Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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.

(CNSNews)   Remember that Colorado sheriff who announced that he will no longer enforce laws he doesn't like? Yeah...about that   (cnsnews.com ) divider line
    More: Followup, Colorado, Weld County, gun controls, sheriffs  
•       •       •

28483 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 Mar 2013 at 3:08 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2013-03-19 05:08:42 PM  

Thunderpipes: Dixon Cider: I live near this asshole and hope he gets fired soon!

Farking conservatives thinks it's OK to break the law, if it is something they want. But ask for Equal Rights for Brown or Gay people and HOLY shiat, your asking fro crimes against humanity!!

Heh dumbass...

Sanctuary cities anyone? Burlington, VT refuses to enforce the law. Why should you be angry when someone wants to refuse a law that is against the constitution?


Thanks, dickhead!
 
2013-03-19 05:09:27 PM  

GUTSU: Caffandtranqs: How does adding a tommy gun to the argument make it appear scary.  They ARE illegal guns because of their killing capacity.

An automatic Thompson with a 50 round magazine has the same "killing capacity" as a 50 round semi-automatic Thompson. Just because something is "automatic" doesn't magically enchant the bullets into +5 bullets of killing. Automatic weapons aren't used for gunning down huge swaths of people, but for suppression. I'd argue that you'd be able to full far more people with a semi-automatic weapon since they are much more accurate than just fully-automatic weapons.


That is scary.
 
2013-03-19 05:10:04 PM  

GUTSU: So if the government signed into law declaring that you'd need to pay $100 to vote, that'd be constitutional to you? You know, because something is a right, that doesn't mean it's free.


Why, in order to have this debate, must we pretend like the right to vote is the same as the right to keep and bare arms? Voting can't be done irresponsibly and recklessly. Casting a vote is always harmless and peaceful. There is some regulation of voting to prevent fraud, but no one's life is in danger by the casting of a vote. Purchasing a gun that is designed to kill humans and animals is potentially done with malicious intent. Making a comparison between poll tax and charging someone a SMALL FEE on TOP of the purchase of their boom stick are completely different. The purpose of a poll tax is discriminate against the poor. The purpose of making someone pay for their background check is to finance a system that will keep guns out of the hands of people with criminal records. Responsible gun ownership comes with a cost. Even if you obtained a gun as a gift or a family heirloom, ammunition, target practice, maintenance of your firearm, etc. all cost money. Maybe the background check fee will be some sign of financial responsibility that should go hand in hand with firearm ownership.

Concealed Handgun Classes cost money. Are we fine with that? Or is that another infringement upon "bearing" arms?
 
2013-03-19 05:11:02 PM  

Nadie_AZ: /lives in sheriff joe's county
//i do remember his predecessor, however


Which one?  I used to live across the street from one and went to HS with his kid.
 
2013-03-19 05:11:14 PM  

GUTSU: Richard Flaccid: In other breaking gun news:  Senate Democrats dropped AWB from the gun bill today.  Anyone surprised?

They realized they'd lose their jobs if they voted for it. Seems as if they learned from '94.


It was there as a bargaining chip from the beginning, so no, I am not surprised.

Well, maybe surprised they learned to start by offering something you know won't pass in order to get an incremental step towards that thing to pass.
 
2013-03-19 05:12:03 PM  

tylerdurden217: the right to keep and bare arms


lulz... bare arms. Well, if the weather permits, I guess. I'm an idiot.
 
2013-03-19 05:12:03 PM  

tom baker's scarf: they are allowed to use logic and common sense. Just as  transporting a couple of case of liquor doesn't automatically trigger "he's an illegal vendor" carrying two legal, unmodified mags wouldn't trigger "OMG he's gonna make a 30 round mag because he could, maybe, someday, let's get him."


So the law is poorly written since the most straight forward interpretation flies in the face of common sense and logic. It's sounding more and more like you agree that the law as written is unenforceable.

Which is a problem the gun junkies bring on themselves.

Of course. It's the opponents of the law that are at fault for a bad law. Why didn't I see that before?
 
2013-03-19 05:12:26 PM  
At this point, I think that they should pass a whole bunch of absurd gun laws, just to troll these assholes and make the lose their minds. This country is sick anyway - time to give it an enema.
 
2013-03-19 05:12:48 PM  

Richard Flaccid: In other breaking gun news:  Senate Democrats dropped AWB from the gun bill today.  Anyone surprised?


Standard politics, If you're trying to get an inch, ask for a mile, then act pouty and make a bill for the inch and say you compromised.

I say let's not give the inch. How about we extend constitutional carry (Arizona) and equal access to NFA/Class III (Florida, etc.) and then we'll go along with the universal background checks if there are no records of sale kept.
 
2013-03-19 05:16:15 PM  

jso2897: At this point, I think that they should pass a whole bunch of absurd gun laws, just to troll these assholes and make the lose their minds. This country is sick anyway - time to give it an enema.


They are already doing that.
 
2013-03-19 05:17:10 PM  

jso2897: At this point, I think that they should pass a whole bunch of absurd gun laws, just to troll these assholes and make the lose their minds. This country is sick anyway - time to give it an enema.


Sounds like you don't really fear a bunch of people with firearms. You must realize that they are law abiding and peaceful.
 
2013-03-19 05:18:31 PM  
"They are putting politics above their job," Said a state senator. <Irony tag>
 
2013-03-19 05:19:26 PM  

muck4doo: jso2897: At this point, I think that they should pass a whole bunch of absurd gun laws, just to troll these assholes and make the lose their minds. This country is sick anyway - time to give it an enema.

They are already doing that.

 
2013-03-19 05:19:49 PM  

jso2897: At this point, I think that they should pass a whole bunch of absurd gun laws, just to troll these assholes and make the lose their minds. This country is sick anyway - time to give it an enema.


Yes, I think this is a good idea. If you buy a gun and at any point after you bring it home, pose in front of the mirror with it, you should have your gun confiscated and your name put on a list of people that buy guns for the wrong reasons. Forever prohibited from owning a gun.

Talk about hard to enforce. I wish there was some way.
 
2013-03-19 05:24:01 PM  
 
2013-03-19 05:24:29 PM  

Giltric: Dixon Cider: I live near this asshole and hope he gets fired soon!

Farking conservatives thinks it's OK to break the law, if it is something they want. But ask for Equal Rights for Brown or Gay people and HOLY shiat, your asking fro crimes against humanity!!


How do you feel about the legalities of sanctuary cities? Should they fire the politicians and law enforcement officals who refuse to enforce immigration laws?


That's because most immigration laws ARE unenforceable, without breaking a lot of individuals' rights.
 
2013-03-19 05:25:15 PM  

WippitGuud: Giltric: WippitGuud: I want to know why people are whining that they have to carry two 15-round clips instead of one 30-round clip.

The criminal can rush them during a mag swap......the same concept (rushing the attacker) can be used against the person defending themself with a firearm.

What kind of gun owner, in America, requires 30 rounds to defend against a home invasion? Are they that bad of a shot? Or do typical US home invasions involve 10 intruders?


Typical home nvasion involves multiple people inside the home and a person outsde. There used to be a site with cites but the domain is up for sale and there is no content...FBI was the cite given and the FBI claimed 4-5 home invaders IIRC.

Also...a homeonwner might only ever have to come under fire once in their life, where as criminals who do criminal things may have already been under fire so the adrenaline rush isn't there or isn't an obstcle to overcome.

Why would you want to limit the homeowners ability to survive a crime in their home....the criminal certainly will not restrict themself to legal capacity magazines.
 
2013-03-19 05:26:03 PM  

Bell-fan: CLEARLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL


When I was in college, some of my good friends were law students. I wasn't in law school myself, but we did occasionally have some spirited discussions.

One day, one of them complained about what she felt to be the gross misuse of the term "unconstitutional" by laypeople. While I understood her frustration, I explained to her that this wasn't really a misuse of the term, but rather, a change in the very meaning of the term as it is understood in common conversation. This happens to a lot of words - "terrific", for instance, was once used to essentially mean "very bad", whereas now it basically means "very good".

Terms like "constitutional" and "unconstitutional", I told her, have gone through a similar transformation. In the language of the layperson, they no longer refer to the judicially-interpreted limits of what a government can and cannot do, but rather, are used simply as synonyms for "good" and "bad". Hence, you'll see statements like "Ugh, rap music is so unconstitutional these days" and "These gun laws are clearly unconstitutional".
 
2013-03-19 05:26:25 PM  

R.A.Danny: Sounds like you don't really fear a bunch of people with firearms. You must realize that they are law abiding and peaceful.


Actually, I believe those holding CCW's are some of the most law-abiding members of society. I would dare to say that legal gun owners would probably be more than your non-gun owner, but there are no statistics that I can find for that. Each state collects it's own, but for instance, Florida has issued over 2 million CCW's in the past 16 years and about .003% have ever been revoked (with 10% of that number reinstated) and only 0.00008% of CCW's ever committing a crime with a firearm. I'm willing to look at other states information if people are more evil in other areas or even if you have a country wide one, but please, go on telling me about how gun owners are the bad people.
 
2013-03-19 05:27:44 PM  

Biological Ali: Giltric: Communist_Manifesto: As a gun owner in Colorado I am not impacted by either of these measures so it doesn't matter to me at all.

When they came for the jews...I was not a jew so I did not care.

+1 for boot licking.

You do realize that if you say things like this, nobody will take you seriously, right? I mean, I'm actually against most gun control and even I cringe at this melodrama.


It's not melodrama. It is one person claiming that they are not affected by somehting so they do not care if other people are affected by something. Neimollers statement is the best analogy.

Would claiming that I am not affected by trans vaginal ultrasounds so I do not care if a woman seeking an abortion has to submit to one be a better choice?
 
2013-03-19 05:28:35 PM  

MacWizard: Deciding that certain laws are not worth enforcing sounds like common sense. Very liberal, actually.

/I'm okay with this,


Me too! Deciding some laws are unconstitutional is waaaay above Mr. Sheriff's pay grade.
 
2013-03-19 05:28:45 PM  

Giltric: WippitGuud: Giltric: WippitGuud: I want to know why people are whining that they have to carry two 15-round clips instead of one 30-round clip.

The criminal can rush them during a mag swap......the same concept (rushing the attacker) can be used against the person defending themself with a firearm.

What kind of gun owner, in America, requires 30 rounds to defend against a home invasion? Are they that bad of a shot? Or do typical US home invasions involve 10 intruders?

Typical home nvasion involves multiple people inside the home and a person outsde. There used to be a site with cites but the domain is up for sale and there is no content...FBI was the cite given and the FBI claimed 4-5 home invaders IIRC.

Also...a homeonwner might only ever have to come under fire once in their life, where as criminals who do criminal things may have already been under fire so the adrenaline rush isn't there or isn't an obstcle to overcome.

Why would you want to limit the homeowners ability to survive a crime in their home....the criminal certainly will not restrict themself to legal capacity magazines.


I'm suddenly glad I don't live in the US... I'd hate to live under that kind of fear.
 
2013-03-19 05:29:14 PM  
Well, if we're leaving it to local sheriffs to decide what laws are constitutional or not let's just send the Supreme Court justices home.

When the next Aurora shooting happens in Colorado can we hold the local sheriff who refused to enforce the laws he didn't like that led up to the shooting up on charges as well?  Or if not, can we the citizens decide which laws we want to ignore without consequence?
 
2013-03-19 05:29:53 PM  
Ah yes, like the legal scholars in Mississippi that didn't believe those murders of uppity folks needed investigating.

Send in the FBI.
 
2013-03-19 05:30:51 PM  
If we just kill all the lawyers, things would be OK.
 
2013-03-19 05:31:49 PM  

tylerdurden217: Casting a vote is always harmless and peaceful. There is some regulation of voting to prevent fraud, but no one's life is in danger by the casting of a vote


Say that to the families of the Iraq war dead....In their faces even.


That was the DNCs/Obamas platform against McCain though....a vote for him was a vote to kill your child in war.
 
2013-03-19 05:32:00 PM  
My guess:

Gets a boner over 2nd amendment.
Wipes his ass with the 4th.
 
2013-03-19 05:32:05 PM  

bigbadideasinaction: Ah yes, like the legal scholars in Mississippi that didn't believe those murders of uppity folks needed investigating.

Send in the FBI.


W....what?

Were you trying to say this is about racism?
 
2013-03-19 05:32:32 PM  

theurge14: When the next Aurora shooting happens in Colorado can we hold the local sheriff who refused to enforce the laws he didn't like that led up to the shooting up on charges as well?


Is practicing prudence when enforcing a law a crime? Nope

theurge14: Or if not, can we the citizens decide which laws we want to ignore without consequence?


We do that just about every time we get behind the wheel. Once again, would a cop giving someone doing 10 over a pass be subject to arrest and conviction if the speeder goes on to run over 20 kids?
 
2013-03-19 05:32:57 PM  

tylerdurden217: GUTSU: So if the government signed into law declaring that you'd need to pay $100 to vote, that'd be constitutional to you? You know, because something is a right, that doesn't mean it's free.

Why, in order to have this debate, must we pretend like the right to vote is the same as the right to keep and bare arms? Voting can't be done irresponsibly and recklessly. Casting a vote is always harmless and peaceful. There is some regulation of voting to prevent fraud, but no one's life is in danger by the casting of a vote. Purchasing a gun that is designed to kill humans and animals is potentially done with malicious intent. Making a comparison between poll tax and charging someone a SMALL FEE on TOP of the purchase of their boom stick are completely different. The purpose of a poll tax is discriminate against the poor. The purpose of making someone pay for their background check is to finance a system that will keep guns out of the hands of people with criminal records. Responsible gun ownership comes with a cost. Even if you obtained a gun as a gift or a family heirloom, ammunition, target practice, maintenance of your firearm, etc. all cost money. Maybe the background check fee will be some sign of financial responsibility that should go hand in hand with firearm ownership.

Concealed Handgun Classes cost money. Are we fine with that? Or is that another infringement upon "bearing" arms?


So you're saying there is a fundamental difference between paying the government to vote discriminating against the poor, and paying the government to own a firearm discriminating against the poor? Or are some rights more unalienable than others?
 
2013-03-19 05:33:26 PM  

tylerdurden217: jso2897: At this point, I think that they should pass a whole bunch of absurd gun laws, just to troll these assholes and make the lose their minds. This country is sick anyway - time to give it an enema.

Yes, I think this is a good idea. If you buy a gun and at any point after you bring it home, pose in front of the mirror with it, you should have your gun confiscated and your name put on a list of people that buy guns for the wrong reasons. Forever prohibited from owning a gun.

Talk about hard to enforce. I wish there was some way.


I propose that people should be allowed to purchase and carry any kind of gun they want, but that it should be illegal to manufacture or sell any gun that is not either pink or baby-blue, and cartoon themed in design.
Also, any gas-actuated semi-automatic weapons must be configured so as to make loud fart noises when they are fired. Also, violent felons are to be REQUIRED to own guns as a condition of their parole.
Give me time - I'll think of more.
 
2013-03-19 05:34:08 PM  

WippitGuud: Giltric: WippitGuud: Giltric: WippitGuud: I want to know why people are whining that they have to carry two 15-round clips instead of one 30-round clip.

The criminal can rush them during a mag swap......the same concept (rushing the attacker) can be used against the person defending themself with a firearm.

What kind of gun owner, in America, requires 30 rounds to defend against a home invasion? Are they that bad of a shot? Or do typical US home invasions involve 10 intruders?

Typical home nvasion involves multiple people inside the home and a person outsde. There used to be a site with cites but the domain is up for sale and there is no content...FBI was the cite given and the FBI claimed 4-5 home invaders IIRC.

Also...a homeonwner might only ever have to come under fire once in their life, where as criminals who do criminal things may have already been under fire so the adrenaline rush isn't there or isn't an obstcle to overcome.

Why would you want to limit the homeowners ability to survive a crime in their home....the criminal certainly will not restrict themself to legal capacity magazines.

I'm suddenly glad I don't live in the US... I'd hate to live under that kind of fear.


Actually the gn control crowd is the one pushing things based on fear.....you wouldn't want another statistical anomoly to happen to your children would you? Or that you are more likely to die to a gun if you own a gun.

Some of us are OK with risk.
 
2013-03-19 05:36:03 PM  
I didn't take the time to read every comment, good and horrible, so I will go ahead and assume that someone finally noted that almost all laws are selectively enforced.

In case no one did note that, then let me just say that almost all laws are selectively enforced.
 
2013-03-19 05:37:57 PM  

Giltric: tylerdurden217: Casting a vote is always harmless and peaceful. There is some regulation of voting to prevent fraud, but no one's life is in danger by the casting of a vote

Say that to the families of the Iraq war dead....In their faces even.


That was the DNCs/Obamas platform against McCain though....a vote for him was a vote to kill your child in war.


If only that worked when it mattered in 04
 
2013-03-19 05:38:20 PM  

Giltric: Some of us are OK with risk.


Or even realize that there is no way to totally avoid risk, putting the onus on personal protection on The People.
 
2013-03-19 05:39:04 PM  

Giltric: WippitGuud: 
I'm suddenly glad I don't live in the US... I'd hate to live under that kind of fear.

Actually the gn control crowd is the one pushing things based on fear.....you wouldn't want another statistical anomoly to happen to your children would you? Or that you are more likely to die to a gun if you own a gun.

Some of us are OK with risk.


Don't get me wrong, I'm ok with people owning guns. I don't have any myself (I do have two bows, however). But I read how gun owners want to be outfitted as if they were a light infantryman on deployment to defend their homes... they talk as if they live in a war zone.
 
2013-03-19 05:39:12 PM  

R.A.Danny: theurge14: When the next Aurora shooting happens in Colorado can we hold the local sheriff who refused to enforce the laws he didn't like that led up to the shooting up on charges as well?

Is practicing prudence when enforcing a law a crime? Nope

theurge14: Or if not, can we the citizens decide which laws we want to ignore without consequence?

We do that just about every time we get behind the wheel. Once again, would a cop giving someone doing 10 over a pass be subject to arrest and conviction if the speeder goes on to run over 20 kids?


Your imaginary sheriff has publicly stated that he doesn't believe it is constitutional to write that ticket, and WILL NOT do so, in any circumstance. Do you really not see the distinction here?
 
2013-03-19 05:40:14 PM  

theurge14: Well, if we're leaving it to local sheriffs to decide what laws are constitutional or not let's just send the Supreme Court justices home.

When the next Aurora shooting happens in Colorado can we hold the local sheriff who refused to enforce the laws he didn't like that led up to the shooting up on charges as well?  Or if not, can we the citizens decide which laws we want to ignore without consequence?


Make movie theaters gun free zones. Problem solved.
 
2013-03-19 05:41:38 PM  

Evil High Priest: Do you really not see the distinction here?


I am positive that part of their oath of office is to uphold The Constitution. One refusing to enforce a law may be seen as a nutjob. 340 is a mandate.
 
2013-03-19 05:43:33 PM  

R.A.Danny: jso2897: At this point, I think that they should pass a whole bunch of absurd gun laws, just to troll these assholes and make the lose their minds. This country is sick anyway - time to give it an enema.

Sounds like you don't really fear a bunch of people with firearms. You must realize that they are law abiding and peaceful.


You are right - I don't fear them. A pussy with a gun in his hand is still a pussy.
Conversely -there are people I fear - but they don't need guns to be scarey, and guns won't keep me safe from them.
 
2013-03-19 05:43:55 PM  

Giltric: It's not melodrama. It is one person claiming that they are not affected by somehting so they do not care if other people are affected by something. Neimollers statement is the best analogy.


It seems to me that you don't really understand why people who go out of their way to Godwin arguments are regarded universally as the butt of a joke. Hint: it doesn't have to do with whether their analogies are technically valid (they usually are, in fact).

But even in the technical sense, your analogy was extremely weak. Had the person said "I don't care because I'm not a gun owner", your response (while still being silly) would at least have lined up the relevant categories in a more meaningful way.
 
2013-03-19 05:44:49 PM  

GUTSU: So you're saying there is a fundamental difference between paying the government to vote discriminating against the poor, and paying the government to own a firearm discriminating against the poor? Or are some rights more unalienable than others?


Both your right to vote and possess firearms are already "alienable" (in that you can lose them)

http://felonvoting.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=286

http://www.gunlawsbystate.com/felons-and-firearms/

It's intellectually dishonest to compare voting to buying a gun. Get real. It's more like buying a car in that it requires some financial means and you have to pay TTL.
 
2013-03-19 05:46:13 PM  

tylerdurden217: jso2897: At this point, I think that they should pass a whole bunch of absurd gun laws, just to troll these assholes and make the lose their minds. This country is sick anyway - time to give it an enema.

Yes, I think this is a good idea. If you buy a gun and at any point after you bring it home, pose in front of the mirror with it, you should have your gun confiscated and your name put on a list of people that buy guns for the wrong reasons. Forever prohibited from owning a gun.

Talk about hard to enforce. I wish there was some way.


Heh. The Facebook-Feinstein act of 2014..
 
rka
2013-03-19 05:46:22 PM  

WippitGuud: Don't get me wrong, I'm ok with people owning guns. I don't have any myself (I do have two bows, however). But I read how gun owners want to be outfitted as if they were a light infantryman on deployment to defend their homes... they talk as if they live in a war zone.


Because for some reason people have to constantly, and with ever increasing volume, defend their right to own guns. Year after year.

30 years ago, if you would have asked all the male members of my family why they each needed half a dozen shotguns and rifles they would have said "Because Shut the fark Up, that's why" and the matter would have been dropped because you were too ashamed at having asked such a stupid question in the first place that you would have slunk back to whatever place you crawled out of.

Nowaday's we seemingly have to fight the same fights over and over again. It isn't enough to say "STFU and mind you own business" anymore I guess. Now people have to swaddle the 2nd Amendment in harrowing tales of self-defense, and paint lurid pictures of rape and murder in order to have anyone listen.
 
2013-03-19 05:46:22 PM  

R.A.Danny: theurge14: When the next Aurora shooting happens in Colorado can we hold the local sheriff who refused to enforce the laws he didn't like that led up to the shooting up on charges as well?

Is practicing prudence when enforcing a law a crime? Nope


Law enforcement exists to enforce laws.  The concept of "law enforcement discretion" is wrong.

theurge14: Or if not, can we the citizens decide which laws we want to ignore without consequence?

We do that just about every time we get behind the wheel. Once again, would a cop giving someone doing 10 over a pass be subject to arrest and conviction if the speeder goes on to run over 20 kids?


I'll take that as an applicable analogy the next time a local police department writes a letter to the president to let him know that he's not going to stop any speeders in his town.
 
2013-03-19 05:47:13 PM  

muck4doo: theurge14: Well, if we're leaving it to local sheriffs to decide what laws are constitutional or not let's just send the Supreme Court justices home.

When the next Aurora shooting happens in Colorado can we hold the local sheriff who refused to enforce the laws he didn't like that led up to the shooting up on charges as well?  Or if not, can we the citizens decide which laws we want to ignore without consequence?

Make movie theaters gun free zones. Problem solved.


Yes, keep repeating this tired bullshiat right wing snark.  Laws get broken, so let's throw all the laws out because they're absurd and useless!  Shut up.
 
2013-03-19 05:47:45 PM  

R.A.Danny: Evil High Priest: Do you really not see the distinction here?

I am positive that part of their oath of office is to uphold The Constitution. One refusing to enforce a law may be seen as a nutjob. 340 is a mandate.


Or 340 nutjobs..
 
2013-03-19 05:48:14 PM  

theurge14: Law enforcement exists to enforce laws.  The concept of "law enforcement discretion" is wrong.


You really have no idea what you are talking about. Cops have tons of leeway by design.
 
2013-03-19 05:48:34 PM  

tylerdurden217: GUTSU: So you're saying there is a fundamental difference between paying the government to vote discriminating against the poor, and paying the government to own a firearm discriminating against the poor? Or are some rights more unalienable than others?

Both your right to vote and possess firearms are already "alienable" (in that you can lose them)

http://felonvoting.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=286

http://www.gunlawsbystate.com/felons-and-firearms/

It's intellectually dishonest to compare voting to buying a gun. Get real. It's more like buying a car in that it requires some financial means and you have to pay TTL.


With universal background checks, if I made a semi-automatic firearm from scratch and transferred it to a friend I'd have to pay for the background check. If I made a motor vehicle and gave it to a friend I wouldn't have to pay diddly.

Also, I wasn't talking about felons, but good job deflecting though.
 
2013-03-19 05:48:43 PM  
Marijuana doesn't kill people, Guns do.  Whats that? Guns don't kill people - people do? Then do the gdamn background check you farking moron. Right-wing idiocy is literally killing me.
 
Displayed 50 of 658 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report