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 10:54:37 PM

Crotchrocket Slim: 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


no, he did deserve it. You were right to mock him. You just did it for the wrong reason.
 
2013-04-17 10:58:18 PM

machoprogrammer: 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.


I know.  But they didn't overthrow a government with guns and without support from a foreign power.   I still say that personally owned firearms, in this country, are not a threat to the government.  It simply isn't a factor.  Again, because of our military.
 
2013-04-17 10:58:42 PM

machoprogrammer: 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.


In pre-war Iraq, most households owned at least one gun. It wasn't until the U.S. invasion that the citizens started being disarmed.
 
2013-04-17 11:01:27 PM

cameroncrazy1984: StoPPeRmobile: The Name: Dimensio: The Name: It should be repealed.  Every other first-world country seems to get along just fine without any equivalent clause in its constitution.  The only purpose the second amendment serves is to rhetorically block any and all reasonable gun control legislation, even at the local level.

To provide fair consideration: it also blocks unreasonable firearm regulation.

Yeah, expanding background checks is not unreasonable firearm regulation.

As is always asked, what's next?

Slippery slope is a logical fallacy.


Where is the logic in pressure cooker abuse warranting something different banned.

Reminds me of the 2nd Iraq invasion.
 
2013-04-17 11:02:02 PM

The Name: It should be repealed.  Every other first-world country seems to get along just fine without any equivalent clause in its constitution.  The only purpose the second amendment serves is to rhetorically block any and all reasonable gun control legislation, even at the local level.


ZOMGWTFBBQ!!!  America is different than other countries!!!

This is horrible!!!
 
2013-04-17 11:03:05 PM

Dwight_Yeast: 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.


Yes, calling for a repeal of The Second Ammendment because someone made and used a bomb, makes complete sense, right?
 
2013-04-17 11:06:20 PM
Fart_Machine: Jay Mohr, who has defended violent movies in the guise of at least one on-screen character

Which matters because why again?   It's like saying Anthony Hopkins can't denounce cannibalism because he played Hannibal Lecter.

I'll give you that one; few people would give cannibalism a pass. But as far as gun violence in their movies? It matters because these actors make a living (in many cases a really REALLY good living) promoting a particular philosophy. or, if you prefer, a political view and/or lifestyle. How can anyone not see the hypocrisy?
 
2013-04-17 11:07:14 PM

BarrRepublican: Listen, I know liberals love to harp on about "background checks" and "waiting periods" and stuff when it comes to gun control. It lets them feel tough without doing something that isn't effective, 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.

There would have to be a very, VERY consistent messaging campaign to try and differentiate the guns to be banned from Grandpa's pheasant hunting 20 ga. shotgun in order to even attempt it. And the side that needs it didn't have the cohesion to message the Affordable Care Act effectively, and I don't think they can do it here.

Mind you, I'm a red-stater in favor of the background checks. Maybe even a waiting period for tactical equipment.


WTF is "tactical equipment"?
 
2013-04-17 11:07:46 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 ...


That's awesome.  You posit an argument that has no real basis in any practical knowledge of the subject with things you'd be perfectly okay with because you've heard it before, but I'm a stupid motherfarker who doesn't have critical thinking skills?  I also like the ad hominem attacks since I did take you to school if that's the best you've got.

I don't think you're a pussy because you don't have guns, I think you're a pussy because you think other people shouldn't have them because you're a pussy.  Huge difference.

I'm not the one afraid of guns, you apparently are.  I don't have to live my life in fear because I know my family is protected.  I'm also not afraid of cars or pools.

If something is supposed to kill people and it kills less than things that aren't, what is that called?
 
2013-04-17 11:10:13 PM

mongbiohazard: 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).

Your knee jerk is showing.

Looks like you missed the other "hollywood lib" in the "story" who said Mohr was stupid.


...Adam, not Alec.
 
2013-04-17 11:13:36 PM

John Buck 41: Fart_Machine: Jay Mohr, who has defended violent movies in the guise of at least one on-screen character

Which matters because why again?   It's like saying Anthony Hopkins can't denounce cannibalism because he played Hannibal Lecter.

I'll give you that one; few people would give cannibalism a pass. But as far as gun violence in their movies? It matters because these actors make a living (in many cases a really REALLY good living) promoting a particular philosophy. or, if you prefer, a political view and/or lifestyle. How can anyone not see the hypocrisy?


Because movies are... wait for it.... FANTASY!  If you get your philosophy from films then you're not living in reality.  Actors play make-believe for a living.  Most people understand the difference.
 
2013-04-17 11:14:39 PM

AdolfOliverPanties: 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


I have the same thoughts regarding trying to discuss these issues with anti-gun nuts.

Yes, 'anti-gun nuts' is just as rational a phrase as 'gun-nuts'. Deal with it.
 
2013-04-17 11:15:18 PM
sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2013-04-17 11:19:39 PM
Standard idiot argument.  The point isn't blaming guns.  It's correcting how we handle them.  We're supposedly the finest nation in the world, yet we're still high up on the murder-bu-gun leaderboard.  It's obvious to everyone but a simpleton that something has to be done.  The situation is unacceptable.  Therefore, action is warranted.  Note how the only ones proposing anything halfway sane are the ones also espousing gun control.  The main issue that has to be dealt with is mental health care.  That's the actual crux of the issue.  But it's not gonna be sorted in in a day, or a year, probably not a decade.  Therefore, the issue is reducing gun related homicide now, while we work on the main problem.  If the right would hop on board with tackling the main problem, it'd be taken care of much quicker.  Even if they're still adamant about doing nothing about an obvious problem and don't want their precious guns touched.  Whatever.  Come to the table and suggest something feasible instead.  I'd be fine with that.
 
2013-04-17 11:19:59 PM

RatMaster999: [sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net image 480x587]


Unless it's Jay Mohr, then a bomb goes off and he blames guns.
 
2013-04-17 11:21:44 PM

Cpl.D: machoprogrammer: 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.

I know.  But they didn't overthrow a government with guns and without support from a foreign power.   I still say that personally owned firearms, in this country, are not a threat to the government.  It simply isn't a factor.  Again, because of our military.


As pointed out earlier, there are those who presume that not everyone in the military would be on board with fighting their own people and there would be mass disertions, thus evening the odds for ol' Biff Logan to take on the black helicoptersand FEMA with his souped up AR. But I liked your earlier remarks about the effective takeover being the one you don't see coming. On a cruise ship or something,  that was a while ago.
 
2013-04-17 11:23:15 PM

Cpl.D: machoprogrammer: 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.

I know.  But they didn't overthrow a government with guns and without support from a foreign power.   I still say that personally owned firearms, in this country, are not a threat to the government.  It simply isn't a factor.  Again, because of our military.


I disagree. Even though the military has bigger guns, a hand gun can easily kill a person (soldier or not). Armed insurgencies are a biatch to deal with for even the best military, unless they are willing to non-disciminately kill everyone.
 
2013-04-17 11:23:20 PM

RatMaster999: [sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net image 480x587]


RatMaster999: [sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net image 480x587]


That's a fair comparison. IEDs are illegal. Despite that, there have been a little over 200 IED attacks in the US in the last ten years.

That's like a bazillion times more than the 750,000 gun crimes in the same period.
 
2013-04-17 11:27:35 PM

Fart_Machine: John Buck 41: Fart_Machine: Jay Mohr, who has defended violent movies in the guise of at least one on-screen character

Which matters because why again?   It's like saying Anthony Hopkins can't denounce cannibalism because he played Hannibal Lecter.

I'll give you that one; few people would give cannibalism a pass. But as far as gun violence in their movies? It matters because these actors make a living (in many cases a really REALLY good living) promoting a particular philosophy. or, if you prefer, a political view and/or lifestyle. How can anyone not see the hypocrisy?

Because movies are... wait for it.... FANTASY!  If you get your philosophy from films then you're not living in reality.  Actors play make-believe for a living.  Most people understand the difference.


$o a $tand-up comic who pi$$e$ you off $hould get a pa$$, too, right? RIGHT? $am Kini$on, Andrew Dice Clay, Richard Pryor, Jeff Dunham? 'Co$ it's 'ju$t an act', right?

Too late to find the 'point over your head' pic. G'night.
 
2013-04-17 11:27:36 PM

Your_Huckleberry: As pointed out earlier, there are those who presume that not everyone in the military would be on board with fighting their own people and there would be mass disertions, thus evening the odds for ol' Biff Logan to take on the black helicoptersand FEMA with his souped up AR


But until then they still have their yellow "Support our Troops" magnetic ribbons on their SUVs.
 
2013-04-17 11:29:05 PM

Cpl.D: Standard idiot argument.  The point isn't blaming guns.  It's correcting how we handle them.  We're supposedly the finest nation in the world, yet we're still high up on the murder-bu-gun leaderboard.  It's obvious to everyone but a simpleton that something has to be done.  The situation is unacceptable.  Therefore, action is warranted.  Note how the only ones proposing anything halfway sane are the ones also espousing gun control.  The main issue that has to be dealt with is mental health care.  That's the actual crux of the issue.  But it's not gonna be sorted in in a day, or a year, probably not a decade.  Therefore, the issue is reducing gun related homicide now, while we work on the main problem.  If the right would hop on board with tackling the main problem, it'd be taken care of much quicker.  Even if they're still adamant about doing nothing about an obvious problem and don't want their precious guns touched.  Whatever.  Come to the table and suggest something feasible instead.  I'd be fine with that.


No.  As an American you can choose to think that the 2nd amendment is outdated and doesn't apply, but seeing as our country is based on the Constitution and the BOR I don't have to give you anything.  That's the thing, as gun owners we're supposed to "compromise" when we get nothing out of it.  How about you repeal FOPA and we let you book crazy people for 24 hours for testing without their consent.  The 2nd amendment has been eroded plenty over the years and the solutions on the table aren't about fixing what's wrong with the US.

Perhaps we should look deeper into what's going on in Chicago and how it might be fixed.  Clearly more gun laws have done exactly dick there, but somehow you think they're going to fix gun violence everywhere else in the USA.  How can you hold such cognitive dissonance?
 
2013-04-17 11:29:36 PM

Uranus Is Huge!: RatMaster999: [sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net image 480x587]

RatMaster999: [sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net image 480x587]

That's a fair comparison. IEDs are illegal. Despite that, there have been a little over 200 IED attacks in the US in the last ten years.

That's like a bazillion times more than the 750,000 gun crimes in the same period.


Also the people in the marathon were adults, and in Sandy Hook they were children. Also they were in different cities.

Anymore inane non sequiturs out there?
 
2013-04-17 11:30:11 PM
~ Hey lookit meeeee!!!! I'm a lame comedian guy who feels teh outrage and I am teh sadness!!!! I'm a tweeter my feelings up in this piece...time to get all political.

~ No, no!!! Lookit meeeee!!!! I am teh outraged at your particular outrage!!! You no get political up in dis piece. I'm a TV guy, and I know teh politicals!!!


How about both of you 'personalities' hush please, with your lil' smartphone tiff (you're both grown men, FFS)...it's not about either of you.
Praise the people who helped after the tragedy, love those who were injured or killed, and hope for a brighter day...beyond that, stfu
 
2013-04-17 11:30:35 PM

machoprogrammer: Cpl.D: machoprogrammer: 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.

I know.  But they didn't overthrow a government with guns and without support from a foreign power.   I still say that personally owned firearms, in this country, are not a threat to the government.  It simply isn't a factor.  Again, because of our military.

I disagree. Even though the military has bigger guns, a hand gun can easily kill a person (soldier or not). Armed insurgencies are a biatch to deal with for even the best military, unless they are willing to non-disciminately kill everyone.


My point is for the civ populace here to succeed, the military would either have to stand down and remain neutral (never happen) or take the side of the populace.  Either way civ guns are irrelevant.  The second a dictatorship loses control of the military, they have no way to stay in power.  They either pull the ejection lever or eat their own bullet.

I don't see a realistic scenario otherwise.  Red Dawn is interesting but I put it firmly in the "never happen" category.

If it does happen, I'll happily stand on the one stage that survived the apocalypse and eat my hat while being recorded on whatever medium is prevalent at the time.

You may have to reanimate me to do this.
 
2013-04-17 11:32:26 PM

RatMaster999: [sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net image 480x587]


tasteless
 
2013-04-17 11:33:06 PM

Freeballin: If something is supposed to kill people and it kills less than things that aren't, what is that called?


I don't suppose there is an actual term for it.

 And remember, cars don't kill people, people kill people.
 
2013-04-17 11:33:51 PM

Mugato: Your_Huckleberry: As pointed out earlier, there are those who presume that not everyone in the military would be on board with fighting their own people and there would be mass disertions, thus evening the odds for ol' Biff Logan to take on the black helicoptersand FEMA with his souped up AR

But until then they still have their yellow "Support our Troops" magnetic ribbons on their SUVs.


Not so sure the armed insurrectionists are the soccer mom types
 
2013-04-17 11:38:59 PM

John Buck 41: Fart_Machine: John Buck 41: Fart_Machine: Jay Mohr, who has defended violent movies in the guise of at least one on-screen character

Which matters because why again?   It's like saying Anthony Hopkins can't denounce cannibalism because he played Hannibal Lecter.

I'll give you that one; few people would give cannibalism a pass. But as far as gun violence in their movies? It matters because these actors make a living (in many cases a really REALLY good living) promoting a particular philosophy. or, if you prefer, a political view and/or lifestyle. How can anyone not see the hypocrisy?

Because movies are... wait for it.... FANTASY!  If you get your philosophy from films then you're not living in reality.  Actors play make-believe for a living.  Most people understand the difference.

$o a $tand-up comic who pi$$e$ you off $hould get a pa$$, too, right? RIGHT? $am Kini$on, Andrew Dice Clay, Richard Pryor, Jeff Dunham? 'Co$ it's 'ju$t an act', right?

Too late to find the 'point over your head' pic. G'night.


Forget to take your meds again or is the S out on your keyboard?
 
2013-04-17 11:39:59 PM
Freeballin:  No.  As an American you can choose to think that the 2nd amendment is outdated and doesn't apply, but seeing as our country is based on the Constitution and the BOR I don't have to give you anything.  That's the thing, as gun owners we're supposed to "compromise" when we get nothing out of it.

That's as far as I got.  Dude, just because nobody comes along and puts a metaphorical twix bar in your own pocket, you're against it?  Having less people murdered is "we get nothing out of it"?  I'm just gonna stop here and note that you're a greedy fark and a miserable person.

Here's the funny thing about gun control, slappy:  It doesn't have to be permanent.  We can try it and see if it works while we grind away at the harder issues, and see if it slows down the rate of massacres.  If it doesn't work, we can undo or change it.  Yay!  Progress.

But again, if this is such an easy issue to deal with that it doesn't require gun control of any sort, kindly come to the table with a reasonable, workable alternative.  I'll wait.
 
2013-04-17 11:43:53 PM
Asking Americans to change is really just a losing battle.
 
2013-04-17 11:45:18 PM

USP .45: Uranus Is Huge!: RatMaster999: [sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net image 480x587]

RatMaster999: [sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net image 480x587]

That's a fair comparison. IEDs are illegal. Despite that, there have been a little over 200 IED attacks in the US in the last ten years.

That's like a bazillion times more than the 750,000 gun crimes in the same period.

Also the people in the marathon were adults, and in Sandy Hook they were children. Also they were in different cities.

Anymore inane non sequiturs out there?


Actually, one of the fatalities in Boston was a child.

You act as if I made the comparison. I only responded.

I think the next step is where you call me a "grabber" and derp yourself into a lather then sputter into some firearm trivia/pedantry.

No thanks.

There. I saved us some time.
 
2013-04-17 11:47:01 PM
Thank God for the NRA!!!  Freedom is a wonderful thing.
 
2013-04-17 11:51:54 PM
I just saw Joe Biden's pretend frown face (or his poorly practiced frown face) at the 'omg,  they didn't ban guns' press conference.

He, he he...   He looks like that puppet

imageshack.us


Mohr is a bonehead.... but Biden seems genuinely pissed that Congress won't repeal the 2nd Amendment this week.

...too funny.
 
2013-04-17 11:55:27 PM

netcentric: but Biden seems genuinely pissed that Congress won't repeal the 2nd Amendment this week.


Yes. Biden wants to ban the 2nd Amendment. And then he's going to go door to door with a big collection basket. Jesus, people.
 
2013-04-17 11:56:02 PM
Just for the record, I am a gun owner, I've been shooting both recreationally and during srs business (hunting), ever since my father took my six year old arse down to the gun range.  I have a gun cabinet that is well stocked.  So yeah, I do belong on the "gun nut" side of the chart, if not all the way to the extreme right of it.
 
2013-04-18 12:03:52 AM

USP .45: Uranus Is Huge!: RatMaster999: [sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net image 480x587]

RatMaster999: [sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net image 480x587]

That's a fair comparison. IEDs are illegal. Despite that, there have been a little over 200 IED attacks in the US in the last ten years.

That's like a bazillion times more than the 750,000 gun crimes in the same period.

Also the people in the marathon were adults, and in Sandy Hook they were children. Also they were in different cities.

Anymore inane non sequiturs out there?



You forgot that bombs are indiscriminate whereas guns can only shoot what they are aimed at.
 
2013-04-18 12:04:03 AM

John Buck 41: I'll give you that one; few people would give cannibalism a pass. But as far as gun violence in their movies? It matters because these actors make a living (in many cases a really REALLY good living) promoting a particular philosophy. or, if you prefer, a political view and/or lifestyle. How can anyone not see the hypocrisy?


I don't care about what Jay Mohr says, but just because someone depicts gun violence in a work of art doesn't mean the audience is supposed to walk away marveling at how awesome guns are.
 
2013-04-18 12:16:37 AM

Cpl.D: Standard idiot argument.  The point isn't blaming guns.  It's correcting how we handle them.  We're supposedly the finest nation in the world, yet we're still high up on the murder-bu-gun leaderboard.  It's obvious to everyone but a simpleton that something has to be done.  The situation is unacceptable.  Therefore, action is warranted.  Note how the only ones proposing anything halfway sane are the ones also espousing gun control.  The main issue that has to be dealt with is mental health care.  That's the actual crux of the issue.  But it's not gonna be sorted in in a day, or a year, probably not a decade.  Therefore, the issue is reducing gun related homicide now, while we work on the main problem.  If the right would hop on board with tackling the main problem, it'd be taken care of much quicker.  Even if they're still adamant about doing nothing about an obvious problem and don't want their precious guns touched.  Whatever.  Come to the table and suggest something feasible instead.  I'd be fine with that.




Repeal Prohibition.
 
2013-04-18 12:19:32 AM

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



If wishes were horses, we'd be eatin' steak.
 
2013-04-18 12:20:46 AM

Mugato: netcentric: but Biden seems genuinely pissed that Congress won't repeal the 2nd Amendment this week.

Yes. Biden wants to ban the 2nd Amendment. And then he's going to go door to door with a big collection basket. Jesus, people.


At the very least, Biden's recent "Get a double barrel shotgun for defense" tour was very comical. And the notion of cutting loose with a couple barrels of 12 guage is easier to shoot than an AR with virtually no recoil is absurd.

Cpl.D: Just for the record, I am a gun owner, I've been shooting both recreationally and during srs business (hunting), ever since my father took my six year old arse down to the gun range.  I have a gun cabinet that is well stocked.  So yeah, I do belong on the "gun nut" side of the chart, if not all the way to the extreme right of it.


I suspected as much. But I wonder....if you're safety conscience, trained, own all your firearms legally, keep them under lock and key and general upstanding citizen person, would you not have a hard time believing that you and your firearms are a danger to anybody?
 
2013-04-18 12:27:15 AM

Cpl.D: Here's the funny thing about gun control, slappy:  It doesn't have to be permanent.  We can try it and see if it works while we grind away at the harder issues, and see if it slows down the rate of massacres.  If it doesn't work, we can undo or change it.  Yay!  Progress.


You mean like the Federal Assault Weapon ban that expired?  Care to comment on that and the effect on crime before and after before folks go demanding a new law?
 
2013-04-18 12:30:44 AM
Cpl.D:
Here's the funny thing about gun control, slappy:  It doesn't have to be permanent.  We can try it and see if it works while we grind away at the harder issues, and see if it slows down the rate of massacres.  If it doesn't work, we can undo or change it.  Yay!  Progress.

Like how we tried an Assault Weapons Ban for over a decade that didn't do jack shiat? The one we let lapse because it was a big fat useless concept at the core?

You want to do that again?

But again, if this is such an easy issue to deal with that it doesn't require gun control of any sort, kindly come to the table with a reasonable, workable alternative.  I'll wait.

End the War on Drugs. That'll cut the bulk of your problems.
Enact real Universal Health Care, including Mental Health. There are more problems gone.
Put rich corporations in their place and fix our stagnating wages/income inequality. Big winner there.

You'll reduce violence overall and crime in general, make the world a more pleasant place, and you didn't have to shred the Bill of Rights. Go you!
 
2013-04-18 12:30:57 AM

Cpl.D: Here's the funny thing about gun control, slappy:  It doesn't have to be permanent.  We can try it and see if it works while we grind away at the harder issues, and see if it slows down the rate of massacres.  If it doesn't work, we can undo or change it.  Yay!  Progress.


That isn't how government works.  You may recall when we tried the patriot act on for size shortly before losing the keys to the cuffs.

We've already been saddled with quite a few gun laws and at least one government agency that doesn't do anything useful, all in the name of looking for solutions to gun violence.    No ones taking out insurance to guarantee that the next hairbrained scheme will work, and no one seems interested in test driving an end to the drug war or some much needed urban renewal.
There are dozens of things we could be doing to resolve the problem of violence, but politicians seem focused on the one that is a long standing item on the Democrats wish list and deep in the publics "bad-touch" zone.

This is like having a total stranger repeatedly asking to borrow the keys to your car.
No, not the rusty old one in the driveway. Your brand new Shelby mustang with the expensive rims and flaming hot paint job.
You've got no guarantee you're getting it back and when you don't get it back people will simply call you an idiot for being so gullible.
 
2013-04-18 12:31:22 AM

Freeballin: AdolfOliverPanties: I think it should be amended, updated for the times.  I would love to see private gun ownership ended, as I am virulently anti-gun, but I know that will never happen.  So amend it (obviously its been done before,) with updates about assault rifles, automatic weapons, high capacity clips and magazines, armor piercing bullets...basically anything that was designed for military or law-enforcement use that goes beyond your basic home protection handgun or hunting rifle/shotgun.

Sadly, even this is farking impossible.  We can't even get background checks on nutbags because of the farking asshole NRA, even though over 90% of Americans want them.

I hope Wayne LaPierre is killed with a gun.  Not soon; I hope he lives a normal lifespan.  But I hope that is the way his life ends; violently, with him shiatting himself in fear.


You know how I know you have no idea what you're talking about and are a complete moron?  Let's go through the list one by one.

Assault rifle is pretty much the same as automatic weapon with some cosmetic differences.  If you think these aren't heavily regulated and already on a registry with deep background checks... if you mean "high capacity rifle", it doesn't mean what you want it to mean, words have meanings.  Also, did you know that there have only been 2 murders with a legally owned NFA firearm?  1 of them was by a cop, good thing you're going to keep those guns off the street.   Reason #1

Hi-cap clips and magazines?  Sure, I'm down with that.  No 33 round mags for your Glock but the 17 round mags are fine, the 19 round mags for my XDm 9 are cool, and the 30 round mags for AR/AK platforms are fine as those are all standard capacity.  You can't redefine what something means when it suits you.  #2

Armor piercing bullets?  What is this, the 80's?  All, and I mean nearly ALL rifle bullets are armor piercing (.22, .17 and I'm sure you can find a few others that aren't..).  Level II protection isn't designed to protect against rifle fire period, only handguns; you have to wear a plate for that.  #3

Anything designed for military use?  Okay, my AR15 was not designed for military use, it's for civilian use.  The AK47s you see are all civilian versions or they'd be select fire.  By what you state, I'm okay with that too.  #4

"your basic home protection handgun or hunting rifle/shotgun."  How many rounds is okay for home protection?  You have some arbitrary number you'd like to throw out there because it sounds good to you? 6? 7? 10?  I hunt with my AR15, so it's okay by your definition right?  #5

So to summarize what you think is okay because you're a moron who doesn't know what he's talking about:  I can have an AR15 with a 30 round magazine, all the bullets I want (since you made it clear hunting rifles are okay that must mean that a smaller powered round like .223 is fine). Thanks, I'm all for your anti-gun plan since it would only ban stupid range toys like 33 round mags and 100 round drums from what I can tell.

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.


You, good sir/ma'am, are my hero.
 
2013-04-18 12:32:32 AM
We do not need the 2nd amendment whatsoever. We don't have constitutional amendments to own any other type of thing, only firearms. And yet somehow we still own stuff, even without fear the gubmint is going to come and take it all away. -'cept incandescent lightbulbs!
 
2013-04-18 12:35:21 AM
Ooh, an actor and a comic weighed in on a political issue ... let's all give this some totally serious thought now.

/shut up both of you
//entertain me then shut up and go away
 
2013-04-18 12:36:54 AM

Ablejack: We do not need the 2nd amendment whatsoever. We don't have constitutional amendments to own any other type of thing, only firearms. And yet somehow we still own stuff, even without fear the gubmint is going to come and take it all away. -'cept incandescent lightbulbs!


It will never get that far, but there will be a fair number of people that would start killing before the amendment vote. You know, to defend freedom and democracy.
 
2013-04-18 12:37:15 AM

Ablejack: We do not need the 2nd amendment whatsoever. We don't have constitutional amendments to own any other type of thing, only firearms. And yet somehow we still own stuff, even without fear the gubmint is going to come and take it all away. -'cept incandescent lightbulbs!


I hope you get robbed.  At gunpoint.

If you're being sarcastic, then I can't tell.
 
2013-04-18 12:38:31 AM

Ablejack: We do not need the 2nd amendment whatsoever. We don't have constitutional amendments to own any other type of thing, only firearms. And yet somehow we still own stuff, even without fear the gubmint is going to come and take it all away. -'cept incandescent lightbulbs!


The First Amendment keeps the government from banning all high capacity industrial printing presses, radio transmitters, and the Internet.
 
2013-04-18 12:39:03 AM
Baldwin's first movie was My Bodyguard. How apropos.

3.bp.blogspot.com

Can she hold your big powerful gun?

Oh that's right. You probably have lots of security around you and yours. It's very easy to preach violence from behind that security screen. It's a dog eat dog world out there but you have a nice kennel with lots of handlers and fencing...

You can thank Rebecca for making it all possible. Enjoy your sheltered, protected existence but please shut up about how a higher capacity magazine will make it possible for me to kill my neighbor more deader.
 
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