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 59
    More: Interesting, justifiable homicide, Fox News  
•       •       •

13207 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Feb 2013 at 2:51 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Archived thread
2013-02-03 03:09:14 PM
7 votes:
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 03:33:14 PM
5 votes:
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 03:08:04 PM
5 votes:

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 02:10:55 PM
5 votes:

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


This alt is getting stale.
2013-02-03 03:22:37 PM
4 votes:

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 03:35:43 PM
3 votes:

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 03:34:45 PM
3 votes:

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 03:19:56 PM
3 votes:

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 03:17:32 PM
3 votes:

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 03:13:52 PM
3 votes:

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 03:03:28 PM
3 votes:

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 02:39:39 PM
3 votes:

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 02:13:08 PM
3 votes:

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.
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-02-03 01:45:22 PM
3 votes:

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 01:00:16 PM
3 votes:
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 06:05:13 PM
2 votes:
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 04:08:07 PM
2 votes:

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 03:40:14 PM
2 votes:
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 03:40:09 PM
2 votes:

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 03:39:04 PM
2 votes:

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 03:31:06 PM
2 votes:
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 03:30:47 PM
2 votes:
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 03:23:55 PM
2 votes:

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 03:22:31 PM
2 votes:

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 03:19:38 PM
2 votes:

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 03:00:21 PM
2 votes:

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 01:48:06 PM
2 votes:

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.
2013-02-04 01:09:44 AM
1 votes:

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
2013-02-03 07:21:23 PM
1 votes:
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 05:46:00 PM
1 votes:

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 05:22:20 PM
1 votes:

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 05:13:00 PM
1 votes:

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 04:52:25 PM
1 votes:

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 04:32:41 PM
1 votes:
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 04:22:11 PM
1 votes:

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 04:21:33 PM
1 votes:
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 04:20:49 PM
1 votes:
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 04:18:09 PM
1 votes:

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 04:13:03 PM
1 votes:

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 03:52:47 PM
1 votes:

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 03:52:19 PM
1 votes:

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 03:50:26 PM
1 votes:

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 03:49:09 PM
1 votes:

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 03:48:02 PM
1 votes:

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 03:39:40 PM
1 votes:
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 03:39:04 PM
1 votes:

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.
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-02-03 03:38:11 PM
1 votes:

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 03:35:57 PM
1 votes:

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 03:30:53 PM
1 votes:

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 03:30:21 PM
1 votes:

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 03:28:21 PM
1 votes:

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 03:27:04 PM
1 votes:

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 03:21:31 PM
1 votes:

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 03:17:24 PM
1 votes:
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 03:15:53 PM
1 votes:

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


FTFY
2013-02-03 03:11:23 PM
1 votes:

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 03:01:10 PM
1 votes:

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 03:00:24 PM
1 votes:
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 02:54:58 PM
1 votes:

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.
 
Displayed 59 of 59 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report