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 35
    More: Interesting, Jim Carrey, assault rifles, Bob Costas, liberal elite  
•       •       •

11360 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»



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


Archived thread
2013-02-07 11:48:02 AM
4 votes:
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 11:47:38 AM
4 votes:
Meh, most gun owners don't give a ratz azz what Jim Carry thinks.
2013-02-07 11:53:51 AM
3 votes:
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 04:47:44 PM
2 votes:

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 04:15:01 PM
2 votes:

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 03:29:57 PM
2 votes:

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 02:49:01 PM
2 votes:
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 02:45:38 PM
2 votes:
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 01:51:36 PM
2 votes:
coedmagazine.files.wordpress.com
2013-02-07 01:16:09 PM
2 votes:
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 12:06:21 PM
2 votes:

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)
2013-02-08 12:13:36 AM
1 votes:
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.
2013-02-07 05:02:07 PM
1 votes:

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 04:37:14 PM
1 votes:

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 04:33:04 PM
1 votes:

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 03:45:31 PM
1 votes:

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 03:43:13 PM
1 votes:

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 03:34:02 PM
1 votes:

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 03:07:14 PM
1 votes:
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 02:48:47 PM
1 votes:

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 02:47:43 PM
1 votes:

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 02:46:11 PM
1 votes:

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 02:39:10 PM
1 votes:

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 02:34:13 PM
1 votes:

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 02:24:12 PM
1 votes:

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 02:18:07 PM
1 votes:

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 01:37:48 PM
1 votes:
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 01:27:45 PM
1 votes:
Women having sex for pleasure angers right
2013-02-07 01:25:49 PM
1 votes:
Jim Carrey 'Assault Rifle' Tweet Everything Angers Right

That's more like it.
2013-02-07 01:22:08 PM
1 votes:
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 12:38:33 PM
1 votes:

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 12:37:37 PM
1 votes:
Jim Carrey is from Canada.

Maybe if Canada had a 2nd amendment, they wouldn't have lost the war of 1812.
2013-02-07 12:22:39 PM
1 votes:

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 11:51:27 AM
1 votes:
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 11:46:21 AM
1 votes:
Maybe he had too many vaccine shots?
 
Displayed 35 of 35 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report