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.

(NPR)   Gun-ban proponent Senator Leahy (D-VT) admits that assault rifles may be needed by the general public in the event of zombie apocalypse   (npr.org) divider line 460
    More: Obvious, Weekend Edition, assault rifles, zombie apocalypse, Richard Blumenthal, shoestring catch  
•       •       •

1798 clicks; posted to Politics » on 16 Mar 2013 at 2:15 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-16 06:13:58 PM

electronicmaji: cman: electronicmaji: cman:
Let it come. We will beat the ignorant idiots again.


You fought in the first Civil War?

No the North did.

The Civil ones will beat the uncivil ones in this Civil War.


"We" indicates possession.

You cannot take credit and own something that you had absolutely nothing to do with. The reverse is true; the sins of the father shouldnt be cast upon the son.
 
2013-03-16 06:14:09 PM

Silverstaff: Ennuipoet: Silverstaff: Think of the Children" is an appeal to emotion, a logical fallacy.

Except, you know, for the ACTUAL DEAD CHILDREN!

I have no illusions that we can fix the violence problem with a few half hearted laws, but don't try and spin your way out of the brutal reality that children were murdered.

You can take that logic for what you want, but let's not pretend that it didn't happen.  Zombies, on the other hand, have yet to materialize.

"Actual dead children" is completely irrelevant.  Were you calling for stricter gun laws after Columbine?  A 6 year old was among the victims at Aurora, were you calling for this then?  What calculus of age and quantity do you believe is appropriate for a one-time incident to warrant a permanent reduction in freedom for America?

The violent crime rate in the US is the lowest it's been since 1963: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2012/0109/US-crime-rate-at-lowes t -point-in-decades.-Why-America-is-safer-now

You're safer now on the streets of America than you have been in the last 50 years.  The crime rate peaked in 1991, before the old AWB, and kept falling constantly after that, including falling after the AWB expired.

Newtown was a statistical outlier in the larger picture of violent crime in the US.

Columbine happened in the middle of the old AWB, which did nothing to stop it.

Also, I have yet to hear one rational argument why I should willingly surrender my basic civil right to bear arms so that other people can have a false illusion of security.  Why should I trade in my freedom so you can have the impression you are safer for it, even though statistically it shows otherwise.


THIS
 
2013-03-16 06:14:16 PM
electronicmaji:  If they didn't learn their lesson the first time it's about time it farking gets repeated. Only hopefully this time when reconstruction comes around we ban those involved from voting permanently.  And we ban their views from Public like Germany did with the Nazis.

And then we'll throw them all into ovens! That'll show them for their crazy anti- government paranoia! Yeaaaah!

Seriously, pal -- I know that you leftists have been responsible for over a hundred million civilian deaths over the past century, but in modern- day North America you're supposed to conceal your totalitarian sympathies under a pretence of caring for the "common good" and "social justice". It's like you guys aren't even trying to hide it anymore.
 
2013-03-16 06:14:24 PM

carpbrain: vygramul: carpbrain: And why oppose every damn common sense proposal put forward?  It just seems nutty.

I missed answering your other question: I'm for universal background checks.

Nice.  It makes it feel like an adult discussion!  Thanks for adding that.


I can't have a thin skin when it comes to political threads or I'd never find the adults with whom to have a conversation.
 
2013-03-16 06:15:09 PM

udhq: Farker Soze: That seems to be a common thread. I can't be trusted with these weapons (because I'm violent, hot tempered, clumsy, irresponsible, etc.), so no one can.

It's more the fact that the calm, measured argument in favor of gun rights is the exception to the histrionic, bulging-neck-veined ITG rule.  It's so rarely the people that can be trusted with weapons arguing they should be allowed to own them.


hehe I'd like blue cheese dressing with my word salad, please
 
2013-03-16 06:17:31 PM

carpbrain: udhq: Farker Soze: That seems to be a common thread. I can't be trusted with these weapons (because I'm violent, hot tempered, clumsy, irresponsible, etc.), so no one can.

It's more the fact that the calm, measured argument in favor of gun rights is the exception to the histrionic, bulging-neck-veined ITG rule.  It's so rarely the people that can be trusted with weapons arguing they should be allowed to own them.

hehe I'd like blue cheese dressing with my word salad, please


English not your first language?
 
2013-03-16 06:18:01 PM

Silly Jesus: There's a superstition that America has a "gun violence" problem. It doesn't. It has a black (and increasingly Hispanic) crime problem, which the government and the mainstream media manage to avoid discussing by pretending that the white rural hunter with the NRA sticker on his truck is the real threat to the country.


There are ways to address cultural differences without racial implications. Unless it is your intended point that you are being racist. I'm sure you cannot define what makes a person black or white any better than lawmakers who attempt to describe what an assault weapon is.
 
2013-03-16 06:18:26 PM

Silly Jesus: Silverstaff: Ennuipoet: Silverstaff: Think of the Children" is an appeal to emotion, a logical fallacy.

Except, you know, for the ACTUAL DEAD CHILDREN!

I have no illusions that we can fix the violence problem with a few half hearted laws, but don't try and spin your way out of the brutal reality that children were murdered.

You can take that logic for what you want, but let's not pretend that it didn't happen.  Zombies, on the other hand, have yet to materialize.

"Actual dead children" is completely irrelevant.  Were you calling for stricter gun laws after Columbine?  A 6 year old was among the victims at Aurora, were you calling for this then?  What calculus of age and quantity do you believe is appropriate for a one-time incident to warrant a permanent reduction in freedom for America?

The violent crime rate in the US is the lowest it's been since 1963: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2012/0109/US-crime-rate-at-lowes t -point-in-decades.-Why-America-is-safer-now

You're safer now on the streets of America than you have been in the last 50 years.  The crime rate peaked in 1991, before the old AWB, and kept falling constantly after that, including falling after the AWB expired.

Newtown was a statistical outlier in the larger picture of violent crime in the US.

Columbine happened in the middle of the old AWB, which did nothing to stop it.

Also, I have yet to hear one rational argument why I should willingly surrender my basic civil right to bear arms so that other people can have a false illusion of security.  Why should I trade in my freedom so you can have the impression you are safer for it, even though statistically it shows otherwise.

THIS


second.
 
2013-03-16 06:19:54 PM

vygramul: carpbrain: vygramul: carpbrain: And why oppose every damn common sense proposal put forward?  It just seems nutty.

I missed answering your other question: I'm for universal background checks.

Nice.  It makes it feel like an adult discussion!  Thanks for adding that.

I can't have a thin skin when it comes to political threads or I'd never find the adults with whom to have a conversation.


Going back to my Boobies in this thread . . . any insights as to why so many folks appear to argue against any and every regulation of the ownership of weapons?
 
2013-03-16 06:20:58 PM

udhq: carpbrain: udhq: Farker Soze: That seems to be a common thread. I can't be trusted with these weapons (because I'm violent, hot tempered, clumsy, irresponsible, etc.), so no one can.

It's more the fact that the calm, measured argument in favor of gun rights is the exception to the histrionic, bulging-neck-veined ITG rule.  It's so rarely the people that can be trusted with weapons arguing they should be allowed to own them.

hehe I'd like blue cheese dressing with my word salad, please

English not your first language?


Your sentence sucked.
 
2013-03-16 06:21:48 PM

Silly Jesus: EvilRacistNaziFascist: quatchi: Silly Jesus: If you removed a small element of the population from inner cities (and their violence statistics along with them) then we would suddenly be much more in line with your ideal countries.  Not sure what your negative reaction to that reality is based on.

"If you remove some of the gun violence statistics we don't really look that bad" is your argument and you're explaining "reality" to me?

There's a superstition that America has a "gun violence" problem. It doesn't. It has a black (and increasingly Hispanic) crime problem, which the government and the mainstream media manage to avoid discussing by pretending that the white rural hunter with the NRA sticker on his truck is the real threat to the country.


Don't be silly, it's always best to treat the splinter in your thumb before you take on the massive sucking chest wound in your torso.
 
2013-03-16 06:23:31 PM
Heh filtered.  But a deeper question I have . . . I understand the NRA's stance in general, and I know that they are rather entangled with the gun manufacturers . . . but how can making guns be such a large and influential industry, such that most politicians can't even blink in opposition?  It seems like it's not big business, not like banking, or oil, or big agriculture.
 
2013-03-16 06:24:14 PM

Dr. Goldshnoz: Also, I have yet to hear one rational argument why I should willingly surrender my basic civil right to bear arms so that other people can have a false illusion of security.  Why should I trade in my freedom so you can have the impression you are safer for it, even though statistically it shows otherwise.


No one is asking anyone to surrender basic civil rights.
 
2013-03-16 06:27:32 PM

udhq: Farker Soze: That seems to be a common thread. I can't be trusted with these weapons (because I'm violent, hot tempered, clumsy, irresponsible, etc.), so no one can.

It's more the fact that the calm, measured argument in favor of gun rights is the exception to the histrionic, bulging-neck-veined ITG rule.  It's so rarely the people that can be trusted with weapons arguing they should be allowed to own them.


I doubt anyone currently arguing in this thread that they should be trusted with weapons has ever shot anyone negligently or in anger.  You just consider them untrustworthy because you yourself are untrustworthy.  It's projection, and you don't realize it.
 
2013-03-16 06:29:43 PM

Farker Soze: udhq: Farker Soze: That seems to be a common thread. I can't be trusted with these weapons (because I'm violent, hot tempered, clumsy, irresponsible, etc.), so no one can.

It's more the fact that the calm, measured argument in favor of gun rights is the exception to the histrionic, bulging-neck-veined ITG rule.  It's so rarely the people that can be trusted with weapons arguing they should be allowed to own them.

I doubt anyone currently arguing in this thread that they should be trusted with weapons has ever shot anyone negligently or in anger.  You just consider them untrustworthy because you yourself are untrustworthy.  It's projection, and you don't realize it.


Oops was that some friendly fire?
 
2013-03-16 06:32:48 PM

Ennuipoet: one of the reasons we can't make any headway in gun law reform is because we keeping bringing up shiat that DOESN'T EXIST!


Par for the course for gun grabbers.

Step 1: Ignore History
Step 2: Project Inadequacy
Step 3: Make shiat Up

If you had any arguments that weren't emotional based someone might be swayed by them.
 
2013-03-16 06:33:09 PM

carpbrain: Heh filtered.  But a deeper question I have . . . I understand the NRA's stance in general, and I know that they are rather entangled with the gun manufacturers . . . but how can making guns be such a large and influential industry, such that most politicians can't even blink in opposition?  It seems like it's not big business, not like banking, or oil, or big agriculture.


To the gun industry, it is their only business. They of course are interested in being heard, and do have an effective lobby based heavily on a large sporting community.  The sporting set have a grand and sympathetic narrative in American history and policy,  although they are not the intended target of these proposed bans.
 
2013-03-16 06:34:06 PM

doglover: Ennuipoet: one of the reasons we can't make any headway in gun law reform is because we keeping bringing up shiat that DOESN'T EXIST!

Par for the course for gun grabbers.

Step 1: Ignore History
Step 2: Project Inadequacy
Step 3: Make shiat Up

If you had any arguments that weren't emotional based someone might be swayed by them.


Who is a "gun grabber"?  Yet another nutty sentiment that seems to pop out.
 
2013-03-16 06:34:59 PM

carpbrain: vygramul: carpbrain: vygramul: carpbrain: And why oppose every damn common sense proposal put forward?  It just seems nutty.

I missed answering your other question: I'm for universal background checks.

Nice.  It makes it feel like an adult discussion!  Thanks for adding that.

I can't have a thin skin when it comes to political threads or I'd never find the adults with whom to have a conversation.

Going back to my Boobies in this thread . . . any insights as to why so many folks appear to argue against any and every regulation of the ownership of weapons?


Mostly, it's a genuine distrust of government. Not necessarily all government, or even necessarily this one, although many people have fallen for the Obama = Socialist nonsense. They have internalized the possibility that government will, in fact, turn to abject tyranny, and that, along with loyal military units, will successfully defend us from such usurpation.

It's not that they hope to rise against a government in their lifetimes (except some libertarians who think we're already there). They see themselves as the caretakers of that capability. They mostly believe that we're way past what it should be. A true M-16 should be available, most of them would tell you in private. Maybe even support weapons, counting on their expense to keep them out of the hands of the criminally insane. (After all, rich criminals express their sociopathy on Wall Street, right?)

It's flawed, but it's absolute, and it's reinforced by how much fun the hobby itself is. Not just the hobby - but the culture itself.

/Nickel and dime psychoanalysis and worth what you paid for it.
 
2013-03-16 06:35:38 PM

doglover: Ennuipoet: one of the reasons we can't make any headway in gun law reform is because we keeping bringing up shiat that DOESN'T EXIST!

Par for the course for gun grabbers.

Step 1: Ignore History
Step 2: Project Inadequacy
Step 3: Make shiat Up

If you had any arguments that weren't emotional based someone might be swayed by them.


Gun grabbers don't exist either.
 
2013-03-16 06:36:07 PM

Ablejack: There are ways to address cultural differences without racial implications. Unless it is your intended point that you are being racist.


I have been assured by left- leaning Farkers on numerous occasions that, as a white person, I am implicitly racist, and that as a conservative I am explicitly racist. That's why I find it merely amusing when someone bleats (as they always drearily and predictably do, being the sheep that they are) "racist" at me, because they already played that card long ago. I don't care. All I care about, all anybody should care about, is the truth. A fact cannot be racist.

You may however have misinterpreted what I said. I am not claiming that all black or Hispanic people are criminals, only that those communities contribute a vastly disproportionate share of the crime rate in the US -- a share without which the American crime rate would be closer to that of Canada (as indeed it already is in those mostly- white US states which border Canada, but whose gun laws are far laxer than Canada's) and without which there would be no general worry about the level of violence in the US.

I am not saying that there are no white criminals either; spree shootings such as Newtown -- though contrary to popular myth they are not committed exclusively by whites -- are a disturbing indication of the rise in mental illness among the general population over the past few decades, or perhaps more accurately of a liberal or libertarian unwillingness to intervene in the lives of disturbed people. But they are not a result of the prevalence of guns; we all know that students in the past would on occasion bring guns to schools for rifle clubs or so that they could go hunting after classes, and that they did this without incident or adverse comment. Ultimately most of America's current social pathologies are due to the malign influence of white "progressives" on all aspects of life in the US -- the elevated crime rate among American blacks, for example, is at least partly attributable to the breakdown of black family life that followed Johnson's vast extension of the welfare state in the 1960s.

I'm sure you cannot define what makes a person black or white any better than lawmakers who attempt to describe what an assault weapon is.

I'm always intrigued by the suggestion that race doesn't exist or doesn't matter, from the same people who readily blame all kinds of social problems on "white racism". If nobody knows what white and black are, how can whites be said to oppress blacks? Doublethink.
 
2013-03-16 06:38:59 PM

EvilRacistNaziFascist: electronicmaji:  If they didn't learn their lesson the first time it's about time it farking gets repeated. Only hopefully this time when reconstruction comes around we ban those involved from voting permanently.  And we ban their views from Public like Germany did with the Nazis.

And then we'll throw them all into ovens! That'll show them for their crazy anti- government paranoia! Yeaaaah!

Seriously, pal -- I know that you leftists have been responsible for over a hundred million civilian deaths over the past century, but in modern- day North America you're supposed to conceal your totalitarian sympathies under a pretence of caring for the "common good" and "social justice". It's like you guys aren't even trying to hide it anymore.


In the Ovens?


These aren't crazy ideas.


If a certain population of people are willing to commit treason and go to war over a common sense law than they will be treated as treasonous.


They are lucky they aren't all brought up on charges of Treason.


The sentence for Treason is death you know.
 
2013-03-16 06:39:00 PM

doglover: Ennuipoet: one of the reasons we can't make any headway in gun law reform is because we keeping bringing up shiat that DOESN'T EXIST!

Par for the course for gun grabbers.

Step 1: Ignore History
Step 2: Project Inadequacy
Step 3: Make shiat Up

If you had any arguments that weren't emotional based someone might be swayed by them.


Feinstein, who's been at it for 30 years, can't be bothered to learn that imploding bullets don't exist.  But bring up zombies, Oh my!
 
2013-03-16 06:39:14 PM

doglover: If you had any arguments that weren't emotional based someone might be swayed by them.


Nothing is wrong with emotional arguments. They are indeed very effective.
 
2013-03-16 06:40:26 PM

carpbrain: Who is a "gun grabber"?


Every teenage boy.

i14.photobucket.com">


But actually anyone who supports bans and pointless regulations like magazine limitations and other silly things. Bloomberg, for example. Basically anyone who wants to regulate society by passing laws to enforce their mores as opposed to leading by example and pinching off problems at the source.
 
2013-03-16 06:41:41 PM

Ablejack: Dr. Goldshnoz: Also, I have yet to hear one rational argument why I should willingly surrender my basic civil right to bear arms so that other people can have a false illusion of security.  Why should I trade in my freedom so you can have the impression you are safer for it, even though statistically it shows otherwise.

No one is asking anyone to surrender basic civil rights.


what do you think the antigunners would go after next if the AWB passes? ALL semi autos? then what? lever actions? then bolt actions / all rifles? then anything bigger than a .22? then anything not an orange tipped toy gun?

And for what? A false sense of security? And creating criminals because what they own/do didn't used to be illegal. Banning guns is as stupid as banning pot, and it is another means of some elite douchebag who lives in a gated community and has private security anyway to tell us dumb average folk how we need to live in THEIR imagined version of utopia. You just eat it up because YEAH IT'S DOING.... SOMETHING.

It absolutely IS surrendering a basic civil right, Because "Right to bear arms" doesn't by any stretch of the imagination mean "Right to what paltry selection of arms the government decides". And also because if I give an inch here you will keep pushing to take that mile.

YOU DON'T NEED ANYTHING BIGGER THAN A .22 SINGLE SHOT TO DEFEND YOURSELF!

Go to Britain and get stabbed, and then arrested because you fought the assailant.
 
2013-03-16 06:42:37 PM

Farker Soze: doglover: Ennuipoet: one of the reasons we can't make any headway in gun law reform is because we keeping bringing up shiat that DOESN'T EXIST!

Par for the course for gun grabbers.

Step 1: Ignore History
Step 2: Project Inadequacy
Step 3: Make shiat Up

If you had any arguments that weren't emotional based someone might be swayed by them.

Feinstein, who's been at it for 30 years, can't be bothered to learn that imploding bullets don't exist.  But bring up zombies, Oh my!


What do you imagine is Feinstein's goal, and what is her motivation?  Trying to get another glimpse of the view of the other side.
 
2013-03-16 06:42:50 PM

electronicmaji: EvilRacistNaziFascist: electronicmaji:  If they didn't learn their lesson the first time it's about time it farking gets repeated. Only hopefully this time when reconstruction comes around we ban those involved from voting permanently.  And we ban their views from Public like Germany did with the Nazis.

And then we'll throw them all into ovens! That'll show them for their crazy anti- government paranoia! Yeaaaah!

Seriously, pal -- I know that you leftists have been responsible for over a hundred million civilian deaths over the past century, but in modern- day North America you're supposed to conceal your totalitarian sympathies under a pretence of caring for the "common good" and "social justice". It's like you guys aren't even trying to hide it anymore.

In the Ovens?


These aren't crazy ideas.


If a certain population of people are willing to commit treason and go to war over a common sense law than they will be treated as treasonous.


They are lucky they aren't all brought up on charges of Treason.


The sentence for Treason is death you know.


It's why George Washington swung from a tree.
 
2013-03-16 06:45:09 PM

Dr. Goldshnoz: Ablejack: Dr. Goldshnoz: Also, I have yet to hear one rational argument why I should willingly surrender my basic civil right to bear arms so that other people can have a false illusion of security.  Why should I trade in my freedom so you can have the impression you are safer for it, even though statistically it shows otherwise.

No one is asking anyone to surrender basic civil rights.

what do you think the antigunners would go after next if the AWB passes? ALL semi autos? then what? lever actions? then bolt actions / all rifles? then anything bigger than a .22? then anything not an orange tipped toy gun?

And for what? A false sense of security? And creating criminals because what they own/do didn't used to be illegal. Banning guns is as stupid as banning pot, and it is another means of some elite douchebag who lives in a gated community and has private security anyway to tell us dumb average folk how we need to live in THEIR imagined version of utopia. You just eat it up because YEAH IT'S DOING.... SOMETHING.

It absolutely IS surrendering a basic civil right, Because "Right to bear arms" doesn't by any stretch of the imagination mean "Right to what paltry selection of arms the government decides". And also because if I give an inch here you will keep pushing to take that mile.

YOU DON'T NEED ANYTHING BIGGER THAN A .22 SINGLE SHOT TO DEFEND YOURSELF!

Go to Britain and get stabbed, and then arrested because you fought the assailant.


Again, my point.  Posters who just seem nutty and post near-nonsense.  Where do these folks come from?
 
2013-03-16 06:46:13 PM

Ablejack: Silly Jesus: There's a superstition that America has a "gun violence" problem. It doesn't. It has a black (and increasingly Hispanic) crime problem, which the government and the mainstream media manage to avoid discussing by pretending that the white rural hunter with the NRA sticker on his truck is the real threat to the country.

There are ways to address cultural differences without racial implications. Unless it is your intended point that you are being racist. I'm sure you cannot define what makes a person black or white any better than lawmakers who attempt to describe what an assault weapon is.


I meant to post a picture of a bucket of popcorn after that comment (the words were someone elses)  Fark's new picture system shows the picture in the preview and then when you hit post it says "OMG YOU CAN'T POST THAT PICTURE / BAD LINK" and just goes ahead and posts it without the intended image...creating your confusion.
 
2013-03-16 06:46:28 PM

vpb: cman:

I know. It is what you want, too.

You also want civil war. You are no better than them.

Unless I am confusing you with someone else, you ARE one of them.  You certainly seem to think that a bunch of ignorant red necks who can't feel like men unless they have a weapon for a security blanket are going to make a credible military force.

Any civil war you gun nuts start will last about two hours, so let you guys be dealt with like the criminals you keep threatening to become.


Tell that to the insurgents in Afghanistan, they obviously haven't gotten the memo that they were only supposed to be able to last 2 hours vs our military.
 
2013-03-16 06:48:03 PM

carpbrain: vygramul: carpbrain: vygramul: carpbrain: And why oppose every damn common sense proposal put forward?  It just seems nutty.

I missed answering your other question: I'm for universal background checks.

Nice.  It makes it feel like an adult discussion!  Thanks for adding that.

I can't have a thin skin when it comes to political threads or I'd never find the adults with whom to have a conversation.

Going back to my Boobies in this thread . . . any insights as to why so many folks appear to argue against any and every regulation of the ownership of weapons?


Do you have a rational regulation that has been shown to be effective?  No?  Didn't think so.  There's your answer.
 
2013-03-16 06:48:26 PM

Farker Soze: I doubt anyone currently arguing in this thread that they should be trusted with weapons has ever shot anyone negligently or in anger. You just consider them untrustworthy because you yourself are untrustworthy. It's projection, and you don't realize it.


No, I consider them untrustworthy because that argument rarely seems to come from people speaking in a calm, measured tone.  Should I be trusted to possess weapons of mass murder?  Absolutely not.  That's my point, that no one should!  If you think that's projection, then that just means that you need to look up that word.
 
2013-03-16 06:49:12 PM

Amos Quito: Fart_Machine: Amos Quito: Fart_Machine: Amos Quito: I'm trying to make you think for yourself.  avoid the question.

That's all you had to say.

No, I'm trying to make you think for yourself.

They claim that banning flash suppressors, bayonet lugs, pistol grips, collapsible stocks etc. will make us "safer" as a nation, that it will have some appreciable effect on gun violence in general.

Simple logic AND FBI statistics prove, beyond all doubt, that their claim is patently false.

A lie.

Clearly then their goal is NOT what they claim it to be.

Feel free to rationalize, and tell us what you THINK their true goal(s) might be.

This makes me wonder why you refuse to answer my question.  What exactly are you afraid of?


As a student of political history and an observer of human nature, I recognize that the "American Experiment" has produced a unique experience in individual and social liberty.

We here have enjoyed many freedoms that you may notice are not enjoyed by other cultures and civilizations - indeed, in this respect, the US has long been the envy of the world.

Have you ever paused to ask yourself why these other societies don't simply grant themselves the same freedoms and liberties that we enjoy? Do they not want freedom of speech and expression? The ability to openly criticize their governments without fear of retaliation, etc?

Liberties are hard won, but easily surrendered, and once they're gone, they're damn near impossible to regain.

If you think this is about anything other than Authoritarian control, you're mistaken.


Yup it's only a lack of firearms that prevent other nations from achieving democracy.

/not sure if serious or a looney.
 
2013-03-16 06:49:20 PM

Jegred2: vpb: cman:

I know. It is what you want, too.

You also want civil war. You are no better than them.

Unless I am confusing you with someone else, you ARE one of them.  You certainly seem to think that a bunch of ignorant red necks who can't feel like men unless they have a weapon for a security blanket are going to make a credible military force.

Any civil war you gun nuts start will last about two hours, so let you guys be dealt with like the criminals you keep threatening to become.

Tell that to the insurgents in Afghanistan, they obviously haven't gotten the memo that they were only supposed to be able to last 2 hours vs our military.


Whuh oh.  Is Jegred2 advocating violent overthrow of the US govt.?  And again, is that what's behind the nuttiness I keep seeing in threads like this?
 
2013-03-16 06:49:39 PM

Farker Soze: Silly Jesus: EvilRacistNaziFascist: quatchi: Silly Jesus: If you removed a small element of the population from inner cities (and their violence statistics along with them) then we would suddenly be much more in line with your ideal countries.  Not sure what your negative reaction to that reality is based on.

"If you remove some of the gun violence statistics we don't really look that bad" is your argument and you're explaining "reality" to me?

There's a superstition that America has a "gun violence" problem. It doesn't. It has a black (and increasingly Hispanic) crime problem, which the government and the mainstream media manage to avoid discussing by pretending that the white rural hunter with the NRA sticker on his truck is the real threat to the country.

Don't be silly, it's always best to treat the splinter in your thumb before you take on the massive sucking chest wound in your torso.


But at least I can pat myself on the back for theoretically saving some white people while I ignore all of the black people being murdered every day by non assault weapons.
 
2013-03-16 06:50:27 PM

carpbrain: Again, my point.  Posters who just seem nutty and post near-nonsense.  Where do these folks come from?


keep trying to push an ideal that has nothing to back it up but "think of the children!" and "we need to do something!"

Also, nice using an ad hominem this post as a stand in for your shiatty argument.

because im nutty and calling your bullshiat means im posting nonsense. It's not shocking your profile says you are frisco.
 
2013-03-16 06:53:47 PM

EvilRacistNaziFascist: You may however have misinterpreted what I said. I am not claiming that all black or Hispanic people are criminals, only that those communities contribute a vastly disproportionate share of the crime rate in the US -- a share without which the American crime rate would be closer to that of Canada (as indeed it already is in those mostly- white US states which border Canada, but whose gun laws are far laxer than Canada's) and without which there would be no general worry about the level of violence in the US.


I suspect that "those communities" have other factors that actually contribute to the type of crimes committed. I did not call you a racist nor did I deny that there is such a distinction. I mean to suggest that crimes are committed for other reasons than what someone looks like. I did however state that if you meant someone's skin tone or hair texture makes them more likely to be a criminal then you were being racist, perhaps even unintentionally. If you don't really mean that it's race that somehow causes crime, I suggest you could be more careful.
/I also had a chuckle with your login in light of this.
 
2013-03-16 06:54:58 PM
Well, to your credit, I wrote "near-nonsense."  Yes, also wrote "seem nutty" but that's just being honest.  But have never seen you post before, and you're all over a gun thread.  It's a marvel!
 
2013-03-16 06:55:05 PM

udhq: Farker Soze: I doubt anyone currently arguing in this thread that they should be trusted with weapons has ever shot anyone negligently or in anger. You just consider them untrustworthy because you yourself are untrustworthy. It's projection, and you don't realize it.

No, I consider them untrustworthy because that argument rarely seems to come from people speaking in a calm, measured tone.  Should I be trusted to possess weapons of mass murder?  Absolutely not.  That's my point, that no one should!  If you think that's projection, then that just means that you need to look up that word.


Is a pistol a weapon of mass murder?
 
2013-03-16 06:55:09 PM

udhq: Farker Soze: I doubt anyone currently arguing in this thread that they should be trusted with weapons has ever shot anyone negligently or in anger. You just consider them untrustworthy because you yourself are untrustworthy. It's projection, and you don't realize it.

No, I consider them untrustworthy because that argument rarely seems to come from people speaking in a calm, measured tone.  Should I be trusted to possess weapons of mass murder?  Absolutely not.  That's my point, that no one should!If you think that's projection, then that just means that you need to look up that word.


That pretty much defines projection.
 
2013-03-16 06:56:14 PM

Ablejack: I did however state that if you meant someone's skin tone or hair texture makes them more likely to be a criminal then you were being racist, perhaps even unintentionally.


statistics are unintentionally racist.
 
2013-03-16 06:57:03 PM

Silly Jesus: Farker Soze: Silly Jesus: EvilRacistNaziFascist: quatchi: Silly Jesus: If you removed a small element of the population from inner cities (and their violence statistics along with them) then we would suddenly be much more in line with your ideal countries.  Not sure what your negative reaction to that reality is based on.

"If you remove some of the gun violence statistics we don't really look that bad" is your argument and you're explaining "reality" to me?

There's a superstition that America has a "gun violence" problem. It doesn't. It has a black (and increasingly Hispanic) crime problem, which the government and the mainstream media manage to avoid discussing by pretending that the white rural hunter with the NRA sticker on his truck is the real threat to the country.

Don't be silly, it's always best to treat the splinter in your thumb before you take on the massive sucking chest wound in your torso.

But at least I can pat myself on the back for theoretically saving some white people while I ignore all of the black people being murdered every day by non assault weapons.


Racist!
 
2013-03-16 06:57:13 PM

Dr. Goldshnoz: what do you think the antigunners would go after next if the AWB passes? ALL semi autos? then what? lever actions? then bolt actions / all rifles? then anything bigger than a .22? then anything not an orange tipped toy gun?


It's like they didn't grow up watching the anti-smoking movement's lies or something.
 
2013-03-16 06:57:49 PM

Ablejack: EvilRacistNaziFascist: You may however have misinterpreted what I said. I am not claiming that all black or Hispanic people are criminals, only that those communities contribute a vastly disproportionate share of the crime rate in the US -- a share without which the American crime rate would be closer to that of Canada (as indeed it already is in those mostly- white US states which border Canada, but whose gun laws are far laxer than Canada's) and without which there would be no general worry about the level of violence in the US.

I suspect that "those communities" have other factors that actually contribute to the type of crimes committed. I did not call you a racist nor did I deny that there is such a distinction. I mean to suggest that crimes are committed for other reasons than what someone looks like. I did however state that if you meant someone's skin tone or hair texture makes them more likely to be a criminal then you were being racist, perhaps even unintentionally. If you don't really mean that it's race that somehow causes crime, I suggest you could be more careful.
/I also had a chuckle with your login in light of this.


Those that are the biggest fans of the culture of looking down on those that get an education, sticking around after they impregnate someone etc. tend to have something in common.  It's not racism to make that observation.  It's not being argued that it's a causal connection.
 
2013-03-16 06:58:07 PM

Silly Jesus: udhq: Farker Soze: I doubt anyone currently arguing in this thread that they should be trusted with weapons has ever shot anyone negligently or in anger. You just consider them untrustworthy because you yourself are untrustworthy. It's projection, and you don't realize it.

No, I consider them untrustworthy because that argument rarely seems to come from people speaking in a calm, measured tone.  Should I be trusted to possess weapons of mass murder?  Absolutely not.  That's my point, that no one should!  If you think that's projection, then that just means that you need to look up that word.

Is a pistol a weapon of mass murder?


a fork can be a weapon of mass murder in the right-- or wrong hands.
 
2013-03-16 06:58:15 PM

Silly Jesus: quatchi: Silly Jesus: If you removed a small element of the population from inner cities (and their violence statistics along with them) then we would suddenly be much more in line with your ideal countries.  Not sure what your negative reaction to that reality is based on.

"If you remove some of the gun violence statistics we don't really look that bad" is your argument and you're explaining "reality" to me?

Only on Fark, people.

Wow...missed the point completely.  I'll use smaller words if I can.

When comparing the violence in different countries, factors aside from number of guns are relevant.  In this case, as one example, I brought up culture.  Remove a certain culture from our society and the gun violence drops off drastically without even changing the number of guns...hence, the guns aren't the problem.  That easier to understand?


Who said guns were the problem?

Guns are inanimate objects. Pretty harmless all by themselves. I mean if we are gonna just get silly here, right?

"Remove a certain culture"? What does that even mean? I thought we were talking about reality here.

I was actually all for the AWB before I realized it wasn't an Attention Whore Ban.

Then when I saw an actual AWB put on the table my first thought was that the Dems were taking a brave (but possibly doomed) political stand here backed up by public opinion increasingly sick of "outlier incidents" (as Wayne LaPierre's crew are fond of calling them) the end result being either A) Get the AWB done which, even if it does nothing to prevent repeats of various mass killings (as I've heard argued here) it would at least send a signal that society at large is increasingly pro gun control or more likely B) Use it as a bargaining chip to try to get other useful things done like improved mental care, removing the gun sale loophole, better tracking of said sales by LEOs, etc leaving both parties with something to take back to their bases.

But that's just like, my opinion, man.
 
2013-03-16 06:58:43 PM

Silly Jesus: Fark's new picture system shows the picture in the preview and then when you hit post it says "OMG YOU CAN'T POST THAT PICTURE / BAD LINK" and just goes ahead and posts it without the intended image...creating your confusion.


I know right? It is a nuisance.
 
2013-03-16 06:59:59 PM

Dr. Goldshnoz: Ablejack: I did however state that if you meant someone's skin tone or hair texture makes them more likely to be a criminal then you were being racist, perhaps even unintentionally.

statistics are unintentionally racist.


They can be interpreted that way, it's true.
 
2013-03-16 07:01:26 PM

doglover: Dr. Goldshnoz: what do you think the antigunners would go after next if the AWB passes? ALL semi autos? then what? lever actions? then bolt actions / all rifles? then anything bigger than a .22? then anything not an orange tipped toy gun?

It's like they didn't grow up watching the anti-smoking movement's lies or something.


actually that crusade came to fruition with glorious bloomberg's "no 2 liter with a pizza" law. I'm sure there are more examples, I seem to recall refillable sodas over X ounces being banned places as well.
 
Displayed 50 of 460 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report