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  
•       •       •

11361 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
 
2013-02-07 11:46:21 AM
Maybe he had too many vaccine shots?
 
2013-02-07 11:47:38 AM
Meh, most gun owners don't give a ratz azz what Jim Carry thinks.
 
2013-02-07 11:48:02 AM
I agree. If Newton made you want to run out and buy a gun, you're a soul-less cock-demon. There are plenty of good reasons to buy a gun, that is not one of them.
 
2013-02-07 11:51:27 AM
I don't see that as such an outrageous statement.  If you purchased an assault rifle in response to a mass shooting of school children you probably are running on Derpahol fumes.

And if you get an assault rifle in response to Jim Cary's 140< character Tweet regarding people purchasing an assault rifle you probably are deathly allergic to Ace Ventura Pet Detective.
 
2013-02-07 11:51:44 AM
img46.imageshack.us

The Border Patrol responds.
 
2013-02-07 11:53:51 AM
One of the options for their little silly online poll is "I agree with him, but don't think it's his place to weigh in"

This strikes me as an odd position for anyone to have. He's an American citizen. He has just as much right to voice his opinions regarding American culture as anyone else, celebrity or not. I understand wanting to hear primarily from experts on a subject - I'd much rather hear from law enforcement officers on this, for instance (a la a recent episode of The Daily Show when Stewart interviewed a police chief on the subject) - but I don't begrudge any other citizen from having his or her opinion and voicing it. I do find certain views to be based in ignorance (some of it willful, some of it innocently genuine), and I don't like to hear those, but that is different from feeling that a fellow American shouldn't weigh on an issue; it just means I weight their views differently than people who have credibility or expertise in the relevant area.
 
2013-02-07 11:55:00 AM
I'm a gun owner, and there's plenty of value here.  *grabs crotch*
 
2013-02-07 11:59:16 AM

Mangoose: I agree. If Newton made you want to run out and buy a gun, you're a soul-less cock-demon. There are plenty of good reasons to buy a gun, that is not one of them.


They probably ran out to buy AR15s not because they were thinking, hey, I wanna be on national TV, too!   But because they rightly predicted the potential backlash:  people wanting to (and may or may not be successful) ban "assault weapons."

I think those that ran out to buy assault rifles aren't necessarily soulless shiatbags, but people who help keep The Reynolds Wrap company in business.

I have people on my FB feed who are so worried "nObama" is gonna personally bust down their doors and take their guns WHILE raping their dog and drinking all their beer.  It's ridiculous.  I ask them, "OK, what do YOU suggest we do to keep guns out of the hands of the irresponsible and/or criminally insane?"
 
2013-02-07 12:06:21 PM

xanadian: They probably ran out to buy AR15s not because they were thinking, hey, I wanna be on national TV, too!   But because they rightly predicted the potential backlash:  people wanting to (and may or may not be successful) ban "assault weapons."


I'm willing to stand by my statement. If your reaction to Newton was "Oh shiat, better get a gun!", you = soul-less cock-demon*. I could say the same is true about anyone who reacts to it as "Oh shiat, better ban all guns", but that's not the issue at hand.

(*the "you" in the you=cock-demon was not a you specifically)
 
2013-02-07 12:22:39 PM

Mangoose: xanadian: They probably ran out to buy AR15s not because they were thinking, hey, I wanna be on national TV, too!   But because they rightly predicted the potential backlash:  people wanting to (and may or may not be successful) ban "assault weapons."

I'm willing to stand by my statement. If your reaction to Newton was "Oh shiat, better get a gun!", you = soul-less cock-demon*.


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.

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.

Really, there is no way for you to lose from an economic standpoint:  You either make a profit in the future, or, at the very worst, you break even.

That's why it's economically rational to purchase guns in the face of a possible ban.
 
2013-02-07 12:37:37 PM
Jim Carrey is from Canada.

Maybe if Canada had a 2nd amendment, they wouldn't have lost the war of 1812.
 
2013-02-07 12:38:33 PM

Mangoose: xanadian: They probably ran out to buy AR15s not because they were thinking, hey, I wanna be on national TV, too!   But because they rightly predicted the potential backlash:  people wanting to (and may or may not be successful) ban "assault weapons."

I'm willing to stand by my statement. If your reaction to Newton was "Oh shiat, better get a gun!", you = soul-less cock-demon*. I could say the same is true about anyone who reacts to it as "Oh shiat, better ban all guns", but that's not the issue at hand.

(*the "you" in the you=cock-demon was not a you specifically)


Except that I *am* a cock-demon, but that's not important right now...

No, I understand where you're coming from. *MY* thing is that I think it's more people inclined to believe in a conspiracy theory that Obama wants everyone's guns (based off of the crap I hear from people I know--you see, I'm in Redneck Country up here).  Or there'll be a ban soon, so better get them now while I can!  It's like those god-awful Cabbage Patch Kids.  What kind of a fury was there when people learned that we were running out of those things to sell?

It boils down to this for me:  greed, or paranoia?  Could be both.  Your suggestion of being "soul-less" seems to fit with the "greed" theory I'm thinking of.  Or, maybe it's because I can't conceptualize why anyone would suddenly WANT a gun just because they heard about it in the news?  The 6 O'Clock News wasn't meant to be an advert. :/  In that case, yeah, there's some other bizarre mental thing going on there.

I like guns.  I think they're cool.  But, I also respect them.  And, I realize there are some people out there that shouldn't have one.  I'm OK with registration.  I'm OK with requiring training and certification before even OWNING one (through a handgun or hunters' safety course).  I'm OK with thorough background checks.  And I'm definitely OK with a better mental health care system.  It's not the gun that's the problem. It's the people.  Banning guns (or certain ones) fixes only a symptom of a sick society.  Better mental health care is more likely to go after the CAUSE.

...

Of course, I think I deviated from the original argument.  I blame that on the lack of coffee.

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


Right!  That.  But I'm sure there are more elements to it. Humanity and human behavior is more than just black and white.
 
2013-02-07 12:39:11 PM

vernonFL: Jim Carrey is from Canada.

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


You trying to summon ofh to the thread??
 
2013-02-07 01:11:33 PM

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

Right!  That.  But I'm sure there are more elements to it. Humanity and human behavior is more than just black and white.


I'm sure there is also a large dose of "I'd better get one while I still can".

Interesting anecdote I've run across:  It's not just so-called "assault weapons" and ammo for such that are flying off the shelves, it's also pretty much any military gun or caliber made in the last 100 years.
 
2013-02-07 01:16:09 PM
I agree with Carrey 1000%.

Of course, I am about as anti-gun as possible, so I would agree with him, wouldn't I?

Military style weapons have no farking business being in the hands of private citizens.  Even military personnel aren't allowed to have them on base.
 
2013-02-07 01:18:33 PM
Its really sad that so many people are buying more guns and ammo, since your risk of you or your family dying is MUCH higher when you have a gun in the home.

http://www.minnpost.com/second-opinion/2012/12/health-risk-having-gu n- home
 
2013-02-07 01:22:08 PM
OK, if it's not Jim Carrey's place to comment because he's "just an entertainer", it's also not Ted Nugent's place to fill the air with herp-a-derp about how Obama's coming from your guns.

/filling the air like the stench from the pants he intentionally shiat to dodge the draft in Vietnam
 
2013-02-07 01:25:49 PM
Jim Carrey 'Assault Rifle' Tweet Everything Angers Right

That's more like it.
 
2013-02-07 01:27:45 PM
Women having sex for pleasure angers right
 
2013-02-07 01:37:48 PM
So according to freepers the reverse of what he said was more correct:

People should go out and buy more guns to prevent mass killings like the one in Sandy Hook?

Sounds like freepers are a) sensitive little girls b) cling to their gunz because it gives them a false sense of security c) are breathtakingly stupid.
 
2013-02-07 01:41:28 PM

Because People in power are Stupid: People should go out and buy more guns to prevent mass killings like the one in Sandy Hook?


Guns don't kill people, violent video games kill people.
 
2013-02-07 01:43:02 PM

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
 
2013-02-07 01:43:41 PM
Washed up rubber faced fartsmith attempts to recapture relevance in the face of declining popularity...film at eleven.
 
2013-02-07 01:44:35 PM
Shut up and make me Truman Show 2.  You know that guy will be knee-deep in money and poon on the outside.
 
2013-02-07 01:45:40 PM

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



That's fine....my AR is semi-auto only, so it doesn't count, right?
 
2013-02-07 01:47:03 PM
Eh, If Jim Carrey put the same critical thinking skills to medicine as he did to guns, he'd've given Jenny McCarthy a wide berth.

If the reverse happened, he'd be saying "don't buy guns because they give you lead poisoning."
 
2013-02-07 01:49:23 PM
I hope to hell this doesn't mean another Ace Ventura flick is in the works.....

*clicks on link*

Whew!
 
2013-02-07 01:49:32 PM
Can't wait to see him as a support role in kick ass 2.  As for the comment its not crazy at all.  Yes, I understand why people would do it but that doesn't make Carrey wrong.
 
2013-02-07 01:50:14 PM

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


That's fine....my AR is semi-auto only, so it doesn't count, right?


Hoplophobes are terrified of anything more dangerous than a dented spoon
 
2013-02-07 01:51:36 PM
coedmagazine.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-02-07 01:51:52 PM
i240.photobucket.com
 
2013-02-07 01:54:24 PM
AdolfOliverPanties:   Even military personnel aren't allowed to have them on base.

Not accurate. I had my gun safe w/ several AR-15s and the assorted accoutrements to go with them in my house at Holloman. Now, the Mil-issued weapons aren't kept at home, of course, but at Holloman, at least, I was absolutely allowed to have my Civ versions of them in housing. Junior enlisted troops in the dorms couldn't, but the O's in houses could.

/Neighbors with both the SF CC and the OSI CC
 
2013-02-07 01:56:00 PM
And yeah, that's a mean thing to say, Lloyd. You did not totally redeem yourself.

It doesn't matter though. It's a liberal thing to say so it is automatically true, or something. Per, moocher rules.
 
2013-02-07 01:57:59 PM
Another brilliant celebrity statement.  How many people did he kill with his stupid statements about vaccines over the years?
 
2013-02-07 01:58:29 PM
Well he could've made it funnier....But I agree with him. A bunch of children get shot and you go out and buy a gun you don't need, you're a dick. Plain and simple.
 
2013-02-07 01:59:08 PM
I warned you, vernon....them canuckians are smug--yet still polite--buggers.
 
2013-02-07 01:59:42 PM
It's possible to disagree with someone, even an actor, without maligning everyone else with the same job/political affiliations/hobbies/genitals. For instance, I disagree with Jim Carrey's desire to see a ban on assault-style weapons, though I agree with the specific sentiment (that anyone spurred to buy an AR-15 by the Newtown massacre is a bit off); yet I don't really think his comments matter. The needle is unmoved by The Mask star's contribution to the discourse.

The reactions to Newtown should be somewhere in the range of sadness to revulsion to horror to fear. Those emotions can spur thoughtful discussion about the state of guns and firearms law in the country, or it can inspire you to collect 'em all; they can encourage people to be sure they're focused on the right things in their lives, or they can encourage people to be ever more mistrustful of their neighbors.

Pity that so many let their fear rule them.
 
2013-02-07 01:59:50 PM

aegean: Another brilliant celebrity statement. How many people did he kill with his stupid statements


"Killing" someone by telling them NOT to buy a gun? That there be irony!
 
2013-02-07 02:02:38 PM

vernonFL: Jim Carrey is from Canada.

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


He is originally from Canada but has dual citizenship.
 
2013-02-07 02:02:45 PM

Mangoose: I agree. If Newton made you want to run out and buy a gun, you're a soul-less cock-demon. There are plenty of good reasons to buy a gun, that is not one of them.


B-b-b-b-but Fartbongo is gonna take mah guns and force me into one of them thar FEMA camps and euthanize granma an force Lindy-Louise to marry a black man all while smoking a reefer!!!
 
2013-02-07 02:03:05 PM

jake_lex: OK, if it's not Jim Carrey's place to comment because he's "just an entertainer", it's also not Ted Nugent's place to fill the air with herp-a-derp about how Obama's coming from your guns.


You are correct; neither celebrity is a credible nor authoritative source regarding firearm regulation or regarding vaccination safety.
 
2013-02-07 02:07:50 PM

AdolfOliverPanties: Military style weapons have no farking business being in the hands of private citizens. Even military personnel aren't allowed to have them on base.




Can you even name a non "military style" gun?
 
2013-02-07 02:11:03 PM
Question:

How many people bought ARs in direct response to Newton vs. how many people bought them because of possible federal ban in response to Newtown?
 
2013-02-07 02:13:17 PM
queensrules.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-02-07 02:13:25 PM
Don't worry, guns.  Someone will be here to rescue you from the bad nasty man that talks out of his ass for laughs.
 
2013-02-07 02:15:09 PM

The_Sponge: Question:

How many people bought ARs in direct response to Newton vs. how many people bought them because of possible federal ban in response to Newtown?


For all intents and purposes they are the same thing.  Every shooting leads to false promises by certain people in office saying that there will possibly maybe definitely be restrictions.
 
2013-02-07 02:17:05 PM

GoodyearPimp: Don't worry, guns.  Someone will be here to rescue you from the bad nasty man that talks out of his ass for laughs.


Seriously though...someone should "accidentally" shoot that guy!
 
2013-02-07 02:18:07 PM

Mangoose: I agree. If Newton made you want to run out and buy a gun, you're a soul-less cock-demon. There are plenty of good reasons to buy a gun, that is not one of them.


basemetal: Meh, most gun owners don't give a ratz azz what Jim Carry thinks.


What if I don't give a Rat's Ass about Newtown, and just wanted to buy the best available varmint rifle with the cheapest accessories because I raise sheep and don't' like coyotes and need something with night vision? What if the whole Newtown thing is an issue of NOT LETTING YOUR MENTALLY DISTURBED CROTCHDROPPINGS ACCESS YOUR STUPIDLY OVERPOWERED WEAPONS, YOU FREAKING PREPPER PSYCHO, SHUT UP YOU FARKING JERSEY TURD.
Really. What if?
I'm not pumping out farking ankle biters with issues and keeping guns out where they can get to them.
I'm breeding nice wool and mutton.
I don't need rabid or hungry predators in my stock.
I don't care about your suburban problems.
You fix your farked up people and leave us people who aren't harming anyone alone.
Nothing should change for us.
Your crisis is YOUR crisis.
You made it or made it up. I don't care.
I don't want my sheep gettin' et up.
That doesn't make me an asshole.
Trying to keep me from letting my sheep get et up makes you and asshole.
 
2013-02-07 02:18:44 PM

Kome: One of the options for their little silly online poll is "I agree with him, but don't think it's his place to weigh in"


Oh, so it's not in Jim Carrey's place to express his own opinion on his own Twitter account?

This is HuffPo. I'm guessing they put that option in there for trolling purposes to see who would actually select it.
 
2013-02-07 02:21:03 PM
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
 
2013-02-07 02:23:35 PM

StoPPeRmobile: AdolfOliverPanties: Military style weapons have no farking business being in the hands of private citizens. Even military personnel aren't allowed to have them on base.



Can you even name a non "military style" gun?


A magnum pi
 
2013-02-07 02:24:12 PM

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


In 1812, we believed in guns so much that we were handing them out. To natives. To fight you.

/We won 1812, btw.
 
2013-02-07 02:25:25 PM
People wouldn't know what guns are if it wasn't for school shootings.
 
2013-02-07 02:27:30 PM

vudukungfu: Mangoose: I agree. If Newton made you want to run out and buy a gun, you're a soul-less cock-demon. There are plenty of good reasons to buy a gun, that is not one of them.

basemetal: Meh, most gun owners don't give a ratz azz what Jim Carry thinks.

What if I don't give a Rat's Ass about Newtown, and just wanted to buy the best available varmint rifle with the cheapest accessories because I raise sheep and don't' like coyotes and need something with night vision? What if the whole Newtown thing is an issue of NOT LETTING YOUR MENTALLY DISTURBED CROTCHDROPPINGS ACCESS YOUR STUPIDLY OVERPOWERED WEAPONS, YOU FREAKING PREPPER PSYCHO, SHUT UP YOU FARKING JERSEY TURD.
Really. What if?
I'm not pumping out farking ankle biters with issues and keeping guns out where they can get to them.
I'm breeding nice wool and mutton.
I don't need rabid or hungry predators in my stock.
I don't care about your suburban problems.
You fix your farked up people and leave us people who aren't harming anyone alone.
Nothing should change for us.
Your crisis is YOUR crisis.
You made it or made it up. I don't care.
I don't want my sheep gettin' et up.
That doesn't make me an asshole.
Trying to keep me from letting my sheep get et up makes you and asshole.


So you would have to apply for a special circumstance permit and have it regisered and approved...big deal.
 
2013-02-07 02:30:26 PM

JohnnyCanuck: So you would have to apply for a special circumstance permit and have it regisered and approved...big deal.


How much money would this permit cost.
The one that reasserts the rights I have now
those "free" rights?
 
2013-02-07 02:30:44 PM
Dead kids and gun profits go together like AR-15s and mental illness.
 
2013-02-07 02:32:28 PM

vudukungfu: JohnnyCanuck: So you would have to apply for a special circumstance permit and have it regisered and approved...big deal.

How much money would this permit cost.
The one that reasserts the rights I have now
those "free" rights?


Well, if you don't care about my suburban problems why should I care about your hillbilly problems?
 
2013-02-07 02:34:12 PM

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

In 1812, we believed in guns so much that we were handing them out. To natives. To fight you.

/We won 1812, btw.


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...)
 
2013-02-07 02:34:13 PM

AdolfOliverPanties: I agree with Carrey 1000%.

Of course, I am about as anti-gun as possible, so I would agree with him, wouldn't I?

Military style weapons have no farking business being in the hands of private citizens.  Even military personnel aren't allowed to have them on base.


This.  One difference.  You can have a shotgun.  That's all the home defense you need.
 
2013-02-07 02:34:14 PM

Vegan Meat Popsicle: Well, if you don't care about my suburban problems why should I care about your hillbilly problems?


Cause you buy my wool at your retail outlets.
 
2013-02-07 02:34:58 PM
Sssssssmokin'!!!

Barrels
 
2013-02-07 02:36:25 PM
Whatever happened to our God given right of Freedom of Tweet?
 
2013-02-07 02:36:28 PM

vudukungfu: JohnnyCanuck: So you would have to apply for a special circumstance permit and have it regisered and approved...big deal.

How much money would this permit cost.
The one that reasserts the rights I have now
those "free" rights?


Tree-fiddy....and it would be reimbursed on your taxes.
 
2013-02-07 02:37:06 PM

GoodyearPimp: Don't worry, guns.  Someone will be here to rescue you from the bad nasty man that talks out of his ass for laughs.




You know, I can't look at a car without thinking of all the lives of people I cared for that lost their lives due to horrific auto "accidents."

It really is better to blame the instrument.

/Ban cars!
//Reasonable voting licensing.
 
2013-02-07 02:37:51 PM

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

In 1812, we believed in guns so much that we were handing them out. To natives. To fight you.

/We won 1812, btw.

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...)


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.
 
2013-02-07 02:39:08 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.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.
 
2013-02-07 02:39:10 PM

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.
 
2013-02-07 02:41:38 PM
Hey look, its another thread for the idiots to get irrational in... no one bring up how well gun control works in DC, Chicago, New York or Australia, we can't have logic get used on the irrational sheeple...
 
2013-02-07 02:42:10 PM
It seems like a disproportionate number of 2nd amendment supporters have a problem with people exercising their 1st amendment rights.
 
2013-02-07 02:42:29 PM

dewright_ca: no one bring up how well gun control works in DC, Chicago,


lolwut?
 
2013-02-07 02:45:28 PM

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.


More deliberate ignorance.

style http://fpdownload.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab# version=6,0,0,0" width="13" height="21" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Arial; font-size: 13px; line-height: normal; margin: 1px;"> (st
n.1.The way in which something is said, done, expressed, or performed:  a style of speech and writing.2.The combination of distinctive features of literary or artistic expression, execution, or performance characterizing a particular person, group, school, or era.3.Sort; type:  a style of furniture.4.A quality of imagination and individuality expressed in one's actions and tastes:  does things with style.5.a.A comfortable and elegant mode of existence:  living in style.b.A mode of living:  the style of the very rich.6.a.The fashion of the moment, especially of dress; vogue.b.A particular fashion:  the style of the 1920s. See Synonyms at7.A customary manner of presenting printed material, including usage, punctuation, spelling, typography, and arrangement.8.A form of address; a title.9.a.An implement used for etching or engraving.b.A slender pointed writing instrument used by the ancients on wax tablets.10.The needle of a phonograph.11.The gnomon of a sundial.12.Botany The usually slender part of a pistil, situated between the ovary and the stigma.13.Zoology A slender, tubular, or bristlelike process:  a cartilaginous style.14.Medicine A surgical probing instrument; a stylet.15.Obsolete A pen.I think in this tense I think he was referring to definition 2. He was saying that people shouldn't have access to the same weapons that soldiers have.I would disagree that "people" shouldn't have access -however I would submit that YOU shouldn't. No Freeper should ever have a gun. Look what happened in Alabama.
 
2013-02-07 02:45:38 PM
Mangoose

I agree. If Newton made you want to run out and buy a gun, you're a soul-less cock-demon. There are plenty of good reasons to buy a gun, that is not one of them.

I don't know of a single person who went out to buy a gun because of Newton.

I do know of some who made purchases in reaction to idiots pushing for bans of inanimate objects.

But hey re-frame the debate so you can score points facts don't matter.
 
2013-02-07 02:46:11 PM

jake_lex: OK, if it's not Jim Carrey's place to comment because he's "just an entertainer", it's also not Ted Nugent's place to fill the air with herp-a-derp about how Obama's coming from your guns.

/filling the air like the stench from the pants he intentionally shiat to dodge the draft in Vietnam


I dont remember Nugent ever entertaining anyone
 
2013-02-07 02:46:13 PM

Kome: One of the options for their little silly online poll is "I agree with him, but don't think it's his place to weigh in"


Aside from the fact Jim Carrey is using HIS OWN SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORM to speak his mind, which is the entire f*cking point of social media, it's amusing in a general sense how some people really don't like celebrities doing anything other than whatever made them celebrities in the first place.

They're not your little monkey you can command to dance at your will and also to shut up. If you "paid" your "hard earned money" to watch them, listen to them, or whatever it is one would do to enjoy their craft, that is your own goddamn decision as a consumer. I hear athletes, musicians, actors, etc say crap I don't agree with all the time. Amazingly, I can disagree with the message without taking this giant offense that they had the audacity to say something I disagree with.
 
2013-02-07 02:47:43 PM

Kome: One of the options for their little silly online poll is "I agree with him, but don't think it's his place to weigh in"

This strikes me as an odd position for anyone to have. He's an American citizen. He has just as much right to voice his opinions regarding American culture as anyone else, celebrity or not. I understand wanting to hear primarily from experts on a subject - I'd much rather hear from law enforcement officers on this, for instance (a la a recent episode of The Daily Show when Stewart interviewed a police chief on the subject) - but I don't begrudge any other citizen from having his or her opinion and voicing it. I do find certain views to be based in ignorance (some of it willful, some of it innocently genuine), and I don't like to hear those, but that is different from feeling that a fellow American shouldn't weigh on an issue; it just means I weight their views differently than people who have credibility or expertise in the relevant area.


I would say he is free to speak his mind, but considering he is also an anti-vaccer, he is a total dumbass and should not be taken seriously.
 
2013-02-07 02:48:47 PM

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.
 
2013-02-07 02:48:58 PM

moothemagiccow: I dont remember Nugent ever entertaining anyone


I thought he did a public service in raising awareness of certain itching fevers
 
2013-02-07 02:49:01 PM
AdolfOliverPanties: Military style weapons have no farking business being in the hands of private citizens.

Agreed. Lets also ban racing stripes from Mustangs.
 
2013-02-07 02:50:38 PM

JohnnyCanuck: Tree-fiddy....and it would be reimbursed on your taxes.


sounds good. At least them city boys won't be up here trying to use them.
Last year a bunch of them got out of their car and asked if they could hunt on my land.
They had MACs and Ingrams.
I charged them $50 each and heard some shooting and went over and they said what'd we kill?
I said a $500 sheep.
They paid me.
I went back in the barn, heard more shooting and went out.
There was a dead racoon on the ground.
"Whadd'we shoot?"
"I'm not telling you boys", I said," but it 's something white people been calling you all for a long time".
The one guy said, "we done shot us a motherfarker"
 
2013-02-07 02:53:00 PM

Mangoose: I agree. If Newton made you want to run out and buy a gun, you're a soul-less cock-demon. There are plenty of good reasons to buy a gun, that is not one of them.


It's a sophomoric straw man whether it comes from you or Carey.

People buying guns now are not thinking "Oooh, gotta get me some of that baby killing firepower". They are thinking "Here come the gun grabbers, this may be my last chance to buy one" and they are correct. This may actually be the last time you can legally buy an AR-15 or similar.
 
2013-02-07 02:57:12 PM
And still no talk about door control.
 
2013-02-07 02:57:38 PM

SpectroBoy: Mangoose: I agree. If Newton made you want to run out and buy a gun, you're a soul-less cock-demon. There are plenty of good reasons to buy a gun, that is not one of them.

It's a sophomoric straw man whether it comes from you or Carey.

People buying guns now are not thinking "Oooh, gotta get me some of that baby killing firepower". They are thinking "Here come the gun grabbers, this may be my last chance to buy one" and they are correct. This may actually be the last time you can legally buy an AR-15 or similar.


Right, which also leads to the question of: After seeing such a atrocity why would you need or want to own such a weapon? It's not as good for home defense as a shot gun, and not as good for hunting as more specialized rifles.

I'm not saying those who are buying such are monsters or whatever, but the question of morals and motivations seems more than fair given the situation and better, more specialized firepower being available for the professed purposes.
 
2013-02-07 03:03:43 PM

SpectroBoy: This may actually be the last time you can legally buy an AR-15 or similar.


So..... Obama really is going to take our guns?
 
2013-02-07 03:03:49 PM

vudukungfu: Cause you buy my wool at your retail outlets.


Mmm.... probably not.

Maybe you could try getting better fencing? I don't know. Just seems like you're really lazy and bad at your job and looking for excuses.
 
2013-02-07 03:03:49 PM

dewright_ca: Hey look, its another thread for the idiots to get irrational in... no one bring up how well gun control works in DC, Chicago, New York or Australia, we can't have logic get used on the irrational sheeple...



Except it isn't working in Chicago.
 
2013-02-07 03:07:02 PM

dittybopper: Mangoose: xanadian: They probably ran out to buy AR15s not because they were thinking, hey, I wanna be on national TV, too!   But because they rightly predicted the potential backlash:  people wanting to (and may or may not be successful) ban "assault weapons."

I'm willing to stand by my statement. If your reaction to Newton was "Oh shiat, better get a gun!", you = soul-less cock-demon*.

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.

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.

Really, there is no way for you to lose from an economic standpoint:  You either make a profit in the future, or, at the very worst, you break even.

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


You are truly on the the finest gun apologists around.  You will come to their defense and never back down. You are always right.

Thanks for being so ideologically consistent, and a complete insensitive jerk to boot.
 
2013-02-07 03:07:14 PM
SpectroBoy:

People buying guns now are not thinking "Oooh, gotta get me some of that baby killing firepower". They are thinking "Here come the gun grabbers, this may be my last chance to buy one" and they are correct. This may actually be the last time you can legally buy an AR-15 or similar.


THIS.

In other news, DHS just added another 240k rounds to their 1.6 billion round order of ammunition (for the over 7000 assau..err, "personal defense weapons"  they purchased in the last 10 months).  I wonder what DHS needs this kind of firepower for that you can't have.
 
2013-02-07 03:07:34 PM

fisker: People wouldn't know what guns are if it wasn't for school shootings.


For some reason I can't read that unless it is in Morrisey's singing voice.
 
2013-02-07 03:08:39 PM
Knee Jerk Reaction - like when people starting buying Twinkies in bulk when they thought they were going away forever....people who normally do not eat Twinkies.
 
2013-02-07 03:11:58 PM

OnlyM3: I don't know of a single person who went out to buy a gun because of Newton.


I didn't think you and your friends could afford them with what they pay you at Easter Seals.
 
2013-02-07 03:15:23 PM

DirkValentine: dittybopper: Mangoose: xanadian: They probably ran out to buy AR15s not because they were thinking, hey, I wanna be on national TV, too!   But because they rightly predicted the potential backlash:  people wanting to (and may or may not be successful) ban "assault weapons."

I'm willing to stand by my statement. If your reaction to Newton was "Oh shiat, better get a gun!", you = soul-less cock-demon*.

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.

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.

Really, there is no way for you to lose from an economic standpoint:  You either make a profit in the future, or, at the very worst, you break even.

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

You are truly on the the finest gun apologists around.  You will come to their defense and never back down. You are always right.

Thanks for being so ideologically consistent, and a complete insensitive jerk to boot.


Your observation is apt; only a "jerk" would present a rational and fact-based explanation.
 
2013-02-07 03:18:56 PM

wildcardjack: And still no talk about door control.


You must not live in PG County...
 
2013-02-07 03:28:11 PM

Dimensio: DirkValentine: dittybopper: Mangoose: xanadian: They probably ran out to buy AR15s not because they were thinking, hey, I wanna be on national TV, too!   But because they rightly predicted the potential backlash:  people wanting to (and may or may not be successful) ban "assault weapons."

I'm willing to stand by my statement. If your reaction to Newton was "Oh shiat, better get a gun!", you = soul-less cock-demon*.

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.

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.

Really, there is no way for you to lose from an economic standpoint:  You either make a profit in the future, or, at the very worst, you break even.

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

You are truly on the the finest gun apologists around.  You will come to their defense and never back down. You are always right.

Thanks for being so ideologically consistent, and a complete insensitive jerk to boot.

Your observation is apt; only a "jerk" would present a rational and fact-based explanation.


No, it's the fact that all he ever posts in gun threads is pedantic arguments that don't even remotely address the fact that there is a major problem with gun violence in this country.

You want a fact to deal with :

We are 10th in the world in gun related deaths.  More than South Africa.  More than Serbia.

So, yeah, real rational.  heh.
 
2013-02-07 03:29:57 PM

DirkValentine: Dimensio: DirkValentine: dittybopper: Mangoose: xanadian: They probably ran out to buy AR15s not because they were thinking, hey, I wanna be on national TV, too!   But because they rightly predicted the potential backlash:  people wanting to (and may or may not be successful) ban "assault weapons."

I'm willing to stand by my statement. If your reaction to Newton was "Oh shiat, better get a gun!", you = soul-less cock-demon*.

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.

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.

Really, there is no way for you to lose from an economic standpoint:  You either make a profit in the future, or, at the very worst, you break even.

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

You are truly on the the finest gun apologists around.  You will come to their defense and never back down. You are always right.

Thanks for being so ideologically consistent, and a complete insensitive jerk to boot.

Your observation is apt; only a "jerk" would present a rational and fact-based explanation.

No, it's the fact that all he ever posts in gun threads is pedantic arguments that don't even remotely address the fact that there is a major problem with gun violence in this country.

You want a fact to deal with :

We are 1 ...


I understand now. dittybopper is a "jerk" for providing a direct, relevant reply to a post, rather than changing the subject to address a topic not directly relevant to the post to which he was responding.
 
2013-02-07 03:31:49 PM

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.
 
2013-02-07 03:33:11 PM

Dimensio: I understand now. dittybopper is a "jerk" for providing a direct, relevant reply to a post, rather than changing the subject to address a topic not directly relevant to the post to which he was responding.


No, he's a jerk for having a never ending stream of excuses why there is no need for more gun control.
 
2013-02-07 03:34:02 PM

DirkValentine: Dimensio: I understand now. dittybopper is a "jerk" for providing a direct, relevant reply to a post, rather than changing the subject to address a topic not directly relevant to the post to which he was responding.

No, he's a jerk for having a never ending stream of excuses why there is no need for more gun control.


So are you saying that you have no actual rebuttal to the posting to which you replied?
 
2013-02-07 03:38:37 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.

EEwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww!
 
2013-02-07 03:39:56 PM

Dimensio: DirkValentine: Dimensio: I understand now. dittybopper is a "jerk" for providing a direct, relevant reply to a post, rather than changing the subject to address a topic not directly relevant to the post to which he was responding.

No, he's a jerk for having a never ending stream of excuses why there is no need for more gun control.

So are you saying that you have no actual rebuttal to the posting to which you replied?


My rebuttal is quite clear - stop making excuses for gun control.  " rational economic behavior " is a farking bullshiat excuse.  Sorry if your hobby costs more to save lives.

My marimba was only 3500 to build b/c Padouk b/c rosewood is endangered and is outrageously expensive.   That's ok, b/c sometimes laws need to be made to stop us from farking things up so hard.
 
2013-02-07 03:41:00 PM
wtf happened to my text?
 
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?
 
2013-02-07 10:22:46 PM

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

In 1812, we believed in guns so much that we were handing them out. To natives. To fight you.

/We won 1812, btw.


"we" huh? there was no 'we' then. the war of 1812 was against a still-powerful Britain. the 'we' of canada you refer to didnt even exist yet.
 
2013-02-07 10:53:27 PM
Again, the answer was proposed a few years ago and Republicans killed it.

HEALTH CARE REFORM.

We need a universal health care system in this country because these people who are mentally-imbalanced can't simply walk into a doctor's office to get some help, so they're walking the streets getting more and more crazy. Under the current system, only crazy people with money or a good job get any help, and here's the issue: IF YOU'RE CRAZY, YOU PROBABLY CAN'T KEEP A JOB TO HAVE PRIVATE INSURANCE.

So the people who need help never seek it, because they can't afford to.

Next thing you know, they're shooting people. It's not about the guns, though; It's about them being left to  fend for themselves in the middle of a mental breakdown.

The conservatives in this country are so damned short-sighted that they can't see how universal health care is a BENEFIT to them as well as to the people who can get medical aid when they need it. With universal health care, you have fewer sick people remaining sick and spreading their illness to YOU.

So it's pretty simple: Make it possible for people to seek out doctors without having to go broke, or continue to watch society fall apart as more and more mentally-imbalanced people opt to shoot other people in the late stages of their madness because they couldn't get help in the early stages.

Making sure your neighbor is healthy is GOOD FOR YOU, TOO.
 
2013-02-07 11:07:36 PM
I worry about people who, upon hearing that new screening processes to weed out mentally unfit persons from buying guns, go out and buy a bunch of guns ahead of the legislation. Do these people think they won't pass? Aren't they just the type that shouldn't be buying guns?
 
2013-02-07 11:29:19 PM
Either i misread the coroner's report, or the assault rifle wasn't even used in the Newton shootings.
 
2013-02-08 12:00:24 AM

potterydove: Either i misread the coroner's report, or the assault rifle wasn't even used in the Newton shootings.


All of the victims were shot by the Bushmaster.  All. Of. Them.

http://www.greenwichtime.com/newtownshooting/article/State-Police-Al l- 26-Newtown-victims-shot-with-4220548.php

Coroner's report?  Jesus, gun nuts are some sick, souless wasted of human flesh farkers.
 
2013-02-08 12:13:36 AM
Imagine for a moment what it would be like to be objective on the issue of guns.  Say you lived in another country that didn't have the extensive gun culture with passionate folks on both sides.

Now think how you would feel when reading about a horrible massacre in the United States in which grade school kids were methodically gunned down by a nutjob.

Then imagine what your reaction would be to find out that Americans were waiting in line at gunshops the next day to buy the same make and model of rifle used in the massacre.

The run on the those rifles is nothing more than a national embarrassment.  We should be collectively ashamed of the reaction of collectors to the Sandy Hook massacre.  The shooting made us look to the world like lawless idiots.  The run on AR-15s made us look like a nation of savages.
 
2013-02-08 12:18:00 AM
I get it, guns are cool. They're fun to shoot, and there's a cool sense of power that comes when you hold one. However, I think they're an unnecessary necessity in today's society and there are so many of them that no amount of laws, turn-ins, repeals are going to take guns away from the millions of owners in the country. They were invented to kill, and we're doing a good job over here in Amurica with that
 
2013-02-08 01:08:56 AM
Anyone who gets worked up or angry or upset about anything said on Twitter by ANYONE is full of derp.

/cannot wait for Twitter and Facebook to fade away
 
2013-02-10 01:27:45 AM

Smeggy Smurf: The_Sponge: AdolfOliverPanties: Military style weapons have no farking business being in the hands of private citizens.


That's fine....my AR is semi-auto only, so it doesn't count, right?

Hoplophobes are terrified of anything more dangerous than a dented spoon


HOPLOPHOBES?

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Yes, I'm terrified that your well-regulated militia will form a wall of pikes and bronze shields to protect themselves from arrows.

For fark's sake, trying to cash in on 'homophobe' by coining a similar-sounding word is sickening. Being gay or black is a lot harder to change than just GETTING RID OF THE farkING GUN.

Anyone using 'hoplophobe' is a farking tool and will be farkied in the darkest shade of gray available as "DERPHERPPOTATOfarkER!"
 
2013-02-10 02:18:03 AM

omnibus_necanda_sunt: Smeggy Smurf: The_Sponge: AdolfOliverPanties: Military style weapons have no farking business being in the hands of private citizens.


That's fine....my AR is semi-auto only, so it doesn't count, right?

Hoplophobes are terrified of anything more dangerous than a dented spoon

HOPLOPHOBES?

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Yes, I'm terrified that your well-regulated militia will form a wall of pikes and bronze shields to protect themselves from arrows.

For fark's sake, trying to cash in on 'homophobe' by coining a similar-sounding word is sickening. Being gay or black is a lot harder to change than just GETTING RID OF THE farkING GUN.

Anyone using 'hoplophobe' is a farking tool and will be farkied in the darkest shade of gray available as "DERPHERPPOTATOfarkER!"


And that my friends is what happens when you neglect to accept the free education offered to you.
 
Displayed 160 of 160 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report