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 417
    More: Stupid, Jay Mohr, second amendment, Boston Marathon, 2nd amendment, Adam Baldwin, Twitter, Boston, Fox Sports Radio  
•       •       •

20399 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 17 Apr 2013 at 8:06 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



417 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 02:59:48 AM

TheShavingofOccam123: How's this for cruel?

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.


No of course not, but you're insulting everyone's intelligence when you use anecdotal evidence (that being once instance of malice with a firearm v. once instance of malice with IEDs) to try and forward a point which can easily be shut down by noting more 'successful' bombings using IEDs. So it's your extremely weak point v. the reality that people are blaming the bomber(s) for the bombs in Boston, but apply a double standard when discussing Sandy Hook. There are probably some halfway legitimate reasons for doing that (the killer is dead, the gun owner is dead, no one left to blame), but it's a fact.
 
2013-04-18 02:59:54 AM

USP .45: TheShavingofOccam123: 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.

Could easily be something as simple as black powder or commercially available gunpowder that many people use to reload their own ammunition with.


The Mumbai bombs supposedly used RDX and ammonium nitrate but, yeah, it's pretty amazing what you can use. One pressure cooker bomb used fireworks.
 
2013-04-18 03:01:27 AM

TheShavingofOccam123: USP .45: TheShavingofOccam123: 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.

Could easily be something as simple as black powder or commercially available gunpowder that many people use to reload their own ammunition with.

The Mumbai bombs supposedly used RDX and ammonium nitrate but, yeah, it's pretty amazing what you can use. One pressure cooker bomb used fireworks.


confirmed once (lol I mean one) of the bombs in Boston was with fireworks? We can be 'thankful' that they didn't use gunpowder.
 
2013-04-18 03:07:48 AM

USP .45: TheShavingofOccam123: How's this for cruel?

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.

No of course not, but you're insulting everyone's intelligence when you use anecdotal evidence (that being once instance of malice with a firearm v. once instance of malice with IEDs) to try and forward a point which can easily be shut down by noting more 'successful' bombings using IEDs. So it's your extremely weak point v. the reality that people are blaming the bomber(s) for the bombs in Boston, but apply a double standard when discussing Sandy Hook. There are probably some halfway legitimate reasons for doing that (the killer is dead, the gun owner is dead, no one left to blame), but it's a fact.


Anyone who uses a picture of a bombing in progress where people are dying and a picture of children being marched out of a mass killing of their friends to argue against gun restrictions insults intelligence and humanity.
 
2013-04-18 03:09:18 AM
People don't blame bombs because they are already illegal.

/yeah I know they're made from legal products, but once turned into a bomb it's illegal
//still pro gun
 
2013-04-18 03:10:08 AM

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


Keep that in mind next time Louis Gohmert says "If everybody was armed, there wouldn't be any shootings".
 
2013-04-18 03:12:37 AM

USP .45: TheShavingofOccam123: How's this for cruel?

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.

No of course not, but you're insulting everyone's intelligence when you use anecdotal evidence (that being once instance of malice with a firearm v. once instance of malice with IEDs) to try and forward a point which can easily be shut down by noting more 'successful' bombings using IEDs. So it's your extremely weak point v. the reality that people are blaming the bomber(s) for the bombs in Boston, but apply a double standard when discussing Sandy Hook. There are probably some halfway legitimate reasons for doing that (the killer is dead, the gun owner is dead, no one left to blame), but it's a fact.


If we ban bombs then only terrorists will have bombs.
 
2013-04-18 03:14:30 AM

TheShavingofOccam123: Anyone who uses a picture of a bombing in progress where people are dying and a picture of children being marched out of a mass killing of their friends to argue against gun restrictions insults intelligence and humanity.


I think the point being made was the double standard being applied when having a national conversation about gun control. The common denominator is clearly people chemically or ideologically imbalanced enough to have no regard for humanity. I'd agree that the choice of imagery is inferior than just explain the point in words.
 
2013-04-18 03:16:57 AM

evil saltine: If we ban bombs then only terrorists will have bombs.


Well that is abundantly clear now isn't it?
 
2013-04-18 03:23:06 AM

USP .45: I think the point being made was the double standard being applied when having a national conversation about gun control. The common denominator is clearly people chemically or ideologically imbalanced enough to have no regard for humanity. I'd agree that the choice of imagery is inferior than just explain the point in words.


If an extremely loud minority of the country wanted bombs to be available for legal sale to the mentally ill and people on the terrorist watch list without even so much as a background check or a record of the transaction, you'd hear a lot more people "blaming bombs for the tragedy."
 
2013-04-18 03:28:41 AM
images2.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2013-04-18 03:32:18 AM

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


Yet when planes crash, you blame two entire countries, not the hijackers.

logical dissonance, it's the new conservative way.
 
2013-04-18 03:33:38 AM

CorporatePerson: USP .45: I think the point being made was the double standard being applied when having a national conversation about gun control. The common denominator is clearly people chemically or ideologically imbalanced enough to have no regard for humanity. I'd agree that the choice of imagery is inferior than just explain the point in words.

If an extremely loud minority of the country wanted bombs to be available for legal sale to the mentally ill and people on the terrorist watch list without even so much as a background check or a record of the transaction, you'd hear a lot more people "blaming bombs for the tragedy."


And yet these bombs could be replicated and improved upon with off the shelf supplies. Literally off of a shelf from a single store. Meanwhile purchasing a gun from a dealer at a store or gun show requires a Form 4473 which is checked against an existing national database and state records of federal criminals, wife beaters, and adjudicated nutjobs. I wouldn't mind closing the private sale 'loophole' aka 'gun show loophole' if there was a way for me to personally access the NICS database, but that clearly isn't the aim of those who claim to want to reduce gun violence, so it is conspicuously off the table.
 
2013-04-18 03:36:32 AM

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


If requiring ID and background verification for gun purchases is "gun control," lets start referring to what Republicans do as "Vote Control."

Require ID (including background information to get said ID) to vote: reasonable, simple way to ensure veracity of the system.
Require ID to buy a gun: ZOMG INFRINGEMENT ON KEY RIGHTS!!!

Here's two hints for you:
1. Making it easier to buy guns than to vote does not end well.
2. Bombs are banned without a specific license... nearly nobody gets killed by bombs in the US... if you really want to equate bomb control and gun control, you're going to be really farkin sad when you find out just how effective bomb control is.
 
2013-04-18 03:37:54 AM

firefly212: RatMaster999: [sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net image 480x587]

Yet when planes crash, you blame two entire countries, not the hijackers.

logical dissonance, it's the new conservative way.


No that's 100% consistent with the left. The conservatives blamed the two countries Iraq and Afghanistan. The left blamed the two countries United States and Afghanistan.

/take a joke
 
2013-04-18 03:40:18 AM

firefly212: Require ID to buy a gun: ZOMG INFRINGEMENT ON KEY RIGHTS!!!


Even if you use the gun show loophole you're still showing or requesting ID. You're talking nonsense right now.
 
2013-04-18 03:56:44 AM
California has the most restrictive gun laws in the US yet they have the same gun violence rate as Texas. These laws don't really matter because the reason people kill other people remains.
 
2013-04-18 04:27:27 AM
*hops into Cpl. D's pocket*
 
2013-04-18 05:02:44 AM

TheJoe03: California has the most restrictive gun laws in the US yet they have the same gun violence rate as Texas. These laws don't really matter because the reason people kill other people remains.


How do you know without the laws California might not have triple the rate?
Or half?
Your idea is based in a completely false equivalence.

/Farkers don't let farkers argue illogically
 
2013-04-18 05:25:20 AM

douchebag/hater: #394 in an on-going list of stupid people saying stupid things.

Mohr  isn't much of a comedian and less of an actor. The fact that his asinine comment makes the news goes to show how low we've sunk as a culture.


the fact that that he said as an character seems to matter is even worse. Better not play Hitler!
But hey, it's the daily fail...
 
2013-04-18 05:28:41 AM
Retard soup.
 
2013-04-18 05:39:06 AM

MurphyMurphy: How do you know without the laws California might not have triple the rate?
Or half?
Your idea is based in a completely false equivalence.


I really don't want to get into this whole fallacy circle jerk argument. Those arguments go in circles and it ends up being about semantics instead of the actual point.

Back to the topic, I don't find it illogical to compare California and Texas with each other, the one thing they don't have in common is (other than the weather and geography) is politics. The demographics are similar, they have similar crimes rates, both large, both have multiple large urban areas, etc. I see no reason to think that California would have a more naturally violent population that requires the strictest gun laws.
 
2013-04-18 05:39:40 AM
I loves me some Firefly.

I find Fark's love of Firefly fascinating.

/i bet half of it's cause of legal whores
 
2013-04-18 06:07:16 AM

CorporatePerson: USP .45: I think the point being made was the double standard being applied when having a national conversation about gun control. The common denominator is clearly people chemically or ideologically imbalanced enough to have no regard for humanity. I'd agree that the choice of imagery is inferior than just explain the point in words.

If an extremely loud minority of the country wanted bombs to be available for legal sale to the mentally ill and people on the terrorist watch list without even so much as a background check or a record of the transaction, you'd hear a lot more people "blaming bombs for the tragedy."


Nah, they would just say that the only way to stop a bad guy with a bomb is by a good guy with a bomb.
 
2013-04-18 06:45:41 AM

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


Make it harder to get/manufacure bombs? AOK.

Make it harder to get guns. No way!
 
2013-04-18 06:59:32 AM
I think Jays probably glad now he didn't own a gun after appearing in Pluto Nash....
 
2013-04-18 07:03:23 AM

The Name: 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.


If only it worked so smoothly after all the gerrymandering, lobbying, and corruption.

I mean, really dude?  In the aftermath of politicians voting against something that we've been told 90% of people wanted, you'd place your faith in that same body to correct its own mistakes or follow the demands of the majority?
Decades into a drug war thats caused violence to spike, we're still talking about gun control as if it was a cure to that violence.
I doubt we're living under a system that's good about fixing poorly thought out policies.

CorporatePerson: Do you know how doomed we are if we allow the government to put your name and information in a secret database?


Did you miss out on the whole "no fly list" thing?
What about the voter ID debacle?
Because you sound like the kind of person who wouldn't want to be kept on a watchlist for your faith or your political affiliations or for using pot, but because you like gun control its cool to list all the gun owners regardless of whether it's beneficial to anyone.
Its not like criminals have an obligation to register their weapons.

Considering how some are trying to turn gun ownership into the scapegoat for all of society's problems, a few going so far as to make threats against owners and 2a supporters, I'm thinking that getting us on a list of people to be harassed in the near future is not going to be an easy sell.
 
2013-04-18 07:21:36 AM
When the Boston bombing proved that gun control would be ineffective against crazies, as they would find other ways to kill people, I expected the gun control advocates to remain silent.  I didn't expect them to go full retard.
 
2013-04-18 07:22:11 AM
i1.wp.com
 
2013-04-18 07:25:22 AM
I think he is funny, but this is the dumbest response I have ever seen to any bombing anywhere.
 
2013-04-18 07:25:49 AM

TheShavingofOccam123: BOMB GOES OFF; 2.1% OF VICTIMS DIE

BUSHMASTER GOES OFF; 93% OF VICTIMS DIE


Bushmaster goes off, person tackles or shoots person doing the shooting...

bomb goes off, your picking limbs out of your trees for weeks or years.
 
2013-04-18 07:25:52 AM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: When the Boston bombing proved that gun control would be ineffective against crazies,


Going for the high score for dumbest thing said earliest in the day, I see.
 
2013-04-18 07:47:26 AM

HotWingConspiracy: BraveNewCheneyWorld: When the Boston bombing proved that gun control would be ineffective against crazies,

Going for the high score for dumbest thing said earliest in the day, I see.


Oh look, It's you, doing that "conveniently avoiding the point, and throwing out insults in their place" strategy.

Face it, many of us have been saying that crazy people would just make bombs to kill people if it served their purposes, your side then said that "bombs are too hard to make".. and you just got proven completely wrong.  It's not our fault you have no concept of reality.
 
2013-04-18 07:50:40 AM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: HotWingConspiracy: BraveNewCheneyWorld: When the Boston bombing proved that gun control would be ineffective against crazies,

Going for the high score for dumbest thing said earliest in the day, I see.

Oh look, It's you, doing that "conveniently avoiding the point, and throwing out insults in their place" strategy.

Face it, many of us have been saying that crazy people would just make bombs to kill people if it served their purposes, your side then said that "bombs are too hard to make".. and you just got proven completely wrong.


Yeah that never happened.

 It's not our fault you have no concept of reality.

How well did your guns do protecting those people?
 
2013-04-18 08:03:21 AM
I just want to know what in the holy hell happened to Nikki Cox's face?!? GAH!!!!

I mean Jesus Christ. A shotgun blast might be an improvement. She used to be smoking hot. Now she one procedure away from...

vipglamour.net
 
2013-04-18 08:07:13 AM

AdolfOliverPanties: 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.


You know that one person's "armor piercing bullet" is another person's "hunting rifle ammunition", right?

Physics is physics, and any round energetic enough to kill a deer, bear, elk, or moose is going to be energetic enough to pass right through the common "bullet proof vests" worn by police officers like a hot knife through butter:  They're only designed to stop *PISTOL* bullets, for the most part.

But you probably *DIDN'T* know that, did you?  Hell, even Senator Kennedy didn't know that when he wanted to ban the .30-30 Winchester:  You know, the iconic deer round, chambered in lever action guns like the Winchester Model 94.  All he knew is that it was reported to him that a few police officers had been killed because they were shot with rifles.  He was attempting to legislate without all the facts.
 
2013-04-18 08:09:59 AM

dittybopper: Physics is physics, and any round energetic enough to kill a deer, bear, elk, or moose HUMANELY is going to be energetic enough to pass right through the common "bullet proof vests" worn by police officers like a hot knife through butter


FTFM:  You can shoot a deer with a .22 LR, and if you hit it right it will eventually die, but it's not ethical hunting, unless of course you're in survival mode, then all bets are off.
 
2013-04-18 08:12:20 AM
Sooner or later today's 3D printer technology will evolve in to something that can make complete, reliable firearms. Might take 50 years. Who knows, maybe a century. But eventually, you know it'll happen.

When it does, choice will become stark: Either everyone gets any weapon at all, or you get rid of the 2nd and they get none. It'll be pretty much impossible to do anything in between. The only way to have *any* gun control will be by strictly controlling gunpowder and it's chemical inputs. Still won't be perfect, but with heavy prison terms for having any gun, it could work to a practical extent.

I'm not saying that's the choice society will make - maybe we'll just deal with a world where anybody can be packing anything. But it will be an either-or pick, none of this "most guns ok except for..." stuff.
 
2013-04-18 08:12:47 AM
These threads always warm my heart. Hope for the future of the human race, etc.
 
2013-04-18 08:19:48 AM

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.


So you're saying that all someone has to do to not be blamed for killing someone else is to use a more popular weapon?
 
2013-04-18 08:19:53 AM
The vague wording of the second amendment has always been a problem. If it is an individual right, why even mention the militia? If it is only about the militia, why mention the right of the people? It was obviously designed by a committee.
 
2013-04-18 08:26:11 AM
I like Baldwin.  He makes everything he's in a little funnier.

But the big, dumb brute character he's honed over the years is not really that much of a stretch from the real guy.  I had to drop his Twitter feed because it was nothing but the derpiest derp ever 24-7.  The guy is an off-the-reservation, right-wing whack job.  Excuse me; "fark independent."

Not somebody on whose comments your really want to hang your argument.
 
2013-04-18 08:27:56 AM
Boys, boys, boys, there's no need to fight. You're BOTH irrelevant and desperate for any sort of attention from the public! There, is that better?
 
2013-04-18 08:28:23 AM

macdaddy357: The vague wording of the second amendment has always been a problem. If it is an individual right, why even mention the militia? If it is only about the militia, why mention the right of the people? It was obviously designed by a committee.


It's pretty simple if you know what "the militia" meant in the 18th century.
 
2013-04-18 08:31:00 AM

GoldSpider: macdaddy357: The vague wording of the second amendment has always been a problem. If it is an individual right, why even mention the militia? If it is only about the militia, why mention the right of the people? It was obviously designed by a committee.

It's pretty simple if you know what "the militia" meant in the 18th century.


This is true. But what "arms" meant in the 18th century is completely irellevant.
 
2013-04-18 08:31:42 AM

HotWingConspiracy: BraveNewCheneyWorld: HotWingConspiracy: BraveNewCheneyWorld: When the Boston bombing proved that gun control would be ineffective against crazies,

Going for the high score for dumbest thing said earliest in the day, I see.

Oh look, It's you, doing that "conveniently avoiding the point, and throwing out insults in their place" strategy.

Face it, many of us have been saying that crazy people would just make bombs to kill people if it served their purposes, your side then said that "bombs are too hard to make".. and you just got proven completely wrong.

Yeah that never happened.


It never happened?   Well, here's a thread with someone addressing the problems with bombs instead of guns.  Fyi, you were in that thread, so yet again, you've been caught lying.

HotWingConspiracy: How well did your guns do protecting those people?


Yeah, I'm pretty sure nobody claimed that a gun can save you when you're standing next to an explosion.  Is this really what your arguments have become?

Btw, I'm loving watching you squirm in the face of evidence that gun control will do exactly nothing to prevent crazy people who want to murder.
 
2013-04-18 08:33:11 AM
www.europeantruth.co.uk
 
2013-04-18 08:35:56 AM

CPennypacker: GoldSpider: macdaddy357: The vague wording of the second amendment has always been a problem.


Only if you treat it like some sort of eternally truthful document.. no one's stupid enough to think to... oh wait.. nevermind
 
2013-04-18 08:36:59 AM

CPennypacker: This is true. But what "arms" meant in the 18th century is completely irellevant.


I think the problematic part is "well regulated".  What started out as essentially every able-bodied man receiving periodic training evolved into state National Guard units, which (improperly, IMHO) ended up another de-facto branch of the federal military.
 
2013-04-18 08:46:18 AM
Jay Mohr was always a vagina, but this takes it to a whole new level.
 
Displayed 50 of 417 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report