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.

(NBC News)   43% of gun owners think that the laws covering gun sales should be stricter. Easy for them to say   (firstread.nbcnews.com) divider line 449
    More: Fail, Morning Joe, Americans, gun laws, assault weapons, Just Seventeen, United States Public Debt  
•       •       •

954 clicks; posted to Politics » on 03 Apr 2013 at 11:54 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-03 12:15:41 PM  

Giltric: Dusk-You-n-Me: Giltric: Considering the gun control crowd has been claiming nobody gets a background check at a gun show I say that stat is spot on.

I think it is too. Glad to see it so high.

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshiat.

It seem that democrats can't get the voters to agree with them unless they lie or pull the wool over the peoples eyes.


Do you like intentionally stretching something out until it's a lie, then accusing others of doing the same?
 
2013-04-03 12:16:33 PM  
ZOMG!!!  Why do gun owners hate the 2nd Amendment?!?!??!!1!
 
2013-04-03 12:16:41 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: nekom: Can we even stop ANY of them, that's my question

Yes. If Australia and the UK can, the US certainly can.


In theory, yes. In political reality, we're pretty much stuck where we are here. Nothing will change, nothing the least bit substantial anyway.
 
2013-04-03 12:17:02 PM  

sammyk: Don't forget the person denied may have committed a crime by attempting to buy a gun.


Oooga booga. Investigate then. If it's not a crime, destroy the records.
 
2013-04-03 12:17:24 PM  

nekom: cameroncrazy1984: nekom: Given the current political paradigm, this is just not a solvable problem.

We can't stop 100% of all mass shootings, so why bother trying?

Can we even stop ANY of them, that's my question. Aside from the politically impossible act of actually banning all but single shot guns, what can honestly be done? Personally I'm in favor of extremely strict gun control, similar to what they have in Europe, but I'm aware enough of the political paradigm to know that's just not in the cards. So what in the world will stop even ONE mass shooting from happening? Remember Sandy Hook was perpetrated using 100% legally acquired and legally owned firearms.

We're going to wind up with some feel-good bans on specific weapons (probably kinds that weren't even used in any recent mass shooting) so that congress can say they did something, and the next mass shooting... well it is April, seems to be a prime month for that sort of stuff, sadly.


The AWB they were shopping around with was netting less than 40 votes in the Senate. You couldn't mount a filibuster much less break one. I doubt any feel good bans will happen.

Perhaps energetic will get diverted to proper background check legislation that will actually do some good.
 
2013-04-03 12:17:30 PM  
I feel the expanded background support is a reverse of ACA support.  Sure expanded background sounds great on the face but once you deal with how it will be implemented... it gets a little do not want depending upon how it is set up.
 
2013-04-03 12:17:40 PM  

LasersHurt: Giltric: Dusk-You-n-Me: Giltric: Considering the gun control crowd has been claiming nobody gets a background check at a gun show I say that stat is spot on.

I think it is too. Glad to see it so high.

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshiat.

It seem that democrats can't get the voters to agree with them unless they lie or pull the wool over the peoples eyes.

Do you like intentionally stretching something out until it's a lie, then accusing others of doing the same?



Where did I lie?
 
2013-04-03 12:17:49 PM  

Giltric: Dusk-You-n-Me: Giltric: Considering the gun control crowd has been claiming nobody gets a background check at a gun show I say that stat is spot on.

I think it is too. Glad to see it so high.

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshiat.

It seem that democrats can't get the voters to agree with them unless they lie or pull the wool over the peoples eyes.


Yeah and those polls totally need to be unskewed.
 
2013-04-03 12:18:41 PM  

Saiga410: Sure expanded background sounds great on the face but once you deal with how it will be implemented... it gets a little do not want depending upon how it is set up.


Seriously, what possible issue could you have with more background checks?
 
2013-04-03 12:19:56 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Giltric: It seem that democrats can't get the voters to agree with them unless they lie or pull the wool over the peoples eyes.

Yeah dude like totally.



It's like the Harvard study they were using for the health care debate....counted all these people who owed at least 1000 dollars in medical expenses as a medical bankruptcy while ignoring all the other debt the person had.

If the democrats told the tuth HCR would never have been passed.

Democrats have to resort to lies. They don't have any other process to get what they want.
 
2013-04-03 12:20:55 PM  
This truly is a golden age for gun loving Fark trolls.
 
2013-04-03 12:21:07 PM  

Giltric: It's like the Harvard study they were using for the health care debate....counted all these people who owed at least 1000 dollars in medical expenses as a medical bankruptcy while ignoring all the other debt the person had.

If the democrats told the tuth HCR would never have been passed.

Democrats have to resort to lies. They don't have any other process to get what they want.


If you're just going to whine about those big meanie Democrats you don't need to quote me to do so. Leave me out of it.
 
2013-04-03 12:21:08 PM  

sammyk: No one is suggesting we change the current NICS system. Just expand it to all gun purchases. Do you have any issues with the current system?


Nope, and I have no problem expanding it to private sales, so long as it doesn't come with a hefty price tag or some other hidden hurdle to make selling your private property damn near impossible without involved a 3rd party.
 
2013-04-03 12:21:44 PM  

sammyk: cameroncrazy1984: doglover: sammyk: The FBI maintains indefinitely the records of prospective purchasers whose applications are denied

Looks like a registry to me.

If you deny the sale of a gun, how is that person a gun-owner?

Don't forget the person denied may have committed a crime by attempting to buy a gun. Sure seems the so called law abiding gun owners like to support criminals having access to guns for...er...freedom I guess.


None of the recently passed CT legislation would have prevented the school shooting the laws were born from.  A mom with no mental illness or criminal record legally bought guns and provided them to her mentally unstable son who then shot her in her sleep and then went on to commit the school massacre.
 
2013-04-03 12:22:15 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Giltric: Dusk-You-n-Me: Giltric: Considering the gun control crowd has been claiming nobody gets a background check at a gun show I say that stat is spot on.

I think it is too. Glad to see it so high.

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshiat.

It seem that democrats can't get the voters to agree with them unless they lie or pull the wool over the peoples eyes.

Yeah and those polls totally need to be unskewed.



So you agree with the idea of lying to the people in order for a group to get what they want?
 
2013-04-03 12:23:20 PM  

Giltric: LasersHurt: Giltric: Dusk-You-n-Me: Giltric: Considering the gun control crowd has been claiming nobody gets a background check at a gun show I say that stat is spot on.

I think it is too. Glad to see it so high.

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshiat.

It seem that democrats can't get the voters to agree with them unless they lie or pull the wool over the peoples eyes.

Do you like intentionally stretching something out until it's a lie, then accusing others of doing the same?

Where did I lie?


The absolutes which turn that into a false statement?
 
2013-04-03 12:23:49 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Giltric: It's like the Harvard study they were using for the health care debate....counted all these people who owed at least 1000 dollars in medical expenses as a medical bankruptcy while ignoring all the other debt the person had.

If the democrats told the tuth HCR would never have been passed.

Democrats have to resort to lies. They don't have any other process to get what they want.

If you're just going to whine about those big meanie Democrats you don't need to quote me to do so. Leave me out of it.


I'm waiting for you to discuss something in regards to the tactics used by the gun control crowd. All it seems you do is snipe at people. Odds are it is because you are out of your league.
 
2013-04-03 12:23:58 PM  

hinten: dittybopper: hinten: The only solution is that all current owners have to hand in their guns.

I'm sure they'd be willing to do that, after they gave you the bullets first.

Another responsible gun owner.


Your chicken is dead, sir.
 
2013-04-03 12:24:19 PM  

amindtat: You seem to have a lot of faith in people.


I do.  I believe that the majority of people, be they merchants, gun owners, whoever, will, when left to their own devices, do the right thing.  And that punishing the majority for the sins of the minority is wrong.
 
2013-04-03 12:24:37 PM  

Uisce Beatha: Blues_X: dittybopper: The only way this kind of thing gets support is by people who are ignorant.


That's sure to bring people to your side of the cause.

"If you disagree with me, then you must be ignorant."

It may not be the most tactful way of saying it, but that doesn't mean it is false.  Anyone who thinks an "Assault Weapons Ban" would do anything other than inconvenience some law abiding people, for example, is pretty ignorant.


Not like it's proven to do anything anywhere else we could compare to. No one is like the US except when I try to draw fallacous arguments that support my position. Like "violent crime." Then they matter.

Sorry these threads are so full of derp I just decided to attack the most stupid comments/posters. Have to prioritize.
 
2013-04-03 12:25:05 PM  

Giltric: cameroncrazy1984: Giltric: Dusk-You-n-Me: Giltric: Considering the gun control crowd has been claiming nobody gets a background check at a gun show I say that stat is spot on.

I think it is too. Glad to see it so high.

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshiat.

It seem that democrats can't get the voters to agree with them unless they lie or pull the wool over the peoples eyes.

Yeah and those polls totally need to be unskewed.


So you agree with the idea of lying to the people in order for a group to get what they want?


No, I agree with the idea that you think all democrats are bad and the polls are skewed and Real America is a Silent MajorityTM

And that is why the GOP keeps losing elections.
 
2013-04-03 12:25:45 PM  

LasersHurt: Giltric: LasersHurt: Giltric: Dusk-You-n-Me: Giltric: Considering the gun control crowd has been claiming nobody gets a background check at a gun show I say that stat is spot on.

I think it is too. Glad to see it so high.

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshiat.

It seem that democrats can't get the voters to agree with them unless they lie or pull the wool over the peoples eyes.

Do you like intentionally stretching something out until it's a lie, then accusing others of doing the same?

Where did I lie?

The absolutes which turn that into a false statement?


Why do democrats and the gun control corwd refer to it as gun show loophole....you missed a couple words with your bolding.
 
2013-04-03 12:25:56 PM  

Giltric: Dusk-You-n-Me: Giltric: It's like the Harvard study they were using for the health care debate....counted all these people who owed at least 1000 dollars in medical expenses as a medical bankruptcy while ignoring all the other debt the person had.

If the democrats told the tuth HCR would never have been passed.

Democrats have to resort to lies. They don't have any other process to get what they want.

If you're just going to whine about those big meanie Democrats you don't need to quote me to do so. Leave me out of it.

I'm waiting for you to discuss something in regards to the tactics used by the gun control crowd. All it seems you do is snipe at people. Odds are it is because you are out of your league.


And I'm still waiting for an argument from you that isn't a strawman.
 
2013-04-03 12:26:24 PM  
rlv.zcache.ca
Finally, a tie fine enough to be married in.
 
Bf+
2013-04-03 12:26:31 PM  
Clearly, the only responsible thing to do is to make 60-round clips mandatory for the criminally insane.
/NRA
 
2013-04-03 12:27:08 PM  
100% of gun owners support enforcing existing laws rather than making new ones.
 
2013-04-03 12:27:18 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Saiga410: Sure expanded background sounds great on the face but once you deal with how it will be implemented... it gets a little do not want depending upon how it is set up.

Seriously, what possible issue could you have with more background checks?


It all depends upon how it is set up.  To have universal have real teeth you would need a registry... none starter.  And how will you impose the checks on private parties, force the sale through an FFL driving an unnecessary cost?

On it's face I wouldnt mind seeing universal but I want some safeguards.
 
2013-04-03 12:27:29 PM  

justtray: Not like it's proven to do anything anywhere else we could compare to


I would actually respond to a cogent arguement, but...

justtray: Sorry these threads are so full of derp I just decided to attack the most stupid comments/posters.


Ad hominems mean logic means nothing to you.  Pot, meet kettle.
 
2013-04-03 12:27:32 PM  

monoski: sammyk: cameroncrazy1984: doglover: sammyk: The FBI maintains indefinitely the records of prospective purchasers whose applications are denied

Looks like a registry to me.

If you deny the sale of a gun, how is that person a gun-owner?

Don't forget the person denied may have committed a crime by attempting to buy a gun. Sure seems the so called law abiding gun owners like to support criminals having access to guns for...er...freedom I guess.

None of the recently passed CT legislation would have prevented the school shooting the laws were born from.  A mom with no mental illness or criminal record legally bought guns and provided them to her mentally unstable son who then shot her in her sleep and then went on to commit the school massacre.


An expanded background check could have never found that she had a mentally unstable son that she tried to commit. Good point.

I love these arguments based on the fiction that no gun laws could ever stop anything. Except that they do, everywhere else in the world, and even within the US based on gun ownership, statistically speaking. But clearly they couldn't work, because when I limit the scope of the scenario, and such as, reasons.
 
2013-04-03 12:27:49 PM  

SCUBA_Archer: 100% of gun owners support enforcing existing laws rather than making new ones.


Existing laws leave about 40% of gun sales without background checks.

So..no, no they don't.
 
2013-04-03 12:27:58 PM  

Giltric: I'm waiting for you to discuss something in regards to the tactics used by the gun control crowd. All it seems you do is snipe at people.


All I said was that 87% is a large percentage. That's it. I didn't snipe at anyone. You replied to me. No, I won't discuss whatever made up bad things you think gun control advocates are supposedly doing. You're free to whine about that on your own. You don't need me for it, so don't reply to me and complain I'm not participating in your dumb conversation.
 
2013-04-03 12:27:59 PM  

Dimensio: doglover: sammyk: There will not be a list of gun owners for you to be paranoid about.

Prove it.

On what occasion has a list of firearm owners ever been misused, such as in an effort to shame them through publishing it to the public?


[citation needed]

Public records are public, Jack.

It was inappropriate for the paper to publish the list, but they had the right to do so under NY state law.
 
2013-04-03 12:28:24 PM  

Saiga410: To have universal have real teeth you would need a registry..


Why?
 
2013-04-03 12:28:52 PM  
I'm in favor of people who are not me having less access to guns.
 
2013-04-03 12:29:26 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Giltric: cameroncrazy1984: Giltric: Dusk-You-n-Me: Giltric: Considering the gun control crowd has been claiming nobody gets a background check at a gun show I say that stat is spot on.

I think it is too. Glad to see it so high.

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshiat.

It seem that democrats can't get the voters to agree with them unless they lie or pull the wool over the peoples eyes.

Yeah and those polls totally need to be unskewed.


So you agree with the idea of lying to the people in order for a group to get what they want?

No, I agree with the idea that you think all democrats are bad and the polls are skewed and Real America is a Silent MajorityTM

And that is why the GOP keeps losing elections.


Now you're just being your weasely self, that's more like it.

Do you think the pro gun control democrats should tell the truth when talking about firearms or do you think they should lie?

Do you think the pro gun control democrats are telling the truth or do you thik they are lying when it comes to the information and statistics they are putting out in regards to the gun control debate?
 
2013-04-03 12:29:51 PM  

doglover: sammyk: Don't forget the person denied may have committed a crime by attempting to buy a gun.

Oooga booga. Investigate then. If it's not a crime, destroy the records.


ooga booga yourself you subject changing coward. What does this have to do with your wild fantasy that universal background checks for ALL gun purchases will lead to a registry, list or database of lawful gun owners?
 
2013-04-03 12:30:08 PM  
I think most of us (gun owners) wouldn't have a problem with having access to a background check system for private gunsales. The use of the system would be passed on in the price of the gun.

The only down side to that is the possibility of gaining some cort of access or insight into someone's past by whether or not they are able to purchase a gun and whther the system could be abused for other reasons.

example: Employer runs a standard background screen on someone looking for criminal records and it comes back clean. He then runs a gun purchase background that denies the purchase. he might not know why, but it would indicate something troubling in the applicant's past and he doesn't get the job.
 
2013-04-03 12:30:27 PM  

Uisce Beatha: justtray: Not like it's proven to do anything anywhere else we could compare to

I would actually respond to a cogent arguement, but...

justtray: Sorry these threads are so full of derp I just decided to attack the most stupid comments/posters.

Ad hominems mean logic means nothing to you.  Pot, meet kettle.


It's always a good deflection on an arugment to say it hurt your feelings, therefore invalid. I pointed out why your comment, and therefore you by association are stupid. Your response was "since that made me butthurt I'm going to ignore it."

You've only proven my point.
 
2013-04-03 12:30:39 PM  

hinten: dittybopper: hinten: The only solution is that all current owners have to hand in their guns.

I'm sure they'd be willing to do that, after they gave you the bullets first.

Another responsible gun owner.


Yep, and I come from a long line of them.
 
2013-04-03 12:30:47 PM  

sammyk: doglover: sammyk: Don't forget the person denied may have committed a crime by attempting to buy a gun.

Oooga booga. Investigate then. If it's not a crime, destroy the records.

ooga booga yourself you subject changing coward. What does this have to do with your wild fantasy that universal background checks for ALL gun purchases will lead to a registry, list or database of lawful gun owners?


It was in Red Dawn!
 
2013-04-03 12:31:21 PM  

Giltric: Do you think the pro gun control democrats should tell the truth when talking about firearms or do you think they should lie?


I obviously think they should tell the truth.

Giltric: cameroncrazy1984: Giltric: cameroncrazy1984: Giltric: Dusk-You-n-Me: Giltric: Considering the gun control crowd has been claiming nobody gets a background check at a gun show I say that stat is spot on.

I think it is too. Glad to see it so high.

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshiat.

It seem that democrats can't get the voters to agree with them unless they lie or pull the wool over the peoples eyes.

Yeah and those polls totally need to be unskewed.


So you agree with the idea of lying to the people in order for a group to get what they want?

No, I agree with the idea that you think all democrats are bad and the polls are skewed and Real America is a Silent MajorityTM

And that is why the GOP keeps losing elections.

Now you're just being your weasely self, that's more like it.

Do you think the pro gun control democrats should tell the truth when talking about firearms or do you think they should lie?

Do you think the pro gun control democrats are telling the truth or do you thik they are lying when it comes to the information and statistics they are putting out in regards to the gun control debate?


Well considering you can't find an example of a specific lie, I'm going to go with "truth"
 
2013-04-03 12:31:40 PM  

Giltric: Where did I lie?

The absolutes which turn that into a false statement?

Why do democrats and the gun control corwd refer to it as gun show loophole....you missed a couple words with your bolding.


"Baffle them with bullshiat" indeed.
 
2013-04-03 12:31:54 PM  

doglover: sammyk: There will not be a list of gun owners for you to be paranoid about.

Prove it.


I think you should explain.

Asking others to disprove your paranoia is pretty weak.
 
2013-04-03 12:32:57 PM  

Saiga410: And how will you impose the checks on private parties, force the sale through an FFL driving an unnecessary cost?


Or let anyone run a check for $10 (for a $500 handgun, which is cheaper than every handgun at my local shop, that's a 2% surcharge, less than local sales tax) - the dealer gets a "pass/fail" response, and no one's freedoms were sold to the Taliban for crack money.

// IIRC, it costs $10-$15 to run a single NICS check
// I wonder if people can get bulk rates, like 20 checks to be used within the calendar year for a lower rate? Would that be legal?
 
2013-04-03 12:33:17 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Giltric: I'm waiting for you to discuss something in regards to the tactics used by the gun control crowd. All it seems you do is snipe at people.

All I said was that 87% is a large percentage. That's it. I didn't snipe at anyone. You replied to me. No, I won't discuss whatever made up bad things you think gun control advocates are supposedly doing. You're free to whine about that on your own. You don't need me for it, so don't reply to me and complain I'm not participating in your dumb conversation.


What am I making up....provide citations and counter assertions/citations.

You want me to put you on ignore because you can't back anything up? Odd tactic, but I will comply.
 
2013-04-03 12:33:41 PM  
As a gun owner, what I'm really torn in is how much federal regulation I want regarding guns.  On one hand the fact that various states have varying laws is a giant pain in my ass in terms of figuring out whether my carry permit is recongized or I need to go lock it in the trunk for transport, it's an annoying balkanization of rules and legs.  On the other hand the fact that the 2nd Amendment talks about states having the power to regulate the bearing of arms, as opposed to the Feds, can be a useful check.

What I'd really like is a gun license.  Either the state or the federal government issues me a piece of plastic that says "Ha-ha-guy can buy guns, ammo, and carry them".  Once I have this piece of plastic I can stop by the gun store on the way home and fill my trunk with AR-15s if I want, no hassle.  Perhaps if the Feds were issuing said card it could also grant me CCW perks in all 50 states in one fell swoop.  It could serve as the thing that lets me buy the guns and carry them.

Now getting this piece of plastic should of course be somewhat difficult. You have to pass a test to drive, why not have one for guns?  Show up with a piece of paper from your family doctor saying you're not a crazy son of a biatch, do the gun safety test, perhaps get a basic background check, wait a bit, then you are issued your piece of plastic.  There can also be a renewal required tied in, so when you end up 80 and senile, walk into the office to renew the permit, the state can go "Oh shiat" and tell your kids to take your damn guns or they'll send the sheriff over to do it themselves.  Plus the gun permit could be medically linked somehow (laws permitting) so if you get diagnosed as a paranoid or something a flag is raised and the guns are taken.  We could have some kind of rule where if a doctor decides your nuts the police get to take the guns, but before anything is done with the guns (beside the cops locking them in their armory) the whole thing is sorted out before a judge and you get a chance to bring in your own mental health expert to prove you're sane.  For temporary mental illness the rule could be the cops just hold them free of charge as a public service until you're sane.

As for younger people, let them get learners permits so they can use their parents' weapons, with the caveat that the parents are legally liable if Jr borrows your AR-15 to go shoot the school up.  However this provides a legal avenue for teenager hunters and things of that nature.  Also successfully holding a learners permit without any issue could smooth your path to getting the adult level permit.

Regarding edge cases like a woman needing protection from an abuser, the local police could hold the right to issue a temporary permit that allows someone to get one handgun and ammo.  Make it so the permit lets you buy one gun, but you have to register the serial number with the police, and plenty of ammo.  So if your husband beats the hell out of you, you can go to the cops and ask for the gun permit when you are also doing the restraining order paperwork.  Should the cops refuse, make it a law that you get same day service from the courts when you appeal their refusal.  The permit is good for X days with the understanding you're also applying for a real permit and this is just a stopgap.  Rejection of the real permit or expiration of the temporary one means you have to give the gun back or the cops can come kick down your door and get it.

One of the nice things with this system is that you can link all gun related purchases to the permit.  You want ammo?  Show the permit.  You want to buy parts?  Show the permit.  You want a cleaning kit? Show the permit.  That deals with the edge case of my child stealing the gun and then buying ammo for a shooting spree from some slackjawed clerk at WalMart.  Of course the smart kid could just steal my ammo as well, but say my kid steals the gun and sells it to a friend, that friend can't just buy ammo.

On the gun owner side of things it seems better to embrace and push regulations that offer me perks (ex: nation wide CCW) and the state more control over purchases at the same time.  Everyone wins and hopefully it ensures we don't have to endure another dumbass version of the AWB and another price spike of 30 round magazines.
 
2013-04-03 12:34:09 PM  

Rapmaster2000: It was in Red Dawn!


It wasn't actually, but you wouldn't know that because the idea of a moderate liberal is alien to you.
 
2013-04-03 12:34:27 PM  

LasersHurt: Giltric: Where did I lie?

The absolutes which turn that into a false statement?

Why do democrats and the gun control corwd refer to it as gun show loophole....you missed a couple words with your bolding.

"Baffle them with bullshiat" indeed.


So you got nothing?
 
2013-04-03 12:34:33 PM  

Giltric: Dusk-You-n-Me: Giltric: It seem that democrats can't get the voters to agree with them unless they lie or pull the wool over the peoples eyes.

Yeah dude like totally.


It's like the Harvard study they were using for the health care debate....counted all these people who owed at least 1000 dollars in medical expenses as a medical bankruptcy while ignoring all the other debt the person had.

If the democrats told the tuth HCR would never have been passed.

Democrats have to resort to lies. They don't have any other process to get what they want.


Somehow I don't think someone being 30k I'd debt to their college and their hospital would have hardened any hearts.
 
2013-04-03 12:35:54 PM  
What do the other 57% say?
 
Displayed 50 of 449 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | 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