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 04:44:44 PM  

Doktor_Zhivago: vygramul: Didn't those pictures all have the caption, "Not particularly useful against an insurgency," in 2005, or is that inconvenient now?

I don't think wanna be militia men jerking off in the woods to anti-government fantasy count as an insurgency.  So no it's not that inconvenient.


The problem with this nonsensical debate is that both sides insist on pretending there is only one scenario for every unfolding of interaction involving a firearm. There are no variables, according to the most die-hard positions, only constants. That's how you get gun-owners cowering in fear before a mass shooter, but unarmed people rising up to tackle that same guy because he has to swap mags. That's how you get gun-owners insisting that the Founders intended an armed society, but refusing to admit the greater capability increases the penalty to society and that it might have changed their calculations knowing that. It's as if the Founders were as narrow-minded and unsophisticated in their thinking as Wayne LaPierre.
 
2013-03-16 04:44:59 PM  
Not name calling . . . just telling you how I perceive you.  It's an honest statement.  You know, discourse.  It might be useful information to you . . . you appear to be a delusional paranoiac to me.  I'm a relatively clever, well-educated, well-read guy.  Up to you to use that information.
 
2013-03-16 04:45:39 PM  

udhq: That answer amounts to doing nothing to prevent violent crime, only responding to it after it has taken place.

After all, every gun owner is safe and law-abiding, until they aren't.


I'm not really sure what you're getting at: in the US, rights default to "on" and people are considered innocent until proven guilty in a court (or through some other due process). The vast majority of gun-owners are law-abiding people and remain so their whole lives and don't commit violent acts. Only a tiny fraction are or become criminals.

There's plenty of things that can be done to help reduce violent crime that don't infringe on the rights of the law-abiding. I'm a big fan of more resources for low-income communities that are plagued by drug and gang-related violence. Helping people get a leg up in the world through grants, scholarships, improving schools, job training, etc., rather than turning to gangs as a way to make ends meet, would be helpful. Ending the useless and harmful "War on Drugs", focusing on harm reduction, and treating drug use like a medical issue rather than a crime would help cut out the drug traffickers that fuel a lot of the violence. Cracking down on straw purchasers and those who supply criminals with guns would help too. Having a solid healthcare system, both medical and mental, would go a long way.

Such things aren't cheap and and they aren't easy, but they're a lot more effective than trying to restrict certain types of popular guns that are rarely used in crime.
 
2013-03-16 04:46:16 PM  

carpbrain: Not name calling . . . just telling you how I perceive you.  It's an honest statement.  You know, discourse.  It might be useful information to you . . . you appear to be a delusional paranoiac to me.  I'm a relatively clever, well-educated, well-read guy.  Up to you to use that information.


I'll use that information by plonking an obvious troll.  Bye.
 
2013-03-16 04:49:13 PM  

Silly Jesus: udhq: Silly Jesus: udhq: At the end of the day, 200 years of jurisprudence has determined that the 2nd amendment extends only so far as it does not conflict with the constitution's primary goal of "promoting the general welfare."

That fact is, the right of the people to keep and bear arms CAN BE and IS commonly infringed in the case of any number of weapons of mass destruction.  That being the case, I think it's incumbent upon the pro-gun crowd to explain why they think they should be trusted to possess objects whose SOLE DESIGNED PURPOSE is to damage the general welfare.

Here's a tip:  the histrionics and the violent rhetoric are not helping your case.

What damaging the general welfare might look like...

[www.shtfplan.com image 360x270]
[img16.imageshack.us image 604x516]
[en.academic.ru image 850x419]

Right, because this, at it's center, is a discussion about banning biathalon.....

You said SOLE DESIGNED PURPOSE and put it in all caps.  I thought it was pretty clear that there was no legitimate purpose for these weapons in your opinion.  Do you have a different interpretation of the word SOLE?


The sole design purpose for any substantive change to the performance of a firearm THROUGHOUT HISTORY was to kill more people. Everything beyond that is just a mod to optimize it for a particular application.

Percussion caps? Fire faster to kill more people.
Lever-action? Fire faster to kill more people.
Breech-loading? Fire faster to kill more people.
Bolt-Action? Fire faster to kill more people.
Stripper-clips? Fire more before having to reload so you kill more people.
Stripper-clips? Fire more before having to reload so you kill more people.
Semi-automatic? Fire faster to kill more people.
External magazine? Fire more before having to reload so you kill more people.

The lie isn't that the AR-15 wasn't designed to kill people. The lie is the implication that everything else WASN'T.
 
2013-03-16 04:51:05 PM  

heypete: udhq: You see that first clause, where it says "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state"? That means your have a right to bear arms IN DEFENSE of the federal government, not against it

Perhaps you're not familiar with DC v. Heller, as the Supreme Court disagrees: "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."


I'm familiar with Heller, and while it does affirm a personal right to bear arms, what it decidedly does not do is nullify the first clause of the 2nd amendment.

My comment was in response to the implication that the right to bear arms somehow includes and unspoken right to overthrow the government.  This is not the case, and was never an intended justification for the inclusion 2nd amendment.  The "public" justification behind the 2nd amendment was to ensure "the security of a free state", i.e. the continuity and stability of the federal government and it's jurisdiction.  The "actual" reason had more to do with a network of militias in the south that existed for the purpose of enforcing slavery.
 
2013-03-16 04:51:13 PM  

Doktor_Zhivago: Amos Quito: When that happens, those who mean to retain power might appreciate the fact that their subjects are incapable of offering effective resistance.

Don't you think

Yes your AR and your love of freedom will stop this:
[www.usmilitary.com image 378x375]
And this:
[upload.wikimedia.org image 300x207]
And this:
[aeronauticpictures.com image 485x359]

It's not 1776 anymore where the height of military tech is a big metal tube.  But keep dreaming derping.



And who do you think mans those tanks, flies those planes, and has immediate command over those troops?

Robots?

The military is staffed with men who have sworn to protect and defend THE CONSTITUTION - NOT the would-be Authoritarian plutocrats. Their families - their brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers, sons and daughters are THE PEOPLE of the United States. And that is where their hearts are.

These men have a track record of being willing to fight and, if necessary give their lives in the name of preserving the freedoms and liberties enshrined in the Constitution - and they ALSO have an unusual appreciation for arms, and what the consequences of finding oneself defenseless can bring.

This is not Saddam's "Republican Guard".

Good luck convincing them to turn their weapons on their own.
 
2013-03-16 04:51:14 PM  

heypete: Izicata: Previous AWBs haven't done much because they've been completely toothless, banning mostly cosmetic features. What makes an assault weapon is a semi-automatic gun with a long barrel that is able to accept a detachable high capacity magazine. Those are the weapons Australia banned, and they haven't had a mass shooting for over a decade.

So, pretty much any semi-auto rifle? The AR-15 is the most common rifle in private hands in the country, and for good reason. The majority of guns sold in the country are semi-auto and the Heller decision said that the Second Amendment specifically protects guns that are in "common use" so it's unlikely that any semi-auto ban would pass muster.

Until you can print an AR receiver that can fire more than 6 rounds without falling apart, we're not going to have to worry about 3D printing. We can cross that bridge when we get to it.

Here's the updated AR receiver from the same group that can fire 600+ rounds without failing. As I said, the tech is only going to get better.


I'm not from the United States, so I really don't comprehend this obsession with guns and the 2nd amendment that seems so prevalent in the USA.  Assault weapon bans that actually ban assault weapons have worked in every other first world, westernized, industrial, democratic country that has passed and enforced them. Society has not collapsed. Australia is not a dictatorship, Canada is not Mad Max on ice, and the UK is not burning as we speak.

The 2nd amendment is clearly not vital for protection from a tyrannical government. There are a bunch of countries that don't have any equivalent of a second amendment (i.e. a constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms in some fashion). Canadians, for example,  have no constitutional right to keep and bear arms, but Canada hasn't degenerated into a police state.

What the Supreme Court currently permits as constitutional does not change whether or not Assault Weapon Bans work. How the law functions must, eventually, change to take into account how reality functions. Probably some time after Scalia dies.

And if Australia suddenly sees a massive increase in mass shootings committed with 3d constructed weaponry, I guess we'll have to just ban the ownership or sale of AR-15 upper receivers as well.
 
2013-03-16 04:53:24 PM  

vygramul: The lie isn't that the AR-15 wasn't designed to kill people. The lie is the implication that everything else WASN'T.


GPS was designed to kill people. We should ban it.
 
2013-03-16 04:53:30 PM  

Silly Jesus: You said SOLE DESIGNED PURPOSE and put it in all caps. I thought it was pretty clear that there was no legitimate purpose for these weapons in your opinion. Do you have a different interpretation of the word SOLE?


I've been around biathaletes and have watched biathalon, and I have never seen someone compete in this sport with an assault rifle.
 
2013-03-16 04:53:48 PM  

vygramul: Silly Jesus: udhq: Silly Jesus: udhq: At the end of the day, 200 years of jurisprudence has determined that the 2nd amendment extends only so far as it does not conflict with the constitution's primary goal of "promoting the general welfare."

That fact is, the right of the people to keep and bear arms CAN BE and IS commonly infringed in the case of any number of weapons of mass destruction.  That being the case, I think it's incumbent upon the pro-gun crowd to explain why they think they should be trusted to possess objects whose SOLE DESIGNED PURPOSE is to damage the general welfare.

Here's a tip:  the histrionics and the violent rhetoric are not helping your case.

What damaging the general welfare might look like...

[www.shtfplan.com image 360x270]
[img16.imageshack.us image 604x516]
[en.academic.ru image 850x419]

Right, because this, at it's center, is a discussion about banning biathalon.....

You said SOLE DESIGNED PURPOSE and put it in all caps.  I thought it was pretty clear that there was no legitimate purpose for these weapons in your opinion.  Do you have a different interpretation of the word SOLE?

The sole design purpose for any substantive change to the performance of a firearm THROUGHOUT HISTORY was to kill more people. Everything beyond that is just a mod to optimize it for a particular application.

Percussion caps? Fire faster to kill more people.
Lever-action? Fire faster to kill more people.
Breech-loading? Fire faster to kill more people.
Bolt-Action? Fire faster to kill more people.
Stripper-clips? Fire more before having to reload so you kill more people.
Stripper-clips? Fire more before having to reload so you kill more people.
Semi-automatic? Fire faster to kill more people.
External magazine? Fire more before having to reload so you kill more people.

The lie isn't that the AR-15 wasn't designed to kill people. The lie is the implication that everything else WASN'T.


Not sure where going with this.  So . . . everyone should have one?  We have a bunch of other devices even better at killing people and blowing stuff up, maybe everyone should have those as well.

The discussion is about re-drawing the line.  We don't currently allow folks to own machine guns.  Maybe the NRA isn't OK with that (probably not).  But it seems sensible to me.
 
2013-03-16 04:56:42 PM  

Lenny_da_Hog: vygramul: The lie isn't that the AR-15 wasn't designed to kill people. The lie is the implication that everything else WASN'T.

GPS was designed to kill people. We should ban it.


Does the clovis point count?  It was designed to kill animals too, and that's kind of barbaric.  Can we ban all edged objects?

SOLE DESIGNED PURPOSE is to damage the general welfare

Guns were designed by anarchists?
 
2013-03-16 05:01:04 PM  
I believe the PC term for gun control nuts is slappers only"
 
2013-03-16 05:01:58 PM  

carpbrain: vygramul: Silly Jesus: udhq: Silly Jesus: udhq: At the end of the day, 200 years of jurisprudence has determined that the 2nd amendment extends only so far as it does not conflict with the constitution's primary goal of "promoting the general welfare."

That fact is, the right of the people to keep and bear arms CAN BE and IS commonly infringed in the case of any number of weapons of mass destruction.  That being the case, I think it's incumbent upon the pro-gun crowd to explain why they think they should be trusted to possess objects whose SOLE DESIGNED PURPOSE is to damage the general welfare.

Here's a tip:  the histrionics and the violent rhetoric are not helping your case.

What damaging the general welfare might look like...

[www.shtfplan.com image 360x270]
[img16.imageshack.us image 604x516]
[en.academic.ru image 850x419]

Right, because this, at it's center, is a discussion about banning biathalon.....

You said SOLE DESIGNED PURPOSE and put it in all caps.  I thought it was pretty clear that there was no legitimate purpose for these weapons in your opinion.  Do you have a different interpretation of the word SOLE?

The sole design purpose for any substantive change to the performance of a firearm THROUGHOUT HISTORY was to kill more people. Everything beyond that is just a mod to optimize it for a particular application.

Percussion caps? Fire faster to kill more people.
Lever-action? Fire faster to kill more people.
Breech-loading? Fire faster to kill more people.
Bolt-Action? Fire faster to kill more people.
Stripper-clips? Fire more before having to reload so you kill more people.
Stripper-clips? Fire more before having to reload so you kill more people.
Semi-automatic? Fire faster to kill more people.
External magazine? Fire more before having to reload so you kill more people.

The lie isn't that the AR-15 wasn't designed to kill people. The lie is the implication that everything else WASN'T.

Not sure where going with this.  So . . . everyone should have one?  We have a bunch of other devices even better at killing people and blowing stuff up, maybe everyone should have those as well.

The discussion is about re-drawing the line.  We don't currently allow folks to own machine guns.  Maybe the NRA isn't OK with that (probably not).  But it seems sensible to me.


But we do allow folks to own machine guns
 
2013-03-16 05:03:05 PM  

carpbrain: Not sure where going with this.  So . . . everyone should have one?  We have a bunch of other devices even better at killing people and blowing stuff up, maybe everyone should have those as well.

The discussion is about re-drawing the line.  We don't currently allow folks to own machine guns.  Maybe the NRA isn't OK with that (probably not).  But it seems sensible to me.


The problem is that people seem to be unclear on the capabilities of given weapons and so reduce their perceived objections to the point of stupidity. I've said it before and I'll say it again: one side will never admit that there is one thing that would work, the other side is too afraid to admit that anything less will be ineffective.
 
2013-03-16 05:03:17 PM  

Izicata: What the Supreme Court currently permits as constitutional does not change whether or not Assault Weapon Bans work. How the law functions must, eventually, change to take into account how reality functions. Probably some time after Scalia dies.


Being that so-called "assault weapons" are used in only a tiny fraction of crime (using the numbers provided by Senator Feinstein, an advocate of a ban on such guns, "assault weapons" are used in about 0.6% of all gun-related homicide in the US), it's not really clear why the laws against such guns would even need to be considered -- there's far more pressing issues when it comes to violent crime and gun violence, and more effective measures that could be done to reduce it.

For various reasons, guns are part of the American culture and there's a lot of people who aren't so keen on restrictions on what they consider to be basic rights. I, for one, am quite outspoken about free speech, privacy, protection from unlawful search and seizures, warrantless wiretapping, etc. in addition to gun rights.

And if Australia suddenly sees a massive increase in mass shootings committed with 3d constructed weaponry, I guess we'll have to just ban the ownership or sale of AR-15 upper receivers as well.

As on who abhors violence, I hope such an eventuality doesn't occur.

Of course, one can make uppers and other parts out of metal using machine tools even without 3D-printers. There's quite a few guns that are quite easy to make and require a relatively small amount of work (the Sten gun, for example, can be made with about 5 man-hours of work). While not unheard of, it's not terribly common for people to make their own guns, as it's usually cheaper and easier in most countries to just buy a gun (particularly in the US).
 
2013-03-16 05:05:31 PM  

vygramul: Silly Jesus: udhq: Silly Jesus: udhq: At the end of the day, 200 years of jurisprudence has determined that the 2nd amendment extends only so far as it does not conflict with the constitution's primary goal of "promoting the general welfare."

That fact is, the right of the people to keep and bear arms CAN BE and IS commonly infringed in the case of any number of weapons of mass destruction.  That being the case, I think it's incumbent upon the pro-gun crowd to explain why they think they should be trusted to possess objects whose SOLE DESIGNED PURPOSE is to damage the general welfare.

Here's a tip:  the histrionics and the violent rhetoric are not helping your case.

What damaging the general welfare might look like...

[www.shtfplan.com image 360x270]
[img16.imageshack.us image 604x516]
[en.academic.ru image 850x419]

Right, because this, at it's center, is a discussion about banning biathalon.....

You said SOLE DESIGNED PURPOSE and put it in all caps.  I thought it was pretty clear that there was no legitimate purpose for these weapons in your opinion.  Do you have a different interpretation of the word SOLE?

The sole design purpose for any substantive change to the performance of a firearm THROUGHOUT HISTORY was to kill more people. Everything beyond that is just a mod to optimize it for a particular application.

Percussion caps? Fire faster to kill more people.
Lever-action? Fire faster to kill more people.
Breech-loading? Fire faster to kill more people.
Bolt-Action? Fire faster to kill more people.
Stripper-clips? Fire more before having to reload so you kill more people.
Stripper-clips? Fire more before having to reload so you kill more people.
Semi-automatic? Fire faster to kill more people.
External magazine? Fire more before having to reload so you kill more people.

The lie isn't that the AR-15 wasn't designed to kill people. The lie is the implication that everything else WASN'T.


I don't understand the point of that argument.  It's a damn Olympic sport to shoot a rifle at targets...of what relevance is your drum beating about it being able to kill more people than a revolutionary war rifle?  The person that I was responding to said that the sole purpose of the weapons is, essentially, harm.  I pointed out that they are widely used for purposes other than that.  How does your "advances in efficiency" line of conversation tie into that in any reasonable way?
 
2013-03-16 05:06:59 PM  

heypete: udhq: That answer amounts to doing nothing to prevent violent crime, only responding to it after it has taken place.

After all, every gun owner is safe and law-abiding, until they aren't.

I'm not really sure what you're getting at: in the US, rights default to "on" and people are considered innocent until proven guilty in a court (or through some other due process). The vast majority of gun-owners are law-abiding people and remain so their whole lives and don't commit violent acts. Only a tiny fraction are or become criminals.

There's plenty of things that can be done to help reduce violent crime that don't infringe on the rights of the law-abiding. I'm a big fan of more resources for low-income communities that are plagued by drug and gang-related violence. Helping people get a leg up in the world through grants, scholarships, improving schools, job training, etc., rather than turning to gangs as a way to make ends meet, would be helpful. Ending the useless and harmful "War on Drugs", focusing on harm reduction, and treating drug use like a medical issue rather than a crime would help cut out the drug traffickers that fuel a lot of the violence. Cracking down on straw purchasers and those who supply criminals with guns would help too. Having a solid healthcare system, both medical and mental, would go a long way.

Such things aren't cheap and and they aren't easy, but they're a lot more effective than trying to restrict certain types of popular guns that are rarely used in crime.



Can't say I disagree with much of any of that.  I would just add that "gun crime" and "mass shootings" are 2 different issues.  Your proposals address the first, but not necessarily the 2nd.

You can argue that "mass shootings" aren't really a significant national problem, that a small handful of over-reported incidents are driving public opinion, but I tend to think their frequency, even if not increasing, merits action.  Mental healthcare is part of that, but I also believe in drawing a legal distinction between the tools needed to commit murder vs. mass murder.
 
2013-03-16 05:08:11 PM  
Izicata:  Canadians, for example,  have no constitutional right to keep and bear arms, but Canada hasn't degenerated into a police state.

A surprisingly high number of Canadians (at least by European standards) own firearms, especially in the rural areas and in the north. Living around coyotes, grizzlies, and polar bears does tend to concentrate the mind wonderfully. Still, Canada's gun laws are in some respects absurdly restrictive, and are likely to become even more so after the coronation of King Trudeau II in 2015.

As for the police state -- as is currently the case in the US, it will happen so incrementally that relatively few will notice or complain until it's too late.
 
2013-03-16 05:08:31 PM  

udhq: Silly Jesus: You said SOLE DESIGNED PURPOSE and put it in all caps. I thought it was pretty clear that there was no legitimate purpose for these weapons in your opinion. Do you have a different interpretation of the word SOLE?

I've been around biathaletes and have watched biathalon, and I have never seen someone compete in this sport with an assault rifle.


Ah, you're one of those under the impression that the big, scary, black plastic guns are lethally different from the more tame looking ones.
 
2013-03-16 05:09:58 PM  

udhq: Sometimes the interests of the governed diverge from those who intend to govern.

In some such instances, those who mean to govern wish to retain their authority, and force their will on the governed.

When that happens, those who mean to retain power might appreciate the fact that their subjects are incapable of offering effective resistance.

Don't you think?

Re-read the text of the 2nd amendment for me:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

You see that first clause, where it says "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state"? That means your have a right to bear arms IN DEFENSE of the federal government, not against it. The 2nd amendment is not a license to substitute violence for democracy when you've unilaterally decided that the winner of the last election is a tyrant.

The founding fathers wrote the periodic turnover of government through democratic elections into our founding documents for a reason. To argue that you have a right to bear arms for the purpose of overthrowing a democratic government when you see fit only proves the point of the gun control people: that you clearly can't handle such a freedom.


Do you really believe that the Founding Fathers were so naive that they believed the government they intended to craft - on the behalf of themselves AND THEIR POSTERITY would somehow be magically immune to the dark, corrupting nature that is everpresent in humanity? That their government would somehow always serve the interests of THE PEOPLE?

If so, you are sorely mistaken. The FF's were revolutionaries - "treasonous criminals" who had just fought bloody hard to rid themselves of the yoke of tyranny, and, with THAT perspective fresh in their minds, can guarantee that the suffered no such delusions.

THAT is why they carefully crafted the Constitution - not to grant power to the central government, but to PREVENT any central government from becoming too powerful.

Power corrupts.

"The people can not be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independant 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each state. What country ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure.

-- Thomas Jefferson 1787
 
2013-03-16 05:10:23 PM  

carpbrain: vygramul: Silly Jesus: udhq: Silly Jesus: udhq: At the end of the day, 200 years of jurisprudence has determined that the 2nd amendment extends only so far as it does not conflict with the constitution's primary goal of "promoting the general welfare."

That fact is, the right of the people to keep and bear arms CAN BE and IS commonly infringed in the case of any number of weapons of mass destruction.  That being the case, I think it's incumbent upon the pro-gun crowd to explain why they think they should be trusted to possess objects whose SOLE DESIGNED PURPOSE is to damage the general welfare.

Here's a tip:  the histrionics and the violent rhetoric are not helping your case.

What damaging the general welfare might look like...

[www.shtfplan.com image 360x270]
[img16.imageshack.us image 604x516]
[en.academic.ru image 850x419]

Right, because this, at it's center, is a discussion about banning biathalon.....

You said SOLE DESIGNED PURPOSE and put it in all caps.  I thought it was pretty clear that there was no legitimate purpose for these weapons in your opinion.  Do you have a different interpretation of the word SOLE?

The sole design purpose for any substantive change to the performance of a firearm THROUGHOUT HISTORY was to kill more people. Everything beyond that is just a mod to optimize it for a particular application.

Percussion caps? Fire faster to kill more people.
Lever-action? Fire faster to kill more people.
Breech-loading? Fire faster to kill more people.
Bolt-Action? Fire faster to kill more people.
Stripper-clips? Fire more before having to reload so you kill more people.
Stripper-clips? Fire more before having to reload so you kill more people.
Semi-automatic? Fire faster to kill more people.
External magazine? Fire more before having to reload so you kill more people.

The lie isn't that the AR-15 wasn't designed to kill people. The lie is the implication that everything else WASN'T.

Not sure where going with this.  So . . . everyone should h ...


If the discussion is about where to re-draw the line, then why is nobody on the Dem side wanting to redraw it based on statistics?  If their ultimate goal is saving lives they would be trying to redraw it to get rid of pistols.  Big black scary plastic rifles account for less than 3% of gun deaths.  Why the hell would they start there?
 
2013-03-16 05:10:26 PM  

vygramul: carpbrain: Not sure where going with this.  So . . . everyone should have one?  We have a bunch of other devices even better at killing people and blowing stuff up, maybe everyone should have those as well.

The discussion is about re-drawing the line.  We don't currently allow folks to own machine guns.  Maybe the NRA isn't OK with that (probably not).  But it seems sensible to me.

The problem is that people seem to be unclear on the capabilities of given weapons and so reduce their perceived objections to the point of stupidity. I've said it before and I'll say it again: one side will never admit that there is one thing that would work, the other side is too afraid to admit that anything less will be ineffective.


Well, then, maybe a weapons-expert like yourself should contribute to the discussion, and identify those weapons that are likely to do more harm than good.  I'm no expert, I just see folks using AR-15s to shoot up theaters and elementary schools, and that seems like a bad thing to me.  I'm quite certain that society will continue, and gun advocates will manage to enjoy themselves, if we banned that weapon.  I don't think it will happen, though.  What seems nuttier is the opposition to universal background checks and high capacity magazines.
 
2013-03-16 05:11:09 PM  

udhq: I've been around biathaletes and have watched biathalon, and I have never seen someone compete in this sport with an assault rifle.


They can't. Biathlon rules do not allow semi-automatic actions.
/I understand as well as you do that this topic has nothing to do with any assault weapons ban.
 
2013-03-16 05:12:34 PM  

Silly Jesus: Hint:  A lot of the civilized world doesn't have the culture that you see in Detroit or parts of Chicago.


And if you do live in Detroit where the crime rate is astronomical and the police response time can be measured in hours, you might be very glad to have a firearm for personal protection.

/naw hell, what am I saying?! The government can be trusted to look after us and keep us safe from all harm! All when they can't or won't, it's probably our fault anyway for not giving them enough money.
 
2013-03-16 05:13:31 PM  

carpbrain: vygramul: carpbrain: Not sure where going with this.  So . . . everyone should have one?  We have a bunch of other devices even better at killing people and blowing stuff up, maybe everyone should have those as well.

The discussion is about re-drawing the line.  We don't currently allow folks to own machine guns.  Maybe the NRA isn't OK with that (probably not).  But it seems sensible to me.

The problem is that people seem to be unclear on the capabilities of given weapons and so reduce their perceived objections to the point of stupidity. I've said it before and I'll say it again: one side will never admit that there is one thing that would work, the other side is too afraid to admit that anything less will be ineffective.

Well, then, maybe a weapons-expert like yourself should contribute to the discussion, and identify those weapons that are likely to do more harm than good.  I'm no expert, I just see folks using AR-15s to shoot up theaters and elementary schools, and that seems like a bad thing to me.  I'm quite certain that society will continue, and gun advocates will manage to enjoy themselves, if we banned that weapon.  I don't think it will happen, though.  What seems nuttier is the opposition to universal background checks and high capacity magazines.


Do you not care about the Newtown School full of black kids killed in Chicago on a weekly basis by handguns?
 
2013-03-16 05:13:48 PM  

carpbrain: I'm no expert, I just see folks using AR-15s to shoot up theaters and elementary schools, and that seems like a bad thing to me.


You see media reports of these things, more than likely. The media only reports bad things. They don't report that millions of shots were fired by hobbyists without incident.

The only time I see news about alcohol, it's because it's killing people. That's because I don't drink and don't go to bars. Therefore, there can be no upside to alcohol, right?
 
2013-03-16 05:14:19 PM  

Silly Jesus: udhq: Silly Jesus: You said SOLE DESIGNED PURPOSE and put it in all caps. I thought it was pretty clear that there was no legitimate purpose for these weapons in your opinion. Do you have a different interpretation of the word SOLE?

I've been around biathaletes and have watched biathalon, and I have never seen someone compete in this sport with an assault rifle.

Ah, you're one of those under the impression that the big, scary, black plastic guns are lethally different from the more tame looking ones.


Biathlon weapons are scary looking and lethal. Nobody (that I know of) is talking about banning them because of their exotic furniture..
 
2013-03-16 05:14:46 PM  

Amos Quito: udhq: Sometimes the interests of the governed diverge from those who intend to govern.

In some such instances, those who mean to govern wish to retain their authority, and force their will on the governed.

When that happens, those who mean to retain power might appreciate the fact that their subjects are incapable of offering effective resistance.

Don't you think?

Re-read the text of the 2nd amendment for me:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

You see that first clause, where it says "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state"? That means your have a right to bear arms IN DEFENSE of the federal government, not against it. The 2nd amendment is not a license to substitute violence for democracy when you've unilaterally decided that the winner of the last election is a tyrant.

The founding fathers wrote the periodic turnover of government through democratic elections into our founding documents for a reason. To argue that you have a right to bear arms for the purpose of overthrowing a democratic government when you see fit only proves the point of the gun control people: that you clearly can't handle such a freedom.

Do you really believe that the Founding Fathers were so naive that they believed the government they intended to craft - on the behalf of themselves AND THEIR POSTERITY would somehow be magically immune to the dark, corrupting nature that is everpresent in humanity? That their government would somehow always serve the interests of THE PEOPLE?

If so, you are sorely mistaken. The FF's were revolutionaries - "treasonous criminals" who had just fought bloody hard to rid themselves of the yoke of tyranny, and, with THAT perspective fresh in their minds, can guarantee that the suffered no such delusions.

THAT is why they carefully crafted the Constitution - not to grant power to the central government, but to PREV ...


Only one major rebellion in the 225 years history of the US.  Which side are you on?
 
2013-03-16 05:15:26 PM  

Silly Jesus: quatchi: Silly Jesus: It's emotional.  Libs think with their bleeding heart, not their brain.

America's annual gun death statistics compared to the rest of the civilized world make people with a brain haz a sad.

And that automatically means that the guns are the problem, and not the culture.  Derp.


Certain crazy people having virtually unrestricted access to certain guns are certainly part of the problem that includes but is not limited to the failed war on drugs, the criminal element, bad mental health care nationally and a knee jerk rejection to any potential changes to gun control legislation. It's a big problem that requires a comprehensive approach and understanding to even begin to resolve. But thanks for attributing a false absolutist argument to me and then declaring it derp. That's always fun.

Hint:  A lot of the civilized world doesn't have the culture that you see in Detroit or parts of Chicago.

*blink*

Gosh, I wonder why your mind went there first.

/Not really.

You're almost as much fun as that "pockets of gun violence" guy.

/Again, not really.
 
2013-03-16 05:17:44 PM  

Lenny_da_Hog: carpbrain: I'm no expert, I just see folks using AR-15s to shoot up theaters and elementary schools, and that seems like a bad thing to me.

You see media reports of these things, more than likely. The media only reports bad things. They don't report that millions of shots were fired by hobbyists without incident.

The only time I see news about alcohol, it's because it's killing people. That's because I don't drink and don't go to bars. Therefore, there can be no upside to alcohol, right?


Not getting your point.  AR-15s should be freely available because . . . hobbyists like using them?  Rocket propelled grenades would probably be a hoot for hobbyists as well.  Pretty sure we don't allow them.
 
2013-03-16 05:18:05 PM  

quatchi: Silly Jesus: quatchi: Silly Jesus: It's emotional.  Libs think with their bleeding heart, not their brain.

America's annual gun death statistics compared to the rest of the civilized world make people with a brain haz a sad.

And that automatically means that the guns are the problem, and not the culture.  Derp.

Certain crazy people having virtually unrestricted access to certain guns are certainly part of the problem that includes but is not limited to the failed war on drugs, the criminal element, bad mental health care nationally and a knee jerk rejection to any potential changes to gun control legislation. It's a big problem that requires a comprehensive approach and understanding to even begin to resolve. But thanks for attributing a false absolutist argument to me and then declaring it derp. That's always fun.

Hint:  A lot of the civilized world doesn't have the culture that you see in Detroit or parts of Chicago.

*blink*

Gosh, I wonder why your mind went there first.

/Not really.

You're almost as much fun as that "pockets of gun violence" guy.

/Again, not really.


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.
 
2013-03-16 05:18:36 PM  

Silly Jesus: I don't understand the point of that argument.  It's a damn Olympic sport to shoot a rifle at targets...of what relevance is your drum beating about it being able to kill more people than a revolutionary war rifle?  The person that I was responding to said that the sole purpose of the weapons is, essentially, harm.  I pointed out that they are widely used for purposes other than that.  How does your "advances in efficiency" line of conversation tie into that in any reasonable way?


It's pointing out that his argument holds no water because it applies equally well to weapons he says he's willing to leave legal.
 
2013-03-16 05:19:01 PM  

Silly Jesus: udhq: Silly Jesus: You said SOLE DESIGNED PURPOSE and put it in all caps. I thought it was pretty clear that there was no legitimate purpose for these weapons in your opinion. Do you have a different interpretation of the word SOLE?

I've been around biathaletes and have watched biathalon, and I have never seen someone compete in this sport with an assault rifle.

Ah, you're one of those under the impression that the big, scary, black plastic guns are lethally different from the more tame looking ones.


I don't care how it looks or what it's made out of.  What I don't like is the capability to fire more than 1 round per trigger pull.
 
2013-03-16 05:19:42 PM  

heypeteBeing that so-called "assault weapons" are used in only a tiny fraction of crime (using the numbers provided by Senator Feinstein, an advocate of a ban on such guns, "assault weapons" are used in about 0.6% of all gun-related homicide in the US), it's not really clear why the laws against such guns would even need to be considered -- there's far more pressing issues when it comes to violent crime and gun violence, and more effective measures that could be done to reduce it.

And now we're back where we started.

Izicata: The point of an AWB is to stop mass shootings. Most people who are shot to death are not shot to death in a mass shooting, but that doesn't mean that stopping mass shootings is a bad thing.

 
2013-03-16 05:19:47 PM  

carpbrain: Lenny_da_Hog: carpbrain: I'm no expert, I just see folks using AR-15s to shoot up theaters and elementary schools, and that seems like a bad thing to me.

You see media reports of these things, more than likely. The media only reports bad things. They don't report that millions of shots were fired by hobbyists without incident.

The only time I see news about alcohol, it's because it's killing people. That's because I don't drink and don't go to bars. Therefore, there can be no upside to alcohol, right?

Not getting your point.  AR-15s should be freely available because . . . hobbyists like using them?  Rocket propelled grenades would probably be a hoot for hobbyists as well.  Pretty sure we don't allow them.


Are you OK with pistols being freely available?  If so, why?  Keep in mind that their contribution to gun deaths vs. rifles is about 95-5.
 
2013-03-16 05:19:51 PM  

Amos Quito: Do you really believe that the Founding Fathers were so naive that they believed the government they intended to craft - on the behalf of themselves AND THEIR POSTERITY would somehow be magically immune to the dark, corrupting nature that is everpresent in humanity? That their government would somehow always serve the interests of THE PEOPLE?


I think what you fail to understand is that it was only acceptable to express scepticism about the scope and power of the US government prior to the presidential election of 2008... whereas dissent was once the highest form of patriotism, now it is a thinly veiled form of racism and/or a sign of right-wing extremism. The Founders could not possibly have been expected to foresee that in our day, for the first time in US history, the government would be led by people who were utterly noble and altruistic; that is why, as the New York Times has so sagely asserted, it is time to scrap the Constitution, since there is no need for checks and balances on a totally benevolent administration.
 
2013-03-16 05:20:09 PM  

carpbrain: Lenny_da_Hog: carpbrain: I'm no expert, I just see folks using AR-15s to shoot up theaters and elementary schools, and that seems like a bad thing to me.

You see media reports of these things, more than likely. The media only reports bad things. They don't report that millions of shots were fired by hobbyists without incident.

The only time I see news about alcohol, it's because it's killing people. That's because I don't drink and don't go to bars. Therefore, there can be no upside to alcohol, right?

Not getting your point.  AR-15s should be freely available because . . . hobbyists like using them?  Rocket propelled grenades would probably be a hoot for hobbyists as well.  Pretty sure we don't allow them.


Yes. Because hobbyists like using them. The same as alcohol and tobacco, which both kill far, far more people than firearms.
 
2013-03-16 05:21:11 PM  

udhq: Silly Jesus: udhq: Silly Jesus: You said SOLE DESIGNED PURPOSE and put it in all caps. I thought it was pretty clear that there was no legitimate purpose for these weapons in your opinion. Do you have a different interpretation of the word SOLE?

I've been around biathaletes and have watched biathalon, and I have never seen someone compete in this sport with an assault rifle.

Ah, you're one of those under the impression that the big, scary, black plastic guns are lethally different from the more tame looking ones.

I don't care how it looks or what it's made out of.  What I don't like is the capability to fire more than 1 round per trigger pull.


Ah, you don't know what semi-automatic means either.  Wow.
 
2013-03-16 05:21:55 PM  

udhq: Can't say I disagree with much of any of that. I would just add that "gun crime" and "mass shootings" are 2 different issues. Your proposals address the first, but not necessarily the 2nd.

You can argue that "mass shootings" aren't really a significant national problem, that a small handful of over-reported incidents are driving public opinion, but I tend to think their frequency, even if not increasing, merits action. Mental healthcare is part of that, but I also believe in drawing a legal distinction between the tools needed to commit murder vs. mass murder.


With some exceptions, pretty much any firearm legally available in the US is suitable for committing mass murder. With a bit of practice, a revolver can be reloaded in a matter of seconds (there's certain experts who can reload them in a fraction of a second, but that's unreasonable for most people). A pump-action shotgun can fire hundreds of pellets in just a few seconds. A semi-auto handgun, even if restricted to low-capacity magazines, can still be fired and reloaded quite quickly. Of course, the same properties that make a gun dangerous in the hands of a criminal or madman also make the gun more effective in the hands of someone using it for self-defense.

I agree that mass shootings certainly merit action, though I don't think that restricting the most popular guns in the country is the right (or even an effective) way of going about reducing mass shootings. Restrictions on certain types of guns and magazine limits were implemented nationally from 1994-2004. There really wasn't any effect. Trying to do the same thing again doesn't seem likely to be any more effective. I think a lot more effort to focus on people, rather than the guns themselves, would be helpful. I'm certainly no expert, of course.
 
2013-03-16 05:22:28 PM  

Izicata: heypete:  Being that so-called "assault weapons" are used in only a tiny fraction of crime (using the numbers provided by Senator Feinstein, an advocate of a ban on such guns, "assault weapons" are used in about 0.6% of all gun-related homicide in the US), it's not really clear why the laws against such guns would even need to be considered -- there's far more pressing issues when it comes to violent crime and gun violence, and more effective measures that could be done to reduce it.

And now we're back where we started.

Izicata: The point of an AWB is to stop mass shootings. Most people who are shot to death are not shot to death in a mass shooting, but that doesn't mean that stopping mass shootings is a bad thing.


An AWB would stop mass shootings?

HAHAHAHAHAHA breath HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
 
2013-03-16 05:23:08 PM  

Silly Jesus: If the discussion is about where to re-draw the line, then why is nobody on the Dem side wanting to redraw it based on statistics?  If their ultimate goal is saving lives they would be trying to redraw it to get rid of pistols.  Big black scary plastic rifles account for less than 3% of gun deaths.  Why the hell would they start there?


Because these weapons are chosen for massacres and may be constitutionally banned. Handguns are protected by precedent, but you are right that they are also very dangerous, especially with high capacity magazines, in the wrong hands. That's why Democrats would like to see background checks and lawful registrations as well.
 
2013-03-16 05:23:51 PM  

Silly Jesus: Izicata: heypete:  Being that so-called "assault weapons" are used in only a tiny fraction of crime (using the numbers provided by Senator Feinstein, an advocate of a ban on such guns, "assault weapons" are used in about 0.6% of all gun-related homicide in the US), it's not really clear why the laws against such guns would even need to be considered -- there's far more pressing issues when it comes to violent crime and gun violence, and more effective measures that could be done to reduce it.

And now we're back where we started.

Izicata: The point of an AWB is to stop mass shootings. Most people who are shot to death are not shot to death in a mass shooting, but that doesn't mean that stopping mass shootings is a bad thing.

An AWB would stop mass shootings?

HAHAHAHAHAHA breath HAHAHAHAHAHAHA


Izicata: Australia passed their assault weaponry ban in 1996, and it was followed by more than a decade free of fatal mass shootings, and accelerated declines in firearm deaths (PDF). In comparison, the United States has had twenty-five mass shootings since 2006, seven of those in 2012 alone.


Links are in the original post.
 
2013-03-16 05:25:04 PM  

carpbrain: vygramul: carpbrain: Not sure where going with this.  So . . . everyone should have one?  We have a bunch of other devices even better at killing people and blowing stuff up, maybe everyone should have those as well.

The discussion is about re-drawing the line.  We don't currently allow folks to own machine guns.  Maybe the NRA isn't OK with that (probably not).  But it seems sensible to me.

The problem is that people seem to be unclear on the capabilities of given weapons and so reduce their perceived objections to the point of stupidity. I've said it before and I'll say it again: one side will never admit that there is one thing that would work, the other side is too afraid to admit that anything less will be ineffective.

Well, then, maybe a weapons-expert like yourself should contribute to the discussion, and identify those weapons that are likely to do more harm than good.  I'm no expert, I just see folks using AR-15s to shoot up theaters and elementary schools, and that seems like a bad thing to me.  I'm quite certain that society will continue, and gun advocates will manage to enjoy themselves, if we banned that weapon.  I don't think it will happen, though.  What seems nuttier is the opposition to universal background checks and high capacity magazines.


You see shotguns and handguns used to shoot up theaters and schools, and the handguns have been more effective in doing so - even the ones without 20- and 30-round magazines. This focus on assault weapons will get us nowhere, may actually make things worse, and only serves to reinforce the reputation of those who are interested in reducing gun violence look ignorant and stubborn. Society and enjoyment will continue, but so will mass shootings, and those shootings will be every bit as bad, if not worse. The AR-15 has been available to the general public for some 50 years, and in that time, 8 of the top-11 mass shootings in the US had nothing that resembled an assault rifle involved. Including the top-two, which were solely handguns with magazine capacities of no more than 15 bullets. Placebos work with medical treatments, not murder.
 
2013-03-16 05:26:06 PM  

Lenny_da_Hog: carpbrain: Lenny_da_Hog: carpbrain: I'm no expert, I just see folks using AR-15s to shoot up theaters and elementary schools, and that seems like a bad thing to me.

You see media reports of these things, more than likely. The media only reports bad things. They don't report that millions of shots were fired by hobbyists without incident.

The only time I see news about alcohol, it's because it's killing people. That's because I don't drink and don't go to bars. Therefore, there can be no upside to alcohol, right?

Not getting your point.  AR-15s should be freely available because . . . hobbyists like using them?  Rocket propelled grenades would probably be a hoot for hobbyists as well.  Pretty sure we don't allow them.

Yes. Because hobbyists like using them. The same as alcohol and tobacco, which both kill far, far more people than firearms.


That's actually one of the best arguments I've heard.  But still something that doesn't seem like going to the mat for, especially in light of the shootings in Aurora and Newtown.  There are a ton of other fine weapons for hobbyists to enjoy.  I've plinked a few soda cans with a .22 rifle myself.

The discussion is about moving the line a tiny amount in one direction.  No, it won't end violent crime.  No, it won't end mass shootings.  But yes, to me, it seems like a sensible, small change.
 
2013-03-16 05:28:01 PM  

Ablejack: Silly Jesus: If the discussion is about where to re-draw the line, then why is nobody on the Dem side wanting to redraw it based on statistics?  If their ultimate goal is saving lives they would be trying to redraw it to get rid of pistols.  Big black scary plastic rifles account for less than 3% of gun deaths.  Why the hell would they start there?

Because these weapons are chosen for massacres and may be constitutionally banned. Handguns are protected by precedent, but you are right that they are also very dangerous, especially with high capacity magazines, in the wrong hands. That's why Democrats would like to see background checks and lawful registrations as well.


Because they are chosen, often by teenagers who like neat, scary looking things, for these massacres does not mean that they are the most efficient item for such a task.  Many combinations of weapons not involving these scary guns would be just as, if not more, lethal.

Background checks - Fine with me, but most criminals don't do things the legally way...hence the criminal title.

Restricting magazines is asinine.  If nobody had any use for a larger magazine in self defense then whey are Dems so quick to allow an exemption for police?  Also, as has been pointed out by many...with very little practice a magazine can be changed rather quickly.  This ban is just a nonsense feel good measure that is only added red tape with no real impact.
 
2013-03-16 05:28:12 PM  

carpbrain: Only one major rebellion in the 225 years history of the US.


i50.tinypic.com



carpbrain: Which side are you on?



I'm on the side of We The People retaining our liberties - and our ability to DEFEND, if necessary, those liberties.

Seems to me that if we can manage to do that, no such "rebellion" will be necessary.

:-)
 
2013-03-16 05:28:16 PM  

Izicata: Silly Jesus: Izicata: heypete:  Being that so-called "assault weapons" are used in only a tiny fraction of crime (using the numbers provided by Senator Feinstein, an advocate of a ban on such guns, "assault weapons" are used in about 0.6% of all gun-related homicide in the US), it's not really clear why the laws against such guns would even need to be considered -- there's far more pressing issues when it comes to violent crime and gun violence, and more effective measures that could be done to reduce it.

And now we're back where we started.

Izicata: The point of an AWB is to stop mass shootings. Most people who are shot to death are not shot to death in a mass shooting, but that doesn't mean that stopping mass shootings is a bad thing.

An AWB would stop mass shootings?

HAHAHAHAHAHA breath HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Izicata: Australia passed their assault weaponry ban in 1996, and it was followed by more than a decade free of fatal mass shootings, and accelerated declines in firearm deaths (PDF). In comparison, the United States has had twenty-five mass shootings since 2006, seven of those in 2012 alone.

Links are in the original post.


You might want to look at all of Australia's firearms laws for an explanation as to why an AWB alone will not succeed.
 
2013-03-16 05:29:58 PM  

udhq: Silly Jesus: udhq: Silly Jesus: You said SOLE DESIGNED PURPOSE and put it in all caps. I thought it was pretty clear that there was no legitimate purpose for these weapons in your opinion. Do you have a different interpretation of the word SOLE?

I've been around biathaletes and have watched biathalon, and I have never seen someone compete in this sport with an assault rifle.

Ah, you're one of those under the impression that the big, scary, black plastic guns are lethally different from the more tame looking ones.

I don't care how it looks or what it's made out of.  What I don't like is the capability to fire more than 1 round per trigger pull.


Look up NFA 34, FOPA 86 Hughes amendment, then reevaluate your position
 
2013-03-16 05:30:06 PM  

Izicata: Silly Jesus: Izicata: heypete:  Being that so-called "assault weapons" are used in only a tiny fraction of crime (using the numbers provided by Senator Feinstein, an advocate of a ban on such guns, "assault weapons" are used in about 0.6% of all gun-related homicide in the US), it's not really clear why the laws against such guns would even need to be considered -- there's far more pressing issues when it comes to violent crime and gun violence, and more effective measures that could be done to reduce it.

And now we're back where we started.

Izicata: The point of an AWB is to stop mass shootings. Most people who are shot to death are not shot to death in a mass shooting, but that doesn't mean that stopping mass shootings is a bad thing.

An AWB would stop mass shootings?

HAHAHAHAHAHA breath HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Izicata: Australia passed their assault weaponry ban in 1996, and it was followed by more than a decade free of fatal mass shootings, and accelerated declines in firearm deaths (PDF). In comparison, the United States has had twenty-five mass shootings since 2006, seven of those in 2012 alone.

Links are in the original post.


There are numerous links to our ban here doing nothing.

Causation vs. correlation.

Also, you can't discount the amount that are already in circulation and you can't discount our very different cultures.  It's not as simple as banning the scary gun.
 
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