn't really hold up. I don't doubt anything you've said, but just because the MOST SKILLED civilians are better than the AVERAGE professional does not mean that the AVERAGE civilian should be privy to the equipment handled by the AVERAGE professional.

It's be like saying that every civilian should be allowed to show up to help fight fires, because some of the best firefighters are volunteer firefighters. Since some of the best firefighters to be found are not professionals, we should therefore allow any citizen who wants to to fight fires just by their asking.
 
2013-02-03 03:49:09 PM  

vpb: StoPPeRmobile:

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.

I think it's cute how you think trying to frame it as a class issue will make people want to have Rambo toys.


I think its cute how you think framing it as outlandish will make people think equal protection under the law of all citizens is silly, and some citizens are more worthy of defense then others.

wait thats not cute, thats farking insanity.
 
2013-02-03 03:50:26 PM  

atomicmask: We don't live in fear because we know each other, we tend to like each other, and if we dont, we tend to avoid one another. Ever wonder why every shooting happens in one of your GLORIOUS and enlightened bastions of education and liberal utopias known as big cities? Because you are generally just as slackjawed, stupid, and hateful as you stereotype the rural individuals to be, except you have the distinct illusion that your shiat don't stink because you pack like rats into run down apartments and swear its the good life. Ever wonder why racial hate crimes take place in medium to large cities and less, far far less, in rural areas? Because we get to know the "black folk" we live with and tend to get along well with them. Perhaps if you spent less time stereotyping people and more time getting to know them, you wouldn't come across as so god damn wrong and so stupid.


You live in Phoenix!

Living in the 6th largest city in the US is not rural my friend.
 
2013-02-03 03:50:33 PM  

nmrsnr: Hagenhatesyouall: I shoot USPSA and IDPA. (Look it up...), and am former military...

Your argument doesn't really hold up. I don't doubt anything you've said, but just because the MOST SKILLED civilians are better than the AVERAGE professional does not mean that the AVERAGE civilian should be privy to the equipment handled by the AVERAGE professional.

It's be like saying that every civilian should be allowed to show up to help fight fires, because some of the best firefighters are volunteer firefighters. Since some of the best firefighters to be found are not professionals, we should therefore allow any citizen who wants to to fight fires just by their asking.


Actually everybody should be able to fight fires, especially those who have a vested interest in things not burning down. What a twisted world you all live in to think personal responsibility and protecting yourself as well as your property is "crazy"
 
2013-02-03 03:51:08 PM  

Mrtraveler01: atomicmask: We don't live in fear because we know each other, we tend to like each other, and if we dont, we tend to avoid one another. Ever wonder why every shooting happens in one of your GLORIOUS and enlightened bastions of education and liberal utopias known as big cities? Because you are generally just as slackjawed, stupid, and hateful as you stereotype the rural individuals to be, except you have the distinct illusion that your shiat don't stink because you pack like rats into run down apartments and swear its the good life. Ever wonder why racial hate crimes take place in medium to large cities and less, far far less, in rural areas? Because we get to know the "black folk" we live with and tend to get along well with them. Perhaps if you spent less time stereotyping people and more time getting to know them, you wouldn't come across as so god damn wrong and so stupid.

You live in Phoenix!

Living in the 6th largest city in the US is not rural my friend.


I moved like 4 years ago, I just have not updated my profile.
 
2013-02-03 03:52:19 PM  

RandomRandom: Mrtraveler01: I think he's trolling.

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

Um, noooo.  Not trolling, not even a little.

How exactly is it "stupid" to accept that the President of the United States, a man who receives upwards of 500 death threats a month, a job with a 10% rate of assassination, might be just a little more deserving of a higher level of security than the average joe, who gets, on average zero death threats in a lifetime.

/You guys are so out of touch you really have no grasp the way the rest of America sees your positions.  I guess you won't even realize you've lost until the laws start getting passed.


I would wager that the majority of non-celebrity crime victims never had a death threat against them, nor a 10% death rate in their position. And yet...they still become victims. Is it more dangerous to be the president, or to be a woman that has to walk through the ghetto or take a bus when her midnight shifts ends. Is it more dangerous to be the president, or to be an easy target for a druggie who sees valuables in your house he or she can easily steal and sell.

I don't agree with "the president needs more security argument." There are lots of situations I can think of that need equal if not more security in the US, where criminals and the mentally I'll are well armed.
 
2013-02-03 03:52:47 PM  

atomicmask: I moved like 4 years ago, I just have not updated my profile.


A thorough background check may have revealed that.
 
2013-02-03 03:53:05 PM  

atomicmask: Daemonik: There are lots of people in the US who live in bumblefark little towns where everyone knows everyone else and sees no problems with everyone owning 300 firearms for "hunting" and keeping an eye on that black family that just moved in.  In NRA terms, their heartland.  These people will NEVER agree with even the most basic restraints on firearms, because they live in fear 24/7.  Fear of the government taking away their trailers, fear of brown people, fear of change, fear fear fear.

That is the sad truth.  They will rather that children go to school wearing ballistic armor than give up that fear.

Know what is funny about this? You are the most ignorant backwoods retard I  have ever met, and I live in one of these areas you stereotype and hate openly.

We don't live in fear because we know each other, we tend to like each other, and if we dont, we tend to avoid one another. Ever wonder why every shooting happens in one of your GLORIOUS and enlightened bastions of education and liberal utopias known as big cities? Because you are generally just as slackjawed, stupid, and hateful as you stereotype the rural individuals to be, except you have the distinct illusion that your shiat don't stink because you pack like rats into run down apartments and swear its the good life. Ever wonder why racial hate crimes take place in medium to large cities and less, far far less, in rural areas? Because we get to know the "black folk" we live with and tend to get along well with them. Perhaps if you spent less time stereotyping people and more time getting to know them, you wouldn't come across as so god damn wrong and so stupid.


How did I know you came from a podunk town, HOW DID I KNOW!?!!

First off, rural areas tend to be where the school massacre's happen FYI.  That means For Your Information, you 4th grade dropout.  Let me know if I talk to fast for you.  Actually, you know what, just keep your mouth shut.

Second, yes, cities have violent gun crimes.  That's because we have people of different cultures in close proximity (that means near each other dumbass) and easy access to lots of firearms is the last thing we want but God forbid one of you hillbilly sister farkers have your RIGHT to shoot at a government black helicopter when it comes to take away your moonshine trampled on, or whatever.

Third, you know why racial crimes happen in cities?  Because there are enough people of one race in an area that they can't be intimidated into silence when injustice happens.  There's never going to be any black riots in your town, if 3 trailer parks and a strip mall can actually be called a town, not because there's no injustice there but because they're outnumbered.
 
2013-02-03 03:54:35 PM  

msupf: 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?

If you pay for yourself you can buy whatever you want in the security market. If you want "the government" to pay you shouldn't be surprised that they say that they will only protect high risk locations/persons.

The National Center for Education Statistics reports that ... Total Public and Private Schools. Adding the 2010-2011 public and private school totals, we get 132,270 schools, so currently there are over 132 thousand elementary and secondary schools in the United States.

And they don't know how many buildings there are. So you'll need at least 132.270 * wage + 132.270 * benefits for 1 full time position per school. Let's assume that a guard makes 40k a year and we'll be looking at a price tag of well over 5 billion dollar a year. That's just not justifiable for the amount of risk posed by a random nut showing up and shooting someone/some people.

 
2013-02-03 03:56:37 PM  

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

This alt is getting stale.


Ten pounds of derp is at least occasionally amusing.
 
2013-02-03 03:56:51 PM  

atomicmask: Look I do not want the government deciding who is worthy of personal defense and who is not. I think the law should apply to all people, risk or not, wealth or not, position or not.

I do not get how this is considered insane or trolling. It is farking frightening to me that you all are so backwards you honestly think that private rights and defense and equal protection under the law is trolling...


Statistically speaking when EVERYONE is telling you that you're insane or trolling it's much more likely that they are right and you're not.

Though I imagine you will continue your "only truly enlightened man bravely fighting the system like Galileo" schtick anyway.
 
2013-02-03 03:56:56 PM  

atomicmask: Do you honestly believe uranium, or weapons grade plutonium, is easy enough to get your hands on it does not require a billion dollar factory to even produce the stuff? Do you not think that the high cost of creating accompanied by the extremely dangerous nature of getting such would not lead to very very strict methods (Which are already in place) of legally owning and getting such materials? Let alone the costs of weapons parts to even make such a bomb? You farkers need to stop watching 24 so damn much, its not that easy.


What, in your head, do you think those regulations and "very, very strict" methods are, if not laws banning the possession, purchase, and sale of the items you think it should be legal to possess, purchase, and sell?

Do you know why it is so prohibitively difficult to get your hands on weapons grade Uranium? BECAUSE IT IS HIGHLY CONTROLLED AND VERY, VERY ILLEGAL TO OWN. The exact thing you say should be removed, i.e. government's "hypocritical" standard that they can have fissile material and you can't, is exactly is what is causing the prohibitive barrier to entry that you are relying on to keep you safe. But forget nukes, what about land mines? They can't cost more than a few hundred dollars a pop, what about the crazy guy who decides to bury them in a public park? What about if Lanza's mom had really liked RPGs? They can't be more than a couple of grand, right? Especially not once the market opens up and demand drops the price down.
 
2013-02-03 03:58:15 PM  

Tigger: atomicmask: Look I do not want the government deciding who is worthy of personal defense and who is not. I think the law should apply to all people, risk or not, wealth or not, position or not.

I do not get how this is considered insane or trolling. It is farking frightening to me that you all are so backwards you honestly think that private rights and defense and equal protection under the law is trolling...

Statistically speaking when EVERYONE is telling you that you're insane or trolling it's much more likely that they are right and you're not.

Though I imagine you will continue your "only truly enlightened man bravely fighting the system like Galileo" schtick anyway.


I think all that time out in Phoenix melted his brain.
 
2013-02-03 03:58:31 PM  

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

This alt is getting stale.

Ten pounds of derp is at least occasionally amusing.


Shut your whore mouth.
 
2013-02-03 03:59:41 PM  

Daemonik: atomicmask: Daemonik: There are lots of people in the US who live in bumblefark little towns where everyone knows everyone else and sees no problems with everyone owning 300 firearms for "hunting" and keeping an eye on that black family that just moved in.  In NRA terms, their heartland.  These people will NEVER agree with even the most basic restraints on firearms, because they live in fear 24/7.  Fear of the government taking away their trailers, fear of brown people, fear of change, fear fear fear.

That is the sad truth.  They will rather that children go to school wearing ballistic armor than give up that fear.

Know what is funny about this? You are the most ignorant backwoods retard I  have ever met, and I live in one of these areas you stereotype and hate openly.

We don't live in fear because we know each other, we tend to like each other, and if we dont, we tend to avoid one another. Ever wonder why every shooting happens in one of your GLORIOUS and enlightened bastions of education and liberal utopias known as big cities? Because you are generally just as slackjawed, stupid, and hateful as you stereotype the rural individuals to be, except you have the distinct illusion that your shiat don't stink because you pack like rats into run down apartments and swear its the good life. Ever wonder why racial hate crimes take place in medium to large cities and less, far far less, in rural areas? Because we get to know the "black folk" we live with and tend to get along well with them. Perhaps if you spent less time stereotyping people and more time getting to know them, you wouldn't come across as so god damn wrong and so stupid.

How did I know you came from a podunk town, HOW DID I KNOW!?!!

First off, rural areas tend to be where the school massacre's happen FYI.  That means For Your Information, you 4th grade dropout.  Let me know if I talk to fast for you.  Actually, you know what, just keep your mouth shut.

Second, yes, cities have violent gun crimes.  That ...


Oh shiat you mean I miss out on Riots, rapes, murders, minorities in "no go" zones for other races, AND I can't deal with ultra-lib panzies that blame the whole thing on guns and not on the people that wield them?

Dear god, you have shown me the light. Where do I sign up to join you in your utopia of robbery, theft, murder, distrust of your neighbors, and general jackassery?

Yeah we intimidate all these poor minorities into behavin' so that we can have a civilized town where we sleep with the doors unlocked and generally look each other in the eyes when dealing. Its a hell. We can send our kids to school and not worry about them getting murdered, then they come home and we go hunting with them afterwards! Can you imagine the nightmare?! God damn, some kids even get GUNS for christmas and get this, they are just so backwoods and ignorant and inbred they do not even THINK about shooting another person with it cause they are just so damn simple! GAWWWWWD DAMN if only we had a fancy high tootin edumacation from one of them dar big cities where'en we could figure out how to murder people that look at us funny and steal if we can't afford what we want!

Damn you are indeed the envy of us
 
2013-02-03 04:01:16 PM  

atomicmask: Actually everybody should be able to fight fires, especially those who have a vested interest in things not burning down. What a twisted world you all live in to think personal responsibility and protecting yourself as well as your property is "crazy"


I never said anything about stopping you from trying to put out a fire in your own house. But if, god forbid, your house were on fire, would you let anyone with a bucket and an ax who says "I want to help!" into your house?
 
2013-02-03 04:02:06 PM  

nmrsnr: atomicmask: Do you honestly believe uranium, or weapons grade plutonium, is easy enough to get your hands on it does not require a billion dollar factory to even produce the stuff? Do you not think that the high cost of creating accompanied by the extremely dangerous nature of getting such would not lead to very very strict methods (Which are already in place) of legally owning and getting such materials? Let alone the costs of weapons parts to even make such a bomb? You farkers need to stop watching 24 so damn much, its not that easy.

What, in your head, do you think those regulations and "very, very strict" methods are, if not laws banning the possession, purchase, and sale of the items you think it should be legal to possess, purchase, and sell?

Do you know why it is so prohibitively difficult to get your hands on weapons grade Uranium? BECAUSE IT IS HIGHLY CONTROLLED AND VERY, VERY ILLEGAL TO OWN. The exact thing you say should be removed, i.e. government's "hypocritical" standard that they can have fissile material and you can't, is exactly is what is causing the prohibitive barrier to entry that you are relying on to keep you safe. But forget nukes, what about land mines? They can't cost more than a few hundred dollars a pop, what about the crazy guy who decides to bury them in a public park? What about if Lanza's mom had really liked RPGs? They can't be more than a couple of grand, right? Especially not once the market opens up and demand drops the price down.


I will have you know that we need access to land mines to stop the gopher menace!  Also, have you considered the amount of stray dogs & cats in the cities?  A few claymores and some tripwires, that problem is solved my friend.
 
2013-02-03 04:02:19 PM  

nmrsnr: But if, god forbid, your house were on fire, would you let anyone with a bucket and an ax who says "I want to help!" into your house?


Nah, he'd just shot them for self-defense.
 
2013-02-03 04:02:21 PM  

nmrsnr: atomicmask: Actually everybody should be able to fight fires, especially those who have a vested interest in things not burning down. What a twisted world you all live in to think personal responsibility and protecting yourself as well as your property is "crazy"

I never said anything about stopping you from trying to put out a fire in your own house. But if, god forbid, your house were on fire, would you let anyone with a bucket and an ax who says "I want to help!" into your house?


If my house is on fire? fark yes everyone with a bucket of water is damn well welcome to toss it on the fire.

Maybe you didn't think this analogy all the way threw?
 
2013-02-03 04:05:10 PM  

atomicmask: Its a hell. We can send our kids to school and not worry about them getting murdered, then they come home and we go hunting with them afterwards!


We do that too, it's called the suburbs.

We never keep our doors unlocked though. That's just foolish.
 
2013-02-03 04:05:29 PM  

Hetfield: 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.


It's not just the NRA.  I believe the GOA said they've seen a 30% increase in their membership.
 
2013-02-03 04:06:47 PM  

Mrtraveler01: atomicmask: Its a hell. We can send our kids to school and not worry about them getting murdered, then they come home and we go hunting with them afterwards!

We do that too, it's called the suburbs.

We never keep our doors unlocked though. That's just foolish.


Really? Because I think most of the school shootings have happened in the suburbs..
 
2013-02-03 04:07:16 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


Gotta agree with you on your observation.  Didn't come close to skewering.  In fact, although I generally appreciate Wallace's perspective, he seemed pretty out of touch on this topic.
 
2013-02-03 04:07:45 PM  

Fail in Human Form: It's not just the NRA.  I believe the GOA said they've seen a 30% increase in their membership.



NRA: Membership Has Grown by 250,000 in One Month
 
2013-02-03 04:08:07 PM  

Mrtraveler01: atomicmask: Its a hell. We can send our kids to school and not worry about them getting murdered, then they come home and we go hunting with them afterwards!

We do that too, it's called the suburbs.

We never keep our doors unlocked though. That's just foolish.


So you don't care if you're robbed or worse?  Oh right, it can never happen to you.

/Alarms, Door Jams, ect here
 
2013-02-03 04:08:24 PM  
The entire base of the right wing debate is just slipping more and more into a real life impression of the citizens of Rock Ridge.
 
2013-02-03 04:08:35 PM  

atomicmask: Mrtraveler01: atomicmask: Its a hell. We can send our kids to school and not worry about them getting murdered, then they come home and we go hunting with them afterwards!

We do that too, it's called the suburbs.

We never keep our doors unlocked though. That's just foolish.

Really? Because I think most of the school shootings have happened in the suburbs..


Sandy Hook wasn't in a suburb.
 
2013-02-03 04:08:52 PM  

atomicmask: Maybe you didn't think this analogy all the way threw?


See, whereas I would say "let's wait for the professionals, it's not worth risking your life for stuff." Because I've heard of enough good samaritans with more heart than sense getting themselves killed. That's why we have professionals, to take a calculated risk that they've prepared for.
 
2013-02-03 04:09:06 PM  

Hetfield: Fail in Human Form: It's not just the NRA.  I believe the GOA said they've seen a 30% increase in their membership.


NRA: Membership Has Grown by 250,000 in One Month


I'm not disagreeing, just saying that all the pro gun groups have seen a rapid increase in membership.
 
2013-02-03 04:09:07 PM  

Fail in Human Form: It's not just the NRA


Sorry, I misread, I didn't see the "just" there.
 
2013-02-03 04:10:01 PM  
I didn't realize when I left a rural upbringing to live in cities since has signed me up for a life of constant muggings, rapes, racial tension and general civil unrest. I should really reconsider my options.
 
2013-02-03 04:10:31 PM  

atomicmask: Daemonik: There are lots of people in the US who live in bumblefark little towns where everyone knows everyone else and sees no problems with everyone owning 300 firearms for "hunting" and keeping an eye on that black family that just moved in.  In NRA terms, their heartland.  These people will NEVER agree with even the most basic restraints on firearms, because they live in fear 24/7.  Fear of the government taking away their trailers, fear of brown people, fear of change, fear fear fear.

That is the sad truth.  They will rather that children go to school wearing ballistic armor than give up that fear.

Know what is funny about this? You are the most ignorant backwoods retard I  have ever met, and I live in one of these areas you stereotype and hate openly.

We don't live in fear because we know each other, we tend to like each other, and if we dont, we tend to avoid one another. Ever wonder why every shooting happens in one of your GLORIOUS and enlightened bastions of education and liberal utopias known as big cities? Because you are generally just as slackjawed, stupid, and hateful as you stereotype the rural individuals to be, except you have the distinct illusion that your shiat don't stink because you pack like rats into run down apartments and swear its the good life. Ever wonder why racial hate crimes take place in medium to large cities and less, far far less, in rural areas? Because we get to know the "black folk" we live with and tend to get along well with them. Perhaps if you spent less time stereotyping people and more time getting to know them, you wouldn't come across as so god damn wrong and so stupid.



You're potentially the stupidest person I've ever seen on here.
 
2013-02-03 04:12:17 PM  

Just for grins, here's LaPierre's email encouraging people to watch:

The battle to save our Second Amendment freedoms is raging right now. 

And if you saw any coverage of this week's Senate hearings on gun control, you know the media elites and the gun ban lobby are running wild with half-truths, deceptions, and downright lies about you, me and our gun rights.


So I'm going on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace to set the record straight! Please watch at 9:00 a.m. ET this Sunday - and tell your family, friends and fellow gun owners to watch as well.
As always, thank you for your support and your willingness to STAND AND FIGHT with me and NRA.

I've never been more grateful to have you fighting by my side.

Wayne

Wayne LaPierre
Executive Vice President
www.NRA.org
 
2013-02-03 04:12:41 PM  
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.

I know it's already been brought up in this thread, but holy shiat. I mean, it's basically what my side of the "do you need a gun for home defense?" argument has been saying all along, but talk about a statistical gut-punch. You can nitpick away at that all day long, and what you're left with is still pretty stark.

It'd be like paying extra for a "drunk unicyclist" rider on your auto policy, except that in four decades on this planet I actually  have been in a situation where a drunk unicyclist threatened to cause damage to my vehicle. (Goddamn UW-Madison students, get the fark over yourselves.) And also, your kid can't accidentally shoot himself with an insurance rider, so the analogy kind of falls apart at that point.

I have this one sexual fantasy where I make sweet, tender love to the entire cast of  The Facts of Life on the deck of my private yacht. Hey, it could still happen. The odds of the opportunity presenting itself are not zero. But I'm not mortgaging my house for the down payment on a yacht, and I think that's probably the right way to go.

/including Charlotte Rae
//especially Charlotte Rae
 
2013-02-03 04:13:03 PM  

nmrsnr: atomicmask: Maybe you didn't think this analogy all the way threw?

See, whereas I would say "let's wait for the professionals, it's not worth risking your life for stuff." Because I've heard of enough good samaritans with more heart than sense getting themselves killed. That's why we have professionals, to take a calculated risk that they've prepared for.


Know what is scary? You honestly think it takes a professional to aim a water hose at a big glowing ball of fire and turn it on. I guess that is just a general symptom of our society, such much phobia and a complete lack of personal responsibility. If its your house and your family on the line, waiting for a big red truck a mile or two away is not going to cut it. The same thing as if its you and your family at stake you probably wouldn't wanna wait for a cop that has a 15 minute response time to calls.
 
2013-02-03 04:16:52 PM  

atomicmask: Know what is scary?


Really? You find that "scary"? That scares you? I see now why you need so many guns.
 
2013-02-03 04:18:09 PM  

Hetfield: atomicmask: Know what is scary?

Really? You find that "scary"? That scares you? I see now why you need so many guns.


It frightens me that people in this nation are so hands off about their own fate, that they need a professional on hand to decide when they should defend themselves, or prevent loss of property. It frightens me even more that said individuals also feel that I should be of the same mind and nature.
 
2013-02-03 04:18:46 PM  

atomicmask: Know what is scary? You honestly think it takes a professional to aim a water hose at a big glowing ball of fire and turn it on.


Yes. It does. Because that's not all firefighting is.

I mean, seriously, that's like saying a Cop's job is just "pointing the bang bang stick at the bad guy! Anyone can do that!"

Firefighting, especially large buildings, house fires where people may be trapped, etc, is STUPID complicated, and I'm not even a firefighter. You need to know how to gauge if a structure is still safe to enter. You need to know where to best start fighting the fire, if there's a risk of the fire spreading, how the fire might be moving through the home...

Fire is not simple, is not a toy, and is not something to be taken lightly. Otherwise, firefighters wouldn't, you know, *die*, ever.
 
2013-02-03 04:18:52 PM  

atomicmask: It frightens me


Quick, buy a gun. It's the only way to feel safe again.
 
2013-02-03 04:20:49 PM  
I've lived in both a rural farm setting and major metropolis. While on the farm, I used the shotgun to kill snapping turtles in the pond (they are mean suckers and were killing our ducks). We had warm, friendly relations with all our neighbors regardless of race or other differences. There's a different dynamic out there - you stick together and form a community.

Now, I live in Kansas City. I took the training, got my CCW and now keep my handgun as protection. This is because I live in a violent, metro society where gun laws have failed to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

The "death threat" here is implicit, not explicit like it would be for the prez. I don't need 500 called in voicemail death threats a month to know that I need to protect myself. Its dangerous to adopt a naive, Pollyanna attitude in a big US city.
 
2013-02-03 04:21:20 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


no.  The debate is over.  The majority agree we need better gun control
 
2013-02-03 04:21:33 PM  
I don't post a lot, but I read fark a lot.  I know the personalities, the kinds of arguments, the ebb and flow.  I've seen some remarkable dumbassery, alongside good points.

atomicmask, however, is pretty much the stupidest, most boneheaded, most relentlessly moronic poster I've ever seen on here.
 
2013-02-03 04:22:04 PM  

atomicmask: nmrsnr: atomicmask: Maybe you didn't think this analogy all the way threw?

See, whereas I would say "let's wait for the professionals, it's not worth risking your life for stuff." Because I've heard of enough good samaritans with more heart than sense getting themselves killed. That's why we have professionals, to take a calculated risk that they've prepared for.

Know what is scary? You honestly think it takes a professional to aim a water hose at a big glowing ball of fire and turn it on. I guess that is just a general symptom of our society, such much phobia and a complete lack of personal responsibility. If its your house and your family on the line, waiting for a big red truck a mile or two away is not going to cut it. The same thing as if its you and your family at stake you probably wouldn't wanna wait for a cop that has a 15 minute response time to calls.


Shine on you crazy crazy little diamond. Shine on.

Oh one more thing: How do you feel about the taxes that people living in cities pay being used to support your rural lifestyle? Or is that the kind of government you like?
 
2013-02-03 04:22:11 PM  

Witness99: Now, I live in Kansas City. I took the training, got my CCW and now keep my handgun as protection. This is because I live in a violent, metro society where gun laws have failed to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.


LOL

/types this from St. Louis
//KC is nothing compared to us
 
2013-02-03 04:22:57 PM  

Tigger: atomicmask: nmrsnr: atomicmask: Maybe you didn't think this analogy all the way threw?

See, whereas I would say "let's wait for the professionals, it's not worth risking your life for stuff." Because I've heard of enough good samaritans with more heart than sense getting themselves killed. That's why we have professionals, to take a calculated risk that they've prepared for.

Know what is scary? You honestly think it takes a professional to aim a water hose at a big glowing ball of fire and turn it on. I guess that is just a general symptom of our society, such much phobia and a complete lack of personal responsibility. If its your house and your family on the line, waiting for a big red truck a mile or two away is not going to cut it. The same thing as if its you and your family at stake you probably wouldn't wanna wait for a cop that has a 15 minute response time to calls.

Shine on you crazy crazy little diamond. Shine on.

Oh one more thing: How do you feel about the taxes that people living in cities pay being used to support your rural lifestyle? Or is that the kind of government you like?


Upsetting that our tax dollars are going to provide internet to this tard huh?
 
2013-02-03 04:23:17 PM  
I think the NRA guy came out the "winner" of that exchange, and I'm someone who paints NRA advocates with the same brush as preppers and Freepers.
 
2013-02-03 04:23:36 PM  

Felgraf: atomicmask: Know what is scary? You honestly think it takes a professional to aim a water hose at a big glowing ball of fire and turn it on.

Yes. It does. Because that's not all firefighting is.

I mean, seriously, that's like saying a Cop's job is just "pointing the bang bang stick at the bad guy! Anyone can do that!"

Firefighting, especially large buildings, house fires where people may be trapped, etc, is STUPID complicated, and I'm not even a firefighter. You need to know how to gauge if a structure is still safe to enter. You need to know where to best start fighting the fire, if there's a risk of the fire spreading, how the fire might be moving through the home...

Fire is not simple, is not a toy, and is not something to be taken lightly. Otherwise, firefighters wouldn't, you know, *die*, ever.


What you are saying and what I am talking about is different. Defending your home from fire= Is there a fire? Better put it out. In no way do I say fight fire past the point of common sense (which is required in all things) Is the stove on fire in the kitchen and it may spread? Fight that shiat like crazy. IS your entire house engulfed in flames? let the fire department deal with it. They are PROFESSIONALS in that they are ment to deal with things when they get out of hand. It is up to the common citizen to police himself and do fire watch in his home. What I am against is this perpetual "Daddy will protect me" mentality people have when it comes to government. The government cant and wont fix every little problem, they cant magically appear when you are being mugged, they cant magically appear to put out your house fire, it is best that YOU be able to take some responsibility for yourself and your family and do your best to protect both.

Again how is this insane or wrong? What part of this sounds bad?
 
2013-02-03 04:24:07 PM  

RickN99: 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.


Exactly. For a handgun, standard capacity is what fits in the body of the weapon itself, whether that be a cylinder for a revolver or the grip for a semi-automatic. If it's 17, then it's standard, not "high-capacity".

Dianne Feinstein needs a clue-by-four.
 
2013-02-03 04:25:26 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Tigger: atomicmask: nmrsnr: atomicmask: Maybe you didn't think this analogy all the way threw?

See, whereas I would say "let's wait for the professionals, it's not worth risking your life for stuff." Because I've heard of enough good samaritans with more heart than sense getting themselves killed. That's why we have professionals, to take a calculated risk that they've prepared for.

Know what is scary? You honestly think it takes a professional to aim a water hose at a big glowing ball of fire and turn it on. I guess that is just a general symptom of our society, such much phobia and a complete lack of personal responsibility. If its your house and your family on the line, waiting for a big red truck a mile or two away is not going to cut it. The same thing as if its you and your family at stake you probably wouldn't wanna wait for a cop that has a 15 minute response time to calls.

Shine on you crazy crazy little diamond. Shine on.

Oh one more thing: How do you feel about the taxes that people living in cities pay being used to support your rural lifestyle? Or is that the kind of government you like?

Upsetting that our tax dollars are going to provide internet to this tard huh?


I'm rich enough to avoid bourgeois bleating about how high taxes are. I do enjoy poking this pointless sack of weapons grade idiocy though. So in that sense I"m getting my money's worth.
 
2013-02-03 04:25:31 PM  

Tigger: atomicmask: nmrsnr: atomicmask: Maybe you didn't think this analogy all the way threw?

See, whereas I would say "let's wait for the professionals, it's not worth risking your life for stuff." Because I've heard of enough good samaritans with more heart than sense getting themselves killed. That's why we have professionals, to take a calculated risk that they've prepared for.

Know what is scary? You honestly think it takes a professional to aim a water hose at a big glowing ball of fire and turn it on. I guess that is just a general symptom of our society, such much phobia and a complete lack of personal responsibility. If its your house and your family on the line, waiting for a big red truck a mile or two away is not going to cut it. The same thing as if its you and your family at stake you probably wouldn't wanna wait for a cop that has a 15 minute response time to calls.

Shine on you crazy crazy little diamond. Shine on.

Oh one more thing: How do you feel about the taxes that people living in cities pay being used to support your rural lifestyle? Or is that the kind of government you like?


I am cool with it, how does it feel knowing us slack jawed yokels feed your fat ass in exchange for it? Or do you believe your big macs and artisan bread pops out of the pavement outside the fifth street deli?

I guess it would also scare the hell out of you to know I am in favor of universal health care for all people and think gays have a right to be married? Is it hard when your stereotypes are shattered?
 
2013-02-03 04:25:33 PM  

atomicmask: Know what is scary? You honestly think it takes a professional to aim a water hose at a big glowing ball of fire and turn it on. I guess that is just a general symptom of our society, such much phobia and a complete lack of personal responsibility. If its your house and your family on the line, waiting for a big red truck a mile or two away is not going to cut it. The same thing as if its you and your family at stake you probably wouldn't wanna wait for a cop that has a 15 minute response time to calls.


What's worse is that you think that's all firefighters have to deal with. Have you ever been in a house fire? I have. Things go from "this looks manageable" to "you can't see shiat" in a matter of a minute or less. I got my younger siblings out of the house while my dad and older brothers tried to put the fire out (my mom went to the neighbors to call the Firemen). You know what the firemen told us when they got there? That trying to put it out was a stupid move and could have gotten them killed, fortunately it was confined to one room and nothing of value was lost, but I trust my experience and the firefighters over you.

But back to the main point, what, in your head, do you think those regulations and "very, very strict" methods of controlling Uranium are, if not laws banning the possession, purchase, and sale of the items you think it should be legal to possess, purchase, and sell?

Do you know why it is so prohibitively difficult to get your hands on weapons grade Uranium? BECAUSE IT IS HIGHLY CONTROLLED AND VERY, VERY ILLEGAL TO OWN. The exact thing you say should be removed, i.e. government's "hypocritical" standard that they can have fissile material and you can't, is exactly is what is causing the prohibitive barrier to entry that you are relying on to keep you safe. But forget nukes, what about land mines? They can't cost more than a few hundred dollars a pop, what about the crazy guy who decides to bury them in a public park? What about if Lanza's mom had really liked RPGs? They can't be more than a couple of grand, right? Especially not once the market opens up and demand drops the price down.
 
2013-02-03 04:27:37 PM  

Tigger: Mrtraveler01: Tigger: atomicmask: nmrsnr: atomicmask: Maybe you didn't think this analogy all the way threw?

See, whereas I would say "let's wait for the professionals, it's not worth risking your life for stuff." Because I've heard of enough good samaritans with more heart than sense getting themselves killed. That's why we have professionals, to take a calculated risk that they've prepared for.

Know what is scary? You honestly think it takes a professional to aim a water hose at a big glowing ball of fire and turn it on. I guess that is just a general symptom of our society, such much phobia and a complete lack of personal responsibility. If its your house and your family on the line, waiting for a big red truck a mile or two away is not going to cut it. The same thing as if its you and your family at stake you probably wouldn't wanna wait for a cop that has a 15 minute response time to calls.

Shine on you crazy crazy little diamond. Shine on.

Oh one more thing: How do you feel about the taxes that people living in cities pay being used to support your rural lifestyle? Or is that the kind of government you like?

Upsetting that our tax dollars are going to provide internet to this tard huh?

I'm rich enough to avoid bourgeois bleating about how high taxes are. I do enjoy poking this pointless sack of weapons grade idiocy though. So in that sense I"m getting my money's worth.


Same.

Just wanted to point out that if it wasn't for taxpayers in the city, he wouldn't even have electricity right now let alone internet access.
 
2013-02-03 04:28:30 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Tigger: Mrtraveler01: Tigger: atomicmask: nmrsnr: atomicmask: Maybe you didn't think this analogy all the way threw?

See, whereas I would say "let's wait for the professionals, it's not worth risking your life for stuff." Because I've heard of enough good samaritans with more heart than sense getting themselves killed. That's why we have professionals, to take a calculated risk that they've prepared for.

Know what is scary? You honestly think it takes a professional to aim a water hose at a big glowing ball of fire and turn it on. I guess that is just a general symptom of our society, such much phobia and a complete lack of personal responsibility. If its your house and your family on the line, waiting for a big red truck a mile or two away is not going to cut it. The same thing as if its you and your family at stake you probably wouldn't wanna wait for a cop that has a 15 minute response time to calls.

Shine on you crazy crazy little diamond. Shine on.

Oh one more thing: How do you feel about the taxes that people living in cities pay being used to support your rural lifestyle? Or is that the kind of government you like?

Upsetting that our tax dollars are going to provide internet to this tard huh?

I'm rich enough to avoid bourgeois bleating about how high taxes are. I do enjoy poking this pointless sack of weapons grade idiocy though. So in that sense I"m getting my money's worth.

Same.

Just wanted to point out that if it wasn't for taxpayers in the city, he wouldn't even have electricity right now let alone internet access.


Just want to point out, if it wasn't for rural farmers, you would have no city. You would have starved a long time ago. guess you could learn to eat those tax dollars?
 
2013-02-03 04:32:00 PM  

atomicmask: Mrtraveler01: Tigger: Mrtraveler01: Tigger: atomicmask: nmrsnr: atomicmask: Maybe you didn't think this analogy all the way threw?

See, whereas I would say "let's wait for the professionals, it's not worth risking your life for stuff." Because I've heard of enough good samaritans with more heart than sense getting themselves killed. That's why we have professionals, to take a calculated risk that they've prepared for.

Know what is scary? You honestly think it takes a professional to aim a water hose at a big glowing ball of fire and turn it on. I guess that is just a general symptom of our society, such much phobia and a complete lack of personal responsibility. If its your house and your family on the line, waiting for a big red truck a mile or two away is not going to cut it. The same thing as if its you and your family at stake you probably wouldn't wanna wait for a cop that has a 15 minute response time to calls.

Shine on you crazy crazy little diamond. Shine on.

Oh one more thing: How do you feel about the taxes that people living in cities pay being used to support your rural lifestyle? Or is that the kind of government you like?

Upsetting that our tax dollars are going to provide internet to this tard huh?

I'm rich enough to avoid bourgeois bleating about how high taxes are. I do enjoy poking this pointless sack of weapons grade idiocy though. So in that sense I"m getting my money's worth.

Same.

Just wanted to point out that if it wasn't for taxpayers in the city, he wouldn't even have electricity right now let alone internet access.

Just want to point out, if it wasn't for rural farmers, you would have no city. You would have starved a long time ago. guess you could learn to eat those tax dollars?


I know we're pretty dependent on one another dumbass.

I just get tired of the country folk biatching about the city that provides tjhem with all the services they need, etc.
 
2013-02-03 04:32:41 PM  
Furthermore, unless electricity has changed from last time I studied it, it does not run off smug and obnoxious, so cities giving me electricity is not the case. its the power plant about 45 minutes north that gives me the ability to use a computer. And its a coal plant so I doubt its eco friendly enough to run on big egos and self importance. So no, cities provide little to me that I couldn't get on my own out here in the middle of "no where" in a "fly over state"
 
2013-02-03 04:35:24 PM  

atomicmask: Furthermore, unless electricity has changed from last time I studied it, it does not run off smug and obnoxious, so cities giving me electricity is not the case. its the power plant about 45 minutes north that gives me the ability to use a computer. And its a coal plant so I doubt its eco friendly enough to run on big egos and self importance. So no, cities provide little to me that I couldn't get on my own out here in the middle of "no where" in a "fly over state"


Except for the point that utility companies have no incentive to provide those services to small and rural areas because it was too costly to do it initially and it was only with some funding from the federal government that made it possible for a lot of rural areas to get electricity let alone internet.

So no...you're not special because you live in the country and you're just as smug and obnoxious as the city dwellers you're criticizing.

/throwing stones in glass houses, etc.
 
2013-02-03 04:35:37 PM  

Tigger: atomicmask: Daemonik: There are lots of people in the US who live in bumblefark little towns where everyone knows everyone else and sees no problems with everyone owning 300 firearms for "hunting" and keeping an eye on that black family that just moved in.  In NRA terms, their heartland.  These people will NEVER agree with even the most basic restraints on firearms, because they live in fear 24/7.  Fear of the government taking away their trailers, fear of brown people, fear of change, fear fear fear.

That is the sad truth.  They will rather that children go to school wearing ballistic armor than give up that fear.

Know what is funny about this? You are the most ignorant backwoods retard I  have ever met, and I live in one of these areas you stereotype and hate openly.

We don't live in fear because we know each other, we tend to like each other, and if we dont, we tend to avoid one another. Ever wonder why every shooting happens in one of your GLORIOUS and enlightened bastions of education and liberal utopias known as big cities? Because you are generally just as slackjawed, stupid, and hateful as you stereotype the rural individuals to be, except you have the distinct illusion that your shiat don't stink because you pack like rats into run down apartments and swear its the good life. Ever wonder why racial hate crimes take place in medium to large cities and less, far far less, in rural areas? Because we get to know the "black folk" we live with and tend to get along well with them. Perhaps if you spent less time stereotyping people and more time getting to know them, you wouldn't come across as so god damn wrong and so stupid.

You need help.




collider.com
 
2013-02-03 04:36:55 PM  

Mrtraveler01: atomicmask: Furthermore, unless electricity has changed from last time I studied it, it does not run off smug and obnoxious, so cities giving me electricity is not the case. its the power plant about 45 minutes north that gives me the ability to use a computer. And its a coal plant so I doubt its eco friendly enough to run on big egos and self importance. So no, cities provide little to me that I couldn't get on my own out here in the middle of "no where" in a "fly over state"

Except for the point that utility companies have no incentive to provide those services to small and rural areas because it was too costly to do it initially and it was only with some funding from the federal government that made it possible for a lot of rural areas to get electricity let alone internet.

So no...you're not special because you live in the country and you're just as smug and obnoxious as the city dwellers you're criticizing.

/throwing stones in glass houses, etc.


The entire start of this was one smug jackass talking trash about rural individuals and our desire to own weapons...
 
2013-02-03 04:38:49 PM  

atomicmask: Mrtraveler01: atomicmask: Furthermore, unless electricity has changed from last time I studied it, it does not run off smug and obnoxious, so cities giving me electricity is not the case. its the power plant about 45 minutes north that gives me the ability to use a computer. And its a coal plant so I doubt its eco friendly enough to run on big egos and self importance. So no, cities provide little to me that I couldn't get on my own out here in the middle of "no where" in a "fly over state"

Except for the point that utility companies have no incentive to provide those services to small and rural areas because it was too costly to do it initially and it was only with some funding from the federal government that made it possible for a lot of rural areas to get electricity let alone internet.

So no...you're not special because you live in the country and you're just as smug and obnoxious as the city dwellers you're criticizing.

/throwing stones in glass houses, etc.

The entire start of this was one smug jackass talking trash about rural individuals and our desire to own weapons...


But it quickly morphed into an opportunity for you to say hilarious shiat and the rest of us to laugh at you.
 
2013-02-03 04:43:58 PM  
For once, Chris Wallace showed some spine.

Keep it up.
 
2013-02-03 04:44:51 PM  

Tigger: atomicmask: Mrtraveler01: atomicmask: Furthermore, unless electricity has changed from last time I studied it, it does not run off smug and obnoxious, so cities giving me electricity is not the case. its the power plant about 45 minutes north that gives me the ability to use a computer. And its a coal plant so I doubt its eco friendly enough to run on big egos and self importance. So no, cities provide little to me that I couldn't get on my own out here in the middle of "no where" in a "fly over state"

Except for the point that utility companies have no incentive to provide those services to small and rural areas because it was too costly to do it initially and it was only with some funding from the federal government that made it possible for a lot of rural areas to get electricity let alone internet.

So no...you're not special because you live in the country and you're just as smug and obnoxious as the city dwellers you're criticizing.

/throwing stones in glass houses, etc.

The entire start of this was one smug jackass talking trash about rural individuals and our desire to own weapons...

But it quickly morphed into an opportunity for you to say hilarious shiat and the rest of us to laugh at you.


I like your profile, the best part is the "Liberty for security" part. You clearly do not believe that, as you are so cowardly you would give up any liberty for a little security.
 
2013-02-03 04:46:45 PM  
If guns don't kill people.. why have one then? Why complain about having it removed? I'm sorry, did you mumble something about needing a gun... to kill?
 
2013-02-03 04:51:23 PM  

Princess Ryans Knickers: If guns don't kill people.. why have one then? Why complain about having it removed? I'm sorry, did you mumble something about needing a gun... to kill?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justifiable_homicide

The person holding the weapon is still responsible for the act.  Not the weapon itself.
 
2013-02-03 04:51:52 PM  

atomicmask: Tigger: atomicmask: Mrtraveler01: atomicmask: Furthermore, unless electricity has changed from last time I studied it, it does not run off smug and obnoxious, so cities giving me electricity is not the case. its the power plant about 45 minutes north that gives me the ability to use a computer. And its a coal plant so I doubt its eco friendly enough to run on big egos and self importance. So no, cities provide little to me that I couldn't get on my own out here in the middle of "no where" in a "fly over state"

Except for the point that utility companies have no incentive to provide those services to small and rural areas because it was too costly to do it initially and it was only with some funding from the federal government that made it possible for a lot of rural areas to get electricity let alone internet.

So no...you're not special because you live in the country and you're just as smug and obnoxious as the city dwellers you're criticizing.

/throwing stones in glass houses, etc.

The entire start of this was one smug jackass talking trash about rural individuals and our desire to own weapons...

But it quickly morphed into an opportunity for you to say hilarious shiat and the rest of us to laugh at you.

I like your profile, the best part is the "Liberty for security" part. You clearly do not believe that, as you are so cowardly you would give up any liberty for a little security.


What liberties am I suggesting I give up?

(TIP: I haven't  - I'm just laughing at you)
 
2013-02-03 04:52:25 PM  

atomicmask: nmrsnr: atomicmask: Maybe you didn't think this analogy all the way threw?

See, whereas I would say "let's wait for the professionals, it's not worth risking your life for stuff." Because I've heard of enough good samaritans with more heart than sense getting themselves killed. That's why we have professionals, to take a calculated risk that they've prepared for.

Know what is scary? You honestly think it takes a professional to aim a water hose at a big glowing ball of fire and turn it on. I guess that is just a general symptom of our society, such much phobia and a complete lack of personal responsibility. If its your house and your family on the line, waiting for a big red truck a mile or two away is not going to cut it. The same thing as if its you and your family at stake you probably wouldn't wanna wait for a cop that has a 15 minute response time to calls.


Also, rural people often have to depend on themselves....volunteer fire dept, etc....it breeds a very independent spirit that those raised in metros not only don't understand, but fear.

The folks coming to put your fire out ARE going to be your neighbors, volunteering their time and sincerely caring about you.
 
2013-02-03 04:55:10 PM  

Witness99: atomicmask: nmrsnr: atomicmask: Maybe you didn't think this analogy all the way threw?

See, whereas I would say "let's wait for the professionals, it's not worth risking your life for stuff." Because I've heard of enough good samaritans with more heart than sense getting themselves killed. That's why we have professionals, to take a calculated risk that they've prepared for.

Know what is scary? You honestly think it takes a professional to aim a water hose at a big glowing ball of fire and turn it on. I guess that is just a general symptom of our society, such much phobia and a complete lack of personal responsibility. If its your house and your family on the line, waiting for a big red truck a mile or two away is not going to cut it. The same thing as if its you and your family at stake you probably wouldn't wanna wait for a cop that has a 15 minute response time to calls.

Also, rural people often have to depend on themselves....volunteer fire dept, etc....it breeds a very independent spirit that those raised in metros not only don't understand, but fear.

The folks coming to put your fire out ARE going to be your neighbors, volunteering their time and sincerely caring about you.


Very true.
 
2013-02-03 04:55:43 PM  

Witness99: atomicmask: nmrsnr: atomicmask: Maybe you didn't think this analogy all the way threw?

See, whereas I would say "let's wait for the professionals, it's not worth risking your life for stuff." Because I've heard of enough good samaritans with more heart than sense getting themselves killed. That's why we have professionals, to take a calculated risk that they've prepared for.

Know what is scary? You honestly think it takes a professional to aim a water hose at a big glowing ball of fire and turn it on. I guess that is just a general symptom of our society, such much phobia and a complete lack of personal responsibility. If its your house and your family on the line, waiting for a big red truck a mile or two away is not going to cut it. The same thing as if its you and your family at stake you probably wouldn't wanna wait for a cop that has a 15 minute response time to calls.

Also, rural people often have to depend on themselves....volunteer fire dept, etc....it breeds a very independent spirit that those raised in metros not only don't understand, but fear.

The folks coming to put your fire out ARE going to be your neighbors, volunteering their time and sincerely caring about you.

*barf*


While the firefighters taking care of fires in the cities are nothing but greedy union thugs right?

This is also the same independent spirit that relies on government subsidies for things like electricity and roads.
 
2013-02-03 04:58:43 PM  
No bad guys can defeat me with my 57 weapons!
Also, criminals don't obey the law!
/durp
 
2013-02-03 04:59:00 PM  
Damn, this thread was so close to reaching a compromise between gun control and individual 2nd Amendment rights...at least we all can put the House Fires vs. No House Fires debate to rest: Houses should not be allowed to be on fire. Agree?
 
2013-02-03 04:59:56 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Witness99: atomicmask: nmrsnr: atomicmask: Maybe you didn't think this analogy all the way threw?

See, whereas I would say "let's wait for the professionals, it's not worth risking your life for stuff." Because I've heard of enough good samaritans with more heart than sense getting themselves killed. That's why we have professionals, to take a calculated risk that they've prepared for.

Know what is scary? You honestly think it takes a professional to aim a water hose at a big glowing ball of fire and turn it on. I guess that is just a general symptom of our society, such much phobia and a complete lack of personal responsibility. If its your house and your family on the line, waiting for a big red truck a mile or two away is not going to cut it. The same thing as if its you and your family at stake you probably wouldn't wanna wait for a cop that has a 15 minute response time to calls.

Also, rural people often have to depend on themselves....volunteer fire dept, etc....it breeds a very independent spirit that those raised in metros not only don't understand, but fear.

The folks coming to put your fire out ARE going to be your neighbors, volunteering their time and sincerely caring about you.

*barf*

While the firefighters taking care of fires in the cities are nothing but greedy union thugs right?

This is also the same independent spirit that relies on government subsidies for things like electricity and roads.


Yeah these gravel roads need a lot of care an attention. Also the power plant that supplies all my rural area where there is not a city for 200 miles requires city money to stay open too...
 
2013-02-03 05:00:43 PM  

Anti-BoyBand: Damn, this thread was so close to reaching a compromise between gun control and individual 2nd Amendment rights...at least we all can put the House Fires vs. No House Fires debate to rest: Houses should not be allowed to be on fire. Agree?


It is my right to have my house be on fire and I'll be damned if you take that away from me!

But first, let's hear some more condescending derp about how people in the country are more superior to people in the city.
 
2013-02-03 05:01:10 PM  
so, let's not talk about lapierre flailing about yet again, let's not talk about feral hogs this time, let's talk about at what point jimbob and his volunteer crew from across the street should stop-on-by the unguarded whitehouse kitchen with hatchet and pail of water. smell of burning? sure. wisp of smoke? yup. something that sounds like an alarm? definitely. meal times? just to be on the safe side.
 
2013-02-03 05:01:50 PM  

Begoggle: No bad guys can defeat me with my 57 weapons!
Also, criminals don't obey the law!
/durp


the police instantly teleport to where something bad is happening!
No one murders or rapes you or your family if you are liberal enough!
/hurp
 
2013-02-03 05:02:11 PM  

Felgraf: atomicmask: Know what is scary? You honestly think it takes a professional to aim a water hose at a big glowing ball of fire and turn it on.

Yes. It does. Because that's not all firefighting is.

I mean, seriously, that's like saying a Cop's job is just "pointing the bang bang stick at the bad guy! Anyone can do that!"

Firefighting, especially large buildings, house fires where people may be trapped, etc, is STUPID complicated, and I'm not even a firefighter. You need to know how to gauge if a structure is still safe to enter. You need to know where to best start fighting the fire, if there's a risk of the fire spreading, how the fire might be moving through the home...

Fire is not simple, is not a toy, and is not something to be taken lightly. Otherwise, firefighters wouldn't, you know, *die*, ever.


Well the better professionally trained, the better, of course.

What this debate is revealing is that there is a very different sense of responsibility, self accountability and independence in the country.

When you live in a rural setting, you have no choice but how to learn how to "aim the hose at the big ball of fire." You have no choice to learn how to protect yourself and use firearms for many other reasons. It's not a shocking thing, it's not scary and it's not unfamiliar.

This is the social clash of different cultures, I guess. And I don't see why people have to call eachother idiots or stupid....some of the posts in this thread are so hateful and reactionary that I hope THEY don't have access to guns.
 
2013-02-03 05:04:49 PM  

atomicmask: Mrtraveler01: Witness99: atomicmask: nmrsnr: atomicmask: Maybe you didn't think this analogy all the way threw?

See, whereas I would say "let's wait for the professionals, it's not worth risking your life for stuff." Because I've heard of enough good samaritans with more heart than sense getting themselves killed. That's why we have professionals, to take a calculated risk that they've prepared for.

Know what is scary? You honestly think it takes a professional to aim a water hose at a big glowing ball of fire and turn it on. I guess that is just a general symptom of our society, such much phobia and a complete lack of personal responsibility. If its your house and your family on the line, waiting for a big red truck a mile or two away is not going to cut it. The same thing as if its you and your family at stake you probably wouldn't wanna wait for a cop that has a 15 minute response time to calls.

Also, rural people often have to depend on themselves....volunteer fire dept, etc....it breeds a very independent spirit that those raised in metros not only don't understand, but fear.

The folks coming to put your fire out ARE going to be your neighbors, volunteering their time and sincerely caring about you.

*barf*

While the firefighters taking care of fires in the cities are nothing but greedy union thugs right?

This is also the same independent spirit that relies on government subsidies for things like electricity and roads.

Yeah these gravel roads need a lot of care an attention. Also the power plant that supplies all my rural area where there is not a city for 200 miles requires city money to stay open too...


You're being sarcastic but it's really true.
 
2013-02-03 05:05:09 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Anti-BoyBand: Damn, this thread was so close to reaching a compromise between gun control and individual 2nd Amendment rights...at least we all can put the House Fires vs. No House Fires debate to rest: Houses should not be allowed to be on fire. Agree?

It is my right to have my house be on fire and I'll be damned if you take that away from me!

But first, let's hear some more condescending derp about how people in the country are more superior to people in the city.


I don't think a single person has argued that we rural individuals are superior to city people, but if that is what you have gotten from what has been said then I am glad to hear it. The point we have made is that despite all of what you think, we do not actually need cities to get by. The tax money is helpful, but we could feed ourselves and house ourselves just fine without you. On the other hand, your cities would be ghost towns without food, industry and development or not.
 
2013-02-03 05:06:58 PM  

Witness99: Felgraf: atomicmask: Know what is scary? You honestly think it takes a professional to aim a water hose at a big glowing ball of fire and turn it on.

Yes. It does. Because that's not all firefighting is.

I mean, seriously, that's like saying a Cop's job is just "pointing the bang bang stick at the bad guy! Anyone can do that!"

Firefighting, especially large buildings, house fires where people may be trapped, etc, is STUPID complicated, and I'm not even a firefighter. You need to know how to gauge if a structure is still safe to enter. You need to know where to best start fighting the fire, if there's a risk of the fire spreading, how the fire might be moving through the home...

Fire is not simple, is not a toy, and is not something to be taken lightly. Otherwise, firefighters wouldn't, you know, *die*, ever.

Well the better professionally trained, the better, of course.

What this debate is revealing is that there is a very different sense of responsibility, self accountability and independence in the country.

When you live in a rural setting, you have no choice but how to learn how to "aim the hose at the big ball of fire." You have no choice to learn how to protect yourself and use firearms for many other reasons. It's not a shocking thing, it's not scary and it's not unfamiliar.

This is the social clash of different cultures, I guess. And I don't see why people have to call eachother idiots or stupid....some of the posts in this thread are so hateful and reactionary that I hope THEY don't have access to guns.


I just get tired of the smugness that it sounds in making it seem like country folks are better than city folks.

We depend on each other so why the fark can't we put aside our difference and just get along.

Living in MO, you know all too well about how the MO Legislature consists of people in the rural areas trying to screw over St. Louis and Kansas City every chance that they get
 
2013-02-03 05:08:12 PM  

atomicmask: The point we have made is that despite all of what you think, we do not actually need cities to get by. The tax money is helpful, but we could feed ourselves and house ourselves just fine without you.


You just wouldn't have any roads or utilities connecting to your house out in the middle of nowhere.

The cities need the country and vice versa. Let's stop pretending that isn't the case.
 
2013-02-03 05:09:53 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.



It's not just guns that the President has to worry about. Everywhere he goes, they have to send a clean team in after him to remove all traces of his DNA because the threat of a tailor made "assassin" flu is very real. There's been some suggestions that his predecessor was targeted this way at least once during his term.
 
2013-02-03 05:12:16 PM  

Mrtraveler01: atomicmask: The point we have made is that despite all of what you think, we do not actually need cities to get by. The tax money is helpful, but we could feed ourselves and house ourselves just fine without you.

You just wouldn't have any roads or utilities connecting to your house out in the middle of nowhere.

The cities need the country and vice versa. Let's stop pretending that isn't the case.


Roads and utilities? I got a well and a all wheel drive vehicle, a 4 wheeler and a arctic cat. I can do well for myself without power and that is really the only utility I am currently unable to create for myself. You keep assuming that we are as plugged into the grid as you think. I LIKE having my comforts, I NEED none of it. A little money saved up and I will have solar pannels on my roof and then I won't even have to worry about a power bill. Roads are just paved paths, when you got something that can handle the paths that arn't paved, roads stop being an issue.
 
2013-02-03 05:13:00 PM  

nmrsnr: 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.


You're right! The lives of the rich are more deserving of protection than the lives of the poor! Someone who makes a million dollars a year has more right to be safe than a mom with three children in her own home.
 
2013-02-03 05:15:29 PM  
that's two birds killed with one stone - although i'm sure some stonenut will take issue with my apparent choice of projectile - now, if everyone, from the president <strike>down</strike> across had their own nuclear feral fire pig for defense everyone's happy
 
2013-02-03 05:18:17 PM  

Securitywyrm: nmrsnr: 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.

You're right! The lives of the rich are more deserving of protection than the lives of the poor! Someone who makes a million dollars a year has more right to be safe than a mom with three children in her own home.




That's what I have been saying for a long time.

Peasants shouldn't really even be allowed to think. It just causes problems.

I can't wait until we have to be licensed in order to vote. It will be pure bliss.
 
2013-02-03 05:22:20 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Witness99: atomicmask: nmrsnr: atomicmask: Maybe you didn't think this analogy all the way threw?

See, whereas I would say "let's wait for the professionals, it's not worth risking your life for stuff." Because I've heard of enough good samaritans with more heart than sense getting themselves killed. That's why we have professionals, to take a calculated risk that they've prepared for.

Know what is scary? You honestly think it takes a professional to aim a water hose at a big glowing ball of fire and turn it on. I guess that is just a general symptom of our society, such much phobia and a complete lack of personal responsibility. If its your house and your family on the line, waiting for a big red truck a mile or two away is not going to cut it. The same thing as if its you and your family at stake you probably wouldn't wanna wait for a cop that has a 15 minute response time to calls.

Also, rural people often have to depend on themselves....volunteer fire dept, etc....it breeds a very independent spirit that those raised in metros not only don't understand, but fear.

The folks coming to put your fire out ARE going to be your neighbors, volunteering their time and sincerely caring about you.

*barf*

While the firefighters taking care of fires in the cities are nothing but greedy union thugs right?

This is also the same independent spirit that relies on government subsidies for things like electricity and roads.


LOL, I'm sorry I caused you to barf, but I don't believe I said anything about "greedy union thugs." I absolutely appreciate the firefighters that now serve me in the metro, and I know it's not simple task. I work with firefighter hazmat groups.

I was backing up Atomicmask with my experience of rural living. His points seem to be about independence and I understand that. I think that's what gets lost in the discussion...these very different lifestyles and their approaches.
 
2013-02-03 05:22:47 PM  

Securitywyrm: You're right! The lives of the rich are more deserving of protection than the lives of the poor! Someone who makes a million dollars a year has more right to be safe than a mom with three children in her own home.


Wow, that's in no way close to what I said. Do you believe that Obama and his family are higher risk targets for kidnap and harm than a random mom with three children? If so, do you believe that we, as a society, should expend resources to ensure that his family are protected, commensurate with their increased visibility and risk?

Or do you think that every street corner should have a traffic light, since they are safer than stop signs, even on back roads that see one car an hour? Am I a hypocrite for saying that while my street corner deserves a traffic light, since I live in a high traffic city, yours should only have stop signs, since you live in farm country?
 
2013-02-03 05:23:15 PM  

nmrsnr: Do you know why it is so prohibitively difficult to get your hands on weapons grade Uranium? BECAUSE IT IS HIGHLY CONTROLLED AND VERY, VERY ILLEGAL TO OWN. The exact thing you say should be removed, i.e. government's "hypocritical" standard that they can have fissile material and you can't, is exactly is what is causing the prohibitive barrier to entry that you are relying on to keep you safe. But forget nukes, what about land mines? They can't cost more than a few hundred dollars a pop, what about the crazy guy who decides to bury them in a public park? What about if Lanza's mom had really liked RPGs? They can't be more than a couple of grand, right? Especially not once the market opens up and demand drops the price down.


I don't remember the exact numbers, but I've been told that C4 costs about $20 per pound, and det chord is something like $0.15 per foot.  This was from talking to an Army Engineer (explosives guy).
 
2013-02-03 05:26:04 PM  

SpdrJay: I heard Fox was changing the name to "Ministry of Truth," so people wouldn't confuse them with a news agency.


Babylon 5 was not meant to be a "How-to Manual".
 
2013-02-03 05:30:25 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Anti-BoyBand: Damn, this thread was so close to reaching a compromise between gun control and individual 2nd Amendment rights...at least we all can put the House Fires vs. No House Fires debate to rest: Houses should not be allowed to be on fire. Agree?

It is my right to have my house be on fire and I'll be damned if you take that away from me!

But first, let's hear some more condescending derp about how people in the country are more superior to people in the city.


Aw crap, now I'm confused again.  So we're good with allowing houses to be on fire, but only if professionals start it? But it's an individual's right to put it out by buckets with a 10 gallon capacity?
 
2013-02-03 05:35:17 PM  

atomicmask: Mrtraveler01: atomicmask: The point we have made is that despite all of what you think, we do not actually need cities to get by. The tax money is helpful, but we could feed ourselves and house ourselves just fine without you.

You just wouldn't have any roads or utilities connecting to your house out in the middle of nowhere.

The cities need the country and vice versa. Let's stop pretending that isn't the case.

Roads and utilities? I got a well and a all wheel drive vehicle, a 4 wheeler and a arctic cat. I can do well for myself without power and that is really the only utility I am currently unable to create for myself. You keep assuming that we are as plugged into the grid as you think. I LIKE having my comforts, I NEED none of it. A little money saved up and I will have solar pannels on my roof and then I won't even have to worry about a power bill. Roads are just paved paths, when you got something that can handle the paths that arn't paved, roads stop being an issue.


You get refined gas out of that well?
 
2013-02-03 05:37:39 PM  
+1 Chris Wallace.  I've got some newfound respect for one teeny tiny corner of Fox News.
 
2013-02-03 05:38:51 PM  

atomicmask: Daemonik: There are lots of people in the US who live in bumblefark little towns where everyone knows everyone else and sees no problems with everyone owning 300 firearms for "hunting" and keeping an eye on that black family that just moved in.  In NRA terms, their heartland.  These people will NEVER agree with even the most basic restraints on firearms, because they live in fear 24/7.  Fear of the government taking away their trailers, fear of brown people, fear of change, fear fear fear.

That is the sad truth.  They will rather that children go to school wearing ballistic armor than give up that fear.

Know what is funny about this? You are the most ignorant backwoods retard I  have ever met, and I live in one of these areas you stereotype and hate openly.

We don't live in fear because we know each other, we tend to like each other, and if we dont, we tend to avoid one another. Ever wonder why every shooting happens in one of your GLORIOUS and enlightened bastions of education and liberal utopias known as big cities?


Newtown wasn't a big city.
 
2013-02-03 05:44:50 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Witness99: Felgraf: atomicmask: Know what is scary? You honestly think it takes a professional to aim a water hose at a big glowing ball of fire and turn it on.

Yes. It does. Because that's not all firefighting is.

I mean, seriously, that's like saying a Cop's job is just "pointing the bang bang stick at the bad guy! Anyone can do that!"

Firefighting, especially large buildings, house fires where people may be trapped, etc, is STUPID complicated, and I'm not even a firefighter. You need to know how to gauge if a structure is still safe to enter. You need to know where to best start fighting the fire, if there's a risk of the fire spreading, how the fire might be moving through the home...

Fire is not simple, is not a toy, and is not something to be taken lightly. Otherwise, firefighters wouldn't, you know, *die*, ever.

Well the better professionally trained, the better, of course.

What this debate is revealing is that there is a very different sense of responsibility, self accountability and independence in the country.

When you live in a rural setting, you have no choice but how to learn how to "aim the hose at the big ball of fire." You have no choice to learn how to protect yourself and use firearms for many other reasons. It's not a shocking thing, it's not scary and it's not unfamiliar.

This is the social clash of different cultures, I guess. And I don't see why people have to call eachother idiots or stupid....some of the posts in this thread are so hateful and reactionary that I hope THEY don't have access to guns.

I just get tired of the smugness that it sounds in making it seem like country folks are better than city folks.

We depend on each other so why the fark can't we put aside our difference and just get along.

Living in MO, you know all too well about how the MO Legislature consists of people in the rural areas trying to screw over St. Louis and Kansas City every chance that they get


I agree, and the entire world (which is quickly shrinking, faster than i think people realize), needs to learn to get along.

I'm not up on the regs you cite. I just wanted to contribute as a person with a varied past. I was raised in Orange County, SoCal. I lived about 10 years in rural MO. I got a degree in physics and now work as an engineer in Kansas City for a multinational corporation. I don't think it adds anything when people post derogatory pics (not you, I think it was someone else) of how they envision the "fly over states". My parents, who run the farm are both professionals....a PHD psychiatrist and a biochemist.
 
2013-02-03 05:46:00 PM  

nmrsnr: Securitywyrm: You're right! The lives of the rich are more deserving of protection than the lives of the poor! Someone who makes a million dollars a year has more right to be safe than a mom with three children in her own home.

Wow, that's in no way close to what I said. Do you believe that Obama and his family are higher risk targets for kidnap and harm than a random mom with three children? If so, do you believe that we, as a society, should expend resources to ensure that his family are protected, commensurate with their increased visibility and risk?

Or do you think that every street corner should have a traffic light, since they are safer than stop signs, even on back roads that see one car an hour? Am I a hypocrite for saying that while my street corner deserves a traffic light, since I live in a high traffic city, yours should only have stop signs, since you live in farm country?


I'll point out just one word you used: "Higher." Yes, they are at HIGHER risk. That means that the mom with three children in her own home is at SOME risk. So what is the arbitrary limit between "You don't deserve to be able to protect yourself" and "You deserve to have protection"?
 
2013-02-03 05:53:36 PM  
Someone sounds pretty angry for supposedly being "right".
 
2013-02-03 05:55:49 PM  

Mike_1962: atomicmask: Mrtraveler01: atomicmask: The point we have made is that despite all of what you think, we do not actually need cities to get by. The tax money is helpful, but we could feed ourselves and house ourselves just fine without you.

You just wouldn't have any roads or utilities connecting to your house out in the middle of nowhere.

The cities need the country and vice versa. Let's stop pretending that isn't the case.

Roads and utilities? I got a well and a all wheel drive vehicle, a 4 wheeler and a arctic cat. I can do well for myself without power and that is really the only utility I am currently unable to create for myself. You keep assuming that we are as plugged into the grid as you think. I LIKE having my comforts, I NEED none of it. A little money saved up and I will have solar pannels on my roof and then I won't even have to worry about a power bill. Roads are just paved paths, when you got something that can handle the paths that arn't paved, roads stop being an issue.

You get refined gas out of that well?


It's called a horse. Eats grass, hay, and other grains, completely green, low-emissions unless they get into the alfalfa.

(Or, you know, you could always buy a diesel or government surplus truck that runs on just about everything. Alcohol made from plant matter? Great. Kerosene? Great. Biodiesel? Great.)

Frankly, if my goal was to go complete off-grid with the expectation of never needing the government, investing in and adding all kinds of hi-tech whizbang things like cars, trucks, generators, etc. is kinda dumb. Long-term, such things require maintenance and parts that take industrial manufacture to produce, made from raw materials that take further industrial infrastructure to produce.  I don't just walk down to a rubber tree and carve me a gasket for when the mainseal on my waterpump blows up.

Of course, having the ability to utilize even rudimentary technology along with the higher-end stuff is good (steam-powered pumps for wells that are fairly easy to maintain and less complex than a generator-driven electrical pump, etc.), but ultimately, the only way to get completely clear of any outside dependence is to step back to technology that is easily produced and maintained by the end user without complex skills required.
 
2013-02-03 06:05:13 PM  
The problem with La Pierre and the people speaking at the head of the NRA is that they usually use the brute force method of discussing their positions, with a lot of colorful language and stark points designed to take the hard line.  In some ways, this is stupid, because it means that it's very polarizing, and it tends to stop any discussion on the subject.

On the flip side of that, I think anyone who has been around knows that the best thing to do when fighting to prevent an unnecessary restriction of rights (Akin to, say, passing a law that prohibited making films that would incite anger from groups of people, as was proposed after that anti-Islam video stirred shiat up overseas) is to not give an inch, holding to the hard line so that when you stop those who want to arbitrarily restrict your rights back down and go with something that would've been more reasonable, you have more room to maneuver.

As I've been saying from the beginning: I think that It would better suit us as a society to make universal background checks, mental health care, and drastically increased funding for enforcement of existing laws the message and the status quoe. But, since that won't happen when there are people that want to use these incidents as a platform to push an agenda on the back of appeals to emotion and attempts to misdirect the anger, outrage, and sympathy into furthering that agenda who won't settle for anything short of THEIR solution, all we get is this bitter fight.

NEVER make laws when your emotions are up, you end up doing stupid shiat that doesn't have a positive effect on crime. ALWAYS make laws after reasonable and reasoned discussion.

Then again, who ever said politicians were reasonable.
 
2013-02-03 06:28:57 PM  

atomicmask: Mrtraveler01: Tigger: Mrtraveler01: Tigger: atomicmask: nmrsnr: atomicmask: Maybe you didn't think this analogy all the way threw?

See, whereas I would say "let's wait for the professionals, it's not worth risking your life for stuff." Because I've heard of enough good samaritans with more heart than sense getting themselves killed. That's why we have professionals, to take a calculated risk that they've prepared for.

Know what is scary? You honestly think it takes a professional to aim a water hose at a big glowing ball of fire and turn it on. I guess that is just a general symptom of our society, such much phobia and a complete lack of personal responsibility. If its your house and your family on the line, waiting for a big red truck a mile or two away is not going to cut it. The same thing as if its you and your family at stake you probably wouldn't wanna wait for a cop that has a 15 minute response time to calls.

Shine on you crazy crazy little diamond. Shine on.

Oh one more thing: How do you feel about the taxes that people living in cities pay being used to support your rural lifestyle? Or is that the kind of government you like?

Upsetting that our tax dollars are going to provide internet to this tard huh?

I'm rich enough to avoid bourgeois bleating about how high taxes are. I do enjoy poking this pointless sack of weapons grade idiocy though. So in that sense I"m getting my money's worth.

Same.

Just wanted to point out that if it wasn't for taxpayers in the city, he wouldn't even have electricity right now let alone internet access.

Just want to point out, if it wasn't for rural farmers, you would have no city. You would have starved a long time ago. guess you could learn to eat those tax dollars?


You mean the rural farmers that couldn't exist without government subsidies protecting them from cheaper imports and corporate economies of scale?

It's just a coincidence all the red states take more than they send to the federal government while the blue send more than they take.
 
2013-02-03 06:51:51 PM  

vpb: 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.


My god are you a tool.
 
2013-02-03 07:07:50 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.


You're dead on target. of the some 10,000 deaths from 2006-2010, over 7,000 were handgun related. And because people will say I'm full of shiat, here's a Citation.

vpb: The same way it's hypocritical to say that elites like President Obama should have launch authority for nuclear weapons but the homeless dude who talks to himself shouldn't.


That's a bloody straw man and you know it. The public has NEVER had access to nuclear weaponry, nor tanks, RPGs, biochemical agents or numerous other tactical and militaristic hardware. They currently do have access to high capacity magazines, which according to the new definition seems to be anything greater than 5 rounds. Your comparison is entirely invalid.
 
2013-02-03 07:21:23 PM  
You know this war will wage forever.

One one side are the people who think that there is no reason for anyone to ever own a rifle that can fire with each pull of the trigger or hold more than 10 rounds (why is 10 a magic number? What can you do with 11 that you can't with only 10?). These people mostly don't know the difference between a clip and magazine and see an M-1A with a wood stock and a M-1A with a synthetic folding stock and pistol grip as two vastly different weapons. These people believe that all we need are the police to take care of us.

On the other side are the people who see no problem with a 'normal' civilian owning an AR-15 chambered in 7.62x39 with a 100 round mag with a bump-fire stock installed, because 'They are right farkin' fun to shoot at beer cans in the woods'. These people wouldn't mind being allowed to buy machine guns for 'shootin' at old cars n' shiat'. Some of these people think the government is gonna come for them, and they have a very good chance at fighting the Army off from their underground command bunker. Others just enjoy shooting or hunting for the sport, and think having a gun gives them a better chance of defending their life some day.

Neither group will ever change the other group's mind.
A gun nut is not gonna make an anti gun nut suddenly think guns are cool by explaining that the military doesn't actually use AR-15s and just because the military holds a gun a certian way doesn't make holding a gun that way a 'military feature'

And a anti gun nut is not gonna make a gun nut give up his guns by explaining that insane people can get ahold of guns (legally or not) as long as guns are accessible by the general population, or that when people with guns act irresponsibly, people end up hurt or dead.

So why do we constantly fight over this?
 
2013-02-03 07:25:59 PM  
I know everyone is watching football, but here is a point I find interesting...

In the days the second amendment was penned, the government didn't have more than the musket gun, like the citizens.

If we were to draw a parallel to the intent of that amendment and update it to today's standards...would that mean that a citizen doesn't just need a musket gun, but a nuclear bomb, an armed airforce, drones, etc? In other words, it doesn't matter if you have AR-15s or not...you would not be able to withstand a government attack, and that was a main goal of the amendment.

Now technology and world politics have drastically evolved. I still want to protect myself from a car jacker, rapist or home invasion thief/murderer. But I don't really entertain the notion of holding off the government forces...train has left the station, etc....I don't have the same resources they do and can't afford them.
 
2013-02-03 09:01:37 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 is a fun slice of delusion.  Got any unicorns?
 
2013-02-03 09:03:34 PM  
Witness99: If we were to draw a parallel to the intent of that amendment and update it to today's standards...would that mean that a citizen doesn't just need a musket gun, but a nuclear bomb, an armed airforce, drones, etc?

No.

Well, that was easy.
 
2013-02-03 09:14:38 PM  

Russad: Witness99: If we were to draw a parallel to the intent of that amendment and update it to today's standards...would that mean that a citizen doesn't just need a musket gun, but a nuclear bomb, an armed airforce, drones, etc?

No.

Well, that was easy.


Ok. But why is that, can you explain a little further? My understanding is that it was written with the intent that the people will have a somewhat equal standing to deflect tyranny.

Now, I dont suspect tyranny and I'm simply making an argument. I'm a gun owner, a responsible, trained gun user. I've noticed that the pro gun group cites the 2nd amendment. And maybe I'm missing something, but if the whole point is to bear arms to protect the for the people by the people influence over our lives, well, it seems a little lacking in the light that modern government has a vast array of "tools" that go far beyond what a private citizen could hope to own.
 
2013-02-03 09:22:01 PM  

Witness99: My understanding is that it was written with the intent that the people will have a somewhat equal standing to deflect tyranny.


Why the 'Citizen Militia' Theory Is the Worst Pro-Gun Argument Ever
 
2013-02-03 11:46:12 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Witness99: My understanding is that it was written with the intent that the people will have a somewhat equal standing to deflect tyranny.

Why the 'Citizen Militia' Theory Is the Worst Pro-Gun Argument Ever


In every other case in which the consitution refers to "the people" it means individual rights, why then do people think it refers to a specific group of people when it comes to gun ownership?
 
2013-02-04 12:44:02 AM  
Can someone tell me when talking over someone became skewering?
 
2013-02-04 01:09:44 AM  

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.


He's head of state and commander in chief, I think he gets to have armed guards. He also doesn't have the option of refusing his Secret Service detail. The law says he has to have it, so you can take that up with Congress if you think it's not fair.

Regarding your "disarmament" frothing at the mouth bit, maybe you should listen a little less to the NRA and a little more to what's actually on the table. Restricting (or banning) sales of a firearm is not in any way the same as confiscating firearms. If you already own hi-cap magazines, the government isn't going to take them away from you. The same goes for whatever weaponry is banned. Rounding up the millions of AR-15s alone would be nearly impossible, so you just won't be able to buy new ones. Full-scale repeal of the Second Amendment is never going to happen, due to the glorified gun culture here in America and the sheer logistics of trying to enforce it, so just take a deep breath and relax.

/Universal background checks are long overdue
//Not to mention serious penalties for straw purchasers
 
2013-02-04 08:52:30 AM  

HanBammer: 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.

He's head of state and commander in chief, I think he gets to have armed guards. He also doesn't have the option of refusing his Secret Service detail. The law says he has to have it, so you can take that up with Congress if you think it's not fair.

Regarding your "disarmament" frothing at the mouth bit, maybe you should listen a little less to the NRA and a little more to what's actually on the table. Restricting (or banning) sales of a firearm is not in any way the same as confiscating firearms. If you already own hi-cap magazines, the government isn't going to take them away from you. The same goes for whatever weaponry is banned. Rounding up the millions of AR-15s alone would be nearly impossible, so you just won't be able to buy new ones. Full-scale repeal of the Second Amendment is never going to happen, due to the glorified gun culture here in America and the sheer logistics of trying to enforce it, so just take a deep breath and relax.

/Universal background checks are long overdue
//Not to mention serious penalties for straw purchasers


And what do you think banning Hi-cap magazines would do exactly?
 
2013-02-04 09:07:59 AM  
This wasn't "skewering".  Maybe by Fox standards it was, but if it were me doing the interview, I would have called into question not only the morals, but the intelligence of this wingnut.  I would have pointed out every single hypocrisy this guy stands for, and demanded an unequivocal response before allowing him to continue on any other topic.
 
2013-02-04 09:17:48 AM  

atomicmask: I moved like 4 years ago, I just have not updated my profile.


Did you move to Canada to be closer to your girlfriend?
 
2013-02-04 09:42:44 AM  

nmrsnr: 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.

Good enough for you? http://www.glock.com/english/glock17.htm

 
2013-02-04 12:54:46 PM  

Witness99: Russad: Witness99: If we were to draw a parallel to the intent of that amendment and update it to today's standards...would that mean that a citizen doesn't just need a musket gun, but a nuclear bomb, an armed airforce, drones, etc?

No.

Well, that was easy.

Ok. But why is that, can you explain a little further? My understanding is that it was written with the intent that the people will have a somewhat equal standing to deflect tyranny.


Because it's a ridiculous line of argument to begin with? When the Bill of Rights was ratified, the United States already had a Navy for 16 years. Do you honestly believe it was ever the intention of the 2nd Amendment to guarantee the right of citizens to have a private navy? Why should they be guaranteed an airforce? It is, at its face, a stupid question.

But yeah, sure, let's talk nuclear weapons. If you honestly believe that the founding fathers, had they been able to even imagine a weapon of such magnitude as our nukes, would have believed that citizens should be entitled to them, you are insane. That aside, a nuclear weapon is not useful in defense, either by citizens or governments. They are useful as deterrents (in a mutually assured destruction scenario). If you went to war against the US Government, what exactly do you think a nuclear weapon would do for you? You'd kill some people, you'd turn a piece of the country you were trying to protect into an uninhabitable waste, and you'd die in a radioactive explosion about half a second later as the retaliatory strike hit you.
 
2013-02-04 02:46:30 PM  

Russad: Because it's a ridiculous line of argument to begin with? When the Bill of Rights was ratified, the United States already had a Navy for 16 years. Do you honestly believe it was ever the intention of the 2nd Amendment to guarantee the right of citizens to have a private navy? Why should they be guaranteed an airforce? It is, at its face, a stupid question.


I think it's weird that so many Americans see their government as the enemy, in every capacity, at all times. I thought we were on the same team?
 
2013-02-04 06:39:47 PM  

atomicmask: HanBammer: 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.

He's head of state and commander in chief, I think he gets to have armed guards. He also doesn't have the option of refusing his Secret Service detail. The law says he has to have it, so you can take that up with Congress if you think it's not fair.

Regarding your "disarmament" frothing at the mouth bit, maybe you should listen a little less to the NRA and a little more to what's actually on the table. Restricting (or banning) sales of a firearm is not in any way the same as confiscating firearms. If you already own hi-cap magazines, the government isn't going to take them away from you. The same goes for whatever weaponry is banned. Rounding up the millions of AR-15s alone would be nearly impossible, so you just won't be able to buy new ones. Full-scale repeal of the Second Amendment is never going to happen, due to the glorified gun culture here in America and the sheer logistics of trying to enforce it, so just take a deep breath and relax.

/Universal background checks are long overdue
//Not to mention serious penalties for straw purchasers

And what do you think banning Hi-cap magazines would do exactly?


I don't really care, to be honest. I would imagine the reasoning behind it (and the proposed ban on assault weapons, plus the mental health overhaul) is to stop civilian massacres from occurring with the disturbing regularity we've had to grow accustomed to here. The increased background checks and penalties for straw purchasers are to help clamp down on criminals obtaining guns, and there's not much there to try and stop domestic gun violence. That's partly due to how many households already have guns, so it's much harder to deal with.

Do you have a need that can only be fulfilled by being able to fire shiatloads of bullets uninterrupted?

/In before multiple armed home invaders hopped up on PCP, or something equally improbable
 
Displayed 194 of 194 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report