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  
•       •       •

20397 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 17 Apr 2013 at 8:06 PM (52 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
 
2013-04-18 12:43:03 AM
Cpl.D: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.

Ireland.
 
2013-04-18 12:43:44 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 5th Amendment is going to surprised to hear that he doesn't actually give people the right to own property, because, ya know, that's kinda his thing.

The reason you live without fear of the 'gubmint' coming to take your property is because the 5th Amendment limits their ability to do that.  Most state constitutions have a similar provision on top of that.
 
2013-04-18 12:44:10 AM
So long as we're going to discuss twitter and celebrities,   I'm just gonna leave this here;

<I>Fine, guns suck. But plutocracy, monopoly & wage slavery are worse. Much worse. When do we get this pissed off over THEM?

Retweeted by Kelly Carlin </I>
 
2013-04-18 12:46:31 AM

AdolfOliverPanties: douchebag/hater: AdolfOliverPanties:

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.

And yet you think of yourself as 'tolerant'.

Ain't that sumptin'?

Where did I claim to be tolerant, douchebag?


At least you admit it.

i47.tinypic.com
 
2013-04-18 12:49:17 AM

Fade2black: AdolfOliverPanties: douchebag/hater: AdolfOliverPanties:

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.

And yet you think of yourself as 'tolerant'.

Ain't that sumptin'?

Where did I claim to be tolerant, douchebag?

At least you admit it.

[i47.tinypic.com image 522x639]


I tell you what. You can ban pressure cookers and I'll restrict guns. Even steven.
 
2013-04-18 12:50:11 AM
BayouOtter:
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!


I agree with you completely.  The problem is those are all long term fixes and won't be done any time soon.  It addresses the long term issues nicely, but it doesn't do anything to reduce the number of massacres in the short term.
 
2013-04-18 12:50:38 AM

BayouOtter: 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.


A fair point; But not really the same though. The 1st is essentially about protecting free speech, those items have been deemed constitutionally approved means to that end by precedents. The 2nd is all about having the thing itself. 

SithLord: 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.


Nice. I'm not saying that we should not be able to buy these products. But that it is queer and seemingly unnecessary that this one type of (basically) sporting equipment has it's own amendment.
 
2013-04-18 12:52:30 AM

Talondel: 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 5th Amendment is going to surprised to hear that he doesn't actually give people the right to own property, because, ya know, that's kinda his thing.

The reason you live without fear of the 'gubmint' coming to take your property is because the 5th Amendment limits their ability to do that.  Most state constitutions have a similar provision on top of that.


Exactly. This should be enough. We don't need amendments for each and every type of property.
 
2013-04-18 12:52:53 AM
I'm afraid of people with guns.

So I'm going to create another group of people with guns, to disarm the first group of people with guns.

Because I'm afraid of people with guns.

Wait, what?
 
2013-04-18 12:55:26 AM
Cpl.D:
I agree with you completely.  The problem is those are all long term fixes and won't be done any time soon.  It addresses the long term issues nicely, but it doesn't do anything to reduce the number of massacres in the short term.

Honestly, short of putting everyone in prison cells, you can't stop batshiat crazy people from killing. Its how a free society works.

For example: The Daegu subway fire was a mass murder on February 18, 2003 which killed at least 198 people and injured at least 147. An arsonist set fire to a train stopped at the Jungangno Station of the Daegu Metropolitan Subway in Daegu, South Korea. The fire then spread to a second train which had entered the station from the opposite direction a few minutes later.

Who did this? The arsonist was Kim Dae-han, a 56 year-old unemployed former taxi driver who had suffered a stroke in November 2001 that left him partly paralyzed.

He killed more people that all the 'mass murder school rampage shootings' of the last 20 or 50 years with some paint thinner and a lighter.
 
2013-04-18 12:59:42 AM

Jim_Callahan: Cpl.D: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.

Ireland.


That's about the closest as you're going to find, but it doesn't really pass muster as an example.   Can you really call that a tyranny when the offending government ended it in a truce and didn't put in much effort into keeping the area subjugated?  They called it quits after two or three thousand casualties.  I'd kind of expect a tyranny to try to hold on despite body count.

But, eh.  Let's be honest.  There's not going to be an accord between the gun-are-a-gift-from-god crowd and the I-don't-like-massacres crowd, do we'll have to agree to disagree.  Tell ya what, we'll hang out at the gun range and do some target shooting.  I'll even keep the radio off so we don't have to hear about the civilian shooting spree of the day, so I don't get all grumpy.
 
2013-04-18 01:01:50 AM
BOMB GOES OFF; 2.1% OF VICTIMS DIE

BUSHMASTER GOES OFF; 93% OF VICTIMS DIE
 
2013-04-18 01:01:57 AM

Cpl.D: 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.


Heh, that's farking hilarious.  Why, if the 1st "assault weapon" ban did exactly jack and shiat, did they try for another one?  Fortunately it had a sunset clause and it wasn't renewed, but name me a few more changes we've made that we undid later when we found out they didn't work.  Note they also had no intention of putting a sunset on this particular ban.  Now, if you think this ban was going to do anything about Chicago style gun crime, you're so completely wrong it's funny.  Those murders are committed almost exclusively with crappy semi-auto pistols that hold less than 10 rounds which were never the target of any proposed legislation (except in Feinstein's dreams).

Also, you're telling me that a serious statistical anomaly is a good reason for me to give up my rights.  Yes, kids died and that's horrible.  I'm a parent not a sociopath, I do feel for them, but I don't think that blaming guns for the actions of one crazy person is a rational response.  Lanza was farking nuts and wanted to kill people.  He had the internet.  If he couldn't get guns there was as good a chance that he would have made a bomb.  See: Boston and The Bath School disaster.

Let's look at Cho, the VT shooter.  Crazy.  Background checks wouldn't have made a difference.  He used two pistols and a backpack full of magazines instead of any "hi-cap" shiat.  Tell me where implementing any of the laws that were proposed after Newton would have changed what happened there.

The CO shooter.  Crazy.  He went to the only theater in the area where people weren't armed.  Laws failed us there that were supposed to protect us.  Notice a trend here?

I'm against it because while it sounds great that we could revisit it in a few years, that would never happen and was never in the plan to happen.

You want a solution?  It's easy.  Let people be committed involuntarily and evaluated, and if found to be crazy, make it easier to commit them for a while.  Work on getting better mental health services period and destigmatizing mental illness.  Almost all of the recent shooters had someone who knew they were nuts, but couldn't do anything about it.  Lanza is again a great example of this and his mother was trying to get help.

Get rid of gun free zones; it's next to never that someone with a CHL commits any of these crimes and they aren't a magical barrier and indeed are a target (See CO shooter)

Also, they need to prosecute people who try to buy guns illegally and straw purchasers.  They fail majorly at doing this.

Ultimately, this isn't about guns, it's about crazies.  If rational people were out on shooting sprees I'd perhaps think differently, but they aren't.  Instead the actions of 56 people over the last 30 years that killed 540 people are supposed to infringe on the rights of 300 million Americans in the name of safety.  That's on average 18 people killed in a shooting spree per year, of which, close to 40% were workplace related.  Statistically it's not even significant.  That sounds callous, but people die every day and I can still drive a car without change, I can still own a pool.  Those are relevant no matter whether or not they're intended to kill people.  The fact that they aren't and still do is more telling in my book.  Either way they kill and we're just fine with them continuing to do it because we all use cars, and we like to swim in pools.

I'm sorry, it sucks, but none of those are good enough reasons to take away/limit my rights.  Neither is proposing legislation that will have no effect on anyone but lawful gun owners and has been shown to do exactly dick in the past.
 
2013-04-18 01:07:17 AM

TheShavingofOccam123: BOMB GOES OFF; 2.1% OF VICTIMS DIE

BUSHMASTER GOES OFF; 93% OF VICTIMS DIE


The bomb they used wasn't meant to kill people, it was meant to cause as much damage as possible.  But you knew that.  Also, killing kids trapped in a room isn't terribly difficult sadly.  He could have had a .22 pistol with multiple mags (like Cho) and done the same just as easily.
 
2013-04-18 01:10:07 AM
I think that an antiquated poorly worded piece of our constitution should be revisited. It's about as relevant as the ban on quartering soldiers.

I know, I know. I deserve to have violence inflicted on me for these aberrant thoughts.

/I think I gave myself a "semi" while typing that last sentence.
// Good night, Fark.
 
2013-04-18 01:11:55 AM

Freeballin: Cpl.D: 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.

Heh, that's farking hilarious.  Why, if the 1st "assault weapon" ban did exactly jack and shiat, did they try for another one?  Fortunately it had a sunset clause and it wasn't renewed, but name me a few more changes we've made that we undid later when we found out they didn't work.  Note they also had no intention of putting a sunset on this particular ban.  Now, if you think this ban was going to do anything about Chicago style gun crime, you're so completely wrong it's funny.  Those murders are committed almost exclusively with crappy semi-auto pistols that hold less than 10 rounds which were never the target of any proposed legislation (except in Feinstein's dreams).

Also, you're telling me that a serious statistical anomaly is a good reason for me to give up my rights.  Yes, kids died and that's horrible.  I'm a parent not a sociopath, I do feel for them, but I don't think that blaming guns for the actions of one crazy person i ...


If you think it is mainly the mentally ill that use guns to kill people, then why not support a means to check if someone is mentally ill before selling a gun to that person? This doesn't take away or limit your lawful ownership (or does it?).
 
2013-04-18 01:14:15 AM

Freeballin: TheShavingofOccam123: BOMB GOES OFF; 2.1% OF VICTIMS DIE

BUSHMASTER GOES OFF; 93% OF VICTIMS DIE

The bomb they used wasn't meant to kill people, it was meant to cause as much damage as possible. But you knew that.  Also, killing kids trapped in a room isn't terribly difficult sadly.  He could have had a .22 pistol with multiple mags (like Cho) and done the same just as easily.


You must know more about psychotic bombers than I do. 1/2 nails are much larger than 00 buck and we know the popularity of 00 buck for personal protection.
 
2013-04-18 01:16:44 AM

way south: 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.


There we were. Completely armed to the teeth. Second Amendment in hand.  And yet our government was able to commit something tyrannical and blatantly unconstitutional with little to no resistance from the gun-toting protectors of the Constitution. Weird...
 
2013-04-18 01:17:13 AM
Night peeps.  It was fun and I do care.  The difference is I believe that it's my responsibility to make my family as safe as possible, not the government's or anyone else's.  I can't be everywhere all the time so sure I worry about my wife and child a little, but I can also see that of the 140,000 schools and universities in the US, if 1 ends up with a mass shooting a year (it doesn't), we're still pretty damn safe even if the news makes you think otherwise.  Also at least one person at my son's daycare has a CHL and carries.  I'll take those odds every time over someone passing a law to make everyone feel safe that will do nothing.
 
2013-04-18 01:19:32 AM

Freeballin: TheShavingofOccam123: BOMB GOES OFF; 2.1% OF VICTIMS DIE

BUSHMASTER GOES OFF; 93% OF VICTIMS DIE

The bomb they used wasn't meant to kill people, it was meant to cause as much damage as possible.  But you knew that.  Also, killing kids trapped in a room isn't terribly difficult sadly.  He could have had a .22 pistol with multiple mags (like Cho) and done the same just as easily.


Also, it is not legal to own 'bombs'. Structurally destructive explosives in general are highly regulated. Even comparatively harmless firecrackers have a fair amount of legislation at state levels.
 
2013-04-18 01:19:58 AM

Freeballin: Night peeps.  It was fun and I do care.  The difference is I believe that it's my responsibility to make my family as safe as possible, not the government's or anyone else's.  I can't be everywhere all the time so sure I worry about my wife and child a little, but I can also see that of the 140,000 schools and universities in the US, if 1 ends up with a mass shooting a year (it doesn't), we're still pretty damn safe even if the news makes you think otherwise.  Also at least one person at my son's daycare has a CHL and carries.  I'll take those odds every time over someone passing a law to make everyone feel safe that will do nothing.


But then how will the Liberals control you daily life?

I guess they could tax you to death...
 
2013-04-18 01:24:55 AM

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.


Careful! You're talking sense!

/ Wish everyone would calm the fark down so I could afford to go shooting again. Ammo prices are farking ridiculous!
 
2013-04-18 01:24:55 AM

Ablejack: Freeballin: Cpl.D: Freeballin:
Also, you're telling me that a serious statistical anomaly is a good reason for me to give up my rights.  Yes, kids died and that's horrible.  I'm a parent not a sociopath, I do feel for them, but I don't think that blaming guns for the actions of one crazy person i ...


If you think it is mainly the mentally ill that use guns to kill people, then why not support a means to check if someone is mentally ill before selling a gun to that person? This doesn't take away or limit your lawful ownership (or does it?).

We already have that.  It's called a background check.  Why don't we have it on private sales?  Multiple reasons, the first of which is that I don't have to ask the government to sell any of my other possessions.  The fact is it doesn't catch crazies very often because our mental health system is broken.  I also don't have to sell to anyone.  Add that to the fact that there is no gun registry so I can sell my guns to anyone and never tell you and the check ends up just being there to make you feel good like most of the other laws...  It only works on law abiding gun owners.

Night for real.
 
2013-04-18 01:26:08 AM

Ablejack: Freeballin: TheShavingofOccam123: BOMB GOES OFF; 2.1% OF VICTIMS DIE

BUSHMASTER GOES OFF; 93% OF VICTIMS DIE

The bomb they used wasn't meant to kill people, it was meant to cause as much damage as possible.  But you knew that.  Also, killing kids trapped in a room isn't terribly difficult sadly.  He could have had a .22 pistol with multiple mags (like Cho) and done the same just as easily.

Also, it is not legal to own 'bombs'. Structurally destructive explosives in general are highly regulated. Even comparatively harmless firecrackers have a fair amount of legislation at state levels.


Aditionally, Cho used a Glock 19 9mm with hollowpoints. But let's not confuse the issue with facts.

He did indeed use a .22 Walther but shooting someone with a 9mm hollowpoint is not plinking.
 
2013-04-18 01:29:48 AM

Ablejack: Talondel: 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 5th Amendment is going to surprised to hear that he doesn't actually give people the right to own property, because, ya know, that's kinda his thing.

The reason you live without fear of the 'gubmint' coming to take your property is because the 5th Amendment limits their ability to do that.  Most state constitutions have a similar provision on top of that.

Exactly. This should be enough. We don't need amendments for each and every type of property.


I just wanted to thank you for bringing up this argument.  I've been arguing the same point in fark threads for several months now, but so far none of the fark gun nuts seem to understand it.
 
2013-04-18 01:29:54 AM
24.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-04-18 01:33:03 AM
BOMB GOES OFF; 1 CHILD DIES

BUSHMASTER GOES OFF; 26 CHILDREN DIE
 
2013-04-18 01:33:42 AM

CorporatePerson: way south: 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.

There we were. Completely armed to the teeth. Second Amendment in hand.  And yet our government was able to commit something tyrannical and blatantly unconstitutional with little to no resistance from the gun-toting protectors of the Constitution. Weird...


Feel free to fire the first shot. I won't stop ya.

Whether the patriot act was worth revolting over isn't the point. Its just a fact that most laws aren't written in pen so much as carved into the cement under well secured congressional seats.
Therefore it would be ill advised to treat any proposed change as "temporary".
 
2013-04-18 01:36:18 AM
Why would Jay Mohr be calling for the repeal of the amendment that bans ownership of guns by people not part of well-regulated militias?
 
2013-04-18 01:39:41 AM

way south: Therefore it would be ill advised to treat any proposed change as "temporary".


If only there were some, sort of, like, democratic system, by which people could, like, collectively decide to correct mistakes once they've made them.  That would be cool.
 
2013-04-18 01:41:30 AM

The Name: Mugato: MrEricSir: Hint: when you have to resort to violent revolution, you're not going to follow the laws of the government you're trying to bring down in the first place.

Yeah. No one's ever going to resort to violent revolution but the point is that those who think they might someday need to, want to prepare while guns are still legal.

But no one's going to hold a violent revolution. They just jerk off about it a lot.

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

But wouldn't it be a better idea to just, you know, be civically active and informed and work through non-violent means to prevent tyranny to begin with?  You could actually make the argument that the second amendment only makes tyranny MORE likely, because it gives people the false sense of security that they can just trot out the firepower whenever they become too lazy in fulfilling their civic duty to maintain peace and democracy.


You don't understand what a tyranny is if you think it will listen to reason.

We've got a democratic republic right now and still things like gay marriage are not protected and laws against even consensual sodomy are on the books.

No, we tax cigarettes and limit dangerous soda, but allow alcohol, allow hate groups like the Westboro Baptists to exist, yet take issue with small individual pleasures that are "naughty."  That's a puritanical government for you.

One could argue that we live within a tyranny right now, albeit on the low end of the horrific scale.

IMO, the government should not worry about such things.  Murder is already against the law, we've got that covered.
Retain individual liberties as much as possible, then stop.  Work on things like economy growth and welfare(ie good of the country) and quality of life in general.  Breed loyalty.  Build the future.

Infringing and further limiting rights via legislation/taxation is not what the government was supposed to do, it was supposed to protect and serve the people.

On to other points.

Even if the armed populace is outgunned by the government's really big guns and bombs,  Tyranny is still discouraged because the cost would be so incredibly high.

An armed revolt in the US would be much like it was back in those days.  We won our freedom with guerilla tactics. Sure, in a single bomb vs gun contest, bomb wins.  But what places in America do you bomb?  Will all military members and police forces acquiesce  or will they disobey orders and fight for what they signed up for, ie the people?

Not as clean of a win as some of you nutters like to pretend.  Look at all of our supposed superior power and what's happened overseas in, well, any recent war.

Other first world countries are doing good with gun bans, because they pretty much had a tyranny from the start, only....at times...it has attempted to be benevolent.

UK has done well for themselves.  farked if they ever get invaded though.  A few strategic bombings and their populace is powerless.

Guns, as it stands, are the epitome of self defense, against all attackers, foreign or domestic.  To remove that from the people, you remove the right to do just that, defend themselves, if not the right, then it's been circumvented and you directly remove their ability.

This is why through all the ages tyrants have had one main method to retain power, to keep it's subjects powerless, aided directly by keeping them ignorant.  Personally, in the US today, though we're on the decline, is one of the nations most empowering to it's citizens.

So really, why do you all hate freedom?
I think it's fear.

I think it's a projection, your claim that redenecks fear the gub'mint.  You fear other people.  Don't think they should be trusted.  Think that they should be restricted.  They can't have hobbies you don't like, drink things you don't think they should be enjoying, shouldn't smoke things you think are icky.

And you people call yourselves liberal.
HA!
 
2013-04-18 01:41:54 AM

JosephFinn: Why would Jay Mohr be calling for the repeal of the amendment that bans ownership of guns by people not part of well-regulated militias?


You should at least throw a few more sounds in there before you get to "potato". You can't just "one, tw..POTATO!"
 
2013-04-18 01:45:47 AM

TheShavingofOccam123: BOMB GOES OFF; 1 CHILD DIES

BUSHMASTER GOES OFF; 26 CHILDREN DIE


20.  6 adults.  You're an idiot.

Bomb goes off, 38 children and 6 adults die.  Turns out they work on schools too.  Also, the Boston IED wasn't designed to kill, it was designed to wound.  Look it up, I'm not doing it for you.
 
2013-04-18 01:46:31 AM

way south: Whether the patriot act was worth revolting over isn't the point. Its just a fact that most laws aren't written in pen so much as carved into the cement under well secured congressional seats.
Therefore it would be ill advised to treat any proposed change as "temporary".


Doesn't really matter how you treat anything. The government will be fine letting you grumble and play with your dangerous toys. If they want to take away more of your rights they'll just blow smoke up your ass about how free and brave and American you are for owning your arsenal and snatch them away while you're cheering and clapping your hands feeling proud of yourself.

But yeah keep fighting the good fight. If we make background checks permanent, the government might put you in some kind of database. We can't let them do that! Do you know how doomed we are if we allow the government to put your name and information in a secret database?
 
2013-04-18 01:53:44 AM

omeganuepsilon: You don't understand what a tyranny is if you think it will listen to reason.


Yeah, you misunderstood the whole point of my post right of the bat, which was preventing tyranny to begin with.
 
2013-04-18 02:06:44 AM
Liberal douche bag actor speaks...and we listen? Why? We know they are morons....
 
2013-04-18 02:15:20 AM
Yeah, but what does Ja Rule think?
 
2013-04-18 02:21:50 AM

TheShavingofOccam123: BOMB GOES OFF; 1 CHILD DIES

BUSHMASTER GOES OFF; 26 CHILDREN DIE


OK, this is one of the most cruel shortsighted post ever on fark

There will be more than 50 people that will have permanent damage due to the bombing.  There are at least 14 people wishing they were dead because 3 days ago they had 2 legs and now they don't.  A couple more people will die in the coming weeks as blood clots caused by the percussion wave let loose.  8 are currently in intensive care with brain injuries, most will never ever be normal much less the same as they were.  How many have hearing loss or............
 
2013-04-18 02:24:45 AM

pxsteel: There will be more than 50 people that will have permanent damage due to the bombing.


So pretty much an average weekend in the US vis-a-vis injuries caused by guns?
 
2013-04-18 02:31:06 AM

omeganuepsilon: We won our freedom with guerilla tactics.




You might want to do some research on that. Mostly it was France.
 
2013-04-18 02:32:45 AM

StoPPeRmobile: omeganuepsilon: We won our freedom with guerilla tactics.

You might want to do some research on that. Mostly it was France.



Also: history isn't a goddamn möbius  strip.
 
2013-04-18 02:33:10 AM

Nemo's Brother: Another liberal douche idiot.


Oh please...stop acting like Jay Mohr is getting any support from ANYone that liberal groups care about.
 
2013-04-18 02:35:21 AM
I don't get why people feel like they have to peg the outrage-meter when a celebrity says something with which they disagree. If a celebrity says something you don't agree with, just say in response, "Yea, let's not do that" or "I disagree" and move on.

Jay Mohr isn't stupid for saying he feels the Second Amendment should be repealed; it's his opinion. That doesn't mean you have to agree with him.
 
2013-04-18 02:35:52 AM

orclover: Jay Mohr Who?

Adam Baldwin?  His last name is baldwin?  He's one of the baldwin hive?  No shiat?


He's not related to the Baldwin clan, he just has the same last name.
 
2013-04-18 02:38:43 AM
 
2013-04-18 02:41:04 AM

Freeballin: TheShavingofOccam123: BOMB GOES OFF; 1 CHILD DIES

BUSHMASTER GOES OFF; 26 CHILDREN DIE

20.  6 adults.  You're an idiot.

Bomb goes off, 38 children and 6 adults die.  Turns out they work on schools too.  Also, the Boston IED wasn't designed to kill, it was designed to wound.  Look it up, I'm not doing it for you.


The reason why there weren't more fatalities was the bombs were placed on ground level. Had the bomber(s) placed them head high and pointed into the crowd. there would have been decapitations, fractured skulls, bleed outs from major arterial wounds...

Additionally, given the right type of explosive--which apparently we don't know what explosive was used in Boston--pressure cooker bombs can produce numerous fatalities. 186 dead and 700 injured.via 7 pressure cooker bombs in Mumbai. And if you claim those fatalities were increased by the physical environment in which the explosives were detonated, you're just reinforcing my argument that one reason why there weren't more fatalities is placement not explosive power. Another reason might be whoever built the bombs didn't do it properly.

And as I pointed out, 1/2 inch nails are far larger than 00 Buckshot which is a standard personal protection  round.
 
2013-04-18 02:47:05 AM
But I need my gun so that one day I can overthrow the government!
 
2013-04-18 02:47:25 AM

pxsteel: TheShavingofOccam123: BOMB GOES OFF; 1 CHILD DIES

BUSHMASTER GOES OFF; 26 CHILDREN DIE

OK, this is one of the most cruel shortsighted post ever on fark

There will be more than 50 people that will have permanent damage due to the bombing.  There are at least 14 people wishing they were dead because 3 days ago they had 2 legs and now they don't.  A couple more people will die in the coming weeks as blood clots caused by the percussion wave let loose.  8 are currently in intensive care with brain injuries, most will never ever be normal much less the same as they were.  How many have hearing loss or............


How's this for cruel?

sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net

This was posted earlier in this thread and received 3 votes for "Smartest" comment. I in no way meant to insult the victims of the Boston Marathon bombing.
 
2013-04-18 02:47:43 AM

Befuddled: I don't get why people feel like they have to peg the outrage-meter when a celebrity says something with which they disagree.


It feels good to get a lot of emotions out so people like to do so in a direction that won't be of any consequence. Ranting about celebrities changes nothing and makes us feel good.

At the same time, celebrities have a license to speak more loosely than most people. Ordinary folks have to worry if they say something stupid they'll lose their job, but celebrities need constant attention to continue getting work so they need to say extreme things. No serious US politician is going to propose repealing the Second Amendment, but if an entertainer throws a thought like this out there, us normal folks get to play around with it because hey, it's not our idea. And it's kind of fun, which is why we're all posting on Fark at this ungodly hour.
 
2013-04-18 02:47:55 AM

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)

.

I know you love tossing around the word "Hollywood libs" as though Republicans like Arnold Schwartzenegger, Clint Eastwood, Mel Gibson, and Kelsey Grammer can't get work there, but how about focusing on the MPAA, which does the opposite of what the rest of the world does by doing everything they can to ban sex and promote violence?

Seriously, watch the excellent documentary "This Film Is Not Yet Rated" to see where the core problem lies.  It's not with the producers as much as you think.
 
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