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.

(SFGate)   You get into an argument with a neighbor. Do you C) pull out an AK-47 and shoot up their house?   (sfgate.com) divider line 178
    More: Scary  
•       •       •

5967 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Feb 2013 at 9:24 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-26 09:10:31 AM
Probably trying to let some GAWD in through all the little holes.
 
2013-02-26 10:13:24 AM

Bontesla: I don't want to do a gun thread again today.


amen
 
2013-02-26 10:32:46 AM

IlGreven: Securitywyrm: I'll support any gun control laws that apply equally to those in law enforcement. So if the police can't have it, you can't have it. If the police need it for protecting their lives, then your life is just as deserving of the same protection. If the 2nd amendment was reworded to "No restriction upon the right of citizens to keep and bear arms shall exceed those restrictions placed upon those engaged in the act of law enforcement." then I would have no problem registering my gun.

...that is in the 2nd amendment...it's just that it's placed before the "cannot be infringed" clause, and starts with the bit about a well-regulated militia.


The purpose of the 2nd amendment is to keep the people 'well armed.' That does not mean personal nuclear weapons and machine guns. I think a standard of "Weaponry equal to those who enforce the laws" is a fair standard, and has the advantage of being an adaptive standard. When the police can have laser rifles and plasma guns, we can have laser rifles and plasma guns.
 
2013-02-26 12:19:11 PM

Abacus9: violentsalvation: California clearly needs stronger gun control laws that people like this will completely disregard.

Totally, it's not like he'll be charged or anything, or have his illegal weapon confiscated. No, siree.


Which would have happened in any state, be it an illegal firearm, or not.
 
2013-02-26 12:40:34 PM
Obviously.
 
2013-02-26 12:48:59 PM
When you say "AK-47" do you mean "gun?"
 
2013-02-26 03:12:15 PM

ArkAngel: /obligatory


/tired
 
2013-02-26 03:55:50 PM

Real Women Drink Akvavit: Adolf Oliver Nipples: Real Women Drink Akvavit: None of the amendments you mentioned have the potential to kill when placed in the hands of a blithering idiot.

Think that one over a bit and get back to me, would you?

What kind of whargarbl did I just read? It's farkin' LIBYA. Restricting our first amendment rights is not going to make them behave. The first amendment was not designed to kill, guns are. Is that really that difficult of a concept?


So what you're saying is that his speech didn't directly cause the deaths of people? I only ask because you said that speech does not "have the potential to kill when placed in the hands of a blithering idiot". Except, of course, when it does.

Whargarrbl indeed.
 
2013-02-26 04:01:00 PM

sethen320: Adolf Oliver Nipples: frankencj: Oznog: Damn media bias.  The proper term is "Exercised his Second Amendment rights on his neighbor's house".

You know what he did is one of the restrictions to the 2nd people keep forgetting about.

Who has forgotten about it? Just because there are a buttload of restrictions that we're OK with doesn't mean we're not going to fight the ones we're NOT OK with.

So you want to fight the restriction that allows people to shoot each other?

You made one of the dumbest comments in the thread.


No, that's not what I said, implied, hinted at, or alluded to. It's what you want to portray me as saying so that you can call me dumb. Alas, that's not the case.

The poster said about restrictions, to which I said that we are aware of restrictions, we just fight the ones we don't agree with. A guy unloading on his neighbor is a crime, not a restriction.
 
2013-02-26 07:45:43 PM

IaxJer: When you say "AK-47" do you mean "gun?"


no i mean rifle
 
2013-02-26 09:22:07 PM

Adolf Oliver Nipples: Real Women Drink Akvavit: Adolf Oliver Nipples: Real Women Drink Akvavit: None of the amendments you mentioned have the potential to kill when placed in the hands of a blithering idiot.

Think that one over a bit and get back to me, would you?

What kind of whargarbl did I just read? It's farkin' LIBYA. Restricting our first amendment rights is not going to make them behave. The first amendment was not designed to kill, guns are. Is that really that difficult of a concept?

So what you're saying is that his speech didn't directly cause the deaths of people? I only ask because you said that speech does not "have the potential to kill when placed in the hands of a blithering idiot". Except, of course, when it does.

Whargarrbl indeed.


Do you know who else killed millions without ever picking up a gun? Just with the power of words?

It is said that he had a fear of weapons that was so great, he would faint at the sight of them?

Mao.

Don't tell me words don't kill, I was married.
 
2013-02-26 09:27:03 PM

MythDragon: The AK-47 was only produced until 1959. It's much more likely he had an AKM

Ak-47
[www.enemyforces.net image 650x293]

AKM
[media.desura.com image 753x306]


Note the differences. Why is this so hard for people to figure out?


More importantly, was it a genuine, Izhmash Russian beauty or one of those cheap, Norinco Chinese knockoffs?
 
2013-02-26 09:47:57 PM

sethen320: Quantum Apostrophe: SCAR Heavy is better, no?

So it looks like you're a big fan of the CoD games...


Actually, no, I don't know how but I stumbled on youtube videos of people firing the thing. Seemed impressive to me.
 
2013-02-26 11:17:26 PM

Jon iz teh kewl: IaxJer: When you say "AK-47" do you mean "gun?"

no i mean rifle


Wanna see my gun, Sailor?

/it's a 175mm
// I call it the king of the battlefield
 
2013-02-27 12:33:47 AM

Securitywyrm: IlGreven: Securitywyrm: I'll support any gun control laws that apply equally to those in law enforcement. So if the police can't have it, you can't have it. If the police need it for protecting their lives, then your life is just as deserving of the same protection. If the 2nd amendment was reworded to "No restriction upon the right of citizens to keep and bear arms shall exceed those restrictions placed upon those engaged in the act of law enforcement." then I would have no problem registering my gun.

...that is in the 2nd amendment...it's just that it's placed before the "cannot be infringed" clause, and starts with the bit about a well-regulated militia.

The purpose of the 2nd amendment is to keep the people 'well armed.' That does not mean personal nuclear weapons and machine guns. I think a standard of "Weaponry equal to those who enforce the laws" is a fair standard, and has the advantage of being an adaptive standard. When the police can have laser rifles and plasma guns, we can have laser rifles and plasma guns.


What if martial law is imposed? Should we then have the right to personal nuclear weapons?
 
2013-02-27 01:29:08 AM

Abacus9: Securitywyrm: IlGreven: Securitywyrm: I'll support any gun control laws that apply equally to those in law enforcement. So if the police can't have it, you can't have it. If the police need it for protecting their lives, then your life is just as deserving of the same protection. If the 2nd amendment was reworded to "No restriction upon the right of citizens to keep and bear arms shall exceed those restrictions placed upon those engaged in the act of law enforcement." then I would have no problem registering my gun.

...that is in the 2nd amendment...it's just that it's placed before the "cannot be infringed" clause, and starts with the bit about a well-regulated militia.

The purpose of the 2nd amendment is to keep the people 'well armed.' That does not mean personal nuclear weapons and machine guns. I think a standard of "Weaponry equal to those who enforce the laws" is a fair standard, and has the advantage of being an adaptive standard. When the police can have laser rifles and plasma guns, we can have laser rifles and plasma guns.

What if martial law is imposed? Should we then have the right to personal nuclear weapons?


Moron.
 
2013-02-27 01:31:16 AM

Abacus9: Securitywyrm: IlGreven: Securitywyrm: I'll support any gun control laws that apply equally to those in law enforcement. So if the police can't have it, you can't have it. If the police need it for protecting their lives, then your life is just as deserving of the same protection. If the 2nd amendment was reworded to "No restriction upon the right of citizens to keep and bear arms shall exceed those restrictions placed upon those engaged in the act of law enforcement." then I would have no problem registering my gun.

...that is in the 2nd amendment...it's just that it's placed before the "cannot be infringed" clause, and starts with the bit about a well-regulated militia.

The purpose of the 2nd amendment is to keep the people 'well armed.' That does not mean personal nuclear weapons and machine guns. I think a standard of "Weaponry equal to those who enforce the laws" is a fair standard, and has the advantage of being an adaptive standard. When the police can have laser rifles and plasma guns, we can have laser rifles and plasma guns.

What if martial law is imposed? Should we then have the right to personal nuclear weapons?


Yes.
 
2013-02-27 01:53:24 AM

pedrop357: Abacus9: Securitywyrm: IlGreven: Securitywyrm: I'll support any gun control laws that apply equally to those in law enforcement. So if the police can't have it, you can't have it. If the police need it for protecting their lives, then your life is just as deserving of the same protection. If the 2nd amendment was reworded to "No restriction upon the right of citizens to keep and bear arms shall exceed those restrictions placed upon those engaged in the act of law enforcement." then I would have no problem registering my gun.

...that is in the 2nd amendment...it's just that it's placed before the "cannot be infringed" clause, and starts with the bit about a well-regulated militia.

The purpose of the 2nd amendment is to keep the people 'well armed.' That does not mean personal nuclear weapons and machine guns. I think a standard of "Weaponry equal to those who enforce the laws" is a fair standard, and has the advantage of being an adaptive standard. When the police can have laser rifles and plasma guns, we can have laser rifles and plasma guns.

What if martial law is imposed? Should we then have the right to personal nuclear weapons?

Moron.


How does taking an argument to it's logical conclusion make me a moron?

Securitywyrm: Abacus9: Same question:

Yes.


That's incredibly stupid and irresponsible. Why do you think you should have access to all the same weapons the authorities have? Do you honestly believe you could win in a standoff?!
 
2013-02-27 02:58:16 AM

Abacus9: pedrop357: Abacus9: Securitywyrm: IlGreven: Securitywyrm: I'll support any gun control laws that apply equally to those in law enforcement. So if the police can't have it, you can't have it. If the police need it for protecting their lives, then your life is just as deserving of the same protection. If the 2nd amendment was reworded to "No restriction upon the right of citizens to keep and bear arms shall exceed those restrictions placed upon those engaged in the act of law enforcement." then I would have no problem registering my gun.

...that is in the 2nd amendment...it's just that it's placed before the "cannot be infringed" clause, and starts with the bit about a well-regulated militia.

The purpose of the 2nd amendment is to keep the people 'well armed.' That does not mean personal nuclear weapons and machine guns. I think a standard of "Weaponry equal to those who enforce the laws" is a fair standard, and has the advantage of being an adaptive standard. When the police can have laser rifles and plasma guns, we can have laser rifles and plasma guns.

What if martial law is imposed? Should we then have the right to personal nuclear weapons?

Moron.

How does taking an argument to it's logical conclusion make me a moron?

Securitywyrm: Abacus9: Same question:

Yes.

That's incredibly stupid and irresponsible. Why do you think you should have access to all the same weapons the authorities have? Do you honestly believe you could win in a standoff?!


If the authorities need those weapons to protect themselves, then the people deserve the same capacity to defend themselves.
 
2013-02-27 03:10:04 AM

Securitywyrm: Abacus9: pedrop357: Abacus9: Securitywyrm: IlGreven: Securitywyrm: I'll support any gun control laws that apply equally to those in law enforcement. So if the police can't have it, you can't have it. If the police need it for protecting their lives, then your life is just as deserving of the same protection. If the 2nd amendment was reworded to "No restriction upon the right of citizens to keep and bear arms shall exceed those restrictions placed upon those engaged in the act of law enforcement." then I would have no problem registering my gun.

...that is in the 2nd amendment...it's just that it's placed before the "cannot be infringed" clause, and starts with the bit about a well-regulated militia.

The purpose of the 2nd amendment is to keep the people 'well armed.' That does not mean personal nuclear weapons and machine guns. I think a standard of "Weaponry equal to those who enforce the laws" is a fair standard, and has the advantage of being an adaptive standard. When the police can have laser rifles and plasma guns, we can have laser rifles and plasma guns.

What if martial law is imposed? Should we then have the right to personal nuclear weapons?

Moron.

How does taking an argument to it's logical conclusion make me a moron?

Securitywyrm: Abacus9: Same question:

Yes.

That's incredibly stupid and irresponsible. Why do you think you should have access to all the same weapons the authorities have? Do you honestly believe you could win in a standoff?!

If the authorities need those weapons to protect themselves, then the people deserve the same capacity to defend themselves.


You can't defend yourself against an entire army out to get you.
 
2013-02-27 03:20:05 AM

Abacus9: Securitywyrm: Abacus9: pedrop357: Abacus9: Securitywyrm: IlGreven: Securitywyrm: I'll support any gun control laws that apply equally to those in law enforcement. So if the police can't have it, you can't have it. If the police need it for protecting their lives, then your life is just as deserving of the same protection. If the 2nd amendment was reworded to "No restriction upon the right of citizens to keep and bear arms shall exceed those restrictions placed upon those engaged in the act of law enforcement." then I would have no problem registering my gun.

...that is in the 2nd amendment...it's just that it's placed before the "cannot be infringed" clause, and starts with the bit about a well-regulated militia.

The purpose of the 2nd amendment is to keep the people 'well armed.' That does not mean personal nuclear weapons and machine guns. I think a standard of "Weaponry equal to those who enforce the laws" is a fair standard, and has the advantage of being an adaptive standard. When the police can have laser rifles and plasma guns, we can have laser rifles and plasma guns.

What if martial law is imposed? Should we then have the right to personal nuclear weapons?

Moron.

How does taking an argument to it's logical conclusion make me a moron?

Securitywyrm: Abacus9: Same question:

Yes.

That's incredibly stupid and irresponsible. Why do you think you should have access to all the same weapons the authorities have? Do you honestly believe you could win in a standoff?!

If the authorities need those weapons to protect themselves, then the people deserve the same capacity to defend themselves.

You can't defend yourself against an entire army out to get you.


... why is the whole Army out to 'get you?' If the military has been called in to deal with a threat, then there is a threat worthy of military-grade defense.
 
2013-02-27 03:31:29 AM

Securitywyrm: Abacus9: Securitywyrm: Abacus9: pedrop357: Abacus9: Securitywyrm: IlGreven: Securitywyrm: I'll support any gun control laws that apply equally to those in law enforcement. So if the police can't have it, you can't have it. If the police need it for protecting their lives, then your life is just as deserving of the same protection. If the 2nd amendment was reworded to "No restriction upon the right of citizens to keep and bear arms shall exceed those restrictions placed upon those engaged in the act of law enforcement." then I would have no problem registering my gun.

...that is in the 2nd amendment...it's just that it's placed before the "cannot be infringed" clause, and starts with the bit about a well-regulated militia.

The purpose of the 2nd amendment is to keep the people 'well armed.' That does not mean personal nuclear weapons and machine guns. I think a standard of "Weaponry equal to those who enforce the laws" is a fair standard, and has the advantage of being an adaptive standard. When the police can have laser rifles and plasma guns, we can have laser rifles and plasma guns.

What if martial law is imposed? Should we then have the right to personal nuclear weapons?

Moron.

How does taking an argument to it's logical conclusion make me a moron?

Securitywyrm: Abacus9: Same question:

Yes.

That's incredibly stupid and irresponsible. Why do you think you should have access to all the same weapons the authorities have? Do you honestly believe you could win in a standoff?!

If the authorities need those weapons to protect themselves, then the people deserve the same capacity to defend themselves.

You can't defend yourself against an entire army out to get you.

... why is the whole Army out to 'get you?' If the military has been called in to deal with a threat, then there is a threat worthy of military-grade defense.


You mentioned you should be allowed the right to personal nuclear weapons. That would go over real well. Seriously, you're so concerned about protecting yourself, but how should we protect ourselves from you?
 
2013-02-27 03:51:08 AM

Abacus9: Securitywyrm: Abacus9: Securitywyrm: Abacus9: pedrop357: Abacus9: Securitywyrm: IlGreven: Securitywyrm: I'll support any gun control laws that apply equally to those in law enforcement. So if the police can't have it, you can't have it. If the police need it for protecting their lives, then your life is just as deserving of the same protection. If the 2nd amendment was reworded to "No restriction upon the right of citizens to keep and bear arms shall exceed those restrictions placed upon those engaged in the act of law enforcement." then I would have no problem registering my gun.

...that is in the 2nd amendment...it's just that it's placed before the "cannot be infringed" clause, and starts with the bit about a well-regulated militia.

The purpose of the 2nd amendment is to keep the people 'well armed.' That does not mean personal nuclear weapons and machine guns. I think a standard of "Weaponry equal to those who enforce the laws" is a fair standard, and has the advantage of being an adaptive standard. When the police can have laser rifles and plasma guns, we can have laser rifles and plasma guns.

What if martial law is imposed? Should we then have the right to personal nuclear weapons?

Moron.

How does taking an argument to it's logical conclusion make me a moron?

Securitywyrm: Abacus9: Same question:

Yes.

That's incredibly stupid and irresponsible. Why do you think you should have access to all the same weapons the authorities have? Do you honestly believe you could win in a standoff?!

If the authorities need those weapons to protect themselves, then the people deserve the same capacity to defend themselves.

You can't defend yourself against an entire army out to get you.

... why is the whole Army out to 'get you?' If the military has been called in to deal with a threat, then there is a threat worthy of military-grade defense.

You mentioned you should be allowed the right to personal nuclear weapons. That would go over real well. Seriously, you're so ...


You are saying that those engaged in law enforcement are equipped with nuclear weapons. At that point, me saying people should have their own is considered silly?
 
2013-02-27 04:10:15 AM

Securitywyrm: You are saying that those engaged in law enforcement are equipped with nuclear weapons. At that point, me saying people should have their own is considered silly?


I was referring more to military, but yes, people having their own nukes is silly.
 
2013-02-27 04:28:42 AM

Abacus9: Securitywyrm: You are saying that those engaged in law enforcement are equipped with nuclear weapons. At that point, me saying people should have their own is considered silly?

I was referring more to military, but yes, people having their own nukes is silly.


If the military is being used as a tool to control the civilian population, we've long passed 'silly.'
 
2013-02-27 04:49:14 AM

Securitywyrm: Abacus9: Securitywyrm: You are saying that those engaged in law enforcement are equipped with nuclear weapons. At that point, me saying people should have their own is considered silly?

I was referring more to military, but yes, people having their own nukes is silly.

If the military is being used as a tool to control the civilian population, we've long passed 'silly.'


Agreed, I was just using your word. I remember my mom telling me about the Detroit riot in the '60s when martial law was declared. There were tanks rolling down the street and everything. I suppose the difference is, the military weren't planning on nuking Detroit, even though they have nuclear weapons (and a lot of Farkers wouldn't mind Detroit getting nuked). I don't see how that entitles citizens to nuclear weapons. Aside from the dangers, and assuming someone could competently and properly use one, how in the world is it practical? Where would it be used? How would you avoid killing tons of fellow citizens?
 
2013-02-27 10:04:03 AM

Abacus9: Agreed, I was just using your word. I remember my mom telling me about the Detroit riot in the '60s when martial law was declared. There were tanks rolling down the street and everything. I suppose the difference is, the military weren't planning on nuking Detroit, even though they have nuclear weapons (and a lot of Farkers wouldn't mind Detroit getting nuked). I don't see how that entitles citizens to nuclear weapons. Aside from the dangers, and assuming someone could competently and properly use one, how in the world is it practical? Where would it be used? How would you avoid killing tons of fellow citizens?


What should the people do if martial law is declared and/or the army is turned against the people?  What weapons should we be able to have?

If the police/soldiers are carrying small/portable nukes to use against the populace, would that justify the ownership of small/portable nukes by the populace?
 
2013-02-28 12:20:25 AM

pedrop357: What should the people do if martial law is declared and/or the army is turned against the people? What weapons should we be able to have?


Martial law has been declared before, when things get way out of hand (like a riot). This is not the army turning against the people, it is the army helping the police to restore order, as in my aforementioned example (Detroit Riot of '67).

pedrop357: If the police/soldiers are carrying small/portable nukes to use against the populace, would that justify the ownership of small/portable nukes by the populace?


This is literally the dumbest goddamn thing I've ever read.
 
Displayed 28 of 178 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report