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.

(Buzzfeed)   Fifteen photographs from a child survivalist training session, an encounter that pairs 9 year-old kids with AK-47s   (buzzfeed.com) divider line 278
    More: Florida  
•       •       •

8860 clicks; posted to Main » on 23 Feb 2013 at 5:31 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-23 05:55:04 PM

Phoenix_M: If 3 million Cambodians had 3 million rifles and 6 millions Jews had 6 million rifles how many would hav


You really think fragmented and untrained civilians would have been able to successfully fight the military? Especially the German military?

Because I think that's just silly. In fact, I'm fairly sure that killing a soldier or two would probably have turned into torture and the most painful death imaginable pretty quickly.
 
2013-02-23 06:39:08 PM

Genevieve Marie: Phoenix_M: If 3 million Cambodians had 3 million rifles and 6 millions Jews had 6 million rifles how many would hav

You really think fragmented and untrained civilians would have been able to successfully fight the military? Especially the German military?

Because I think that's just silly. In fact, I'm fairly sure that killing a soldier or two would probably have turned into torture and the most painful death imaginable pretty quickly.



Actually, it is amazing what fewer than 1000 firearms can do against a modern army.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Ghetto_Uprising">http://en.wikip edia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Ghetto_Uprising
 
2013-02-23 06:43:09 PM

udhq: Phoenix_M: If 3 million Cambodians had 3 million rifles and 6 millions Jews had 6 million rifles how many would have died at the hands of a dictator? The 2nd amendment is not about hunting it's about tyrants

The 2nd amendment expressly exists for the perpetuation of the federal government in the face of external threats, NOT for personal protection against one's own government.

Hence, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free STATE..."


Sorry but you've been misinformed, the "STATES" were 13 individual entities loosely bound in trade and defense. The 10th follows this up with "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The 2nd was placed 2nd behind only the right to freedom of press/expression because they wanted to make sure that if the Federal Government overstepped its bound that the people could put it back in it's place.

/nice try with the revisionist history there though
 
2013-02-23 06:43:14 PM

Slam1263: Genevieve Marie: Phoenix_M: If 3 million Cambodians had 3 million rifles and 6 millions Jews had 6 million rifles how many would hav

You really think fragmented and untrained civilians would have been able to successfully fight the military? Especially the German military?

Because I think that's just silly. In fact, I'm fairly sure that killing a soldier or two would probably have turned into torture and the most painful death imaginable pretty quickly.


Actually, it is amazing what fewer than 1000 firearms can do against a modern army.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Ghetto_Uprising">http://en.wikip edia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Ghetto_Uprising


It's funny, because the first paragraph of the wiki points out that the resistance was poorly trained and poorly armed and were crushed pretty quickly.
 
2013-02-23 06:43:59 PM

Slam1263: Genevieve Marie: Phoenix_M: If 3 million Cambodians had 3 million rifles and 6 millions Jews had 6 million rifles how many would hav

You really think fragmented and untrained civilians would have been able to successfully fight the military? Especially the German military?

Because I think that's just silly. In fact, I'm fairly sure that killing a soldier or two would probably have turned into torture and the most painful death imaginable pretty quickly.


Actually, it is amazing what fewer than 1000 firearms can do against a modern army.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Ghetto_Uprising">http://en.wikip edia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Ghetto_Uprising


Yeah... Umm... That was a great result for Polish Jews.
 
2013-02-23 06:52:22 PM

saturn badger: lewismarktwo: mittromneysdog: way south: The purpose of keeping weapons around isn't just for rebellion against the government,

You're right. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was less to empower citizens to murder law enforcement officers, soldiers, and sailors. Its primary purpose was to guarantee the right of slave states to maintain militias to put down slave rebellions.

lols, you just can't make this stuff up. Or, rather, you can.

He is actually correct.

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


Actually the 2nd Amendment has many reasons.

1) A standing army was considered bad because it could lead to a military coup overtaking of the government.

2)  Having some trained local militia as a Weeners to a foreign (English, French, Spanish) invasion  was considered good considering how long it would take federal troops to arrive at the conflict.

3) Injun trouble. Initially this had to do with Native American alliances with foreign powers (the French an Indian War) but it devolved down to armed groups running Indians off their land and killing them if they objected. Andrew Jackson became president for supporting this policy.

4) Being quickly able to suppress slave rebellions as mentioned above.

Since the 1860s the main militia groups have been the Ku Klux Klan who like to terrorize Negros so that that they learn their place as well as Catholics and Jews.

I wonder (or maybe not) how many militia members realize that they are essentially Klansmen.
 
2013-02-23 06:59:45 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: misanthropologist: What I'm saying is that there is an important and valuable distinction between recognizing that violence may be necessary as a last resort, in a worst case scenario, and celebrating and flaunting one's willingness to resort to violence as a means to intimidate others.

I think you're projecting the "celebration and flaunting".  These are not readily evident from the mere act of training and preparation, are they?


Training and preparation is quietly going about your business at the range or in the bush. Traipsing around in camo, dressing your kids up in clothes with slogans that advocate the use of violence and getting yourself a nice photo spread on the internets (or a show on the TV), as well as running around proclaiming to anyone who will listen and many who would prefer not to... that's celebrating and flaunting.

misanthropologist: By the way, the simplistic interpretation of the Dalai Lama's (and Buddhism in general's) perspective on violence/non-violence doesn't really do him or Buddhism justice. Here's something to read to help you think about how complicated life really is: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2010/jun/21/dalai - lama-armed-forces-day-message

I didn't provide any examples apart from his statement that violence is sometimes necessary, so I'm wondering why you make the assumption that my interpretation is simplistic.


You said "Good for you that you're trying to be holier than thou, but even the Dali Lama has said that violence is sometimes necessary." It's simplistic precisely because you didn't provide any context or examples for the statement. For all I know, you heard it somewhere and have no idea whether he actually ever said this, what he meant by it, or what the context was. I like the parallelism though, matching your statement that I'm trying to be "holier than thou" with an apparently contradictory statement from a noted pacifist who no one can reasonably be considered holier than. Simply pointing to a decontextualized statement by a religious figure as evidence that, in fact, violence is sometimes necessary, is pretty simplistic.
 
2013-02-23 07:53:37 PM

udhq: Phoenix_M: If 3 million Cambodians had 3 million rifles and 6 millions Jews had 6 million rifles how many would have died at the hands of a dictator? The 2nd amendment is not about hunting it's about tyrants

The 2nd amendment expressly exists for the perpetuation of the federal government in the face of external threats, NOT for personal protection against one's own government.

Hence, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free STATE..."


You mad!

/and kinda dumb
 
2013-02-23 08:06:37 PM

Genevieve Marie: Phoenix_M: If 3 million Cambodians had 3 million rifles and 6 millions Jews had 6 million rifles how many would hav

You really think fragmented and untrained civilians would have been able to successfully fight the military? Especially the German military?

Because I think that's just silly. In fact, I'm fairly sure that killing a soldier or two would probably have turned into torture and the most painful death imaginable pretty quickly.


So what you're saying is 6 million armed jews wouldn't have had a fighting chance and would have been sent to death camps rather quickly where they would have suffered unimaginable torture and painful deaths?
 
2013-02-23 08:12:36 PM

sleeper2995: Great! This thread again. Wait. I'm being obtuse. Hopefully the rest of the people on Fark will realize that the majority of gun owners aren't crazy militant hillbillies who only own guns because they think the government is out to get them.


Ya gotta admit, the crazy militant hillbillies aren't helping the cause. I don't own or give a rat's ass about guns. But good, trusted friends of mine do, so I'll accept your premise.

The questions is, what are sane gun owners going to do to stop the crazies? Wayne LaPierre included. And don't blame the evil librul media. That's just lazy.
 
2013-02-23 08:13:12 PM
Saving children from an Obama future. Spiffy.
 
2013-02-23 08:16:07 PM

Phoenix_M: Genevieve Marie: Phoenix_M: If 3 million Cambodians had 3 million rifles and 6 millions Jews had 6 million rifles how many would hav

You really think fragmented and untrained civilians would have been able to successfully fight the military? Especially the German military?

Because I think that's just silly. In fact, I'm fairly sure that killing a soldier or two would probably have turned into torture and the most painful death imaginable pretty quickly.

So what you're saying is 6 million armed jews wouldn't have had a fighting chance and would have been sent to death camps rather quickly where they would have suffered unimaginable torture and painful deaths?


Pretty much, yea. Your original post seemed to promote the idea that had these folks had guns, the outcome would have been different. I'd argue the outcome would have been exactly the same and that appropriating these folks' stories to make a dubious point about the importance of gun rights is a bit distasteful.
 
2013-02-23 08:22:59 PM
Since when did children get so fat.  Jesus.
 
2013-02-23 08:23:37 PM
The pig lives oni.imgur.com
 
2013-02-23 08:24:22 PM
to bear arms exclusively means to carry weapons, as part of an organized military unit, in active combat. It means nothing else and has never meant anything else. the goobermint is well inside it's constitutional authority to regulate the supply, ownership and use of pretty much any weapon as long as it does not remove the ability to keep them. THat's why I can have a 4 foot razor sharp sword but I'll get arrested if I carry it around on my back. Same applies to firearms.
It DOES NOT apply to ordance, destructive devices, and weapons of mass destruction. The gov't could outlaw all ammunition in private hands and all forms for carrying a weapon outside your house tomorrow and the courts wouldn't say boo. And they will unless you people rein in the open carry tards and the tacti-dipshiats. Those are the people that are going to get your guns taken away.
 
2013-02-23 08:25:31 PM

willfullyobscure: The Snow Dog: They don't look especially skilled at handling weapons. It also doesn't look like they're being particularly safe with them.

With the glaring exception of handing pre teens loaded semi automatic rifles in an uncontrolled environment, I didn't see anything that would make me flip a biatch at the range, TBH. My only criticism is they carry loaded way, way too much.


That is part of my point. There are two pics of children holding guns where the barrels, while not pointed directly at someone, are pointed in unsafe directions with respect to whoever is holding the camera. Also, handing a child a weapon (like in the one pic) is just asking for that weapon to be dropped, barrel-first, into the dirt and plugged. Wouldn't think twice if it was a couple of Marines in the pic, though. I just said they appeared to have marginal safety skills, not that they were non-existent.
 
2013-02-23 08:34:17 PM

The Snow Dog: willfullyobscure: The Snow Dog: They don't look especially skilled at handling weapons. It also doesn't look like they're being particularly safe with them.

With the glaring exception of handing pre teens loaded semi automatic rifles in an uncontrolled environment, I didn't see anything that would make me flip a biatch at the range, TBH. My only criticism is they carry loaded way, way too much.

That is part of my point. There are two pics of children holding guns where the barrels, while not pointed directly at someone, are pointed in unsafe directions with respect to whoever is holding the camera. Also, handing a child a weapon (like in the one pic) is just asking for that weapon to be dropped, barrel-first, into the dirt and plugged. Wouldn't think twice if it was a couple of Marines in the pic, though. I just said they appeared to have marginal safety skills, not that they were non-existent.


Compared to my usual expectations for "tactical" firearms owners, these guys are Thunder Ranch instructors. but yeah. if the rifle is taller than the operator, something wrong happened thar.
 
2013-02-23 08:34:28 PM

Genevieve Marie: Phoenix_M: Genevieve Marie: Phoenix_M: If 3 million Cambodians had 3 million rifles and 6 millions Jews had 6 million rifles how many would hav

You really think fragmented and untrained civilians would have been able to successfully fight the military? Especially the German military?

Because I think that's just silly. In fact, I'm fairly sure that killing a soldier or two would probably have turned into torture and the most painful death imaginable pretty quickly.

So what you're saying is 6 million armed jews wouldn't have had a fighting chance and would have been sent to death camps rather quickly where they would have suffered unimaginable torture and painful deaths?

Pretty much, yea. Your original post seemed to promote the idea that had these folks had guns, the outcome would have been different. I'd argue the outcome would have been exactly the same and that appropriating these folks' stories to make a dubious point about the importance of gun rights is a bit distasteful.


Well then you're f**king stupid and maybe you should try talking to holocaust survivors who will explain the importance of gun rights to you.
 
2013-02-23 10:47:49 PM

Cheesehead_Dave: [s3-ec.buzzfed.com image 850x565]

This one is just begging to be 'shopped.


That kid would rather be at home pretending to shoot guns while playing "Call of Duty" rather than out in the woods shooting them for real.
 
2013-02-24 12:02:29 AM

misanthropologist: Click Click D'oh: Rreal: Being that most of the weapons shown are assault rifles, ...

Instead of just counting the same SKS five times since it shows up in multiple pictures, let's actually break down the rifles in the pictures.

There is:
(1) AR-15
(1) SKS with a brown Tapco Stock
(1) SKS with a wood stock
(1) SAR-1 (AK Clone)
(1) Marlin .22
(1) Unknown .22
(1) .22 lever rifle
(1) Ruger 10/22

That means there are as many squirrel guns in these photos as there are scary "assault rifles"

Here's the real trick for people that saw the pictures, but didn't actually look at them.  I've already noted that everyone seems to have missed the chamber flags... which didn't stop some people from ranting about "children handling dangerous loaded weapons".... but I dare anyone to find a spare magazine on any of the people carrying detachable magazine firearms.  Empty pouches every where.  I'm willing to bet there isn't a single round of ammunition anywhere close by.

I'm less concerned about the kids being around guns - with or without ammo - than I am about the 10 year old (?) in a t-shirt that says he's willing to kill anyone who threatens to take away his guns. That is some seriously farked up shiat right there. Indoctrinating children into the belief that there will come a time when you have to murder people who don't share your political views is pretty depressing. Play with guns, and do it safely, but don't turn kids into violent little warmongers.


Would you complain if they had worn the peace symbol or would that indoctrination be okay? How about Mickey Mouse?
 
2013-02-24 05:58:23 AM

Agent Smiths Laugh: Are we becoming what we fear:


Our government has been making enemies everywhere it goes.
Why wouldn't we expect it to make enemies at home too?

/As the saying goes, "If everyone you meet is an asshole, maybe you're the asshole".
 
2013-02-24 12:11:31 PM

swangoatman: BenJammin: The worrisome part is that they consider fellow Americans who disagree with them as the enemy.

No they do not consider a person who disagrees with them as the enemy.
 it is the person who actively is attempting to take their perceived rights away from them who is considered their enemy. if the arguments were on equal footing there would be no fear. But when you have an executive who believes he has the power to make law,  without the consult or consent of Congress,then there will be problems.


Obviously, disagreement in the context of doing something about it.  Speaking for myself, I would have no problem with anti-choice people if they weren't trying to legislate their opinions on everyone.
It is interesting to note how you juxtapose this disagreement with an  blanket accusation specifically against Obama.  Why not the Patriot act or the corporations who have taken over this country?
 
2013-02-24 12:12:18 PM
I'm okay with this.

I think it's stupid, reckless and ill-advised, but hell, plenty of people probably feel the same way about MY hobbies.

/legalize all the things!
 
2013-02-24 01:47:03 PM

BenJammin: swangoatman: BenJammin: The worrisome part is that they consider fellow Americans who disagree with them as the enemy.

No they do not consider a person who disagrees with them as the enemy.
 it is the person who actively is attempting to take their perceived rights away from them who is considered their enemy. if the arguments were on equal footing there would be no fear. But when you have an executive who believes he has the power to make law,  without the consult or consent of Congress,then there will be problems.

Obviously, disagreement in the context of doing something about it.  Speaking for myself, I would have no problem with anti-choice people if they weren't trying to legislate their opinions on everyone.
It is interesting to note how you juxtapose this disagreement with an  blanket accusation specifically against Obama.  Why not the Patriot act or the corporations who have taken over this country?


I never said Obama. You did. I was speaking of the flippant way the executive powers ,both fed and state are on power trips and have been so since 9-11. from TSA to Gitmo to Holder deciding what laws he will not enforce and what governors are now saying that they wont enforce and cherry picking how the law will be enforced to legislation from the bench.. No I see the ball of string unraveling all around. Obama just happens to be the guy driving the bus.
I do see how you feel i was attacking Obama. But actually the gov as a whole needs a bottom up turnover.I have a dog catcher that now must be referred to as "Vector Control Officer" who only responds to nuisance calls IF we have first called the sheriff to determine if we are truly not just calling on a neighbors dog. And the DEPUTY will actually come and identify whether or not that I can call the VCO. One more level of power some jerk feels he is entitled too.
 I for one will not let my weapon of choice be a peaceful march into an internment camp as clearly the entire local state and fed election process is TOO big and TOO influenced by outside forces to be considered the will of the governed anymore,at any level.
See. I am not hating on Obama. I hate them all,
 
2013-02-24 06:13:35 PM

The Snow Dog: Or maybe that's just what he was comfortable shooting?

I don't know... My first deer was with a .243, as was my first elk and my only black bear. .243 IS plenty if you can put the rounds on target. (And that is very easy to do with that flat-shooting rifle.)


Thanks, Chief :)  I appreciate the help and understanding with the other commenters.  I should probably clarify the situation for everyone.  I started out on the .410 plinking doves and my dad was too broke (or cheap- there was a head high pile of silver bullets behind the shop) to get a big rifle and figured an iron sight kill was better.  Those slugs were nothing to sneeze at and had surprising penetration.  Mine was also a break action single with a little bb for the sight lol.  He probably got the 243 for himself the next season iirc and it was his pride and joy.  It was a Savage model but he had a Simmons light collecting scope and 85 gr hollowpoints for those far off shady shots.  I ended up getting it a few years later when he upgraded.  I had been through a trapping/skinning/archery phase during those years anyway and had pretty much gotten into saltwater fishing (coupla moves) by that time anyway.  Nice rifle and the hollowpoint does its jerb everytime and basically goes all Iron Man style and liquifies the heartal region lol.  Everyone have fun and be safe out there :)
 
2013-02-25 08:37:07 AM

swangoatman: BenJammin: swangoatman: BenJammin: The worrisome part is that they consider fellow Americans who disagree with them as the enemy.

No they do not consider a person who disagrees with them as the enemy.
 it is the person who actively is attempting to take their perceived rights away from them who is considered their enemy. if the arguments were on equal footing there would be no fear. But when you have an executive who believes he has the power to make law,  without the consult or consent of Congress,then there will be problems.

Obviously, disagreement in the context of doing something about it.  Speaking for myself, I would have no problem with anti-choice people if they weren't trying to legislate their opinions on everyone.
It is interesting to note how you juxtapose this disagreement with an  blanket accusation specifically against Obama.  Why not the Patriot act or the corporations who have taken over this country?

I never said Obama. You did. I was speaking of the flippant way the executive powers ,both fed and state are on power trips and have been so since 9-11. from TSA to Gitmo to Holder deciding what laws he will not enforce and what governors are now saying that they wont enforce and cherry picking how the law will be enforced to legislation from the bench.. No I see the ball of string unraveling all around. Obama just happens to be the guy driving the bus.
I do see how you feel i was attacking Obama. But actually the gov as a whole needs a bottom up turnover.I have a dog catcher that now must be referred to as "Vector Control Officer" who only responds to nuisance calls IF we have first called the sheriff to determine if we are truly not just calling on a neighbors dog. And the DEPUTY will actually come and identify whether or not that I can call the VCO. One more level of power some jerk feels he is entitled too.
 I for one will not let my weapon of choice be a peaceful march into an internment camp as clearly the entire local state and fed election p ...


You are presenting your own opinion of how YOU feel, but if you took a look at their website you will see they view progressives (not the Patriot Act) as their enemy.

...   Also, we are STRONG believers in the 2nd amendment. There is no negotiating the Constitution of the United States. We believe our founders created the greatest nation on earth and only the Progressive movement has slowly whittled that down. NO MORE! NOT HERE! ..
 
2013-02-25 09:03:53 AM
BenJammin: swangoatman: BenJammin: swangoatman: BenJammin: The worrisome part is that they consider fellow Americans who disagree with them as the enemy.

No they do not consider a person who disagrees with them as the enemy.
 it is the person who actively is attempting to take their perceived rights away from them who is considered their enemy. if the arguments were on equal footing there would be no fear. But when you have an executive who believes he has the power to make law,  without the consult or consent of Congress,then there will be problems.

Obviously, disagreement in the context of doing something about it.  Speaking for myself, I would have no problem with anti-choice people if they weren't trying to legislate their opinions on everyone.
It is interesting to note how you juxtapose this disagreement with an  blanket accusation specifically against Obama.  Why not the Patriot act or the corporations who have taken over this country?

I never said Obama. You did. I was speaking of the flippant way the executive powers ,both fed and state are on power trips and have been so since 9-11. from TSA to Gitmo to Holder deciding what laws he will not enforce and what governors are now saying that they wont enforce and cherry picking how the law will be enforced to legislation from the bench.. No I see the ball of string unraveling all around. Obama just happens to be the guy driving the bus.
I do see how you feel i was attacking Obama. But actually the gov as a whole needs a bottom up turnover.I have a dog catcher that now must be referred to as "Vector Control Officer" who only responds to nuisance calls IF we have first called the sheriff to determine if we are truly not just calling on a neighbors dog. And the DEPUTY will actually come and identify whether or not that I can call the VCO. One more level of power some jerk feels he is entitled too.
 I for one will not let my weapon of choice be a peaceful march into an internment camp as clearly the entire local state and f ...

You are presenting your own opinion of how YOU feel, but if you took a look at their website you will see they view progressives (not the Patriot Act) as their enemy.

...   Also, we are STRONG believers in the 2nd amendment. There is no negotiating the Constitution of the United States. We believe our founders created the greatest nation on earth and only the Progressive movement has slowly whittled that down. NO MORE! NOT HERE!


I guess then we .you and I .agree on more things than either of us are able to see. We also disagree on many things. But I do not think you are coming after my guns. Perhaps you are looking for a way to stop violence and hatred at the root of what makes people kill. That is a long haul. The short cure of taking guns will not remove the hate or violence, nor will it slow down the killing.Rwanda was proof of that. The moral decline of mankind, the sectarianism used to feed the powerful and greed of all classes of people is the root cause. IF that can be addressed then maybe there would be no need for my guns,other than my right to own one.
 
2013-02-25 09:11:13 AM
Ugh fatties with guns
 
Displayed 28 of 278 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report