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.

(Daily Mail)   Jay Mohr calls for repeal of Second Amendment on Twitter. Tag is for Adam Baldwin's response   (dailymail.co.uk) divider line 418
    More: Stupid, Jay Mohr, second amendment, Boston Marathon, 2nd amendment, Adam Baldwin, Twitter, Boston, Fox Sports Radio  
•       •       •

20396 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 17 Apr 2013 at 8:06 PM (51 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-17 09:51:59 PM

Uranus Is Huge!: machoprogrammer: Ahh yes, gun control. The issue that makes Democrats use fear to push their agenda.

Fair enough.

Shall we compare this to the list of issues where Republicans use fear to push their agenda?


It would be quicker to name something they pushed without using fear.  But I can't think of anything.
 
2013-04-17 09:52:46 PM

Adolf Oliver Nipples: s1ugg0: The problem with the gun control debate is that it always involves idiots like these two.

That's because of the 1st. The solution? Ban the 1st Amendment!


Why not?  Nobody recognizes the 4th any longer.
 
2013-04-17 09:54:38 PM

bmfderek: Adolf Oliver Nipples: s1ugg0: The problem with the gun control debate is that it always involves idiots like these two.

That's because of the 1st. The solution? Ban the 1st Amendment!

Why not?  Nobody recognizes the 4th any longer.


We could easily throw out 6-10 as well.
 
2013-04-17 09:55:23 PM

The Name: Great Janitor: So, here's a question, if the second amendment can be repealed, what prevents the other amendments in the Bill of Rights from equally being repealed? It really scares me that people want to get rid of a right in the Bill of Rights because of what ever reason. Honestly, the reason why doesn't matter to me. What matters to me is that the entire Bill of Rights is important, and if we can get rid of one right, what protects the rest from also getting repealed?

Ugh . . . try, please try to understand this.  There is no legal distinction between the first ten amendments and all the other amendments.  They can all be repealed or amended through the same process.  We've repealed amendments before.  There is no slippery slope that kicks in as soon as an amendment is repealed.  And what people consider important changes from generation to generation, and the founding fathers put an amendment process IN THE CONSTITUTION so we could change that document as our country changes through the centuries.


There is a distinction between the first ten amendments and the rest.  That's called the Bill of Rights.  Yes, we have repealed amendments before.  Almost 100 years ago we banned alcohol, then that was repealed when we realized just what a bad idea that was.  But the first ten amendments haven't been touched before, and should not be touched.  If the right to gun ownership can be repealed, then why can't the right to freedom of speech or freedom of religion?  

Great Janitor: Do we want the government to honestly have the power to delete our rights?

If you believe in democracy, then WE ARE THE GOVERNMENT!  How the hell can people say "WE'RE THE GREATEST DEMOCRACY IN THE WORLD!"  and then in the very same breath worry about "GOVERNMENT" taking away their rights?  You can't have it both ways!


This nation really isn't a democracy, it's a republic.  The government is 500+ people in Washington DC who have the ability to create laws, raise taxes, declare war and more.  That is not a government that I am apart of because I do not have the ability to have any say when Congress wants to raise taxes.  I get no say when Congress decides to cut Military funding or cut SS funding.  And if the right to bare arms is repealed, it's not going to be me who has a voice in that decision, it's going to be congress.  And right now, we may have a Congress who's majority is pro-gun control or in favor of repealing the second amendment, but things change.  If this Congress decides that it has the right to repeal the second amendment, what would stop the Republicans when they get control of the Whitehouse and Congress (and it will happen, that's the way things work) from deciding that since the Democrats repealed the Second Amendment that they can repeal the freedom of religion and finally get that Christian nation that they've been claiming that they want?
 
2013-04-17 09:55:25 PM
Why is a 2nd amendment flame thread being initiated by a UK scandal rag?

And why do we even care?
 
2013-04-17 09:56:00 PM

ImpendingCynic: Kind of like how the right has totally shut up about abortion?


 Abortion and gun control are only tangentially related. What's more, NOBODY seriously raises the idea of a Constitutional amendment banning abortion because it's patently absurd and will never pass. Yet day after day, thread after thread, even when it's not a front-burner issue like it is now, there are people who suggest in all seriousness that the 2nd Amendment should be repealed, incessantly. So farking do it already and stop talking about it.
 
2013-04-17 09:56:18 PM

The Name: The biggest irony of the whole thing is that presumably the violent revolution would be waged to bring down tyranny and bring back democracy.


And remember, nothing says "I hate tyranny" like holding a gun to someone's head.
 
2013-04-17 09:56:50 PM

jedihirsch: JAYNE COBB IS RIGHT.

How dare you question him



Actually I think the tag should be for Mohr. Baldwin is the correct one and rational one here


Couldn't agree more!
 
2013-04-17 09:57:03 PM

Lionel Mandrake: Uranus Is Huge!: machoprogrammer: Ahh yes, gun control. The issue that makes Democrats use fear to push their agenda.

Fair enough.

Shall we compare this to the list of issues where Republicans use fear to push their agenda?

It would be quicker to name something they pushed without using fear.  But I can't think of anything.


Literally. Someone name a single position that isn't fear-based:
We need more military spending.
Gays are gonna convert the children.
My guns protect me from the very real threats in my imagination.
Be a Christian or burn in Hell.
They're takin' our jerbs.
Etc...
 
2013-04-17 09:58:08 PM

AeAe: What if the government turns on the people?


Revolutions don't happen when governments "turn" on the people. They happen when the government fails to properly represent and look after its people.
 
2013-04-17 09:59:55 PM

KushanMadman: Honestly, I'm a pretty libby lib, and I thought Mohr had the dumbest part of that exchange.

Jay Mohr, you're not helping.


That seems to be the problem, the ones on both sides who "arent helping" are the ones we hear from most. Then they feed off eachother and nothing gets accomplished.

/gun enthiast
//doesnt mind background checks
///keep your mits off the rest of it
 
2013-04-17 10:02:39 PM

SN1987a goes boom: Whereas conservatives believe the amendment process is a way to ensure gays can't get married.


Say what you will about their goal, but at least they're following the farking rules.
 
2013-04-17 10:03:14 PM

Great Janitor: So, here's a question, if the second amendment can be repealed, what prevents the other amendments in the Bill of Rights from equally being repealed?  It really scares me that people want to get rid of a right in the Bill of Rights because of what ever reason.  Honestly, the reason why doesn't matter to me.  What matters to me is that the entire Bill of Rights is important, and if we can get rid of one right, what protects the rest from also getting repealed?  Do we want the government to honestly have the power to delete our rights?  Shouldn't all these rights be protected equally?


Oh good lord no. No no no no no. The answer to your questions is no. All of them. No.

I understand your sentiment, but that is a seriously flawed view of the constitution. The power to amend the constitution is itself a constitutionally granted power. The US Constitution wasn't written to be perfect, it was just written to be better than the clusterfark of sovereign rights in the Articles of Confederation. The most important feature of the constitution is that it can be changed. The revolutionary generation understood better than we do that just situations change and rules should not be followed simply because they are old rules.

 Worshiping the Constitution like it is infallible creates big problems. The amendments each have importance on their own terms. What protects them is their value to us today (hopefully informed through a robust understanding of their role throughout american history).  The clauses are not equal and should not be treated as collectively inviolable simply because they were dreamed up by a handful of well read farmers a couple of centuries ago.
 
2013-04-17 10:05:31 PM
His days of not taking Jay Mohr seriously are certainly coming to a middle.
 
2013-04-17 10:09:59 PM

The Name: BarrRepublican: and unfortunately it's going to have the side effect of losing seats in the midwest and southeast. In Iowa, you can get elected championing some pretty liberal stuff, but to touch the guns is to touch the third rail in most of the midwest.

Another thing:  How come in these gun debates this sort of electoral argument is always brought up as an argument against gun control itself?  Yeah, I know gun control is a losing issue in the midwest and southeast, but that doesn't mean it's a bad idea.  Remember: roughly half of the people in this country are rubes to begin with.


Liberals are on the side of The People. Except when The People disagree with them. Then, The People are rubes.
 
2013-04-17 10:10:12 PM
I think I've seen a few violent movies that he's been in.

Typical liberal hypocrite douche.
 
2013-04-17 10:10:15 PM

Freeballin: I realize that apparently in a few states you have to sell a car to someone with a license, but in Texas that's not a problem.  Cars kill far more people, why isn't this mandated?  Shouldn't you be scared to get on the road if you're scared of guns as you're far FAR more likely to die?  Kids are more likely to die in a swimming pool, if we ban them or make people build fences around them that would save more lives than banning "assault weapons" ever could.  Why aren't you pushing for that instead?  It's about saving lives right?  Not because you're a pansy?

I just can't fathom your desire to be defenseless.  Are you that big of a pussy?  If you think the war on drugs has been a complete failure, wait until they start bringing guns across the border and only criminals have them.  Also, those nightstand pistols you're talking about cause more deaths than "assault rifles" ever have or will and yet you're fine with them being legal apparently.  You're completely uninformed and trying to set policy that sounds good to you and as I pointed out above, you completely failed at it by your definitions.  It would be like a someone telling you how the internet should be regulated because he saw it in Hackers and The Net and his aunt's friend got her identity stolen.


I never claimed to know a lot about guns.  If you want to type with one hand while you "school" me about proper terminology, that's fine.  I'm sure your gun oil works fine as dick lube as well.  I don't care about the actual definitions as I would not be writing the laws.  I just listed a unch of shiat that people talk about regarding guns.

I don't consider myself a pussy because I don't have guns.  I do consider you to be a raving paranoid because of your reaction to my post.

And if you are going to call someone a moron, you really shouldn't trot out the "lets ban cars, they kill more people" idiocy.  That right there pretty much DEFINES YOU as a stupid motherfarker.  Were cars DESIGNED to kill or maim?  No.  So stuff your false equivalency.

Jesus Christ, I am so sick of having discussions with people who either don't have or refuse to use critical thinking skills.  It's like talking to a bar of soap.
 
2013-04-17 10:12:08 PM

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: If someone shot my wife in the face with a 12 gauge shotgun, I'd want to repeal the 2nd amendment too.


I know, it's terrible... all that reconstructive surgery, and her face still looks like shiat now. Very sad.
 
2013-04-17 10:12:40 PM
Wanna see something funny?
Go to his Facebook page.
 
2013-04-17 10:13:11 PM

AdolfOliverPanties: Freeballin: I realize that apparently in a few states you have to sell a car to someone with a license, but in Texas that's not a problem.  Cars kill far more people, why isn't this mandated?  Shouldn't you be scared to get on the road if you're scared of guns as you're far FAR more likely to die?  Kids are more likely to die in a swimming pool, if we ban them or make people build fences around them that would save more lives than banning "assault weapons" ever could.  Why aren't you pushing for that instead?  It's about saving lives right?  Not because you're a pansy?

I just can't fathom your desire to be defenseless.  Are you that big of a pussy?  If you think the war on drugs has been a complete failure, wait until they start bringing guns across the border and only criminals have them.  Also, those nightstand pistols you're talking about cause more deaths than "assault rifles" ever have or will and yet you're fine with them being legal apparently.  You're completely uninformed and trying to set policy that sounds good to you and as I pointed out above, you completely failed at it by your definitions.  It would be like a someone telling you how the internet should be regulated because he saw it in Hackers and The Net and his aunt's friend got her identity stolen.

I never claimed to know a lot about guns.  If you want to type with one hand while you "school" me about proper terminology, that's fine.  I'm sure your gun oil works fine as dick lube as well.  I don't care about the actual definitions as I would not be writing the laws.  I just listed a unch of shiat that people talk about regarding guns.

I don't consider myself a pussy because I don't have guns.  I do consider you to be a raving paranoid because of your reaction to my post.

And if you are going to call someone a moron, you really shouldn't trot out the "lets ban cars, they kill more people" idiocy.  That right there pretty much DEFINES YOU as a stupid motherfarker.  Were cars DESIGNED to kill or m ...


To be fair, you are in the politics tab.

And the bar of soap community is offended that you'd ever compare them to someone who posts in here.
 
2013-04-17 10:13:50 PM

s2s2s2: AeAe: What if the government turns on the people?

Revolutions don't happen when governments "turn" on the people. They happen when the government fails to properly represent and look after its people.


the end result is the same, tho, don't you think?  i.e., Syria, French Revolution .. or even Tianamen Square with the Chinese government killed thousands of it's own people for protesting.
 
2013-04-17 10:14:12 PM

StoPPeRmobile: As is always asked, what's next?


You've revealed yourself to be an idiot?

/I've changed my mind: that isn't a question.
 
2013-04-17 10:14:23 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: i am waiting for one of these hollywood libs to start asking the studios to voluntarily stop showing gun violence in the movies as a way to influence our gun culture (remember smoking used to be cool too and being gay used to be negatively depicted too).


Plenty of English (and other nations') films depict gun violence. Japan is basically obsessed with all manner of violence in video games and film, yet as a culture remain astonishingly non-violent. This is largely due to gun control measures (Japan is probably the most comprehensive, i.e., you can't own a gun at all, and that's why the entire country had an outrageous TWO gun homicides in 1996)

The NRA's half-assed canard of media being the root cause of violence is just another sad attempt to avoid any complicity in America's current problems.
 
2013-04-17 10:14:34 PM
Dumb meet dumber.
 
2013-04-17 10:15:59 PM

fluffy2097: Your_Huckleberry: Personally, background checks don't bother me because I know I'll pass them.

Background checks bother me because it essentially is exactly the same as saying that making it harder to get a drivers license will prevent stolen cars and joyriding.

It's not that they shouldn't be mandatory, It's that they are touting it as a solution to something entirely unrelated.


No, no, you're right about the checks being overblown. But just for S&G and play the Devil's Advocate, one could argue that making it harder to get a driver's license would cut down on the people who (and this is dangerous wording, I know) cut down on the people who shouldn't drive cars. Of course, there are plenty of people out there driving without a license, so I suppose that isn't all that great of an argument. So never mind.
The only thing I would say is this: I know people who own firearms and shouldn't. They just should not. There's no legal reason they can't, but they shouldn't. A background check wouldn't prevent them from getting guns, but current safety course and test requirments actually might, at least they would have been better prepared.
 
2013-04-17 10:16:01 PM

Herman Borrach: AeAe: sheep snorter: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. and once America has an Army, the second amendment shall be abolished.


/Unless you are wetting your pants thinking the big black man is gonna come to your home in his big black SUV and break your window and come on in and take it from you, well you might be paranoid.
//Sarcasm. How does it work.

What if the government turns on the people?  Or do you think that will never happen?

Then the government would still have artillery, flamethrowers, tanks, planes, explosives, cruise missiles and nukes. Oddly, no one is throwing a fit about not being able to similarly arm themselves.


so because the citizenry is out gunned that we should give up all our weaponry?  Is that what you're saying?
 
2013-04-17 10:17:36 PM
24.media.tumblr.com
You can take my gun from my cold dead hands.

farm9.staticflickr.com
Really?  You sure we can't come to some accommodation?

static.comicvine.com
TAKE IT!  TAKE MY GUNS!  TAKE VERA!

 
2013-04-17 10:18:13 PM
nice attention grab Mr. Nikki Cox
 
2013-04-17 10:20:30 PM

Mugato: machoprogrammer: Ahh yes, gun control. The issue that makes Democrats use fear to push their agenda.

Sigh. "Fear to push their propaganda". Republican projection is so tiring.


Who ever said I was Republican? Is the first thing you think of, when you see criticism of your political team, to say "BUT REPUBLICANS!!!" as if it makes it ok? Republicans are beyond retarded, it doesn't mean the Democrats are immune to criticism. Oh wait, this is Fark, so I expect "BOTH SIDES ARE BAD SO VOTE REPUBLICAN!"

Uranus Is Huge!: machoprogrammer: Ahh yes, gun control. The issue that makes Democrats use fear to push their agenda.

Fair enough.

Shall we compare this to the list of issues where Republicans use fear to push their agenda?


Pretty much every other issue. But it still doesn't make it right.
 
2013-04-17 10:21:46 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: i am waiting for one of these hollywood libs to start asking the studios to voluntarily stop showing gun violence in the movies as a way to influence our gun culture (remember smoking used to be cool too and being gay used to be negatively depicted too).


Yeah keep waiting. Or did you post that just to meet your "libs" quota for the day?
 
2013-04-17 10:22:26 PM

Great Janitor: The Name: Great Janitor: So, here's a question, if the second amendment can be repealed, what prevents the other amendments in the Bill of Rights from equally being repealed? It really scares me that people want to get rid of a right in the Bill of Rights because of what ever reason. Honestly, the reason why doesn't matter to me. What matters to me is that the entire Bill of Rights is important, and if we can get rid of one right, what protects the rest from also getting repealed?

Ugh . . . try, please try to understand this.  There is no legal distinction between the first ten amendments and all the other amendments.  They can all be repealed or amended through the same process.  We've repealed amendments before.  There is no slippery slope that kicks in as soon as an amendment is repealed.  And what people consider important changes from generation to generation, and the founding fathers put an amendment process IN THE CONSTITUTION so we could change that document as our country changes through the centuries.

There is a distinction between the first ten amendments and the rest.  That's called the Bill of Rights.  Yes, we have repealed amendments before.  Almost 100 years ago we banned alcohol, then that was repealed when we realized just what a bad idea that was.  But the first ten amendments haven't been touched before, and should not be touched.  If the right to gun ownership can be repealed, then why can't the right to freedom of speech or freedom of religion?  

Great Janitor: Do we want the government to honestly have the power to delete our rights?

If you believe in democracy, then WE ARE THE GOVERNMENT!  How the hell can people say "WE'RE THE GREATEST DEMOCRACY IN THE WORLD!"  and then in the very same breath worry about "GOVERNMENT" taking away their rights?  You can't have it both ways!

This nation really isn't a democracy, it's a republic.  The government is 500+ people in Washington DC who have the ability to create laws, raise taxes, declare war an ...


Of course the Bill of Rights has been messed with. People just place so much historical significance on them that they haven't been changed properly, by amendment. They've been touched plenty by the court (by necessity). The first has been expanded into a vast net of important protections, the fourth has been gutted into near worthlessness and half the text of the second amendment has been deemed to be completely meaningless. The only one that hasn't been touched is the third, because it is a proscription against a practice that died before it was written.

We have 224 more years of experience to draw on than our founders did. The bill of rights is the beginning of American wisdom, not its pinnacle.
 
2013-04-17 10:26:10 PM

Marine1: AdolfOliverPanties: Freeballin: I realize that apparently in a few states you have to sell a car to someone with a license, but in Texas that's not a problem.  Cars kill far more people, why isn't this mandated?  Shouldn't you be scared to get on the road if you're scared of guns as you're far FAR more likely to die?  Kids are more likely to die in a swimming pool, if we ban them or make people build fences around them that would save more lives than banning "assault weapons" ever could.  Why aren't you pushing for that instead?  It's about saving lives right?  Not because you're a pansy?

I just can't fathom your desire to be defenseless.  Are you that big of a pussy?  If you think the war on drugs has been a complete failure, wait until they start bringing guns across the border and only criminals have them.  Also, those nightstand pistols you're talking about cause more deaths than "assault rifles" ever have or will and yet you're fine with them being legal apparently.  You're completely uninformed and trying to set policy that sounds good to you and as I pointed out above, you completely failed at it by your definitions.  It would be like a someone telling you how the internet should be regulated because he saw it in Hackers and The Net and his aunt's friend got her identity stolen.

I never claimed to know a lot about guns.  If you want to type with one hand while you "school" me about proper terminology, that's fine.  I'm sure your gun oil works fine as dick lube as well.  I don't care about the actual definitions as I would not be writing the laws.  I just listed a unch of shiat that people talk about regarding guns.

I don't consider myself a pussy because I don't have guns.  I do consider you to be a raving paranoid because of your reaction to my post.

And if you are going to call someone a moron, you really shouldn't trot out the "lets ban cars, they kill more people" idiocy.  That right there pretty much DEFINES YOU as a stupid motherfarker.  Were cars DESIGNED to kill or m ...

To be fair, you are in the politics tab.

And the bar of soap community is offended that you'd ever compare them to someone who posts in here.


I'm in the Entertainment tab.
 
2013-04-17 10:27:24 PM
Like Animal Mother is going to be against guns.
 
2013-04-17 10:29:23 PM

salvador.hardin: We have 224 more years of experience to draw on than our founders did. The bill of rights is the beginning of American wisdom, not its pinnacle.


While I don't disagree with your general principle, per se, as regards the second amendment and the first pretty much all of those 224 years confirm that neither should be farked with.  Every nation that's done something similar to abolishing first and second-amendment rights hasn't noticeably improved because of it, and several have slipped right over the edge into fascism and/or dictatorship.

//What I'd like to see being discussed is the _fourth_ amendment, as that seems to be the one we're blatantly ignoring half the time anyhow.
 
2013-04-17 10:30:03 PM
Here's my take on the whole gun debate.

There are people who think that the ownership of guns is some god-given right that can never be changed.   They are wrong.

Gun ownership is a responsibility.  And like any other responsibility, if you mismanage it and abuse it, then something has to be done.  You either lessen that responsibility to a level that you're capable of managing, or you learn to live up to the responsibility as it stands.

We have done neither.  I suspect nothing will be done in the near term.   There are too many organizations and corporations who profit heavily off of the manufacture and sale of weapons and ammunition, and all of those organizations and corporations have enough politicians dependent on their contributions to ensure that their profits are protected.  That the occasional massacre happens is just their callous view of the price of business.

It doesn't help that there's entire constallations of simpletons who watched Red Dawn and thought it was some kind of documentary.  No, you will never fight off a repressive government hellbent on taking your guns.  The government doesn't care.  The government isn't afraid of you in the slightest.  The government is more concerned with keeping the military happy, since they are the ones sworn to uphold the constitution, against all enemies, foreign and domestic.  Not to the president, not to congress, not to you personally.

Honestly, if the government ever DID turn out to be some orwellian nightmare of condensed evil that was looking to make us a toothless lot, the guns we have wouldn't even factor in.  They simply do not matter.  They can defang us in much simpler, cheaper ways.  Ways like... oh, I don't know.  Watering down education and making us less competitive in the global workforce, lowering the quality of living so people are poorer and more likely to be churchgoers who are trained pavlovian style to vote how you're told, and to top it off, wreck the economy so those state quarters you've been saving in old soup cans buried around the perimeter of your property have the same intrinsic value as a can of silly string.  Are any of you still reading?  So, just sit right back, and you'll hear a tale, a tale of a fateful trip.  That started from this tropic port, aboard this tiny ship.  The mate was a mighty sailing man, the skipper brave and sure.  Five passengers set sail that day, for a three hour tour.  A three hour tour!  But yeah, given the state of the economy, the ending of the white house tours is just part of the beginning.  Austerity measures are needed, and we can make a great freaking head start by simply ending the practice of inserting provisions into unrelated bills and making each and every goddamned expenditure discussed and voted on.

But I'm kidding myself.  I don't expect reasonable measures from either side these days.  I just wish the right side didn't make it so damned easy to mistrust them.
 
2013-04-17 10:35:47 PM

Cpl.D: Here's my take on the whole gun debate.

There are people who think that the ownership of guns is some god-given right that can never be changed.   They are wrong.

Gun ownership is a responsibility.  And like any other responsibility, if you mismanage it and abuse it, then something has to be done.  You either lessen that responsibility to a level that you're capable of managing, or you learn to live up to the responsibility as it stands.

We have done neither.  I suspect nothing will be done in the near term.


So... given that your argument is literally a speech about voting with "gun ownership" subbed in, I take it you support various voter suppression efforts as well?

Also, in addition to being something you're repeating from boilerplate, this:

Honestly, if the government ever DID turn out to be some orwellian nightmare of condensed evil that was looking to make us a toothless lot, the guns we have wouldn't even factor in.

...
shows an extreme ignorance of history.  Someone else having bigger guns doesn't magically make smaller guns less capable of killing people, resistance movements throughout history, including most of the successful ones, were massively outgunned by their opponents.  And yet the US, Ireland, and France all appear to be independent nations now.  Hm.
 
2013-04-17 10:39:40 PM

Jim_Callahan: ... shows an extreme ignorance of history.  Someone else having bigger guns doesn't magically make smaller guns less capable of killing people, resistance movements throughout history, including most of the successful ones, were massively outgunned by their opponents.  And yet the US, Ireland, and France all appear to be independent nations now.  Hm.


Name one time guns were used by a populace to free themselves from tyranny.  Difficulty:  Find one that didn't include the support of the military or a ruling class or a foreign power.  Like I said, our guns aren't even a factor.  Which I explained in detail in a part you apparently didn't read.
 
2013-04-17 10:39:48 PM

Cpl.D: I just wish the right side didn't make it so damned easy to mistrust them.


As opposed to these clowns who give substance to the "gun grabber" phantom the NRA stokes fear over?
 
2013-04-17 10:42:10 PM

StopLurkListen: No love for "Action"? I bought the DVD and watched the shows that were to appear if it hadn't been cancelled.

One of the funniest satirical shows ever - and it was on broadcast TV, no less. It was painfully pointed. It went up to the line, and rushed right on past. Repeatedly. It was so wrong.

C'mon, FARK - it had your R. Lee Ermey as a freakin' ART DIRECTOR.


Action had your R. Lee Ermey as a freakin' FILM DIRECTOR

It was a great show.  Buddy Hacket: "You tink I'm afraid?  I pee into a bag!"

"YOU'RE TELLING ME I HIRED THE WRONG JEW?!"
 
2013-04-17 10:42:51 PM

jedihirsch: JAYNE COBB IS RIGHT.

How dare you question him

[images4.wikia.nocookie.net image 400x542]

Actually I think the tag should be for Mohr. Baldwin is the correct one and rational one here


No both are assholes and you're one too for picking sides
 
2013-04-17 10:45:02 PM
I shall keep my right to bear arms as long as there are bears for me to cut the arms off!
 
2013-04-17 10:45:43 PM
  I'm new to this whole gun debate. Can anyone give me the elevator pitch?
 
2013-04-17 10:47:52 PM

GoldSpider: Cpl.D: I just wish the right side didn't make it so damned easy to mistrust them.

As opposed to these clowns who give substance to the "gun grabber" phantom the NRA stokes fear over?


I was expecting that hammer to fall right after Sandy Hook when Obama put Biden in charge of coming up with something.  If there were ever a time in recent years that would have been the absolute perfect pretext to actually try to take civilian weapons away, that was it.  I was fully expecting a typical political knee-jerk reaction that overreached and didn't function in any sane manner. I was wrong.  What was suggested was reasonable and restrained.  I can't look at anyone with a straight face nowadays who even suggests there's some sort of plot to disarm America.  That ship sailed when the pretext came and went.
 
2013-04-17 10:48:09 PM

Crotchrocket Slim: No both are assholes and you're one too for picking sides


Hey! Mohr is an idiot and I never liked any of his characters. Baldwin is an idiot but I liked one of his characters. That means Baldwin wins the Battle of the Network Has-beens.
 
2013-04-17 10:48:10 PM
This is weird, even by the Daily Mail standard. A washed-up American actor says that the American constitution should be amended to remove the section on gun rights... Being reported on by a tabloid rag whose major circulation is in a country with extremely strong gun regulations. I don't know who the Mail is angry at. I don't know why they're angry. I'm very confused. Are they trying to increase their demographic from old, white British pensioners to old, white American retirees?
 
2013-04-17 10:49:19 PM

sheep snorter: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. and once America has an Army, the second amendment shall be abolished.


/Unless you are wetting your pants thinking the big black man is gonna come to your home in his big black SUV and break your window and come on in and take it from you, well you might be paranoid.
//Sarcasm. How does it work.


Hey butt-tard, how does that "well-regulated" part work?

Not saying repealing the 2nd is a good idea, but... it doesn't give you carte blanche to buy a SAW M-249, RPGs or nuclear weapons, especially if you have a history of smacking your loved ones around and law enforcement getting involved. Reasonable limits and regulation of firearms ownership was always on the Founding Fathers' minds.
 
2013-04-17 10:50:38 PM

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: This is weird, even by the Daily Mail standard. A washed-up American actor says that the American constitution should be amended to remove the section on gun rights... Being reported on by a tabloid rag whose major circulation is in a country with extremely strong gun regulations. I don't know who the Mail is angry at. I don't know why they're angry. I'm very confused. Are they trying to increase their demographic from old, white British pensioners to old, white American retirees?


The mail isn't angry at anyone.

The mail is generating shiatloads of pageviews, for which they get paid about  $0.005 per unique view.

All they care about is generating the pageviews that write their paychecks.
 
2013-04-17 10:52:02 PM

Crotchrocket Slim: sheep snorter: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. and once America has an Army, the second amendment shall be abolished.


/Unless you are wetting your pants thinking the big black man is gonna come to your home in his big black SUV and break your window and come on in and take it from you, well you might be paranoid.
//Sarcasm. How does it work.

Hey butt-tard, how does that "well-regulated" part work?

Not saying repealing the 2nd is a good idea, but... it doesn't give you carte blanche to buy a SAW M-249, RPGs or nuclear weapons, especially if you have a history of smacking your loved ones around and law enforcement getting involved. Reasonable limits and regulation of firearms ownership was always on the Founding Fathers' minds.


Damn booze making me an unnecessarily owly mutherfarker on a Humpday night....

Apologies for my utter fail there sheep snorter... I've been wanting to call someone who unironically holds that position a "butt-tard" for a while and you totally didn't earn that
 
2013-04-17 10:52:31 PM

SithLord: I think I've seen a few violent movies that he's been in.

Typical liberal hypocrite douche.


Wrestling is real too.
 
2013-04-17 10:52:35 PM

Cpl.D: Jim_Callahan: ... shows an extreme ignorance of history.  Someone else having bigger guns doesn't magically make smaller guns less capable of killing people, resistance movements throughout history, including most of the successful ones, were massively outgunned by their opponents.  And yet the US, Ireland, and France all appear to be independent nations now.  Hm.

Name one time guns were used by a populace to free themselves from tyranny.  Difficulty:  Find one that didn't include the support of the military or a ruling class or a foreign power.  Like I said, our guns aren't even a factor.  Which I explained in detail in a part you apparently didn't read.


I seem to remember Iraqi insurgents having plenty of guns and IEDs, which made life not so easy for our troops over there. That, and if the populace has guns, tyranny is going to be hard to establish in the first place.
 
Displayed 50 of 418 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report