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.

(Opposing Views)   Father takes pic of 11-year-old son with gun, social services shows up at his door demanding entry into his home and access to guns or else they will "take his kids"   (opposingviews.com) divider line 756
    More: Stupid, Shawn Moore, social services, door demanding, The Blaze, guns  
•       •       •

15876 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 Mar 2013 at 8:09 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-20 12:39:09 AM  

rohar: schoolbread: rohar: BGates: rohar: feckingmorons: rohar: Quantum Apostrophe: rohar: mike_the_engineer: [www.knewance.com image 344x415]

You sure you've got that right?  You see, a magazine is just a pile of rounds stored or fed in to a breach.  A magazine is mechanically intrinsic to the loading of the breach.  From the picture, it appears you've got it bass ackwards.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clip_%28ammunition%29

Look at that, you submitted a definition that states a clip is a magazine with no distinguishing characteristics.
Sorry, I'm suddenly bored with this conversation.

It is pretty easy, and if you want to make it basic so that we can all go with a common understanding a clip holds bullets but is removed when the bullets are loaded (into a gun or magazine). A magazine holds bullets inside it and from there the bullets are forced with the use of a spring into the firing chamber of a gun.

It is all about the spring.

Look at that, a magazine with no spring:

[upload.wikimedia.org image 393x599]

You sure you've got a handle on what this is all about?

Not a mag or a clip.  It's a belt.

Try to keep up.

The box is a magazine, so is the hold just behind the torpedo tubes on a submarine.  No springs in either case.

English, it's a language and it's pretty farking demanding.  Learn it.

so the belt on a belt fed machinegun is a magazine, a clip is a magazine, and a magazine is a clip. I get that about right?

Almost.  The belt is not important.  The box you store the belt in is a magazine.  All clips are magazines, however, not all magazines are clips.


The more you attempt to define firearms characteristics, the dumber you look.  A box is not a magazine.  A belt is not a magazine.  A clip is not a magazine.  And just because we should probably nip this in the bud, a Corvette is not a magazine.
 
2013-03-20 12:40:11 AM  

rohar: BGates: rohar: BGates: manimal2878: BGates: Keep up then.  The discussion was about the difference between a clip and a magazine.  It's obvious you don't know the difference.

According to Webster Dictionary clip and magazine are synonymous.  Until you get them to change the definitions please stop.

/I don't agree with Webster since they are not the same in my opinion, but they have added an "also" to clip which is the same as the definition for magazine, and if we are to accept them as the final word on anything instead of just letting people decide any random string of letters means whatever they say it does, we have to hold somebody as the authority.

I wouldn't hold Websters as an authority on this subject.  You also don't have to read my comments.  Easy fix for you.

I wouldn't hold a logically inconsistent farker with a limited grasp on the English language as an authority either.

Now, what qualifications do you have in etymology?

I've been logically consistent the entire time.  I'm not going to debate this with you as you are trying to take the discussion away from your failed attempts to define a magazine a clip and a can of ammo a magazine.  You are wrong and are now trying to make it personal.

Hardly personal.  I didn't bring this issue up.  I'm more curious why it needs to be an issue than that it is an issue.

Maybe you could help me out.  Given all that's available, publically, to define these terms, could you define them within the constraints of the common vernacular?


I already have.  Maybe if you had paid more attention to my posts and stopped trying to act superior you would have gotten it.
 
2013-03-20 12:40:12 AM  

BGates: rohar: lolpix: rohar: lolpix: manimal2878: BGates: I wouldn't hold Websters as an authority on this subject.

Too bad for you that everyone else in the world does.

Dictionaries tend to focus on traditional, common, and popular usage of words. They're not so good with technical terms and jargon.

So you're upset with dictionaries because they're conservative!?

No. I'm not upset about anything at the moment. I'm simply pointing out the dictionary is not the final word among people who know what words mean.

So the conservative definition I wrong, and your new, less traditional definition is right?

/farking liberals...

You think I'm a liberal?


That may be self evident.
 
2013-03-20 12:42:10 AM  

Lee Jackson Beauregard: feckingmorons: You might not like the NRA but they stand for the freedoms that made this country great

The NRA stands for putting Republicans in public office.  Republicans do not "stand for the freedoms that made this country great" or any other freedom except for the freedom of plutocrats to privatize profit and socialize risk.


The NRA stands for the right of American citizens to bear and keep arms -- you know, the very reason why the NRA was founded. If you're upset that they happen to support the political party more likely to help them preserve that right, you need to persuade the Democrats to drop their anti- gun crusade, don't you think? Otherwise, what the hell are you complaining about?
 
2013-03-20 12:42:11 AM  

rohar: OgreMagi: rohar: feckingmorons: rohar: Quantum Apostrophe: rohar: mike_the_engineer: [www.knewance.com image 344x415]

You sure you've got that right?  You see, a magazine is just a pile of rounds stored or fed in to a breach.  A magazine is mechanically intrinsic to the loading of the breach.  From the picture, it appears you've got it bass ackwards.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clip_%28ammunition%29

Look at that, you submitted a definition that states a clip is a magazine with no distinguishing characteristics.
Sorry, I'm suddenly bored with this conversation.

It is pretty easy, and if you want to make it basic so that we can all go with a common understanding a clip holds bullets but is removed when the bullets are loaded (into a gun or magazine). A magazine holds bullets inside it and from there the bullets are forced with the use of a spring into the firing chamber of a gun.

It is all about the spring.

Look at that, a magazine with no spring:

[upload.wikimedia.org image 393x599]

You sure you've got a handle on what this is all about?

You seriously don't know shiat about firearms.  That isn't a magazine.  That's commonly called a "belt".

So what's the box that the belt is contained in called?


You seriously don't know what to call a "box"?
 
2013-03-20 12:43:06 AM  
The clip / magazine flame wars are as old as the .45 vs 9mm ones. When I was younger I got into it with enthusiasm. Now I just shake my head, smile inwardly, and move on.
Yes, a clip is more along the lines of stripper clips or n-block clips. They were meant to facilitate the rapid reloading of a firearm's internal magazine (which, whether rifle or main gun on a destroyer, is what holds the ammunition). But all sorts of people, even those with decades of experience in the military, call magazines clips. The only time it's a problem is when you are dealing with old guns (like I do), when the distinction is extremely important.
Ie: "I'll sell you a bag of SVT-40 magazines for $50." "Deal!" then I find a small baggie of 7.62x54r stripper clips worth $.50 a piece rather than $50 a piece...

The same goes for assault weapon. it's become so deeply ingrained in the popular psyche that even those who know better call them assault rifles and assault weapons. guess the gun control folks won that one. if anyone is interested, a few things:
1. nothing is inherently "assault" until you assault someone with it.
2. nothing is a weapon until you use it in combat with someone else (or plan to). it is a firearm.
3. technically, only select-fire guns (machine guns) are assault rifles. ar15s and civilian ak-47s are semi auto (single shot per pull) only.
4. you can blame the nazis for the name

but i no longer argue the point. it's pointless. and you know... if I want to own an assault weapon, why should I not be allowed to? I'm not hurting anyone. it doesn't pose a danger to anyone. I have my reasons, and they are valid ones. those reasons range from "being part of the last line of defense for freedom in this nation" to "because fark you, that's why"

on the other hand, if the gun control group said that they wanted to make sure that getting an assault weapon (yes, even select fire) would require lots of certification and steps to ensure that the owner would be law abiding and sane, they would have my vote. even if it meant paying an extra $1000 for each assault weapon, and regular certification. at that money, though, I better be able to get all the bells and whistles I want - suppressors, ELCAN, armor piercing, and so on. and no, I'm not rich.
 
2013-03-20 12:43:28 AM  

OgreMagi: jaytkay: Guy with self-proclaimed Internet "gun-law expert" lawyer on speed dial "just happens" to innocently provoke an unconscionable gun search from DFS (or so he claims).

The question is, how many times did social services do something like this until they finally ran into someone who was in the position to tell them to fark off?


Probably hundreds. We must assume that someone - perhaps another parent - doesn't like this man, or his kid or his family and was looking for any reason to drop a dime on him to annoy him. Social services is obligated to investigate, unfortunately they aren't lawyers or well trained or well supervised so they go hell bent for leather thinking that this guy is starting a Militia in his back yard. Since there was a gun involved they sent four police men along - not unreasonable in my opinion.

Unfortunately the DYFS woman doesn't actually know what she is doing, or is over zealous, or something and doesn't like to be told no. She has no authority (or training) to inspect guns, or register guns or any thing that involves guns. Since the man wouldn't let her into the house, and since the police didn't see anything improper or hear a child screaming or have any information other than hearsay they can't make uninvited entry, if they feel strongly they can sit on the house, get a search warrant and then enter the house, but obviously the didn't.

This guy seems like a bright guy, he has a basic grasp of the freedoms the Constitution guarantees, and to be secure in your home is one of those guarantees. He handled it the right way. Many people wouldn't know what to do, but this guy - perhaps because he is such a fan of the 2nd Amendment that he decided to learn about the whole shebang including the 4th Amendment did know what to do.
 
2013-03-20 12:43:40 AM  

rohar: BGates: rohar: lolpix: rohar: lolpix: manimal2878: BGates: I wouldn't hold Websters as an authority on this subject.

Too bad for you that everyone else in the world does.

Dictionaries tend to focus on traditional, common, and popular usage of words. They're not so good with technical terms and jargon.

So you're upset with dictionaries because they're conservative!?

No. I'm not upset about anything at the moment. I'm simply pointing out the dictionary is not the final word among people who know what words mean.

So the conservative definition I wrong, and your new, less traditional definition is right?

/farking liberals...

You think I'm a liberal?

That may be self evident.


I'm far from a liberal.  Shows your mentality though.
 
2013-03-20 12:43:40 AM  

feckingmorons: jso2897: That's why I thought the NRA were hypocrites then, for supporting the ban, and why they are hypocrites now for not supporting the general right to keep and bear arms. They only support the right to keep and bear the sort of arms that nice, "respectable" (and we all know what that means) people keep and bear.

No, not really. Read the Armed Citizen column, many of them are obviously black and poor and... well not the Country Club set. They don't say Negro Robert Smith, 32 from Watts like the newspapers did 50 years ago, but you can tell the coach from MLK HS in Detroit is probably a black, not rich guy. Lots of people that have to use firearms to defend themselves are just regular folks.

The NRA hasn't done a good job marketing itself to the black community, or the hispanic community, or the lower income communities, but they do advocate for the rights of all citizens who can lawfully own a gun. Heck they're pushing for Chicago inner city residents right to own and carry a gun for their own protection, something their lilly white, millionaire mayor opposes vehemently.

The NRA is doing a tiny bit better of late as they have some black spokesperson and are making strides to be more inclusive. Black ,white, rich, poor, gay, straight, atheist, Bible thumper, the NRA doesn't care who you are if you want firearms training, firearms safety information or an advocate for your Second Amendment rights the NRA is the place for you.


They still aren't doing well enough. For one thing - does not the Constitution say "the right to keep and bear ARMS"?  It doesn't say "guns". In the state I live in, my 12" switchblade is as illegal to own (not carry, OWN) as a Thompson sub-gun. In fact, the only "arms" that the NRA has ever tried to protect the right to keep and bear are guns made by the commercial interests that give them money.
OK - if all they want to protect is guns, fine - but they should stop posturing as protectors of the second amendment, which they aren't. Try to discard the mindset that anybody who dislikes and distrusts the NRA is a gun grabber or "liberal" (whatever that poor beat-to-death word even means anymore). Your view of them is distinctly rosy-tinted, and ignores that they have traditionally only defended the arms rights of a certain social status. And while they may be trying to change, they have not (as you somewhat concede) done a good job of it - not yet anyway. If they really want the respect and support of philosophically consistent people, they have to expand into protecting the overall right to self defense and self-determination, and quit concentrating on only guns and their commercial vendors and manufacturers.
And as far as their "programs" - that's all well and good, but frankly, I'm a country boy, and I don't need them to help me or my kids learn to hunt, shoot, or live outdoors - I've got that covered.
And this La Pierre guy -does anyone think he's helping gun rights? If you ask me, that cocksucker and his paranoid ravings are like a Christmas gift to the Diane Feinstein faction of gun control advocates - and the slippery slope, no compromise model he espouses will only serve to marginalize gun rights advocates from the debates.
Now - are you glad you finally harassed me into getting all serious and shiat?
 
2013-03-20 12:44:53 AM  

rohar: So what's the box that the belt is contained in called?


If the can is mounted to the weapon system (think 50 cal. on hummers) you can call it a clip, a can, and/or a mag.
if it is not mounted (think just open beside the weapon) we just called it a can.

//  7.5 years USMC 1371 combat eng
 
2013-03-20 12:45:49 AM  

BGates: rohar: BGates: rohar: lolpix: rohar: lolpix: manimal2878: BGates: I wouldn't hold Websters as an authority on this subject.

Too bad for you that everyone else in the world does.

Dictionaries tend to focus on traditional, common, and popular usage of words. They're not so good with technical terms and jargon.

So you're upset with dictionaries because they're conservative!?

No. I'm not upset about anything at the moment. I'm simply pointing out the dictionary is not the final word among people who know what words mean.

So the conservative definition I wrong, and your new, less traditional definition is right?

/farking liberals...

You think I'm a liberal?

That may be self evident.

I'm far from a liberal.  Shows your mentality though.


So when you argue against conservative definitions, you're not exposing liberal tendencies how?
 
2013-03-20 12:47:00 AM  

feckingmorons: The entire world speaks English?


Pedant much?

feckingmorons: If we were to pick a dictionary we felt was authoritative in the English speaking world it would have to be the Oxford English Dictionary


Clip:  a metal holder containing cartridges for an automatic firearm.  he shot twice, but his clip was empty Magazine: chamber for holding a supply of cartridges to be fed automatically to the breech of a gun.

If you ask me Oxfords definitions on the subject suck even more than Webster.  And in any event are basically the same.  The sentence for clip is especially wrong as we in the gun world commonly believe there to be a distinction between clip and magazine.  
 
2013-03-20 12:47:51 AM  
So this went from CPS trying to overstep their authority to the definition of magazine vs. clip to whether or not the dictionary is the be all end all for every word and every definition there of to name calling to who knows what is next. The train has completely derailed.
 
2013-03-20 12:47:59 AM  

EvilRacistNaziFascist: Just imagine that I had come into this thread prophesying the eventual obliteration of black people as a race and -- when you objected -- imagine that I had replied that "it doesn't matter anyway because we're all unimportant from a cosmic perspective". Would you have respected that as a legitimate response, and absolved me of the charge of racism? F*ck no you wouldn't have, you hypocritical scumbag.


Lighten up, Francis.
You'll get over it.
 
2013-03-20 12:48:00 AM  

jso2897: In the state I live in, my 12" switchblade is as illegal to own (not carry, OWN) as a Thompson sub-gun.


If you live in a sucky state don't take it out on the rest of us with rambling diatribes.

You realize Wayne LaPierre is not the president of the NRA, right. He is a vice president, one of many. Sort of like a spokesperson for a fire department or corporation. If you don't like the message don't kill the messenger.

You can join the NRA and vote for board members if you want. I just did, I didn't vote for Larry Craig, the former congressman with the wide stance, he is a lying sack of shiat and I don't want to be associated with any group that would have him on the board. I did vote for Ted Nugent (and 24 others).
 
2013-03-20 12:49:10 AM  

jso2897: are you glad you finally harassed me into getting all serious and shiat


Oh, I don't harass, I discuss. There is almost always some common ground, and if we discuss things, even on Fark, we can learn from one another.
 
2013-03-20 12:50:26 AM  

OgreMagi: And just because we should probably nip this in the bud, a Corvette is not a magazine.


A corvette is a boat!
 
2013-03-20 12:50:44 AM  

rohar: BGates: rohar: BGates: rohar: lolpix: rohar: lolpix: manimal2878: BGates: I wouldn't hold Websters as an authority on this subject.

Too bad for you that everyone else in the world does.

Dictionaries tend to focus on traditional, common, and popular usage of words. They're not so good with technical terms and jargon.

So you're upset with dictionaries because they're conservative!?

No. I'm not upset about anything at the moment. I'm simply pointing out the dictionary is not the final word among people who know what words mean.

So the conservative definition I wrong, and your new, less traditional definition is right?

/farking liberals...

You think I'm a liberal?

That may be self evident.

I'm far from a liberal.  Shows your mentality though.

So when you argue against conservative definitions, you're not exposing liberal tendencies how?


I don't care what you consider a conservative definition.  I'll argue against any definition that is BS whether it be liberal or conservative.
 
2013-03-20 12:52:16 AM  

BGates: rohar: BGates: rohar: BGates: rohar: lolpix: rohar: lolpix: manimal2878: BGates: I wouldn't hold Websters as an authority on this subject.

Too bad for you that everyone else in the world does.

Dictionaries tend to focus on traditional, common, and popular usage of words. They're not so good with technical terms and jargon.

So you're upset with dictionaries because they're conservative!?

No. I'm not upset about anything at the moment. I'm simply pointing out the dictionary is not the final word among people who know what words mean.

So the conservative definition I wrong, and your new, less traditional definition is right?

/farking liberals...

You think I'm a liberal?

That may be self evident.

I'm far from a liberal.  Shows your mentality though.

So when you argue against conservative definitions, you're not exposing liberal tendencies how?

I don't care what you consider a conservative definition.  I'll argue against any definition that is BS whether it be liberal or conservative.


Stated like a true liberal.  You grabbed your DNC card yet?
 
2013-03-20 12:52:19 AM  

jso2897: EvilRacistNaziFascist: Just imagine that I had come into this thread prophesying the eventual obliteration of black people as a race and -- when you objected -- imagine that I had replied that "it doesn't matter anyway because we're all unimportant from a cosmic perspective". Would you have respected that as a legitimate response, and absolved me of the charge of racism? F*ck no you wouldn't have, you hypocritical scumbag.

Lighten up, Francis.
You'll get over it.


He's a sock puppet - but I can't decide who's.   He may even be yours  :O
 
2013-03-20 12:53:05 AM  

serpent_sky: Once you're on child protective services' radar, it's hard to get off


Yank faster?
 
2013-03-20 12:53:25 AM  
EvilRacistNaziFascist (farkied: Screen name does not seem at all ironic): jso2897: Wow. This is actually REAL for you, isn't it?

See the list of scientific, philosophical, musical and literary names of White Oppressors I posted earlier in the thread... as I said before, you wouldn't even have the opportunity to post your anti- White bullsh*t if it weren't for the white men who laid the technological foundation for computing, you parasite.


Who built upon the science and mathematics developed in Arabia, Persia, India and China.  These, in turn, built upon earlier work.

White people are the incumbent kings of the hill.  I'm not here to argue over whether we *should* be, and indeed I doubt that any other people would have been less nasty toward their fellow human beings; the trouble with white people is not that we're white but that we're people.

That said, are we so insecure that we can't understand that we stand on the shoulders of giants, who in turn stand on the shoulders of other giants?  That we can't acknowledge that some day we shall meet our Waterloo, as Abbasid Arabia did at the hands of the Mongols?  That we can't hope that, when at last our number is up, some other civilization might continue our work?

When you think about it, really, it's actually up to you to prove that non- European people have made a significant contribution to Anglo- American civilization rather than vice- versa

This is a gun thread.  Where was gunpowder invented?

-- unless you're one of those delusional idiots who believes that our entire civilization was stolen from the black Nubians who flew gliders over the pyramids, in which case you're totally beyond help.

i35.photobucket.com
 
2013-03-20 12:53:37 AM  

feckingmorons: jso2897: In the state I live in, my 12" switchblade is as illegal to own (not carry, OWN) as a Thompson sub-gun.

If you live in a sucky state don't take it out on the rest of us with rambling diatribes.

You realize Wayne LaPierre is not the president of the NRA, right. He is a vice president, one of many. Sort of like a spokesperson for a fire department or corporation. If you don't like the message don't kill the messenger.

You can join the NRA and vote for board members if you want. I just did, I didn't vote for Larry Craig, the former congressman with the wide stance, he is a lying sack of shiat and I don't want to be associated with any group that would have him on the board. I did vote for Ted Nugent (and 24 others).


Why would I? I don't feel victimized, as a gun owner. To me, this shiat is trivial. Why in the name of all that is idiotic would I waste money on the NRA? I'm not a sucker, and you need a better con than they have to get my money.
By the way, when you voted for Ted Nugent, did you shiat your pants in symbolic solidarity?
As a guy who was drafted in 1968, and missed out on the Mitt Romney Riviera tour, I've always appreciated how people who call themselves patriots can fellate Nugent.
 
2013-03-20 12:53:45 AM  

jso2897: See? It's not HIS "race" that's inbred and inferior! It's that OTHER "race" that's inbred and inferior, you racist!


As you know very well, the point of my bringing up the great degree of inbreeding among British Muslims was to point out the blatant hypocrisy of white liberals who would never dare to mention such a thing (because THAT'S RACIST!!1!), but who go to great lengths to fabricate the idea of inbreeding among white people -- as you tried to do yourself, you self- loathing white liberal scumbag.

I guess the logical conclusion of jso2897's philosophy is that inbreeding is a necessary measure of ethnic self- preservation when non- white people do it, but when it occurs among Caucasians then it's a matter of LOL ALBINO RETARD WITH A BANJO.
 
2013-03-20 12:54:11 AM  

manimal2878: Pedant much?


I believe you mean pedantic much?. Pedant is a person, pedantic is the act of being a pedant. Since you phrased it is a question with the predicate and subject understood [Are you] pedantic much? you have to use the adjectival form.

OED is a subscription only database, do you have a subscription? If not how can you judge the completeness of their definition?

I hope I have clarified all of your questions.
 
2013-03-20 12:54:49 AM  

noitsnot: jso2897: EvilRacistNaziFascist: Just imagine that I had come into this thread prophesying the eventual obliteration of black people as a race and -- when you objected -- imagine that I had replied that "it doesn't matter anyway because we're all unimportant from a cosmic perspective". Would you have respected that as a legitimate response, and absolved me of the charge of racism? F*ck no you wouldn't have, you hypocritical scumbag.

Lighten up, Francis.
You'll get over it.

He's a sock puppet - but I can't decide who's.   He may even be yours  :O


Not gooey or stickey enough to be one of mine.
 
2013-03-20 12:55:05 AM  

sbking: I am not antigun and i believe in the 2nd amendment BUT COME ON...

If those parents let that kid, who is not even a teenager, hold that gun then they have no business being parents.  Foster homes are bad but they would be not cause as much damage to the kid as that home and they would probably save another mass shooting down the road.

I know, i know: guns don't kill people: bla, bla, bla.  How would you feel if he was holding a bottle of bourbon (legal)???


I am for gun control and one of the libbier libs that lib around here, and this is quite possibly the stupidest post I've yet seen from someone who purports to be "not antigun and i believe in the 2nd amendment".  And I've seen some argue for felons to keep their guns here.
 
2013-03-20 12:55:46 AM  

jso2897: To me, this shiat is trivial.


Apparently not as you're hear 500 posts into this.
 
2013-03-20 12:56:29 AM  

rohar: BGates: rohar: BGates: rohar: BGates: rohar: lolpix: rohar: lolpix: manimal2878: BGates: I wouldn't hold Websters as an authority on this subject.

Too bad for you that everyone else in the world does.

Dictionaries tend to focus on traditional, common, and popular usage of words. They're not so good with technical terms and jargon.

So you're upset with dictionaries because they're conservative!?

No. I'm not upset about anything at the moment. I'm simply pointing out the dictionary is not the final word among people who know what words mean.

So the conservative definition I wrong, and your new, less traditional definition is right?

/farking liberals...

You think I'm a liberal?

That may be self evident.

I'm far from a liberal.  Shows your mentality though.

So when you argue against conservative definitions, you're not exposing liberal tendencies how?

I don't care what you consider a conservative definition.  I'll argue against any definition that is BS whether it be liberal or conservative.

Stated like a true liberal.  You grabbed your DNC card yet?


You're an idiot.
 
2013-03-20 12:56:40 AM  

feckingmorons: jso2897: To me, this shiat is trivial.

Apparently not as you're hear 500 posts into this.


Not to mention here.

/technically it is spelt correctly.
//complete wrong word, but spelt correctly
/// the good sisters would't even give half credit for that
 
2013-03-20 01:00:08 AM  
1. Posting pics is as stupid as it gets. DO NOT DO

2. Shoot the social workers and bury them out back under the petunias

 /effing busy bodies
 
2013-03-20 01:00:18 AM  

Slam1263: Heh. That's the best $5 I ever spent on a farker.


Oh, was that you? Well, thanks pal... whatever your motivation might have been!
 
2013-03-20 01:01:45 AM  

EvilRacistNaziFascist: Lee Jackson Beauregard: feckingmorons: You might not like the NRA but they stand for the freedoms that made this country great

The NRA stands for putting Republicans in public office.  Republicans do not "stand for the freedoms that made this country great" or any other freedom except for the freedom of plutocrats to privatize profit and socialize risk.

The NRA stands for the right of American citizens to bear and keep arms --


-- which is, of course, the only right that matters.

you know, the very reason why the NRA was founded. If you're upset that they happen to support the political party more likely to help them preserve that right, you need to persuade the Democrats to drop their anti- gun crusade, don't you think? Otherwise, what the hell are you complaining about?

The Democrats "crusading" about anything?  You'll sooner see the People's Front of Judea "crusading" about anything.
 
2013-03-20 01:01:53 AM  
jso2897:

and the slippery slope, no compromise model he espouses will only serve to marginalize gun rights advocates from the debates.

It's funny how anti-gun people like to paint the other side as "unreasonable" and "unwilling to compromise." It's not compromise if you demand someone give something up without giving anything in return. Why should I let people chip away at my rights just because they are asspained and afraid of guns?
 
2013-03-20 01:02:44 AM  

manimal2878: lolpix: I'm simply pointing out the dictionary is not the final word among people who know what words mean.

Yeah it is, thats actually the definition of dictionary.


Circular logic. When the dictionary defines itself as the authority, on whose authority does it do so? In academia, science, law, medicine, and high-tech fields we have a lot of words or specific usages that aren't commonly in the dictionary. Not even in the unabridged big one. Hell, some of the words we just invented in the last couple of years.
 
2013-03-20 01:04:28 AM  

lolpix: manimal2878: lolpix: I'm simply pointing out the dictionary is not the final word among people who know what words mean.

Yeah it is, thats actually the definition of dictionary.

Circular logic. When the dictionary defines itself as the authority, on whose authority does it do so? In academia, science, law, medicine, and high-tech fields we have a lot of words or specific usages that aren't commonly in the dictionary. Not even in the unabridged big one. Hell, some of the words we just invented in the last couple of years.


Like "conservative"?

:)
 
2013-03-20 01:05:56 AM  

EvilRacistNaziFascist: jso2897: See? It's not HIS "race" that's inbred and inferior! It's that OTHER "race" that's inbred and inferior, you racist!

As you know very well, the point of my bringing up the great degree of inbreeding among British Muslims was to point out the blatant hypocrisy of white liberals who would never dare to mention such a thing (because THAT'S RACIST!!1!), but who go to great lengths to fabricate the idea of inbreeding among white people -- as you tried to do yourself, you self- loathing white liberal scumbag.

I guess the logical conclusion of jso2897's philosophy is that inbreeding is a necessary measure of ethnic self- preservation when non- white people do it, but when it occurs among Caucasians then it's a matter of LOL ALBINO RETARD WITH A BANJO.


No, actually, I have no views on "race" at all, other than that the entire concept is a false construct. And actually, you know that.
You just can't admit to yourself that you are so easily trolled that I actually trolled you by accident.
But, wait - maybe you are trolling me, and just pretending to take this conversation seriously. Then I wouldn't be so smart, would I?
I'll never really know..............................
 
2013-03-20 01:08:16 AM  
How this incredible amount of BS became greenlit... is a mystery.
www.sawtbeirut.com

Good lord people, this is troll material.
 
2013-03-20 01:08:35 AM  

lolpix: manimal2878: lolpix: I'm simply pointing out the dictionary is not the final word among people who know what words mean.

Yeah it is, thats actually the definition of dictionary.

Circular logic. When the dictionary defines itself as the authority, on whose authority does it do so? In academia, science, law, medicine, and high-tech fields we have a lot of words or specific usages that aren't commonly in the dictionary. Not even in the unabridged big one. Hell, some of the words we just invented in the last couple of years.


You've hit the nail right on the head. Some reference work cannot declare itself authoritative. Only users of the work can declare it authoritative based upon its authors, editors, and editorial policy. Certainly neologisms particular to a profession are not going to be found even in the most authoritative dictionary immediately after their creation - and I'm fairly certain there will be no argument from any academician or scholar the the OED is the de facto authoritative dictionary of the English language.

I'm not posting their definition of magazine as it would violate their copyright and the terms of my subscription license.
 
2013-03-20 01:09:24 AM  

70Ford: How this incredible amount of BS became greenlit... is a mystery.
[www.sawtbeirut.com image 428x460]

Good lord people, this is troll material.


It went green after the Weeners, that brilliant one way up above.
 
2013-03-20 01:10:07 AM  

People_are_Idiots: They has full auto capabilities, can fire 100+ rounds, some have clips... are they assault weapons?

/hint: they're -all- BB guns.


They are "assault-looking weapons" so yes, the gun-hater people get to go full derp on that. These things kill innocent children AND MUST BE STOPPED!
 
2013-03-20 01:10:12 AM  

feckingmorons: jso2897: To me, this shiat is trivial.

Apparently not as you're hear 500 posts into this.


Uh, I come to Fark for amusement. I also watch television for amusement, and play video games. Are you saying that you never engage in trivial activities for amusement? Is the Internet serious business?
This conversation has been entertaining, and instructive - the fact that it is about nothing but some overgrown man-children's sense of imaginary victimization doesn't make it any less amusing - in fact, it makes it funnier.
 
2013-03-20 01:11:04 AM  

Elmo Jones: Ow! That was my feelings!: Oh scary. The below rifle is functionally the same as the scary looking gun the kid is holding. THIS is a primo example of the fallacy of an AWB. If it looks scary, it must BE scary.

Why is the "same" weapon always shown without a magazine?
I'm not saying they're not the same, I'm just asking why the wooden stock weapon is always shown, without the magazine. From a small picture, it could be bolt-action, which is a different thing.


www.kygunco.com

Because the Ruger 10/22 comes from the factory with a 10-shot, rotary magazine.  While it is flush-fitting, and thus not easily noticeable in most photos of the weapon, it still borders on counting as a "high capacity magazine".

As such, it would be very hard to own in Australia, unless one happens to be an "occupational shooter" or the like.  If it were chambered for any centerfire caliber, you've only have (on the job) access to one only if you worked for certain government agencies.

Thank whatever gods there maybe that we have the 2nd Amendment.

i182.photobucket.com

Not .22LR, but .223 is not really "high powered" either...
 
2013-03-20 01:11:08 AM  
noitsnot: He's a sock puppet

Translation: "he's a conservative who beat me in an argument".

- but I can't decide who's.   He may even be yours  :O

Well look pal, it's not difficult at all to decide whose puppet I am: all you have to do is to string together several of your favourite lefty clichés and claim that I'm a paid operative of the Koch Brothers who is receiving money through FAUX NEWS via a financial subsidiary of Big Oil in conjunction with the Family Research Council, and getting a kickback from Fred Phelps on the side. There you go -- so don't keep expecting me to do your homework in future, OK?
 
2013-03-20 01:12:06 AM  

rohar: lolpix: manimal2878: lolpix: I'm simply pointing out the dictionary is not the final word among people who know what words mean.

Yeah it is, thats actually the definition of dictionary.

Circular logic. When the dictionary defines itself as the authority, on whose authority does it do so? In academia, science, law, medicine, and high-tech fields we have a lot of words or specific usages that aren't commonly in the dictionary. Not even in the unabridged big one. Hell, some of the words we just invented in the last couple of years.

Like "conservative"?

:)


From my perspective, you're caught in a self-referential feedback loop. I'm not talking about guns or politics or conservatives or liberals or even apple sauce with a little honey mixed in. And while it's true that my fixation on how people approach common language usage and the authority of the dictionary is TOTALLY off topic, any response to anything I've said that is reduced to "liberal" or "conservative" is inherently nonsensical.
 
2013-03-20 01:14:22 AM  

feckingmorons: I'm not posting their definition of magazine as it would violate their copyright and the terms of my subscription license.


I'm sure with a little a preamble you could work into the realm of Fair Use.
 
2013-03-20 01:14:23 AM  
lolpix:  any response to anything I've said that is inherently nonsensical.

Sorry, had to briebart you.
 
2013-03-20 01:14:47 AM  

EvilRacistNaziFascist: noitsnot: He's a sock puppet

Translation: "he's a conservative who beat me in an argument".

- but I can't decide who's.   He may even be yours  :O

Well look pal, it's not difficult at all to decide whose puppet I am: all you have to do is to string together several of your favourite lefty clichés and claim that I'm a paid operative of the Koch Brothers who is receiving money through FAUX NEWS via a financial subsidiary of Big Oil in conjunction with the Family Research Council, and getting a kickback from Fred Phelps on the side. There you go -- so don't keep expecting me to do your homework in future, OK?


Chillax - he's full of it. Believe me, you're no sock puppet of mine. And you want to consider yourself fortunate. You don't want to know what I use sock puppets for.
 
2013-03-20 01:16:35 AM  

lolpix: feckingmorons: I'm not posting their definition of magazine as it would violate their copyright and the terms of my subscription license.

I'm sure with a little a preamble you could work into the realm of Fair Use.


I'd also have to remember the password of fire up the laptop.
 
2013-03-20 01:17:25 AM  
Well this has been loads of fun but I have to be at the range in 26 minutes.

As usual I won.
 
Displayed 50 of 756 comments

First | « | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report