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.

(Huffington Post)   Jim Carrey talking out of his ass again   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 160
    More: Interesting, Jim Carrey, assault rifles, Bob Costas, liberal elite  
•       •       •

11358 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 07 Feb 2013 at 1:38 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-07 03:43:13 PM

DirkValentine: dittybopper: AdolfOliverPanties: Military style weapons have no farking business being in the hands of private citizens.

So you're pissed that people want to own guns that *LOOK*, but don't *FUNCTION*, the same as military guns?

It's all about style, right?  The Firearms Fashion Police, or FFP.

Yes, that's right.  It's a point that deserves looking at.  Nearly all of the mass killings perpetrators are found to have photos of themselves in military type outfits/poses that you might see in movies or video games.  So the image has a LOT to do with these types of killings.   They envision themselves as a "badass" or "avenger".

And you should talk - you post pictures of your guns and other weapons every farking chance you get.


That would be because they're retarded.
You seem to have a problem with the simple fact that someone enjoys guns and isn't some crazed nutjob looking to shoot up a bunch of people. So here's a tip. Stop worrying about "OMG that gun is scary because it looks like some kind of military weapon!" and worry about "Jesus, this guy is farking nuts, but hey, no reason I can't sell him some guns and make some money off his ass."

I've seen Dittybopper in some of the same threads I'm sure you've seen him in. Last I checked he was all for better and more comprehensive background checks and a few other measures that would help (but obviously not prevent 100%) keep guns in general, not just the big scary assault rifles, out of the hands of the type of whackjobs that decide to go on a killing spree.
 
2013-02-07 03:45:31 PM

oldfarthenry: vernonFL: Jim Carrey is from Canada.

Maybe if Canada had a 2nd amendment, they wouldn't have lost the war of 1812.


Explain to me, Cletus how this is winning?
[i1151.photobucket.com image 583x240]


symonsez.files.wordpress.com

Guess we lost this war too, huh?
 
2013-02-07 03:47:25 PM
3.bp.blogspot.com

Yeah, that's what I thought. Big guns...no dick.
 
2013-02-07 03:47:47 PM
And they include a tweet from the draft-dodging sex offending pedophile Ted Nugent to provide "balance."
 
2013-02-07 03:49:43 PM

rickycal78: DirkValentine: dittybopper: AdolfOliverPanties: Military style weapons have no farking business being in the hands of private citizens.

So you're pissed that people want to own guns that *LOOK*, but don't *FUNCTION*, the same as military guns?

It's all about style, right?  The Firearms Fashion Police, or FFP.

Yes, that's right.  It's a point that deserves looking at.  Nearly all of the mass killings perpetrators are found to have photos of themselves in military type outfits/poses that you might see in movies or video games.  So the image has a LOT to do with these types of killings.   They envision themselves as a "badass" or "avenger".

And you should talk - you post pictures of your guns and other weapons every farking chance you get.

That would be because they're retarded.
You seem to have a problem with the simple fact that someone enjoys guns and isn't some crazed nutjob looking to shoot up a bunch of people. So here's a tip. Stop worrying about "OMG that gun is scary because it looks like some kind of military weapon!" and worry about "Jesus, this guy is farking nuts, but hey, no reason I can't sell him some guns and make some money off his ass."

I've seen Dittybopper in some of the same threads I'm sure you've seen him in. Last I checked he was all for better and more comprehensive background checks and a few other measures that would help (but obviously not prevent 100%) keep guns in general, not just the big scary assault rifles, out of the hands of the type of whackjobs that decide to go on a killing spree.


I'm not worried b/c the gun is scary looking and i'm certainly claiming that this is the main contributor.  I'm saying that military style weapons have no place in civilian hands and, in addition, I'm positing that the look of the guns available are a draw to nut-jobs.

I'm in favor of getting handguns off the streets more than anything.  Hunting rifles and shotguns?  Cool.   shooting ranges where you can store your fully automatic killing machines?  Awesome!
 
2013-02-07 03:50:49 PM

indarwinsshadow: [3.bp.blogspot.com image 600x465]

Yeah, that's what I thought. Big guns...no dick.


DRINK!
 
2013-02-07 03:55:10 PM

DirkValentine: I'm not worried b/c the gun is scary looking and i'm certainly claiming that this is the main contributor.  I'm saying that military style weapons have no place in civilian hands and, in addition, I'm positing that the look of the guns available are a draw to nut-jobs.


What specific characteristics establish a firearm as being "military style"?


I'm in favor of getting handguns off the streets more than anything.

How, exactly, could such a goal be accomplished?


Hunting rifles and shotguns?  Cool.   shooting ranges where you can store your fully automatic killing machines?  Awesome!

Why should the few civilians who have undertaken the considerable expense and time required to legally obtain a fully automatic firearm be required to store that firearm at a shooting range?
 
2013-02-07 03:58:35 PM

MichiganFTL: PsyLord: Buying an AR-15 for home defense is just a silly idea.  In fact, I was looking into one of these... for home defense:

[www.gunpundit.com image 282x104]

Jams on cheap ammo and is a pain to clean, but shoot like a .22 and actually is a reasonable choice with the 5.5" barrel compared to an AR-15 or any other rifle.


I haven't had a chance to fire one yet but have been curious about them.  Is the recoil really that low even though it's firing 45 caliber rounds?  Also I have seen the MSRP for around $1900 but people are selling them for almost double that.  Is that because of the tax on a Title II firearm?
 
2013-02-07 04:02:33 PM
dittybopper:

That's why it's economically rational to purchase guns in the face of a possible ban.

You're getting slow, it took you nine posts to respond in this gun thread.
 
2013-02-07 04:09:12 PM

Vegan Meat Popsicle: Maybe you could try getting better fencing?


yeah, I could put up better fencing that will magically extend higher when the snow drifts up to the top.
maybe I could put out some heated fencing.
And some food for the cayotes, To distract them.
Maybe give them some massages so they aren't so tense.
 
2013-02-07 04:15:01 PM

Uncle Pooky: It seems like a disproportionate number of 2nd amendment supporters have a problem with people exercising their 1st amendment rights.



Really?  Did somebody suggested that he pay a legal penalty for what he said?  Or are all of us just exercising our first amendment rights by saying that his comment was stupid?
 
2013-02-07 04:19:34 PM
No matter how you feel about guns personally, I just cannot fathom how so many people are willingly lapping up this marketing scheme that is "BAD BLAH MAN GONNA TAKE ALL YER GUNS! BUY 'EM NOW".

My God - if someone would just get Limbaugh to say "Barack Obama is trying to keep every American Citizen from participating in the Medicare ( an organization with a lower overhead than any private company ) by subsidizing the insurance industry with your money!!", we'd have Universal Healthcare in 6 weeks.

Go ahead, keep biting down hard on that hook.

images.lazygamer.net
 
2013-02-07 04:24:44 PM
Dimensio: DirkValentine: I'm not worried b/c the gun is scary looking and i'm certainly claiming that this is the main contributor.  I'm saying that military style weapons have no place in civilian hands and, in addition, I'm positing that the look of the guns available are a draw to nut-jobs.

What specific characteristics establish a firearm as being "military style"?


I think it's pretty common knowledge wtf I'm talking about.

I'm in favor of getting handguns off the streets more than anything.

How, exactly, could such a goal be accomplished?


While i'm not exactly sure I would say a buy back of some sort (tax break maybe?), make it illegal to own, confiscate them and destroy them after a crime.

Hunting rifles and shotguns?  Cool.   shooting ranges where you can store your fully automatic killing machines?  Awesome!

Why should the few civilians who have undertaken the considerable expense and time required to legally obtain a fully automatic firearm be required to store that firearm at a shooting range?


B/c they are dangerous and serve no purpose other than to kill things quickly and easily.  If you really want to shoot someone then of course you could do it with a shotgun or rifle, but you are less likely to be carrying that shiat around all the time.  If you just like to shoot them and it's your hobby, then why can't you have a pladce to enjoy them at with other hobbyists?  I'm not begrudging blowing shiat up, that's fun sometimes.  but You don't see dragsters on the freeway, do you?  No, they are at the farking drag strip.
 
2013-02-07 04:33:04 PM

DirkValentine: Dimensio: DirkValentine: I'm not worried b/c the gun is scary looking and i'm certainly claiming that this is the main contributor.  I'm saying that military style weapons have no place in civilian hands and, in addition, I'm positing that the look of the guns available are a draw to nut-jobs.

What specific characteristics establish a firearm as being "military style"?

I think it's pretty common knowledge wtf I'm talking about.


I do not. Military firearms are diverse.


I'm in favor of getting handguns off the streets more than anything.

How, exactly, could such a goal be accomplished?

While i'm not exactly sure I would say a buy back of some sort (tax break maybe?), make it illegal to own, confiscate them and destroy them after a crime.


Prohibiting civilian handgun ownership is demonstrably Unconstitutional.


Hunting rifles and shotguns?  Cool.   shooting ranges where you can store your fully automatic killing machines?  Awesome!

Why should the few civilians who have undertaken the considerable expense and time required to legally obtain a fully automatic firearm be required to store that firearm at a shooting range?

B/c they are dangerous and serve no purpose other than to kill things quickly and easily.  If you really want to shoot someone then of course you could do it with a shotgun or rifle, but you are less likely to be carrying that shiat around all the time.  If you just like to shoot them and it's your hobby, then why can't you have a pladce to enjoy them at with other hobbyists?  I'm not begrudging blowing shiat up, that's fun sometimes.  but You don't see dragsters on the freeway, do you?  No, they are at the farking drag strip.


I am certain, then, that you will be able to cite data showing substantial criminal misuse of legally owned fully automatic firearms that demonstrates further restrictions other than those already enacted in law to be warranted. Please do so.
 
2013-02-07 04:34:10 PM

DirkValentine: Dimensio: DirkValentine: I'm not worried b/c the gun is scary looking and i'm certainly claiming that this is the main contributor.  I'm saying that military style weapons have no place in civilian hands and, in addition, I'm positing that the look of the guns available are a draw to nut-jobs.

What specific characteristics establish a firearm as being "military style"?

I think it's pretty common knowledge wtf I'm talking about.
So is it because you don't know wtf you're talking about, or because you don't know what the actual features are?


I'm in favor of getting handguns off the streets more than anything.

How, exactly, could such a goal be accomplished?

While i'm not exactly sure I would say a buy back of some sort (tax break maybe?), make it illegal to own, confiscate them and destroy them after a crime.

Hunting rifles and shotguns?  Cool.   shooting ranges where you can store your fully automatic killing machines?  Awesome!

Why should the few civilians who have undertaken the considerable expense and time required to legally obtain a fully automatic firearm be required to store that firearm at a shooting range?

B/c they are dangerous and serve no purpose other than to kill things quickly and easily.  If you really want to shoot someone then of course you could do it with a shotgun or rifle, but you are less likely to be carrying that shiat around all the time.  If you just like to shoot them and it's your hobby, then why can't you have a pladce to enjoy them at with other hobbyists?  I'm not begrudging blowing shiat up, that's fun sometimes.  but You don't see dragsters on the freeway, do you?  No, they are at the farking drag strip.


Do you even know what any of the fully automatic rifles out there look like? Most are larger and heavier than any shotgun or rifle, and are very easily recognizable, and no, neither the AR-15, nor it's military equivalent the M-16/M-4 are fully auto capable. Not to mention the fact that the full auto weapons are typically belt fed, meaning large very heavy drums of ammo. You aren't exactly likely to be carrying a fully automatic weapon and it's ammo around. In fact you're far far less likely to be carrying one around than a rifle or shotgun.
 
2013-02-07 04:37:14 PM

dittybopper: Actually, it's rational economic behavior, if you expect some sort of a ban.  Here is why:

First, if you assume that any sort of a ban will have a "grandfather clause", exempting weapons that were owned at the time the ban was enacted, that will only make those guns with those certain cosmetic features more valuable after the ban:  The cost of "pre-ban" assault weapons rose steadily after the start of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, and dropped after the ban sunset.


In order to profit from the increased price after the ban went into effect, you would have to sell the gun after the ban when into effect.  Your economic argument needs to include the caveat "..and you are willing to risk criminal conviction."  If the "ban" allows the buying and selling of these guns...then it isn't much of a ban.  If the ban allows only "used" sales and not "new" ones, then you are competing with everyone else who ran out and bought one in anticipation of the ban.  If a lot of these purchases were with the intention of taking monetary advantage of the ban, there will be a glut, and the price may actually go down.  Something similar happens when clever people buy up a "special edition" of a comic book or action figure hoping to profit from its "scarcity" later on.  As Calvin said, "we're counting on everyone else's mother throwing them away."

Second, if you assume that the ban will also include some sort of mandatory turn-in, the government would be required to compensate you for your guns.  If you produce a receipt saying you purchased that gun for $1,200 a few months ago, the government would be constitutionally required to cut you a check for that amount.

During the intervening time, you do not have access to that $1,200 to use for other purposes.  The gun must be stored, preferably in a proper gun safe if you are going to be responsible about it.  And when you do get your money back months or years later, the value of the money will have dropped slightly due to inflation (which is admitidly rather low right now).  How do you profit in this scenario?  If you intended to have some fun with the AR-15 in the mean time, and were counting on the the government paying you the receipt price without allowing for wear, I suppose you might turn a slight profit for some definitions of "profit".
 
2013-02-07 04:38:30 PM

Dimensio: DirkValentine: Dimensio: DirkValentine: I'm not worried b/c the gun is scary looking and i'm certainly claiming that this is the main contributor.  I'm saying that military style weapons have no place in civilian hands and, in addition, I'm positing that the look of the guns available are a draw to nut-jobs.

What specific characteristics establish a firearm as being "military style"?

I think it's pretty common knowledge wtf I'm talking about.

I do not. Military firearms are diverse.


I'm in favor of getting handguns off the streets more than anything.

How, exactly, could such a goal be accomplished?

While i'm not exactly sure I would say a buy back of some sort (tax break maybe?), make it illegal to own, confiscate them and destroy them after a crime.

Prohibiting civilian handgun ownership is demonstrably Unconstitutional.


Hunting rifles and shotguns?  Cool.   shooting ranges where you can store your fully automatic killing machines?  Awesome!

Why should the few civilians who have undertaken the considerable expense and time required to legally obtain a fully automatic firearm be required to store that firearm at a shooting range?

B/c they are dangerous and serve no purpose other than to kill things quickly and easily.  If you really want to shoot someone then of course you could do it with a shotgun or rifle, but you are less likely to be carrying that shiat around all the time.  If you just like to shoot them and it's your hobby, then why can't you have a pladce to enjoy them at with other hobbyists?  I'm not begrudging blowing shiat up, that's fun sometimes.  but You don't see dragsters on the freeway, do you?  No, they are at the farking drag strip.

I am certain, then, that you will be able to cite data showing substantial criminal misuse of legally owned fully automatic firearms that demonstrates further restrictions other than those already enacted in law to be warranted. Please do so.


Oh, mass murders don't count?
 
2013-02-07 04:39:38 PM

DirkValentine: Oh, mass murders don't count?


What "mass murders" have been committed with use of fully automatic firearms since 1934?
 
2013-02-07 04:43:44 PM

rickycal78: DirkValentine: Dimensio: DirkValentine: I'm not worried b/c the gun is scary looking and i'm certainly claiming that this is the main contributor.  I'm saying that military style weapons have no place in civilian hands and, in addition, I'm positing that the look of the guns available are a draw to nut-jobs.

What specific characteristics establish a firearm as being "military style"?

I think it's pretty common knowledge wtf I'm talking about.
So is it because you don't know wtf you're talking about, or because you don't know what the actual features are?

I'm in favor of getting handguns off the streets more than anything.

How, exactly, could such a goal be accomplished?

While i'm not exactly sure I would say a buy back of some sort (tax break maybe?), make it illegal to own, confiscate them and destroy them after a crime.

Hunting rifles and shotguns?  Cool.   shooting ranges where you can store your fully automatic killing machines?  Awesome!

Why should the few civilians who have undertaken the considerable expense and time required to legally obtain a fully automatic firearm be required to store that firearm at a shooting range?

B/c they are dangerous and serve no purpose other than to kill things quickly and easily.  If you really want to shoot someone then of course you could do it with a shotgun or rifle, but you are less likely to be carrying that shiat around all the time.  If you just like to shoot them and it's your hobby, then why can't you have a pladce to enjoy them at with other hobbyists?  I'm not begrudging blowing shiat up, that's fun sometimes.  but You don't see dragsters on the freeway, do you?  No, they are at the farking drag strip.

Do you even know what any of the fully automatic rifles out there look like? Most are larger and heavier than any shotgun or rifle, and are very easily recognizable, and no, neither the AR-15, nor it's military equivalent the M-16/M-4 are fully auto capable. Not to mention the fact that the full auto weapons ...


I'm not a gun hobbyist.  I do have friends that hunt and my best friend is a Marine.   So, I've had exposure to what the military carries vs what a hunter carries.  Off the top of my head the fully metal body (usually all black or cammo), large capacity magazine and a pistol grip.

In response to the bolded part : that's a ridiculous argument to what I said.  They are made for assualt (in addition to accuracy if desired).  They are made to shoot multiple targets quickly.  They have a pistol grip which enables this to be easier.
 
2013-02-07 04:45:48 PM

Dimensio: DirkValentine: Oh, mass murders don't count?

What "mass murders" have been committed with use of fully automatic firearms since 1934?


Semi-automatic. Sorry.  Better?  This is exactly the kind of pedantic nonsense that derails any conversation about what is a problem in this country.  I'm done jumping through hoops for you as I'm obviously never going to satisfy anything you say b/c the goalposts are now a little further away.
 
2013-02-07 04:47:44 PM

DirkValentine: In response to the bolded part : that's a ridiculous argument to what I said.  They are made for assualt (in addition to accuracy if desired).  They are made to shoot multiple targets quickly.   They have a pistol grip which enables this to be easier.


bradtaylorbooks.com


Therefore the above firearms are not "assault weapons".
 
2013-02-07 04:49:49 PM

DirkValentine: Dimensio: DirkValentine: Oh, mass murders don't count?

What "mass murders" have been committed with use of fully automatic firearms since 1934?

Semi-automatic. Sorry.  Better?  This is exactly the kind of pedantic nonsense that derails any conversation about what is a problem in this country.  I'm done jumping through hoops for you as I'm obviously never going to satisfy anything you say b/c the goalposts are now a little further away.


You explicitly referenced "fully automatic killing machines". Requesting data relating to criminal misuse of fully automatic devices as a means to justify your advocacy of further restrictions upon such devices is not pedantry, nor is specifically addressing the subject that you introduced a movement of any goalpost.

Additionally, your proposed prohibition upon civilian handgun ownership remains Unconstitutional and you have still not provided a specific means of identifying "military style" firearms. Unconstitutional proposals cannot be legally implemented and regulatory legislation by necessity requires objective determination criteria.
 
2013-02-07 04:50:06 PM

Dimensio: DirkValentine: Oh, mass murders don't count?

What "mass murders" have been committed with use of fully automatic firearms since 1934?


I'm not sure what side of the gun argument you are on. I don't care.

Drive by shootings are famous for having heavily modded guns. Mac-10's and Tec-9's are quite popular.

But the instance I would cite definitively is the North Hollywood Shootout
 
2013-02-07 04:52:43 PM

Because People in power are Stupid: Dimensio: DirkValentine: Oh, mass murders don't count?

What "mass murders" have been committed with use of fully automatic firearms since 1934?

I'm not sure what side of the gun argument you are on. I don't care.

Drive by shootings are famous for having heavily modded guns. Mac-10's and Tec-9's are quite popular.

But the instance I would cite definitively is the North Hollywood Shootout


Were the fully automatic firearms used in that shooting legally obtained by only one of the perpetrators, or did both perpetrators legally purchase NFA-registered fully automatic firearms? Additionally, are you aware of a list of the names of individuals murdered by those two criminals during their attack?
 
2013-02-07 04:59:55 PM

Dimensio: Because People in power are Stupid: Dimensio: DirkValentine: Oh, mass murders don't count?

What "mass murders" have been committed with use of fully automatic firearms since 1934?

I'm not sure what side of the gun argument you are on. I don't care.

Drive by shootings are famous for having heavily modded guns. Mac-10's and Tec-9's are quite popular.

But the instance I would cite definitively is the North Hollywood Shootout

Were the fully automatic firearms used in that shooting legally obtained by only one of the perpetrators, or did both perpetrators legally purchase NFA-registered fully automatic firearms? Additionally, are you aware of a list of the names of individuals murdered by those two criminals during their attack?


Why does it matter and what does that have to do with getting rid of assault weapons?  God, you a pedantic piece of work.  Move those goalposts.
 
2013-02-07 05:02:07 PM

DirkValentine: Dimensio: Because People in power are Stupid: Dimensio: DirkValentine: Oh, mass murders don't count?

What "mass murders" have been committed with use of fully automatic firearms since 1934?

I'm not sure what side of the gun argument you are on. I don't care.

Drive by shootings are famous for having heavily modded guns. Mac-10's and Tec-9's are quite popular.

But the instance I would cite definitively is the North Hollywood Shootout

Were the fully automatic firearms used in that shooting legally obtained by only one of the perpetrators, or did both perpetrators legally purchase NFA-registered fully automatic firearms? Additionally, are you aware of a list of the names of individuals murdered by those two criminals during their attack?

Why does it matter and what does that have to do with getting rid of assault weapons?  God, you a pedantic piece of work.  Move those goalposts.


You cited "mass murders" as a reason for imposing further restrictions upon "fully automatic" devices. Because People in power are Stupid cited the North Hollywood Shootout as an example of a "mass murder" committed with a "fully automatic" firearm. My questions are therefore directly relevant to the post to which I responded and are not an attempt to "move" any "goalposts".
 
2013-02-07 05:05:20 PM

The_Sponge: Uncle Pooky: It seems like a disproportionate number of 2nd amendment supporters have a problem with people exercising their 1st amendment rights.

Really?  Did somebody suggested that he pay a legal penalty for what he said?  Or are all of us just exercising our first amendment rights by saying that his comment was stupid?


The irony of your post is hilarious.
 
2013-02-07 05:08:30 PM

Dimensio: DirkValentine: Dimensio: DirkValentine: Oh, mass murders don't count?

What "mass murders" have been committed with use of fully automatic firearms since 1934?

Semi-automatic. Sorry.  Better?  This is exactly the kind of pedantic nonsense that derails any conversation about what is a problem in this country.  I'm done jumping through hoops for you as I'm obviously never going to satisfy anything you say b/c the goalposts are now a little further away.

You explicitly referenced "fully automatic killing machines". Requesting data relating to criminal misuse of fully automatic devices as a means to justify your advocacy of further restrictions upon such devices is not pedantry, nor is specifically addressing the subject that you introduced a movement of any goalpost.

Additionally, your proposed prohibition upon civilian handgun ownership remains Unconstitutional and you have still not provided a specific means of identifying "military style" firearms. Unconstitutional proposals cannot be legally implemented and regulatory legislation by necessity requires objective determination criteria.


And I corrected myself and apologized.

The constitution isn't perfect as is evidenced by it's many amendments
 
2013-02-07 05:09:57 PM

Dimensio: . My questions are therefore directly relevant to the post to which I responded and are not an attempt to "move" any "goalposts".


Bullshiat.  What do their names have to do with anything?
 
2013-02-07 05:11:58 PM

CheapEngineer: No matter how you feel about guns personally, I just cannot fathom how so many people are willingly lapping up this marketing scheme that is "BAD BLAH MAN GONNA TAKE ALL YER GUNS! BUY 'EM NOW".


Truer words have never been spoken.
 
2013-02-07 05:12:53 PM
Anyone who agrees with what he said has no concept of what the 2nd is. It is to protect us from GOVERNMENT. THE END.
 
2013-02-07 05:18:24 PM

Dimensio: DirkValentine: In response to the bolded part : that's a ridiculous argument to what I said.  They are made for assualt (in addition to accuracy if desired).   They are made to shoot multiple targets quickly. They have a pistol grip which enables this to be easier.

[bradtaylorbooks.com image 640x611]


Therefore the above firearms are not "assault weapons".


As are shotguns.  If your "friends that hunt" ever went after quail or duck, they could tell you that.  So shotguns are also an "assault weapon".  Ok.  Got it.
 
2013-02-07 05:23:51 PM

Cup_O_Jo: Anyone who agrees with what he said has no concept of what the 2nd is. It is to protect us from GOVERNMENT. THE END.


Why do I hear banjos playing dixie when I read your post?
 
2013-02-07 05:39:37 PM

DirkValentine: Dimensio: . My questions are therefore directly relevant to the post to which I responded and are not an attempt to "move" any "goalposts".

Bullshiat.  What do their names have to do with anything?


I am only attempting to quantify the number killed in the "mass murder" event that was the North Hollywood Shootout. I will be satisfied also with an absolute total that includes no names.
 
2013-02-07 05:42:37 PM

Forbidden Doughnut: From the US perspective, I'd call it more of a stalemate. ( we were lucky that the British Empire had bigger fish to fry in Europe, otherwise, they would send officers like Wellington to stomp us into the ground...)


Since "Stalemate" was the best we could hope for in that war, we call it a victory.Hey, take 'em where you get 'em, right? RIGHT? Meh.
 
2013-02-07 05:46:09 PM

oldfarthenry: Ironically enough - 2/3rd's of the population of Upper Canada was 'merikun-born at the time of the 1812 invasion. It was sibling-rivalry run amok.


They weren't trusted at all. The force was basically the British Army, Montrealers, Torontonians (Yorkers, I guess), Natives, and escaped slaves. Probably the most multicultural fighting force of it's day.
 
2013-02-07 05:53:29 PM

JollyMagistrate: vernonFL: Jim Carrey is from Canada.

Maybe if Canada had a 2nd amendment, they wouldn't have lost the war of 1812.

1) Canada had no gun controls whatsoever until the 1890s.
2) The war of 1812 saw considerably more American defeats during Canadian invasions than the Canadian colonials faced during American invasions (especially with the burning of the White House).
3) Jim Carry is a dual citizen of the US and Canada

I want to think you have a point but this is just kind of sad.


That's the joke, I think.
 
2013-02-07 05:54:31 PM

DirkValentine: I'm in favor of getting handguns off the streets more than anything.



How about no?  Does no work for you?
 
2013-02-07 06:01:28 PM

vudukungfu: Vegan Meat Popsicle: Maybe you could try getting better fencing?

yeah, I could put up better fencing that will magically extend higher when the snow drifts up to the top.
maybe I could put out some heated fencing.
And some food for the cayotes, To distract them.
Maybe give them some massages so they aren't so tense.


I'm just saying, you sure have a lot of excuses. Seems like you're just a shiatty rancher.
 
2013-02-07 06:03:38 PM

Dimensio: You cited "mass murders" as a reason for imposing further restrictions upon "fully automatic" devices. Because People in power are Stupid cited the North Hollywood Shootout as an example of a "mass murder" committed with a "fully automatic" firearm. My questions are therefore directly relevant to the post to which I responded and are not an attempt to "move" any "goalposts".


If there was any moving of the goalposts then it was incidentally done by me. I found the North Hollywood shootout to be the most relevant to the discussion in the context of what an weaker police force faces. Keep in mind that the two suspects were "hopped up on goofballs" while they committed this crime. I conclude that it didn't help their accuracy -even though many of the rounds were fired wildly into the air or at a glass partition in the bank.

The potential for this to have been an incident of mass murder is high. Sorry for moving the goal posts.
 
2013-02-07 06:28:39 PM
Jim Carrey is  awesome!

/
I'm okay with this.jpg
 
2013-02-07 07:06:31 PM

Vegan Meat Popsicle: Seems like you're just a shiatty rancher.


Hey, guys with cows are ranchers.
Guys with cows and water are jolly ranchers.
I have sheep.
 
2013-02-07 07:11:38 PM
www.imfdb.org
 
2013-02-07 07:43:50 PM

vernonFL: Jim Carrey is from Canada.

Maybe if Canada had a 2nd amendment, they wouldn't have lost the war of 1812.


Maybe so, but along with that they would have US style rates of gun related homicide which would increase their 158 per year to 1,054 per year. It just isn't worth it.

The only countries in the world that have worse per capita gun related deaths than the land of the free are third world hell holes.

www.washingtonpost.com
 
2013-02-07 07:47:40 PM

kg2095: vernonFL: Jim Carrey is from Canada.

Maybe if Canada had a 2nd amendment, they wouldn't have lost the war of 1812.

Maybe so, but along with that they would have US style rates of gun related homicide which would increase their 158 per year to 1,054 per year. It just isn't worth it.

The only countries in the world that have worse per capita gun related deaths than the land of the free are third world hell holes.

[www.washingtonpost.com image 850x450]


Honest question: Why is Mexico excluded from the charts figures?
 
2013-02-07 08:19:57 PM

vudukungfu: I have sheep.


Sooo... you're a rancher. A whiny one.

But, to be honest, I don't know a lot about ranching. I just figured since you seem to think you're an expert on law enforcement and gun crime in the suburbs I could be an expert on being a rancher in the sticks.
 
2013-02-07 08:25:35 PM

kg2095: vernonFL: Jim Carrey is from Canada.

Maybe if Canada had a 2nd amendment, they wouldn't have lost the war of 1812.

Maybe so, but along with that they would have US style rates of gun related homicide which would increase their 158 per year to 1,054 per year. It just isn't worth it.

The only countries in the world that have worse per capita gun related deaths than the land of the free are third world hell holes.


Or maybe those countries have different demographics.....shocking, I know.
 
2013-02-07 08:28:05 PM

Vegan Meat Popsicle: you're an expert on law enforcement and gun crime in the suburbs I could be an expert on being a rancher in the sticks.


I've been a cop
I've lived in the burbs.

You ever try sheep?
Or goats?
Or milking?

Or do you just get your milk from a carton or a bag?
 
2013-02-07 08:40:15 PM

vudukungfu: I've been a cop


Uh huh.

I'll bet you've been anything you need to be to pretend you have a point, haven't you sheep herder?
 
2013-02-07 10:16:22 PM
PsyLord: Buying an AR-15 for home defense is just a silly idea.  In fact, I was looking into one of these... for home defense:
www.gunpundit.comis it circumcised?
 
Displayed 50 of 160 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report