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.

(Denver Channel)   NRA takes a shot at making robocalls in Newtown, CT   (thedenverchannel.com) divider line 647
    More: Dumbass, NRA, Newtown, Connecticut, Sandy Hook Elementary School  
•       •       •

6174 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Mar 2013 at 9:46 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-25 11:59:31 PM  

The Name: Well, I'm not going to sit here and defend every single provision that's been proposed. Some of what you just said does sound a little ridiculous. But a little inconvenience is the price we all have to pay for a stronger, safer and healthier society sometimes. You acknowledge this every time you stop at a stop light even though there's no one around for miles, or when you turn your turn signal on even though nobody's near you.


Sweet.  We've never traded liberty for security before.  I can't wait to see how this turns out.
 
2013-03-25 11:59:54 PM  

pedrop357: If people are illegally transferring guns NOW, what makes you think they will do background checks or obey other laws?


So any time we think people will disobey a law, we just throw up our hands and give up on ever passing or enforcing it?
 
2013-03-26 12:01:06 AM  

The Name: pedrop357: If people are illegally transferring guns NOW, what makes you think they will do background checks or obey other laws?

So any time we think people will disobey a law, we just throw up our hands and give up on ever passing or enforcing it?


The existing laws cover the behavior and don't stop it, so let's add a second law that will have the same noneffect?
 
2013-03-26 12:01:13 AM  

thisisarepeat: Craptastic: pedrop357: How do you feel about drugs designed to combat overdoses?  Do you rail against them by complaining that "MORE drugs is not the answer"?

You might need to rephrase that question, because you sound stupid.

Here's why, Zippy: You're comparing a self-imposed drug overdose to shooting someone. I'm not sure you've made a point.

I'd like to add that I've never tried to argue against gun ownership. i've admitted that I own guns. What the eff are you NRA assholes trying to prove?

Not all drug overdoses are self inflicted and not all gun shot wounds are inflected by someone else.  With a high school education or less in chemistry you can kill a cafeteria full of kids with the shiat under your kitchen sink.  Why aren't you trying to ban backyard swimming pools, bleach and or window cleaner?  shiat happens, stop trying to make the government crawl up my ass because somebody shot your farking kid.


Wow.

A is to B as C is to potato.
 
2013-03-26 12:01:30 AM  

pedrop357: We've never traded liberty for security before.


What the hell is this even supposed to mean?
 
2013-03-26 12:01:35 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: It doesn't seem like that. The NRA is not the victim here.


So we're back to only the victims have the right to have an opinion?

Dusk-You-n-Me: The ban is DOA. Background checks are currently being worked on by Coburn and Manchin.


Good.  I disagree with the NRA about background checks.  I just don't like the immediate jump from "common sense solutions" to assault weapons ban, which didn't do anything last time it was in place.  I'd like to see a better system for background checks, and a better system for making those who are seen as a threat by mental health services at the local, state or county level more easily added to those lists provided there's a reasonable provision to appeal being on the list.  That seems like a fair compromise for everyone.

I don't like that suddenly they're evil for having an opinion while anti-gun groups can exploit the dead kids with impunity.  Hell yes, the kids were victims.  Mourn for them, advocate for them, don't biatch about someone who disagrees making phone calls to within 50 miles of their graves when their open casket is being shown to the Governor of the state to make an impact on his gun control decisions.

Once they've been exploited like that it's hard to get mad that someone else is politically active in the same town/region/state/country making some phone calls.
 
2013-03-26 12:02:06 AM  
pedrop -

Sweet.

no background checks to buy
  - oh, yes, initial background checks (as part of licensure) and, with sales,  transfer of title and mandated insurance -

no limitations on short term loans
   - who buys guns on a loan plan?

no registration or insurance for possession on private property
   - pretty sure guns are already registered?

nationwide honoring of licenses
    - i've no problem with this assuming gun licenses came with mandates such as safety courses and continuing education - and a federal registry to ensure it is, in fact, nationwide - much like driver information?

no limits on military vehicles or automatics
    - nope - see limits above

no bans on possessing on school or government grounds
     - nope

16-17 age limit for public use, no age limit for private property
      - nope

Sounds like this car thing might be really great for gun owners.
      - pretty sure i posted "like cars" not "as cars" -

      still - that's a better compromise than we get out of washington these days
 
2013-03-26 12:03:13 AM  

pedrop357: The existing laws cover the behavior and don't stop it, so let's add a second law that will have the same noneffect?


So we already have mandatory universal background checks for all sales and transfers, with stiff penalties for noncompliance?
 
2013-03-26 12:03:25 AM  

pedrop357: parasol: Bayou Otter :Actually, the text of the bill covers all possession:

The main provision of the bill is that any transfer of a firearm,

Just read this post - very interesting - ty for it

Having read it it almost seems as if we ought to regulate gun ownership as we do cars - the examples you mention (ie, loaning out for competition, access to others while traveling, etc) - would be easily covered if you were the titled owner with some sort of liability insurance and a way to lock your property away - say, a safe of some sort - so your roomies couldn't use your property w/o permission

Sweet.

no background checks to buy
no limitations on short term loans
no registration or insurance for possession on private property
nationwide honoring of licenses
no limits on military vehicles or automatics
no bans on possessing on school or government grounds
16-17 age limit for public use, no age limit for private property

Sounds like this car thing might be really great for gun owners.


Yeah farking awesome!  That'll be $200 a year for each of your firearms for your "gun tags"  and $1.50 a round for ammunition, just like cars.  Fark you.
 
2013-03-26 12:03:30 AM  

pedrop357: Marcus Aurelius: pedrop357: WhyteRaven74: pedrop357: One group that also seems incapable of introspection?

So what rational basis is there for opposing background checks?

Because running background checks before loaning a firearm to a hunting buddy or giving a gun to a relative won't do anything for crime, just increases cost, and necessarily requires some kind of registration in order to be effective, and registration info has been abused before.

To the best of my knowledge there is no such thing as a background check prior to loaning a hunting buddy a firearm.

You're not up to date on the "universal" background check proposals lately I see.


"Proposals"?

PROPOSALS?

heh.  you so funny.
 
2013-03-26 12:03:34 AM  
img.tapatalk.com www.maricopatactical.com4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-03-26 12:03:38 AM  

Craptastic: davidphogan: Craptastic: davidphogan: Craptastic: Nobody is trying to 'take your guns', for f*ck's sake.

See, you started to make a good point, then completely contradicted yourself.  You just admitted that fringe elements are in fact trying to take away the right to own guns.  Then you claimed nobody is.

Craptastic: See... This is why political conversation has gone to shiat.

Ummm, maybe it's people making points like you tried to.

How many guns have been taken away from you, Junior?

None? Holy crap!

I don't own any, so unless you count my Red Ryder my mom took away...

Oh, crap!  My mom's a gun grabber too!

/seriously, if you're going to say there are NO gun grabbers, it would help if you don't acknowledge they exist in the same post
//being ineffective doesn't mean you don't exist
///the mafia tried that like

You should note that I didn't claim that there are no "gun-grabbers". I only asked if any guns have been "grabbed". The answer is "NO". Jesus Christ, people get weird in gun-threads. "It hasn't ever happened, but it MIGHT!"

Assholes. Keep being afraid; that always works.


No, read what you posted.  You said, and I quote, "Nobody is trying to 'take your guns', for f*ck's sake."  You didn't say that nobody is going to take your guns, you said nobody is trying.

You then contradicted yourself within the same post.  Some people are.  They might fail at it, but there are people trying.
 
2013-03-26 12:04:43 AM  

The Name: pedrop357: The existing laws cover the behavior and don't stop it, so let's add a second law that will have the same noneffect?

So we already have mandatory universal background checks for all sales and transfers, with stiff penalties for noncompliance?


We have laws about straw purchases (which is where most guns used in crime come from), and laws about transferring to people known to be felons and they have stiff penalties.
 
2013-03-26 12:06:20 AM  

pedrop357: The Name: pedrop357: The existing laws cover the behavior and don't stop it, so let's add a second law that will have the same noneffect?

So we already have mandatory universal background checks for all sales and transfers, with stiff penalties for noncompliance?

We have laws about straw purchases (which is where most guns used in crime come from), and laws about transferring to people known to be felons and they have stiff penalties.


Oh, well we should do the thing I suggested.
 
2013-03-26 12:06:31 AM  

parasol: - pretty sure guns are already registered?


Hah!
 
2013-03-26 12:06:33 AM  

thisisarepeat: Yeah farking awesome! That'll be $200 a year for each of your firearms for your "gun tags" and $1.50 a round for ammunition, just like cars. Fark you.


You only need to registers cars used on public roads and registration is designed to funtreatd roads.

I'm not saying it's a good idea, but I like to point out how poorly the gun control supportes have thought through this "treat guns like cars" idea.
 
2013-03-26 12:07:33 AM  

The Name: pedrop357: The Name: pedrop357: The existing laws cover the behavior and don't stop it, so let's add a second law that will have the same noneffect?

So we already have mandatory universal background checks for all sales and transfers, with stiff penalties for noncompliance?

We have laws about straw purchases (which is where most guns used in crime come from), and laws about transferring to people known to be felons and they have stiff penalties.

Oh, well we should do the thing I suggested.


Which thing should we do?
 
2013-03-26 12:08:57 AM  

pedrop357: The Name: pedrop357: The Name: pedrop357: The existing laws cover the behavior and don't stop it, so let's add a second law that will have the same noneffect?

So we already have mandatory universal background checks for all sales and transfers, with stiff penalties for noncompliance?

We have laws about straw purchases (which is where most guns used in crime come from), and laws about transferring to people known to be felons and they have stiff penalties.

Oh, well we should do the thing I suggested.

Which thing should we do?


mandatory universal background checks for all sales and transfers, with stiff penalties for noncompliance
 
2013-03-26 12:09:20 AM  

pedrop357: Arms included the weaponry used by the militia (used in war) just like it does today.


Exactly. How many people who own or regularly use firearms are part of a militia these days? I certainly am not. But I also haven't turned firearms into a fetish to such a degree that I have a knee-jerk reaction that so many people seem to.
 
2013-03-26 12:09:32 AM  
God bless the NRA!

Death to stupid white people!
 
2013-03-26 12:09:52 AM  

BeowulfSmith: in direct violation of the amendment


Well-regulated
 
2013-03-26 12:10:28 AM  
I have an idea.  How about a deposit like cans have, but on casings?  Maybe $.05/ea?  That way, if you do a driveby and leave a bunch of casings behind, your loss.  But if you're responsible and don't need to shoot and run you can get some money back?  It's a tax only on the willing.

That seems fair enough, right?
 
2013-03-26 12:10:59 AM  

Curious: get a grip. the google doesn't bring up any ties to gay marriage pro or con by ALEC or the NRA. why you think the NRA cares about gay marriage is beyond me.


A quick google search for "gay marriage NRA " brought this up as the first link .

The second was this.
 
2013-03-26 12:11:08 AM  
pedrop -
'm not saying it's a good idea, but I like to point out how poorly the gun control supportes have thought through this "treat guns like cars" id
ea.

I'm perfectly happy to admit it needs work - but, i don't understand why responsible gun owners - who hunt, or target shoot, etc - have some phobia that makes them read "regulation" as "confiscation"

Can you clue me in?
 
2013-03-26 12:11:41 AM  

davidphogan: Craptastic: davidphogan: Craptastic: davidphogan: Craptastic: Nobody is trying to 'take your guns', for f*ck's sake.

See, you started to make a good point, then completely contradicted yourself.  You just admitted that fringe elements are in fact trying to take away the right to own guns.  Then you claimed nobody is.

Craptastic: See... This is why political conversation has gone to shiat.

Ummm, maybe it's people making points like you tried to.

How many guns have been taken away from you, Junior?

None? Holy crap!

I don't own any, so unless you count my Red Ryder my mom took away...

Oh, crap!  My mom's a gun grabber too!

/seriously, if you're going to say there are NO gun grabbers, it would help if you don't acknowledge they exist in the same post
//being ineffective doesn't mean you don't exist
///the mafia tried that like

You should note that I didn't claim that there are no "gun-grabbers". I only asked if any guns have been "grabbed". The answer is "NO". Jesus Christ, people get weird in gun-threads. "It hasn't ever happened, but it MIGHT!"

Assholes. Keep being afraid; that always works.

No, read what you posted.  You said, and I quote, "Nobody is trying to 'take your guns', for f*ck's sake."  You didn't say that nobody is going to take your guns, you said nobody is trying.

You then contradicted yourself within the same post.  Some people are.  They might fail at it, but there are people trying.


How many guns have been taken from you?

Listen, Mister literal-cocksuck, when I said that nobody is trying to take your precious guns, I meant that nobody WHO HAS ANY AUTHORITY IS DEMANDING THAT YOU TURN IN YOUR F*CKING GUNS. You knew that, little guy, but you thought that you could make a little point. What a douche.

How many guns have been taken from you, Gilligan? One? Two? Five?
 
2013-03-26 12:12:13 AM  

The Name: pedrop357: The Name: pedrop357: The Name: pedrop357: The existing laws cover the behavior and don't stop it, so let's add a second law that will have the same noneffect?

So we already have mandatory universal background checks for all sales and transfers, with stiff penalties for noncompliance?

We have laws about straw purchases (which is where most guns used in crime come from), and laws about transferring to people known to be felons and they have stiff penalties.

Oh, well we should do the thing I suggested.

Which thing should we do?

mandatory universal background checks for all sales and transfers, with stiff penalties for noncompliance


Despite the fact that it won't do anything and will only have an effect on people who weren't part of the problem to begin with?

In that case, we shouldn't do the thing you suggested.
 
2013-03-26 12:13:32 AM  

davidphogan: So we're back to only the victims have the right to have an opinion?

Jesus christ

. No. The NRA can do this, some people just think perhaps they shouldn't have done it. Expressing that opinion is not the equivalent of stifling free speech. It's just more free speech. There is no 'only the victims can do X' here.

davidphogan: I don't like that suddenly they're evil for having an opinion while anti-gun groups can exploit the dead kids with impunity.


See, this is what I'm talking about right here. When you say gun control advocates can 'exploit the dead' with impunity - without punishment, it implies gun rights advocates like the NRA are being punished. That's playing the victim card. The NRA is not being punished for these calls. They're getting criticized for them by their opponents. Just as you criticized gun control advocates for 'exploiting the dead'. Both sides are vocalizing their cause with impunity - that's what free speech is.
 
2013-03-26 12:14:15 AM  

Craptastic: How many guns have been taken from you?

Listen, Mister literal-cocksuck, when I said that nobody is trying to take your precious guns, I meant that nobody WHO HAS ANY AUTHORITY IS DEMANDING THAT YOU TURN IN YOUR F*CKING GUNS. You knew that, little guy, but you thought that you could make a little point. What a douche.

How many guns have been taken from you, Gilligan? One? Two? Five?


Nobody in authority is demanding that right now.  Some people in authority have either tried in the past OR pushed for laws to allow them to do so.  That's what we're fighting.
 
2013-03-26 12:15:50 AM  

parasol: pedrop -
'm not saying it's a good idea, but I like to point out how poorly the gun control supportes have thought through this "treat guns like cars" idea.

I'm perfectly happy to admit it needs work - but, i don't understand why responsible gun owners - who hunt, or target shoot, etc - have some phobia that makes them read "regulation" as "confiscation"

Can you clue me in?


Registration has been used to enable confiscation and doesn't have any crime fighting effect.  That's why it's opposed.

Regulations have largely taken the form of rights abusing nonsense. This is why many are opposes.
 
2013-03-26 12:16:24 AM  

parasol: i don't understand why responsible gun owners - who hunt, or target shoot, etc - have some phobia that makes them read "regulation" as "confiscation"


Because, for all the lip service they give to moderation, safety and all that good stuff, all they really care about is their guns.  And they'd rather have no gun regulation at all than even the weakest, most unobtrusive legislation that goes even one iota further than they're comfortable with.  If you can't construct a system that completely exempts them from any sort of social responsibility, then they won't have it.
 
2013-03-26 12:17:20 AM  

pedrop357: The Name: pedrop357: The Name: pedrop357: The existing laws cover the behavior and don't stop it, so let's add a second law that will have the same noneffect?

So we already have mandatory universal background checks for all sales and transfers, with stiff penalties for noncompliance?

We have laws about straw purchases (which is where most guns used in crime come from), and laws about transferring to people known to be felons and they have stiff penalties.

Oh, well we should do the thing I suggested.

Which thing should we do?


Let's hope it doesn't involve Willem Dafoe in any case..
 
2013-03-26 12:17:25 AM  

The Name: mandatory universal background checks for all sales and transfers, with stiff penalties for noncompliance


While I don't personally have much of a problem with this, I do understand the "building a list" concern that some gun owners do have.  If the only legal way to get a gun is to tell the government exactly what you have, that seems like a really easy to follow the method of taking all the guns away that other countries have used before.

I don't foresee that happening in my lifetime (I hope), but while it's unlikely I can kind of sympathize with the resistance to needing to register all gun transfers with a single agency.

I'd like to see the background checks done through a national database by any state LEO.  Let the LEO alone be responsible for completing the transfer, federally subsidize the program if needed to make it efficient, and make the LEO be accountable if a gun they transferred ends up in a crime with limited data about the buyer linked once the officer is done with the background check.

States could open their own offices for people who didn't mind risking being on the official lists, or pay a premium to get a cop to put their reputation on the line to approve background checks for others.  That seems like a fair compromise.  I'm sure you could find at least a few cops in every state who'd sign up, even with the risk of going to jail if they totally screwed the pooch.
 
2013-03-26 12:19:11 AM  

pedrop357: Craptastic: How many guns have been taken from you?

Listen, Mister literal-cocksuck, when I said that nobody is trying to take your precious guns, I meant that nobody WHO HAS ANY AUTHORITY IS DEMANDING THAT YOU TURN IN YOUR F*CKING GUNS. You knew that, little guy, but you thought that you could make a little point. What a douche.

How many guns have been taken from you, Gilligan? One? Two? Five?

Nobody in authority is demanding that right now.  Some people in authority have either tried in the past OR pushed for laws to allow them to do so.  That's what we're fighting.


Who is "we"? You & your Aunt Fran?  Are you "fighting" against something that has never happened?

fark. I'm going to go to bed. I have a "job" and I get "paid" and I'm not a "crazy person".
 
2013-03-26 12:20:10 AM  
pedrop -
Registration has been used to enable confiscation and doesn't have any crime fighting effect.  That's why it's opposed.
Regulations have largely taken the form of rights abusing nonsense. This is why many are opposes.



I must have missed this - can you tell me when the second amendment has been abused through gun regulation in the US?
 
2013-03-26 12:21:34 AM  

parasol: pedrop -
Registration has been used to enable confiscation and doesn't have any crime fighting effect.  That's why it's opposed.
Regulations have largely taken the form of rights abusing nonsense. This is why many are opposes.


I must have missed this - can you tell me when the second amendment has been abused through gun regulation in the US?


He can't buy a fully functioning tank. QED.
 
2013-03-26 12:22:55 AM  

pedrop357: Despite the fact that it won't do anything and will only have an effect on people who weren't part of the problem to begin with?


Sounds like we'll have to invent some sort of office responsible for enforcing this law, then.  You know, some people who can police the situation, and maybe have a federal bureau in which they investigate possible crimes.

And people who weren't part of the problem?  The problem is that guns circulate like currency in this country, and I'm pretty sure most gun owners who have ever gone shooting socially or have sold or given a gun as a gift have been part of the problem.  See, it's a matter of changing social norms just as much as it is about preventing particular, predictable acts of crime.
 
2013-03-26 12:24:04 AM  

JolobinSmokin: Good for them, gun owners are an oppressed group of ppl


You got that right.  It needs to come to a farking end too.
 
2013-03-26 12:25:39 AM  

Granny_Panties: God bless the NRA!

Death to stupid white people!

 
2013-03-26 12:25:58 AM  

davidphogan: While I don't personally have much of a problem with this, I do understand the "building a list" concern that some gun owners do have. If the only legal way to get a gun is to tell the government exactly what you have, that seems like a really easy to follow the method of taking all the guns away that other countries have used before.


Ugh, really?  You find these kinds of paranoid delusions credible?  Honestly, whenever someone starts talking about the government "taking all the guns away" (all 300,000,000 of them, that is), I know it's time to look elsewhere for conversation.
 
2013-03-26 12:26:46 AM  

Craptastic: Listen, Mister literal-cocksuck, when I said that nobody is trying to take your precious guns, I meant that nobody WHO HAS ANY AUTHORITY IS DEMANDING THAT YOU TURN IN YOUR F*CKING GUNS. You knew that, little guy, but you thought that you could make a little point. What a douche.


Or just, you know, post what you actually mean to post.

If you meant to say, "who has confiscated your guns" you could have typed out, "who has confiscated your guns?"  You could have ever typed out, "So, in reality have you had an guns taken from you lately?  No?  Then why worry about it!"

Instead you acted like "Nobody is trying to 'take your guns', for f*ck's sake." was an undeniable fact.  There are elected officials who are fringe, but they're still elected officials saying that taking guns might be a good idea.  The idea is in fact out there.  Sorry it gets you so on edge that a point of view you dismiss is out there and enough dumbasses want to make it true that it becomes a possibility to another group of dumbasses, and things like that help break down any chance of having reasonable discussions about lots of issues like this.

Martin Bryant changed things for everyone in Australia, and the events in Port Arthur helped make Australia's some of the most restrictive that you can find.  There's a precedent for why some groups like the NRA might seem to be overreacting right now.
 
2013-03-26 12:26:57 AM  

Coelacanth: I think we need to conduct some background checks on the guys running the NRA. No normal humans can act the way they do with so much blood on their hands.


And you would be falling over yourself making excuses for the blood on their hands if they came from a different socio-economic bakground like every bleeding heart.
 
2013-03-26 12:27:06 AM  
its bed time here so, no answer required but i'll ask ...

why it is easier for some to buy a handgun than to avoid robocalls?

sleep tight, you farkers
 
2013-03-26 12:27:45 AM  

Demetrius: I got the NRA robo-call.  I'm in CT, but not even near Newtown.  I took the call when I saw the caller ID because I was never more hoping for a live marketing caller in my life.


Yes, then you could have whipped out your credit card and bought a lifetime membership.
 
2013-03-26 12:28:05 AM  

The Name: davidphogan: While I don't personally have much of a problem with this, I do understand the "building a list" concern that some gun owners do have. If the only legal way to get a gun is to tell the government exactly what you have, that seems like a really easy to follow the method of taking all the guns away that other countries have used before.

Ugh, really?  You find these kinds of paranoid delusions credible?  Honestly, whenever someone starts talking about the government "taking all the guns away" (all 300,000,000 of them, that is), I know it's time to look elsewhere for conversation.


I don't think it's likely for a lot of reasons, both political and practical.  I still do understand why some people are concerned about it.  I'm not going to change my vote over it, but I just acknowledge that logically I'm not going to make them change their mind and I move on.
 
2013-03-26 12:29:36 AM  

armoredbulldozer: JolobinSmokin: Good for them, gun owners are an oppressed group of ppl

You got that right.  It needs to come to a farking end too.


Get to it, NRA members. We're all counting on you!

The sooner you die in your "barricade situation" after killing your family, the better.
 
2013-03-26 12:29:56 AM  

davidphogan: I just acknowledge that logically I'm not going to make them change their mind and I move on.


Good plan.
 
2013-03-26 12:30:02 AM  

pedrop357: Yes there is. Because it's been abused before. There's the reason.


So put safeguards into place to keep it from happening. You could just as easily abuse car registration if you wanted to. And if you create harsh penalties for selling guns in a manner other than what's established by law, you'll find many fewer people willing to do it which will over time dry up the gun supply to the people who commit crimes with such guns.
 
2013-03-26 12:32:41 AM  

The Name: pedrop357: We've never traded liberty for security before.

What the hell is this even supposed to mean?


I guess we aren't allowed to be cross with the NRA or something?
 
2013-03-26 12:32:42 AM  

Giltric: And you would be falling over yourself making excuses for the blood on their hands if they came from a different socio-economic bakground like every bleeding heart.


You really are a piece of work, you don't give a damn how many are killed, you don't. Not so long as you can clutch your precious little piece of metal substitute for any sense of security you might otherwise have. You're safe, or so you tell yourself, and if someone else dies, fark them, it's their fault.
 
2013-03-26 12:33:29 AM  

Craptastic: Are you "fighting" against something that has never happened?


It's happened before here in the states.In two different states. California and NY.

Themoreyouknow.jpeg

I don;t actually expect you to remember this though. I fully expect you to pretend that confiscation has never happened the next time you bring it up. Probably in the same way you ignore how corrupt and murderous cops are.
 
Displayed 50 of 647 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | 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