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.

(Mother Jones)   Remember the school shooting in 2010 at Hastings Middle School in Minnesota that left six students dead? Me either. But if you do, the National Rifle Association would REALLY like you to corroborate the story they apparently pulled out of their ass   (motherjones.com) divider line 390
    More: Asinine, Hastings Middle School, NRA, Minnesota, school shootings, Columbine High School, Dennis Van Roekel  
•       •       •

16437 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 Apr 2013 at 1:11 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-04 04:48:18 PM  

BgJonson79: jaytkay: Giltric: Freedom is a little messy...and the alternative is no freedom. Do you enjoy your freedoms? They were bought and paid for via the gun.

Maybe next time you can fight for your own freedoms using a poem...let me know how that turns out.

Whoa, watch out, we got a badass over here.

[lh5.googleusercontent.com image 350x350]

Ridiculing him doesn't disprove the concept ;-)


But the penis mightier, does it work?
 
2013-04-04 04:51:13 PM  

Generic Republican: What happens if they get shot and another working firearm and ammunition is introduced into the situation?  Who's liable if a child gets shot by an NRA defender engaged in a crossfire?


Beats me.  What happens when a cop gets shot and now a criminal has yet another gun?  What happens if a child is shot by a copy by accident?

I would rather be shot by accident than by someone aiming directly at me.  Odds are, the bad guy is not going to be aiming at my pinky.
 
2013-04-04 04:51:16 PM  

neversubmit: Nutsac_Jim:
Which side has a body count?

The pro-abortion side.

A blob of cells is not a body.


A Mounds bar is not a body A Twizzler is not a body. A Jolly Rancher is not a body, sir. Perhaps in Shangra-la they are, but not here.
 
2013-04-04 04:57:05 PM  

neversubmit: Gun nuts have already lost the war...

[www.bartcop.com image 720x464]

The only way their guns can protect them now is if they put it in their mouth and pull the trigger.


timeglobalspin.files.wordpress.com

Un thinks disarming citizens is DA BOMB!

Do you think his citizens agree?
 
2013-04-04 05:01:02 PM  

jaytkay: Adam Lanza was a typical "responsible gun owner", until the day he murdered a bunch of children.


Adam Lanza owned some guns?
 
2013-04-04 05:02:34 PM  

WippitGuud: neversubmit: Nutsac_Jim:
Which side has a body count?

The pro-abortion side.

A blob of cells is not a body.

A Mounds bar is not a body A Twizzler is not a body. A Jolly Rancher is not a body, sir. Perhaps in Shangra-la they are, but not here.


You need some more blobs of cells inside of your melon.
 
2013-04-04 05:04:39 PM  
To "gun control nuts":
We're allowed to own guns because any/every government ever created wants the governed to be slaves. That's what governments do.

When the governed own weapons, government can't do that. That is why the US government is only a corrupt snakepit v an all-out dictatorship.

Democrats and their neocon/christian-conservatice toadies, historically, are violently in favor of that, and they always favor the slavery thing: NAFTA, my ancestors, etc. That's why I'm a Republican (the Ike/Goldwater/Lincoln kind).

Your "one little law that makes so much sense" is a small move in a wrong direction.

I know you won't see it that way, because years of experience have shown me that you never think any problem through beyond the "Yeearrgh!" phase of planning. So, my message to you is necessarily simple: if you try to take my rights, I will try to stop you in the most expedient way possible. And I can stop you from 1200 meters away. Clear enough?
 
2013-04-04 05:06:38 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: * A drastic reshaping of our prison system so it actually rehabilitates and helps criminals return to society instead of being a for-profit system that works by imprisoning as many people as possible.
* A drastic reshaping of the War on Drugs policy, or just ending it altogether.
* Fix everything Reagan broke with the mental health care system.
* Tackle the root factors of crime like poverty.


zOMG SOOOOOOOOOCIALISM!
 
2013-04-04 05:06:45 PM  
Consider the following: people have brought forth ideas and suggestions for dealing with the problem that don't involve taking away guns. However, all of those are tossed aside by people who don't want to take the time, pay the money, accept the responsibility, or still declare they're unconstitutional and will allow guns to be taken away anyway. What's left is the two extreme sides of take all guns and do absolutely nothing that are constantly paraded around and screaming at each other.

The sensible ones have given ideas. Maybe we should start listening to them instead of ignoring and drowning them out.
 
2013-04-04 05:08:36 PM  

Giblet: I will try to stop you in the most expedient way possible. And I can stop you from 1200 meters away. Clear enough?


Keep up the good work.
 
2013-04-04 05:09:33 PM  

Amos Quito: Un thinks disarming citizens is DA BOMB!

Do you think his citizens agree?


Dude do you ever actually discuss the subject matter, or do all your posts have to refer to what you think liberals think about what liberals think about guns?

narwhaler.comnarwhaler.comnarwhaler.com
 
2013-04-04 05:20:09 PM  

Giltric: GameSprocket: Giltric: GameSprocket: Giltric: Freedom is a little messy at times....would you like citations.

Freedom from what, overcrowding?

Rights...freedoms....like freedom of speech.

Would you abandon it if it would have saved this girls life?
Her name was Eden Wormer.

[media.katu.com image 405x304]

How about this girl...her name was Phoebe Prince. Would you sacrifice your right to free speech if it would bring her back?

[i.usatoday.net image 490x445]


I wouldn't. But thats me.

Are you implying that gun ownership is how we progress as a society? Because that is what the First Amendment gives us. Or, are you trying to say that gun victims commit suicide by throwing themselves into bullets?

Your apple still looks like an orange to me.

No I am implying that firearms ownership is an inalienable, enumerated right, and that rights are not something you erase over emotion or polling.

I believe it is the keystone that allows you to keep all your other rights it is the last box you turn too when the soap, ballot and jury box fail.

Freedom is a little messy...and the alternative is no freedom. Do you enjoy your freedoms? They were bought and paid for via the gun.

Maybe next time you can fight for your own freedoms using a poem...let me know how that turns out.


Canadian here, my freedom was aquired by pen you ethnocentric son of a gun.  The only time it needed to be defended by a gun was against Americans during the war of 1812
 
2013-04-04 05:21:33 PM  
DIAF subby.
 
2013-04-04 05:24:44 PM  
Guns are tools.  When the only tool you can effectivly wield is a gun, everything looks like a target.  Learn some more tools!
 
2013-04-04 05:25:53 PM  

Mrtraveler01: It's easy to mistake "broke through a school window and killed 6 students" from "was subdued by school authorities before any shots broke out"

For Godsakes, the truth backs up the point they were trying to make and they still had to resort to lying?!?!


The point they were trying to make was that school shootings can be eliminated with more guns and fewer classroom windows.

They should have just smeared poo on their nipples while jacking off in a pile of broken glass. It would have made more sense than what they wrote.
 
2013-04-04 05:26:10 PM  

Lee Jackson Beauregard: Keizer_Ghidorah: * A drastic reshaping of our prison system so it actually rehabilitates and helps criminals return to society instead of being a for-profit system that works by imprisoning as many people as possible.
* A drastic reshaping of the War on Drugs policy, or just ending it altogether.
* Fix everything Reagan broke with the mental health care system.
* Tackle the root factors of crime like poverty.

zOMG SOOOOOOOOOCIALISM!


Never understood that fear.
 
2013-04-04 05:29:42 PM  

Greylight: Canadian here, my freedom was aquired by pen you ethnocentric son of a gun.



No need to thank us for breaking Britain's imperial spirit for you, without which they wouldn't have given a damn what your pen was doing. Our efforts were mostly self-serving anyway. We don't mind that other people rode our coattails a few centuries later.
 
2013-04-04 05:36:47 PM  

whidbey: Amos Quito: Un thinks disarming citizens is DA BOMB!

Do you think his citizens agree?

Dude do you ever actually discuss the subject matter, or do all your posts have to refer to what you think liberals think about what liberals think about guns?

[narwhaler.com image 100x75][narwhaler.com image 100x75][narwhaler.com image 100x75]



Hi whidbey!

I have a couple of errands to run, but in the meantime, please think about this:

1. What EXACTLY are your goals in firearms regulation? (i.e. reduced overall murder rate, reduced mass murders, etc)

2. Do you believe that the measures being proposed by pro-regulation legislators will advance these goals?

Why or why not?


Thanks in advance.
 
2013-04-04 05:39:50 PM  

BigNumber12: Greylight: Canadian here, my freedom was aquired by pen you ethnocentric son of a gun.


No need to thank us for breaking Britain's imperial spirit for you, without which they wouldn't have given a damn what your pen was doing. Our efforts were mostly self-serving anyway. We don't mind that other people rode our coattails a few centuries later.


You might want to read up a little more on Canadian history and about that little group known as the Commonwealth. Independance without violence, your assumption that freedom requires guns is insane.
 
2013-04-04 05:56:10 PM  

Greylight: BigNumber12: Greylight: Canadian here, my freedom was aquired by pen you ethnocentric son of a gun.


No need to thank us for breaking Britain's imperial spirit for you, without which they wouldn't have given a damn what your pen was doing. Our efforts were mostly self-serving anyway. We don't mind that other people rode our coattails a few centuries later.

You might want to read up a little more on Canadian history and about that little group known as the Commonwealth. Independance without violence, your assumption that freedom requires guns is insane.



Yep, Canadian history should be viewed in a vacuum. The British relaxed their hold on Canada because they've always been super nice, easygoing folks like they are currently, and they suddenly realized that colonialism was bad and your desire for independence was reasonable and legitimate after all. Boy was their face red when they had that epiphany!

Your assumption that freedom only requires a pen is naive. Your independence did require violence - others colonies fought and eventually broke England's colonial will so that you wouldn't need to.
 
2013-04-04 05:58:17 PM  

Greylight: BigNumber12: Greylight: Canadian here, my freedom was aquired by pen you ethnocentric son of a gun.


No need to thank us for breaking Britain's imperial spirit for you, without which they wouldn't have given a damn what your pen was doing. Our efforts were mostly self-serving anyway. We don't mind that other people rode our coattails a few centuries later.

You might want to read up a little more on Canadian history and about that little group known as the Commonwealth. Independance without violence, your assumption that freedom requires guns is insane.


Yeah, but Canada has caused it's share of violence. Like that time we burned down the White House.

Good times.... good times...
 
2013-04-04 06:01:57 PM  

WippitGuud: Yeah, but Canada has caused it's share of violence. Like that time we burned down the White House.


We were done with that one anyway, it was dirty.
 
2013-04-04 06:04:15 PM  

BigNumber12: Greylight: BigNumber12: Greylight: Canadian here, my freedom was aquired by pen you ethnocentric son of a gun.


No need to thank us for breaking Britain's imperial spirit for you, without which they wouldn't have given a damn what your pen was doing. Our efforts were mostly self-serving anyway. We don't mind that other people rode our coattails a few centuries later.

You might want to read up a little more on Canadian history and about that little group known as the Commonwealth. Independance without violence, your assumption that freedom requires guns is insane.


Yep, Canadian history should be viewed in a vacuum. The British relaxed their hold on Canada because they've always been super nice, easygoing folks like they are currently, and they suddenly realized that colonialism was bad and your desire for independence was reasonable and legitimate after all. Boy was their face red when they had that epiphany!

Your assumption that freedom only requires a pen is naive. Your independence did require violence - others colonies fought and eventually broke England's colonial will so that you wouldn't need to.


So you're saying that US colonialism/manifest destiny can only be stopped by war? I have more faith in you then that.
 
2013-04-04 06:08:17 PM  

Amos Quito: whidbey: Amos Quito: Un thinks disarming citizens is DA BOMB!

Do you think his citizens agree?

Dude do you ever actually discuss the subject matter, or do all your posts have to refer to what you think liberals think about what liberals think about guns?

[narwhaler.com image 100x75][narwhaler.com image 100x75][narwhaler.com image 100x75]


Hi whidbey!

I have a couple of errands to run, but in the meantime, please think about this:

1. What EXACTLY are your goals in firearms regulation? (i.e. reduced overall murder rate, reduced mass murders, etc)

2. Do you believe that the measures being proposed by pro-regulation legislators will advance these goals?

Why or why not?


Thanks in advance.



Okay whidbey, I'm back.

Any answers, yet?
 
2013-04-04 06:15:51 PM  

Greylight: So you're saying that US colonialism/manifest destiny can only be stopped by war? I have more faith in you then that.



You know perfectly well that 18th Century British and 21st Century American Colonialism are very different animals.
 
2013-04-04 06:23:30 PM  

Amos Quito: Amos Quito: whidbey: Amos Quito: Un thinks disarming citizens is DA BOMB!

Do you think his citizens agree?

Dude do you ever actually discuss the subject matter, or do all your posts have to refer to what you think liberals think about what liberals think about guns?

[narwhaler.com image 100x75][narwhaler.com image 100x75][narwhaler.com image 100x75]


Hi whidbey!

I have a couple of errands to run, but in the meantime, please think about this:

1. What EXACTLY are your goals in firearms regulation? (i.e. reduced overall murder rate, reduced mass murders, etc)

2. Do you believe that the measures being proposed by pro-regulation legislators will advance these goals?

Why or why not?


Thanks in advance.


Okay whidbey, I'm back.

Any answers, yet?


I'm bored so I'll bite. When you have an unruly child for whatever reason a good parent makes a rule that the trunculent child can't play with guns in that state untill they calm down, even if their BB gun was purchased by the child themselves. Then they figure out what is causing the trunculent state and adjust. When the child calms down they can let them play with their BB gun again.

Why do you hate children?
 
2013-04-04 06:27:31 PM  

BigNumber12: Greylight: So you're saying that US colonialism/manifest destiny can only be stopped by war? I have more faith in you then that.


You know perfectly well that 18th Century British and 21st Century American Colonialism are very different animals.


From your point of view yes, to other countries who find their interal politics manipulated by the US in the interests of the US, not so much. Colonialism as a means to resources.
 
2013-04-04 06:40:21 PM  

Amos Quito: 1. What EXACTLY are your goals in firearms regulation? (i.e. reduced overall murder rate, reduced mass murders, etc)

My goal is that Instituting an enforceable policy where increased background checks, a national registry and a well-funded research program to study mental illness and the causes of gun violence will decrease the possibility of tragedies like Sandy Hook from happening.

This is not a numbers game where we want to reduce "x." This is about changing the paradigm altogether so that dysfunctional bouts of violence such as school shootings stop occurring altogether.

2. Do you believe that the measures being proposed by pro-regulation legislators will advance these goals?

Why or why not?

If they're just planning on banning weapons without focusing on the goals I mentioned, we're not going to see much in the way of progress.

However, if they do decide to pump money into research, streamlining and making background checks more effective, and eventually making the effort to establish a National Gun Registry, then I would then conclude that they would be taking these goals very seriously.

 
2013-04-04 06:40:57 PM  
Ah shiat.

</I>.
 
2013-04-04 07:08:55 PM  

BigNumber12: Greylight: BigNumber12: Greylight: Canadian here, my freedom was aquired by pen you ethnocentric son of a gun.


No need to thank us for breaking Britain's imperial spirit for you, without which they wouldn't have given a damn what your pen was doing. Our efforts were mostly self-serving anyway. We don't mind that other people rode our coattails a few centuries later.

You might want to read up a little more on Canadian history and about that little group known as the Commonwealth. Independance without violence, your assumption that freedom requires guns is insane.


Yep, Canadian history should be viewed in a vacuum. The British relaxed their hold on Canada because they've always been super nice, easygoing folks like they are currently, and they suddenly realized that colonialism was bad and your desire for independence was reasonable and legitimate after all. Boy was their face red when they had that epiphany!

Your assumption that freedom only requires a pen is naive. Your independence did require violence - others colonies fought and eventually broke England's colonial will so that you wouldn't need to.


I wouldn't characterize it as breaking England's colonial will so much as making the empire too expensive too maintain.  Colonialism is always about bringing wealth into the country, whether by stealing it from other countries by military force (e.g. Spain) or by coercing foreign countries to trade with your country's businesses (which in turn earns more taxes for the government).  In England's case, many colonies (most notably India; the American colonies really weren't that valuable to the British) became so expensive to maintain due to popular uprisings that the empire found itself losing money.
 
2013-04-04 07:15:10 PM  

Giltric: neversubmit: fuhfuhfuh: Both sides of the current gun debate seem to enjoy resorting to appeals to emotion, slippery slopes and outright fabrications to try to defend their positions. Doesn't make either side right, or make either side look like they are anything but knee-jerk reactionaries.

Which side has a body count?

The side with all the gun free zones that people keep getting murdered in because they are not allowed to defend themselves with equal force.



Yes, because Canadians are dropping like flies in daily/weekly mass shootings (that are NOT related to drug dealers offing each other in Toronto).
 
2013-04-04 07:30:31 PM  

anfrind: I wouldn't characterize it as breaking England's colonial will so much as making the empire too expensive too maintain. Colonialism is always about bringing wealth into the country, whether by stealing it from other countries by military force (e.g. Spain) or by coercing foreign countries to trade with your country's businesses (which in turn earns more taxes for the government). In England's case, many colonies (most notably India; the American colonies really weren't that valuable to the British) became so expensive to maintain due to popular uprisings that the empire found itself losing money.


A little from column A, a little from B. Still the result of several colonies' picking up guns and taking a stand.
 
2013-04-04 07:37:33 PM  

Giblet: To "gun control nuts":
We're allowed to own guns because any/every government ever created wants the governed to be slaves. That's what governments do.

I know you won't see it that way, because years of experience have shown me that you never think any problem through beyond the "Yeearrgh!" phase of planning. So, my message to you is necessarily simple: if you try to take my rights, I will try to stop you in the most expedient way possible. And I can stop you from 1200 meters away. Clear enough?


No you can't. You could get Waco'd trying, but that's about it. Your message is simple because your ideas are simple, and rely on overly simplified generalizations and faith based absolutes on the nature of government, laws and self reliance.
 
2013-04-04 07:44:37 PM  
No one except as a desperate point would claim that Canadian freedom/constitution came about because of Queen Elizabeth's aversion to the cost of "upkeep" for Canada or the loss of an American colony by violence some 200 years previously. Talk about ethnocentric.
 
2013-04-04 08:08:59 PM  

Great_Milenko: Giltric: quiotu: Freedom is a little messy at times....

Remember that the next someone brings up abortion.  Or removing religious fetishes from public properties, Or flag burning.  Or voter registration.  Or "filth" in popular culture.  Or gay marriage.

Need more?


And where do you stand in regards to the 2nd amendment?
 
2013-04-04 08:11:27 PM  

whidbey: Amos Quito: 1. What EXACTLY are your goals in firearms regulation? (i.e. reduced overall murder rate, reduced mass murders, etc)


My goal is that Instituting an enforceable policy where increased background checks, a national registry and a well-funded research program to study mental illness and the causes of gun violence will decrease the possibility of tragedies like Sandy Hook from happening.

This is not a numbers game where we want to reduce "x." This is about changing the paradigm altogether so that dysfunctional bouts of violence such as school shootings stop occurring altogether.



Okay, so you're not really interested in reducing gun violence in general, just in preventing certain, comparatively rare types of gun violence such as school shootings. Correct?

And how exactly will "background checks" and a "national registry" advance that goal?


whidbey: 2. Do you believe that the measures being proposed by pro-regulation legislators will advance these goals?

Why or why not?

If they're just planning on banning weapons without focusing on the goals I mentioned, we're not going to see much in the way of progress.



What they are now proposing will do nothing to address the issues that seem to concern you. What they are doing is merely the prep work for broader confiscation. Background checks and registry tells them WHO LEGALLY has guns and WHERE - which serves ONE purpose. Can you guess what it is?

whidbey: However, if they do decide to pump money into research, streamlining and making background checks more effective, and eventually making the effort to establish a National Gun Registry, then I would then conclude that they would be taking these goals very seriously.


 Nutcases are ever-present, and "mental health" evaluations can easily be used as diabolical political tools.

Example:

"In the Soviet Union, systematic political abuse of psychiatry took place.[1] Psychiatry of the Brezhnev period was used as a tool to eliminate political opponents ("dissidents"), people who openly expressed their views that contradict officially declared dogmas.[2] In case the person did not agree with the specific actions of people in leading positions and criticized them by using philosophic dogmas according to the writings by Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Vladimir Lenin, the term "philosophical intoxication" was widely used to diagnose mental disorders."

END QUOTE

No one wants psychopaths to have access to firearms - or gasoline, or matches, or car keys... etc.

I judge the purported motives of those who would pretend to address any given "problem" by the solutions that they would hope enforce on us, and in the current gun debate, I find the motives of the "gun regulators" are disingenuous - deceptive, even.

Not that everyone who BELIEVES the appeal to EMOTION dished out by the gun-grabbers is disingenuous (people are SUCKERS for emotional appeal), but the Feinsteins and their ilk. These are nothing more than AUTHORITARIANS - would be tyrants - as defined in the other thread.

Assault weapons, for example, do NOT pose a major threat to public safety. They DO, however, pose a major obstacle to to would-be tyrants.

:-)
 
2013-04-04 08:11:53 PM  

GameSprocket: Oh, so our freedom has not been at risk since to revolution?


Only at risk from our own politicians, would you agree?
 
2013-04-04 08:25:31 PM  

greenboy: Option 2 is the only one that removes the negligence on the mother's part.


How secure does a safe have to be in order to remove negligence on the firearm owners part?

How long of actively attempting to gain entry to the safe would you set the limit to absolve its owner from negligence? Is there a certain thickness that you would require the metal?

Many safes can be accessed within 3 minutes or so. They are designed as a deterrent, not as a fool proof way to secure anything.

Thats the point that alot of people missed with an earlier post. Safe A has proven to be inadequate so move on to approved safe B, well safe B has just been proven to be inadequate now only safe C is approved...with each generation of safe the cost increases. Do you expect an elderly man or woman who lives in a not so good area on a limited income to spend 15k on safe G?

As long as there is an example of the most current safest safe being broken into no safe will ever be adequate for the gun control crowd...every law, every inconvience, every cost is just a barrier they erect on the road to what they want, and that is total disarmament.

We have no proof of anything in regards to how Lanza accessed firearms. He could have pried open or hacked through the safe with a chop saw while mom was laid out on Ambien and then shot her. We won;t know until they release the entire report...and since Obama is now going around claiming Lanza used a fully automatic weapon I'd wager it will be tainted by politics.
 
2013-04-04 08:29:31 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: Giltric: Generic Republican: You also want no obligation to store these weapons in a manner that makes them resistant to theft. In essence, you want zero responsibility for owning a weapon

A safe will be enough at first...then after the first incident it will have to be a safe that is at least one inch thick, then it will have to be a safe that is 2 inches thick....then the safe will have to be made of solid unobtanium with an alarm that notifies the police that it is being broken into, then we will end up back at registries because the goal line keeps being moved further and further  by the people whos ultimate goal is nothing but the total disarmament of people.

Wow, you really are a paranoid conspiracy theorist.



Let's say I have this cake. It is a very nice cake, with "GUN RIGHTS" written across the top in lovely floral icing. I received it from the 2nd amendment and the Dick act of 1902.
...
Along you come and say, "Give me that cake." I say, "No, it's my cake." You say, "Let's compromise. Give me half." I respond by asking what I get out of this compromise, and you reply that I get to keep half of my cake.

Okay, we compromise. Let us call this compromise The National Firearms Act of 1934.

There I am with my half of the cake, and you walk back up and say, "Give me that cake."

I say, "No, it's my cake."

You say, "Let's compromise." What do I get out of this compromise? Why, I get to keep half of what's left of the cake I already own.

So, we have your compromise -- let us call this one the Gun Control Act of 1968 -- and I'm left holding what is now just a quarter of my cake.

And I'm sitting in the corner with my quarter piece of cake, and here you come again. You want my cake. Again.

You say, "Let's compromise once more." What do I get out of this compromise? I get to keep one eighth of what's left of the cake I already own?

So, we have your compromise -- let us call this one the Machine gun ban of 1986 -- and I'm left holding what is now just an eighth of my cake.

I sit back in the corner with just my eighth of cake that I once owned outright and completely, I glance up and here you come once more.

You say nothing and just grab my cake; This time you take several bites -- we'll call this compromise the Clinton Executive Orders -- and I'm left with about a tenth of what has always been MY DAMN CAKE and you've got nine-tenths of it.

Then we compromised with the Lautenberg Act (nibble, nibble), the HUD/Smith and Wesson agreement (nibble, nibble), the Brady Law (NOM NOM NOM), the School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act (sweet tap-dancing Freyja, my finger!)

I'm left holding crumbs of what was once a large and satisfying cake, and you're standing there with most of MY CAKE, making anime eyes and whining about being "reasonable", and wondering "why we won't compromise".


/stolen from somewhere else
 
2013-04-04 08:38:52 PM  

Greylight: Canadian here, my freedom was aquired by pen you ethnocentric son of a gun. The only time it needed to be defended by a gun was against Americans during the war of 1812


You stole land at gunpoint from an aboriginal people just like every other colonist.
 
2013-04-04 08:53:48 PM  

Ctrl-Alt-Del: royone: That might carry more weight in a different thread. One that isn't using Mother Jones as a source, for example.

sodomizer: "Mother Jones" is not a known source of factual news.

When you can't actually refute the facts, just badmouth the source of the facts.


[www.visi.com image 500x75]


I'll have to keep this in mind when I see people complaining about "faux news" and other conservative news agencies.
 
2013-04-04 09:02:36 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Giltric: Freedom is a little messy...and the alternative is no freedom.

That sums it up there.

School shootings are the price we pay for "freedom".


They're the price we pay for letting gun control nuts enable mass murder by denying people the ability to carry a firearm to defend themselves in certain areas.
 
2013-04-04 09:06:20 PM  

Giltric: greenboy: Option 2 is the only one that removes the negligence on the mother's part.

How secure does a safe have to be in order to remove negligence on the firearm owners part?

How long of actively attempting to gain entry to the safe would you set the limit to absolve its owner from negligence? Is there a certain thickness that you would require the metal?

Many safes can be accessed within 3 minutes or so. They are designed as a deterrent, not as a fool proof way to secure anything.

Thats the point that alot of people missed with an earlier post. Safe A has proven to be inadequate so move on to approved safe B, well safe B has just been proven to be inadequate now only safe C is approved...with each generation of safe the cost increases. Do you expect an elderly man or woman who lives in a not so good area on a limited income to spend 15k on safe G?

As long as there is an example of the most current safest safe being broken into no safe will ever be adequate for the gun control crowd...every law, every inconvience, every cost is just a barrier they erect on the road to what they want, and that is total disarmament.

We have no proof of anything in regards to how Lanza accessed firearms. He could have pried open or hacked through the safe with a chop saw while mom was laid out on Ambien and then shot her. We won;t know until they release the entire report...and since Obama is now going around claiming Lanza used a fully automatic weapon I'd wager it will be tainted by politics.


It was linked above that the gun safe showed no sign of forced entry.
In regards to how strong the safe needs to be, as long as power tools are required to open it, then i would say it's adequate.
 
2013-04-04 09:13:01 PM  

Giltric: GameSprocket: Oh, so our freedom has not been at risk since to revolution?

Only at risk from our own politicians, would you agree?



Always and forever, keep your eye on the bastards.

Remember who they intend to rule.
 
2013-04-04 09:18:01 PM  

Giltric: Keizer_Ghidorah: Giltric: Generic Republican: You also want no obligation to store these weapons in a manner that makes them resistant to theft. In essence, you want zero responsibility for owning a weapon

A safe will be enough at first...then after the first incident it will have to be a safe that is at least one inch thick, then it will have to be a safe that is 2 inches thick....then the safe will have to be made of solid unobtanium with an alarm that notifies the police that it is being broken into, then we will end up back at registries because the goal line keeps being moved further and further  by the people whos ultimate goal is nothing but the total disarmament of people.

Wow, you really are a paranoid conspiracy theorist.


Let's say I have this cake. It is a very nice cake, with "GUN RIGHTS" written across the top in lovely floral icing. I received it from the 2nd amendment and the Dick act of 1902.
...
Along you come and say, "Give me that cake." I say, "No, it's my cake." You say, "Let's compromise. Give me half." I respond by asking what I get out of this compromise, and you reply that I get to keep half of my cake.

Okay, we compromise. Let us call this compromise The National Firearms Act of 1934.

There I am with my half of the cake, and you walk back up and say, "Give me that cake."

I say, "No, it's my cake."

You say, "Let's compromise." What do I get out of this compromise? Why, I get to keep half of what's left of the cake I already own.

So, we have your compromise -- let us call this one the Gun Control Act of 1968 -- and I'm left holding what is now just a quarter of my cake.

And I'm sitting in the corner with my quarter piece of cake, and here you come again. You want my cake. Again.

You say, "Let's compromise once more." What do I get out of this compromise? I get to keep one eighth of what's left of the cake I already own?

So, we have your compromise -- let us call this one the Machine gun ban of 1986 -- and I'm left holding what is ...



Giltric:  /stolen from somewhere else


Who cares if it was stolen. It was only cake...

And besides, it was delicious.
 
2013-04-04 09:29:44 PM  

Giltric: Greylight: Canadian here, my freedom was aquired by pen you ethnocentric son of a gun. The only time it needed to be defended by a gun was against Americans during the war of 1812

You stole land at gunpoint from an aboriginal people just like every other colonist.


It's fascinating to see the mental gymnastics some people will go through to defend the idea that arms are the only way to achieve independence.
 
2013-04-04 09:38:02 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: greenboy: Giltric: greenboy: Giltric: Generic Republican: You also want no obligation to store these weapons in a manner that makes them resistant to theft. In essence, you want zero responsibility for owning a weapon

A safe will be enough at first...then after the first incident it will have to be a safe that is at least one inch thick, then it will have to be a safe that is 2 inches thick....then the safe will have to be made of solid unobtanium with an alarm that notifies the police that it is being broken into, then we will end up back at registries because the goal line keeps being moved further and further  by the people whos ultimate goal is nothing but the total disarmament of people.

Why don't we start with a gun safe that has a combination that your mentally disturbed son doesn't have access to?


Are you referring to Lanza?  Are there any citations for that? I have not heard one way or another if Lanza pried open or drilled into a safe, if he had a combo to the safe, or if there was a safe at all.....

No citations, but we can deduct a few things from what we know as facts.  His mom was shot while in her bed (assumedly sleeping), so 1)we can deduct that she was not currently cleaning 2 pistols and the AR15 (is that the right weapon?)
2) We might be able to assume that drilling into the safe would be loud enough to wake her if not done in the middle of the night.
3) if it wasn't drilled and the weapons were not left out in the open, then he either had access to a key, or knew the combination.  Either of these should be a no-no to a responsible gun owner that had a mentally unstable child.

Option 2 is the only one that removes the negligence on the mother's part.

No sign of forced entry.


The actual warrants and inventory just says "brown safe", does not say anything about entry forced or otherwise.
 
2013-04-04 09:45:56 PM  

Greylight: Giltric: Greylight: Canadian here, my freedom was aquired by pen you ethnocentric son of a gun. The only time it needed to be defended by a gun was against Americans during the war of 1812

You stole land at gunpoint from an aboriginal people just like every other colonist.

It's fascinating to see the mental gymnastics some people will go through to defend the idea that arms are the only way to achieve independence.


If someone is bullying you and I, and I go and bloody their nose and break their jaw and they no longer have the will to bully you or me......was your freedom aquired through violence or non violence?

You are right there are some pretty awesome gymnastics going on here Nadia.

Did the jews aquire their freedom from the concentration camps through violence or non violence?

You don't have to be the one perpetrating the violence if you benefit from it
 
2013-04-04 09:51:23 PM  

Greylight: Giltric: Greylight: Canadian here, my freedom was aquired by pen you ethnocentric son of a gun. The only time it needed to be defended by a gun was against Americans during the war of 1812

You stole land at gunpoint from an aboriginal people just like every other colonist.

It's fascinating to see the mental gymnastics some people will go through to defend the idea that arms are the only way to achieve independence.


Not as much as people who pretend that words alone will always be enough.

The pen is only mightier than the sword when both sides have had enough of killing/war and are BOTH willing to use the pen instead.  When one side has a sword and pen while the other has only pen, guess who gets their way?
 
2013-04-04 09:55:39 PM  

Giltric: Greylight: Giltric: Greylight: Canadian here, my freedom was aquired by pen you ethnocentric son of a gun. The only time it needed to be defended by a gun was against Americans during the war of 1812

You stole land at gunpoint from an aboriginal people just like every other colonist.

It's fascinating to see the mental gymnastics some people will go through to defend the idea that arms are the only way to achieve independence.

If someone is bullying you and I, and I go and bloody their nose and break their jaw and they no longer have the will to bully you or me......was your freedom aquired through violence or non violence?

You are right there are some pretty awesome gymnastics going on here Nadia.

Did the jews aquire their freedom from the concentration camps through violence or non violence?

You don't have to be the one perpetrating the violence if you benefit from it


One name to disprove this idiotic idea that arms are the only tool to achieve independence:

Mahatma Gandhi
 
Displayed 50 of 390 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report