Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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
    More: Stupid, Jay Mohr, second amendment, Boston Marathon, 2nd amendment, Adam Baldwin, Twitter, Boston, Fox Sports Radio  
•       •       •

20403 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 17 Apr 2013 at 8:06 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2013-04-17 08:01:55 PM  
You can take my right to bear bombs from my cold, musk-scented hands

a248.e.akamai.net
 
2013-04-17 08:06:44 PM  
ReActor Jay Mohr ignites Twitter storm by insisting that the '2nd Amendment must go' after Boston Marathon BOMB massacre

 FTFY, Subs
 
2013-04-17 08:08:05 PM  

cman: ReActor Jay Mohr ignites Twitter storm by insisting that the '2nd Amendment must go' after Boston Marathon BOMB massacre

 FTFY, Subs


Oh, FFS...

I meant "article author". I am too damn use to saying "subby" that I let that one slip
 
2013-04-17 08:08:07 PM  
You want it gone? Stop talking about it and DO IT. You know how, the Constitution tells you how.

What's that you say? You can't do it? Then shut the fark up about it.
 
2013-04-17 08:08:21 PM  
If someone shot my wife in the face with a 12 gauge shotgun, I'd want to repeal the 2nd amendment too.
 
2013-04-17 08:10:09 PM  
JAYNE COBB IS RIGHT.

How dare you question him

images4.wikia.nocookie.net

Actually I think the tag should be for Mohr. Baldwin is the correct one and rational one here
 
2013-04-17 08:10:54 PM  

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


Que?
 
2013-04-17 08:11:38 PM  
His new radio show is awful... but still better then Rome's show.
 
2013-04-17 08:11:40 PM  
Just ask the 2nd amendment to follow your career and it will be gone in no time

That's pretty funny
 
2013-04-17 08:12:35 PM  

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


That took me a second.....but worth the laugh. Nice one.
 
2013-04-17 08:12:38 PM  
Adam Baldwin is awesome. Ricky Linderman knows what he's talking about.
 
2013-04-17 08:12:48 PM  
The Second Amendment's on Twitter?  Where do the bullets go?
 
2013-04-17 08:13:22 PM  
The problem with the gun control debate is that it always involves idiots like these two.
 
2013-04-17 08:14:27 PM  

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


That's because of the 1st. The solution? Ban the 1st Amendment!
 
2013-04-17 08:14:47 PM  
*troll-thread.jpg*
 
2013-04-17 08:14:55 PM  
Remember, if you say something as an actor on a TV show, you must support that position for the rest of your life.
 
MFK
2013-04-17 08:15:01 PM  
Boy, they aren't even subtle with hit pieces anymore
 
2013-04-17 08:17:36 PM  
TARD FIGHT!!!!
 
2013-04-17 08:18:30 PM  
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.
 
2013-04-17 08:19:13 PM  
Why do they keep saying shiat about some character he played? lol
 
2013-04-17 08:19:16 PM  
There are people that follow Jay Mohr on Twitter?

/found it hilarious that he's described in the article for a role he had 17 YEARS ago
//says something about the state of his career
 
2013-04-17 08:20:01 PM  

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


Both sides are mad.
 
2013-04-17 08:20:11 PM  
Animal Mother - 1
Guy who rigs comedy competitions - 0
 
2013-04-17 08:21:01 PM  
Interesting. He's so irrelevant that these people all find it necessary to retweet or respond. Got it.
 
2013-04-17 08:21:16 PM  
Jay Mohr can go to hell:

cdn2.mamapop.com
 
2013-04-17 08:22:52 PM  
Another liberal douche idiot.
 
2013-04-17 08:23:18 PM  
Go ahead and get to work trying to repeal it then!  Get the signatures, mobilize the popular vote and work through the legislative process.  biatching about it on twitter isn't going to do farkall.

That said I don't think the 2nd Amendment needs to be repealed.  Universal background checks SHOULD have been passed, there should be a ban on the sale/manufacture of "non standard" magazines (30rd Ar15 mag is ok, 100rd is not/17rd Glock mag is ok, 33rd is not), and any firearm that is not under your immediate control (on person/within arm's reach) must be locked up/rendered safe.  No inspections to verify but if the cops are there at your house for another reason then and they discover unsecured weapons then they fine you and (maybe) seize them.

But hey I'm a Canadian gun owner so ... do what you want.
 
2013-04-17 08:23:54 PM  
Jay: 'The 2nd Amendment lends itself to the CULTURE of violence we are living in!!!one!!eleventy!!

IMDb:   Scarface: The world is Yours(Video Game),Jimmy (voice)

Everyone else: Lol
 
2013-04-17 08:24:06 PM  

Summoner101: Jay Mohr can go to hell:


He should never be forgiven for what he did to that girl.
 
2013-04-17 08:24:22 PM  
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.

Oh, and major props for the Nikki Cox shotgun to the face joke upthread a ways.  LOL
 
2013-04-17 08:24:26 PM  

jedihirsch: JAYNE COBB IS RIGHT.

How dare you question him

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

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


This.

Yakk: His new radio show is awful... but still better then Rome's show.


Anyone's better than Jim Rome.  This list can be expanded to include Satan, if necessary.

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


Yep.

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

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


After some of the coverage as of late, I'm starting to wonder if the creation of our own BBC of sorts wouldn't be an entirely bad idea.
 
2013-04-17 08:24:31 PM  

Nemo's Brother: Another liberal douche idiot.


www.moccasin.com.au
 
2013-04-17 08:24:54 PM  
Jay Mohr Who?

Adam Baldwin?  His last name is baldwin?  He's one of the baldwin hive?  No shiat?
 
2013-04-17 08:25:57 PM  
Obvious false flag.  No true liberal believes in the amendment process.
 
2013-04-17 08:27:45 PM  

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


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


What if the government turns on the people?  Or do you think that will never happen?
 
2013-04-17 08:29:14 PM  

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.


Stay classy.
 
2013-04-17 08:30:07 PM  
Yes, because  repealing something from the Bill of Rights will be exceedingly easy to do. We can't even agree on more background checks. I would say that Jay Mohr is a joke, but he's never made me laugh.
 
2013-04-17 08:30:47 PM  

BilltheThrill: Remember, if you say something as an actor on a TV show, you must support that position for the rest of your life.



i187.photobucket.com
Be Careful What You Say Around Cats
They Are Sneaky Little Bastards
Who May String You Up
By Your Own Words

 
2013-04-17 08:31:26 PM  

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


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

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


And every Adult Human Male is expected to be part of that militia.

(Remember? No standing army?)
 
2013-04-17 08:32:55 PM  
sheep snorter: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. and once America has an Army, the second amendment shall be abolished.

Centralized authority and a government monopoly on force. Let me guess, you claim to be a "liberal" right? You're doing it wrong.
 
2013-04-17 08:33:14 PM  

Mrbogey: 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.

Stay classy.


Live by the sword, die by the sword. Although I suppose that means Wayne LaPierre will die when a firearm manufacturer falls on him or something.
 
2013-04-17 08:34:00 PM  
Well he robbed from the rich and he gave to the poor,

stood up to Jay Mohr and he gave him what for

our love for him now, aint hard to explain

THE HERO OF CANTON, THE MAN THEY CALL JAYNE!
 
2013-04-17 08:35:06 PM  
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.
 
2013-04-17 08:35:20 PM  

ReluctantPaladin: Go ahead and get to work trying to repeal it then!  Get the signatures, mobilize the popular vote and work through the legislative process.  biatching about it on twitter isn't going to do farkall.

That said I don't think the 2nd Amendment needs to be repealed.  Universal background checks SHOULD have been passed, there should be a ban on the sale/manufacture of "non standard" magazines (30rd Ar15 mag is ok, 100rd is not/17rd Glock mag is ok, 33rd is not), and any firearm that is not under your immediate control (on person/within arm's reach) must be locked up/rendered safe.  No inspections to verify but if the cops are there at your house for another reason then and they discover unsecured weapons then they fine you and (maybe) seize them.

But hey I'm a Canadian gun owner so ... do what you want.


You take your logic and your reason and you get the hell out of my gun control debate.

/seriously, I have no problem with what you just said
 
2013-04-17 08:36:05 PM  

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


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

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


this post smells like tuna.
 
2013-04-17 08:36:16 PM  

Bondith: The Second Amendment's on Twitter?  Where do the bullets go?


Is this like a Grand Game of Thrones Theft Auto mash up question?
 
2013-04-17 08:36:33 PM  
Douchenozzle. Mohr, not Baldwin.
 
2013-04-17 08:36:48 PM  

hulk hogan meat shoes: We can't even agree on more background checks.


We can't agree on evolution vs. creationism either, but that doesn't mean the evolution people aren't indisputably right.
 
2013-04-17 08:38:23 PM  
#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.
 
2013-04-17 08:38:48 PM  

orclover: Jay Mohr Who?

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



Actually no. His name is Baldwin but he's not related to Alec and the rest of the Baldwin brothers. He just has the same last name.

Also, I'm guessing subby meant the tag was for his response just because that was his whole response, "Stupid." And he's right. Mohr is the stupid one for sure in this one.
 
2013-04-17 08:39:47 PM  

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.


Nice handle
 
2013-04-17 08:39:52 PM  

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


Sadly, she did that to herself.

/Apparently, it doesn't get better.
 
2013-04-17 08:40:01 PM  

The Name: hulk hogan meat shoes: We can't even agree on more background checks.

We can't agree on evolution vs. creationism either, but that doesn't mean the evolution people aren't indisputably right.


I don't think evolution is an apt analogy at all.
 
2013-04-17 08:40:50 PM  

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


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


That's some nice racism you got going on there sheep.
 
2013-04-17 08:41:35 PM  
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).
 
2013-04-17 08:41:51 PM  

GoldSpider: Obvious false flag.  No true liberal believes in the amendment process.


Whereas conservatives believe the amendment process is a way to ensure gays can't get married.
 
2013-04-17 08:42:33 PM  

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


Smoking is still cool. I know I look bad ass with a cigarette.
 
2013-04-17 08:43:24 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.


To provide fair consideration: it also blocks unreasonable firearm regulation.
 
2013-04-17 08:43:26 PM  

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

Sadly, she did that to herself.

/Apparently, it doesn't get better.


This country doesnt need new laws.  It needs an intervention :(
 
2013-04-17 08:43:32 PM  

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'?
 
2013-04-17 08:43:53 PM  

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


Your knee jerk is showing.

Looks like you missed the other "hollywood lib" in the "story" who said Mohr was stupid.
 
2013-04-17 08:44:00 PM  

Mrbogey: 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.

Stay classy.


If LaPierre ever shows the slightest bit of class or compassion towards the victims of gun violence, I'll consider changing my mind.
 
2013-04-17 08:44:06 PM  

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


Sigourney Weaver successfully had all guns removed from the Alien 3 script because she was so against them. Otherwise she wouldn't have done the movie, and the studio was willing to do that because she was such a huge draw for the franchise.

We all know how well that turned out.
 
2013-04-17 08:44:57 PM  
No love for "Action"? I bought the DVD and watched the shows that were to appear if it hadn't been cancelled.

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

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

www.ifc.com
 
2013-04-17 08:45:30 PM  
As the winner of his Twitter Hat Trick contest today, I'm really getting a kick
 
2013-04-17 08:45:33 PM  

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


25.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-04-17 08:45:37 PM  
shut up, Jay. No one cares.
 
2013-04-17 08:45:46 PM  
It's at least a more honest approach than pretending you can weasel and back-door all kinds of restrictions and pre-qualifications through legislation.
 
2013-04-17 08:45:55 PM  

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.
 
2013-04-17 08:46:05 PM  

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?
 
2013-04-17 08:46:26 PM  
So are only guns now considered "arms"?

Wow the NRA has done a good job brain washing people.
 
2013-04-17 08:47:27 PM  
REPEAL AND REPLACE!!1,!!
 
2013-04-17 08:47:45 PM  

USP .45: 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.

Centralized authority and a government monopoly on force. Let me guess, you claim to be a "liberal" right? You're doing it wrong.


I like how the Conservative mantra seems to be:
"Worries about goverment authority and monopoly on force" yet also "continually votes for the guys that insists that a huge chunk of our GDP is spent on the governement controlled military"
 
2013-04-17 08:48:35 PM  

Corvus: So are only guns now considered "arms"?

Wow the NRA has done a good job brain washing people.


Wait...it's legal to own high explosives?!
 
2013-04-17 08:48:59 PM  

skullkrusher: shut up, Jay. No one cares.


Now THAT is funny.
 
2013-04-17 08:50:41 PM  
Honestly, I'm a pretty libby lib, and I thought Mohr had the dumbest part of that exchange.

Jay Mohr, you're not helping.
 
2013-04-17 08:51:57 PM  

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.


You are mistaken; expanding background checks would not be unreasonable.
 
2013-04-17 08:52:06 PM  
So two guys who no one gives two shiats about flame each other on twitter this is news? And in the politics tab?
 
2013-04-17 08:53:04 PM  

Corvus: So are only guns now considered "arms"?

Wow the NRA has done a good job brain washing people.


I've often wondered that very thing.  What exactly does "Arms" mean?  The militia is necessary for a free state, but free from what?  Free from the threat of foreign governments?  Free from the threat of its own?  Well, shouldn't the "Arms" we're permitted to carry be in scope sufficient to match a challenge by one and/or the other?  What exactly is the original purpose of the 2nd Amendment and how does it relate to the current state of affairs?
 
2013-04-17 08:54:28 PM  

Tomahawk513: Corvus: So are only guns now considered "arms"?

Wow the NRA has done a good job brain washing people.

I've often wondered that very thing.  What exactly does "Arms" mean?  The militia is necessary for a free state, but free from what?  Free from the threat of foreign governments?  Free from the threat of its own?  Well, shouldn't the "Arms" we're permitted to carry be in scope sufficient to match a challenge by one and/or the other?  What exactly is the original purpose of the 2nd Amendment and how does it relate to the current state of affairs? And where in the hell was I?


FTFY
 
2013-04-17 08:56:46 PM  
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 have no idea who Jay Mohr is, think what he said was dumb, but Daily Fail gets the stupid tag for even finding this relevant.
 
2013-04-17 08:57:22 PM  

Tomahawk513: Corvus: So are only guns now considered "arms"?

Wow the NRA has done a good job brain washing people.

I've often wondered that very thing.  What exactly does "Arms" mean?  The militia is necessary for a free state, but free from what?  Free from the threat of foreign governments?  Free from the threat of its own?  Well, shouldn't the "Arms" we're permitted to carry be in scope sufficient to match a challenge by one and/or the other?  What exactly is the original purpose of the 2nd Amendment and how does it relate to the current state of affairs?


If only that hadn't been discussed about 500 times since December right here on Fark and a million times elsewhere on the 'net...
 
2013-04-17 08:59:01 PM  

Tomahawk513: I've often wondered that very thing. What exactly does "Arms" mean? The militia is necessary for a free state, but free from what? Free from the threat of foreign governments? Free from the threat of its own? Well, shouldn't the "Arms" we're permitted to carry be in scope sufficient to match a challenge by one and/or the other? What exactly is the original purpose of the 2nd Amendment and how does it relate to the current state of affairs?


Depends on who is interpreting it.  I see it as citizens can take up arms to defend the country against an outside enemy.  This is in place of a standing army.  It says nothing about self-defense and really should be ineffective now that we have standing military forces.

SCOTUS didn't see it that way.
 
2013-04-17 09:00:09 PM  
The 2nd Amendment might seem farking retarded now that the government and its citizens aren't evenly matched with muskets anymore but people still have their delusions that if the gov't gets too much out of control, we'll take take 'em out. And I have a few guns myself and repealing an entire amendment isn't going to do anything (except the one about booze).
 
2013-04-17 09:01:15 PM  
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.
 
2013-04-17 09:03:24 PM  
Also, what makes his love less valid in your eyes than two men or two women who are in love?

www.fireflywiki.net
"I call her Vera."
 
2013-04-17 09:03:34 PM  

jedihirsch: JAYNE COBB IS RIGHT.

How dare you question him

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

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


Woosh!

I think you might want to take a second look at the tag, then Baldwin's response.  Repeat that process until you get it.
 
2013-04-17 09:03:52 PM  

snowshovel: I like how the Conservative mantra seems to be:
"Worries about goverment authority and monopoly on force" yet also "continually votes for the guys that insists that a huge chunk of our GDP is spent on the governement controlled military"


Tell me more about how the framers of our government didn't design it to avoid too much centralized authority and a monopoly on force. I'd love to hear more about how we've been doing it all wrong this whole time.
 
2013-04-17 09:04:16 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.


If it's not effective, why are you in favor of it?  Because you want to feel tough?
 
2013-04-17 09:05:18 PM  

Mugato: The 2nd Amendment might seem farking retarded now that the government and its citizens aren't evenly matched with muskets anymore but people still have their delusions that if the gov't gets too much out of control, we'll take take 'em out. And I have a few guns myself and repealing an entire amendment isn't going to do anything (except the one about booze).


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.
 
2013-04-17 09:05:23 PM  

BarrRepublican: Maybe even a waiting period for tactical equipment.


Wow, you sure you're not going a bit over the deep end with all that liberal nanny-statism there?

Mugato: And I have a few guns myself and repealing an entire amendment isn't going to do anything (except the one about booze).


Actually, you're right.  Repealing the amendment wouldn't do anything, except give states the power to make their own gun laws.  Repealing the second amendment != an automatic national gun ban.
 
2013-04-17 09:07:04 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: If it's not effective, why are you in favor of it?  Because you want to feel tough?


He just wanted to throw out the word "liberal" for any reason at all.
 
2013-04-17 09:07:06 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.


Haha! Adam Baldwin is as far away from a Hollywood lib as you can get.
 
2013-04-17 09:07:20 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: 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.

If it's not effective, why are you in favor of it?  Because you want to feel tough?


Sorry, ever have that moment where you think one thing but write something completely different?

Replace the stuff in the top line with "pistol grips" and "7 round magazines."

/It was a long day at work.
 
2013-04-17 09:09:14 PM  

Mugato: Lionel Mandrake: If it's not effective, why are you in favor of it?  Because you want to feel tough?

He just wanted to throw out the word "liberal" for any reason at all.


Perhaps I was secretly outing myself AS a liberal?
 
x23
2013-04-17 09:10:16 PM  

orclover: Jay Mohr Who?

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


yes. because if you share a surname you are automatically related. jesse jackson and andrew jackson and michael jackson and victoria jackson are all related.
 
2013-04-17 09:10:21 PM  

scottydoesntknow: 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).

Sigourney Weaver successfully had all guns removed from the Alien 3 script because she was so against them. Otherwise she wouldn't have done the movie, and the studio was willing to do that because she was such a huge draw for the franchise.

We all know how well that turned out.


I don't think that movie would have been helped by guns
A better plot and dialog would have done a lot more.
"filming was also plagued by incessant creative interference from studio executives, who overruled many of Fincher's decisions and dictated a large part of production "

But still, it earned over $100M and was a financial success (if you believe wikipedia)
 
2013-04-17 09:10:48 PM  

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.
 
2013-04-17 09:11:36 PM  

x23: orclover: Jay Mohr Who?

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

yes. because if you share a surname you are automatically related. jesse jackson and andrew jackson and michael jackson and victoria jackson are all related.


What you assert is not possible.

Jessie Jackson and Michael Jackson are not of the same race.
 
2013-04-17 09:12:40 PM  

x23: Adam Baldwin?  His last name is baldwin?  He's one of the baldwin hive?  No shiat?

yes. because if you share a surname you are automatically related. jesse jackson and andrew jackson and michael jackson and victoria jackson are all related.


It's a valid question, smartass. They're all actors about the same age and there's five others that are all related. But no, the Full Metal Firechuck guy isn't one of them.
 
2013-04-17 09:12:50 PM  
That's Enough Johnay Mayerohr.jpg
 
2013-04-17 09:13:09 PM  

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


Another thing:  How come in these gun debates this sort of electoral argument is always brought up as an argument against gun control itself?  Yeah, I know gun control is a losing issue in the midwest and southeast, but that doesn't mean it's a bad idea.  Remember: roughly half of the people in this country are rubes to begin with.
 
2013-04-17 09:13:17 PM  

x23: orclover: Jay Mohr Who?

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

yes. because if you share a surname you are automatically related. jesse jackson and andrew jackson and michael jackson and victoria jackson are all related.


Are you x23 of the New Haven 23s?
 
2013-04-17 09:13:49 PM  

x23: orclover: Jay Mohr Who?

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

yes. because if you share a surname you are automatically related. jesse jackson and andrew jackson and michael jackson and victoria jackson are all related.



I've heard rumors shes had some black in her.
 
2013-04-17 09:15:45 PM  
I think we need to have background checks and universal registration on all pressure cookers.  Perhaps a ban on black duffle bags too.  Those things are dangerous and scary looking.
 
2013-04-17 09:16:31 PM  

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.


Yet the gun nuts continue to make the argument that criminals don't obey the law, therefore laws are unnecessary. Somehow they don't connect the dots and realize that participating in a violent revolution makes them criminals, hence negating the original position.
 
2013-04-17 09:16:46 PM  
How about we just adopt a new amendment stating that the second amendment is important and every word of it should be honored when interpreting it.

That shouldn't be too controversial right?
 
2013-04-17 09:19:32 PM  

Summoner101: Jay Mohr can go to hell:


OMG, get her an EpiPen!!!
 
2013-04-17 09:19:49 PM  

Rickj: I think we need to have background checks and universal registration on all pressure cookers.  Perhaps a ban on black duffle bags too.  Those things are dangerous and scary looking.


I didn't know there were laws on the books about purchasing those things.
 
2013-04-17 09:19:53 PM  

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.
 
2013-04-17 09:20:28 PM  

The Name: Another thing:  How come in these gun debates this sort of electoral argument is always brought up as an argument against gun control itself?  Yeah, I know gun control is a losing issue in the midwest and southeast, but that doesn't mean it's a bad idea.


[whispering David Attenborough] Here we can see a North American Spotted Leftist camouflaged among the actual liberals. In a ritualistic display, the Spotted Leftist will self-describe as liberal, and yet make vocalizations that indicate contempt for self governance and pretty much our entire system in general.
 
2013-04-17 09:21:22 PM  
Well its always nice when liberals admit what they actually want rather than pretending otherwise.
 
2013-04-17 09:22:58 PM  

USP .45: The Name: Another thing:  How come in these gun debates this sort of electoral argument is always brought up as an argument against gun control itself?  Yeah, I know gun control is a losing issue in the midwest and southeast, but that doesn't mean it's a bad idea.

[whispering David Attenborough] Here we can see a North American Spotted Leftist camouflaged among the actual liberals. In a ritualistic display, the Spotted Leftist will self-describe as liberal, and yet make vocalizations that indicate contempt for self governance and pretty much our entire system in general.


At least we liberals don't legislate on it:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/24/florida-voting-lines-report _n _2544373.html
 
2013-04-17 09:22:59 PM  

salvador.hardin: How about we just adopt a new amendment stating that the second amendment is important and every word of it should be honored when interpreting it.

That shouldn't be too controversial right?


So, like I said earlier, DO IT.

Incidentally, every able-bodied man between the ages of 18 and 46 are part of the militia, by statute. Let's enforce that. The women will scream sexism, the older people will scream age discrimination, and NOW and the AARP will spend the GDP of a medium-sized country to ensure that their constituents don't get the shaft. Then we'd have to go through the courts to see how the Civil Rights Act of 1964 effects things, and then we'd have to see if the National Firearms Act of 1934 stands up because they prohibit and/or severely control weapons that would almost certainly be used for defense.

Still think it's a good idea? Then do it. Good luck on your quixotic quest.
 
2013-04-17 09:23:59 PM  

The Name: 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.


But our bowling league saw the old and the new Red Dawn movie 12 times total! North Koreans, Chinese, our own government, potato patatoe.
 
2013-04-17 09:24:02 PM  

BilltheThrill: Remember, if you say something as an actor on a TV show, you must support that position for the rest of your life.




It's OK if you are a whore for a little while, right?
 
2013-04-17 09:24:06 PM  

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

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


Because life is compromise, and sometimes to keep the same-sex marriage you've got to lose the 2nd amendment issue.

The guns that are killing police in NYC and Chicago (just to trot out an overly cliche, trite example) aren't the guns that are being used for game and sport in rural areas. But as of right now, when you say "gun control" and you don't make that differentiation it spells trouble for moderates and blue-dogs in those areas.

A kickass messaging campaign would go a long ways towards this. Blow off the NRA and consider embracing the GOA wholeheartedly, who seem to be more responsible gun owners and less of a shill for the firearms industry. Offer firearms safety courses (hunter's safety courses) throughout these areas to teach safe, responsible firearm ownership. And blanket every form of media available with a simple message explaining that hunting and sport are a part of this country's past, and any gun control legislation being considered is not aimed at these weapons. Open with that, and people will be open to the background checks and banning some of the more insane death-dealers out there today.
 
2013-04-17 09:24:13 PM  

Dimensio: 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.

You are mistaken; expanding background checks would not be unreasonable.


Personally, background checks don't bother me because I know I'll pass them. I live in California, strict gun laws are old hat here. But, I can say that there are folks out there who do not want universal checks based on the idea of a national or federal registry. The idea of the big bad goverment having you and your smokewagon on a list really bothers some people. Remember the scene in the original Red Dawn, where the Cuban paratrooper commander is telling his men to head to the court house to get the names of all the gun owners? I know, I know, not a documentary, but I have at least two friends who think that scene is a fantastic indicator of what "they" want to do.
 
2013-04-17 09:27:37 PM  

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?
 
2013-04-17 09:28:10 PM  
At this point I'm pretty sure the stupid tag is Jay Mohr and the submittard.  Baldwin has always been an idiot, so he doesn't need a tag....
 
2013-04-17 09:28:46 PM  

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.
 
2013-04-17 09:28:52 PM  

Your_Huckleberry: Remember the scene in the original Red Dawn, where the Cuban paratrooper commander is telling his men to head to the court house to get the names of all the gun owners? I know, I know, not a documentary, but I have at least two friends who think that scene is a fantastic indicator of what "they" want to do.


The problem is those people really think it is a documentary.
 
2013-04-17 09:29:25 PM  

The Name: USP .45: The Name: Another thing:  How come in these gun debates this sort of electoral argument is always brought up as an argument against gun control itself?  Yeah, I know gun control is a losing issue in the midwest and southeast, but that doesn't mean it's a bad idea.

[whispering David Attenborough] Here we can see a North American Spotted Leftist camouflaged among the actual liberals. In a ritualistic display, the Spotted Leftist will self-describe as liberal, and yet make vocalizations that indicate contempt for self governance and pretty much our entire system in general.

At least we liberals don't legislate on it:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/24/florida-voting-lines-report _n _2544373.html


[whispering David Attenborough] His camouflage blown, the Spotted Leftist ejects a stream of illogical ink, analogous to the ink of many cephalopods trying to escape an enemy. The illogical ink feigns concern for voter turnout, despite the fact that moments earlier the Spotted Leftist expressed contempt for the will of the very same electorate.
 
2013-04-17 09:31:15 PM  
So, here's a question, if the second amendment can be repealed, what prevents the other amendments in the Bill of Rights from equally being repealed?  It really scares me that people want to get rid of a right in the Bill of Rights because of what ever reason.  Honestly, the reason why doesn't matter to me.  What matters to me is that the entire Bill of Rights is important, and if we can get rid of one right, what protects the rest from also getting repealed?  Do we want the government to honestly have the power to delete our rights?  Shouldn't all these rights be protected equally?
 
2013-04-17 09:31:49 PM  

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?


An effective method for gun rights activists is to explicitly declare unreasonable policies -- such as a ban on rifles featuring collapsing stocks, pistol grips and threaded barrels -- unacceptable and to work with gun control advocates from there. Unfortunately, the most vocal gun rights advocates are not reasonable and thus their arguments are more likely to make the bad arguments of gun control advocates -- which are unreasonable due to faulty premises rather than due to faulty reasoning -- seem more rational to the public by comparison.
 
2013-04-17 09:32:22 PM  

StoPPeRmobile: BilltheThrill: Remember, if you say something as an actor on a TV show, you must support that position for the rest of your life.

It's OK if you are a whore for a little while, right?


Well sure.  I mean if Adam Baldwin played John Wayne Gacy's dad in a movie he must totally support pedophilia.
 
2013-04-17 09:32:35 PM  

LordZorch: At this point I'm pretty sure the stupid tag is Jay Mohr and the submittard.  Baldwin has always been an idiot, so he doesn't need a tag....


You're probably thinking of a different Baldwin
 
2013-04-17 09:34:03 PM  
I won't share my opinion on the Second Amendment, but I want to defend Jay Mohr's comedy.  I frankly don't give a damn about his political stance, (nor any other celebrity, for that matter) but I love his podcast and his new radio show.

Dude's a hundred percenter.
 
2013-04-17 09:34:20 PM  

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


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

It's not that they shouldn't be mandatory, It's that they are touting it as a solution to something entirely unrelated.
 
2013-04-17 09:34:25 PM  

Your_Huckleberry: Dimensio: 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.

You are mistaken; expanding background checks would not be unreasonable.

Personally, background checks don't bother me because I know I'll pass them. I live in California, strict gun laws are old hat here. But, I can say that there are folks out there who do not want universal checks based on the idea of a national or federal registry. The idea of the big bad goverment having you and your smokewagon on a list really bothers some people. Remember the scene in the original Red Dawn, where the Cuban paratrooper commander is telling his men to head to the court house to get the names of all the gun owners? I know, I know, not a documentary, but I have at least two friends who think that scene is a fantastic indicator of what "they" want to do.


If I were a dictator it would be the first thing I would do.
 
2013-04-17 09:35:01 PM  

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

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

Because life is compromise, and sometimes to keep the same-sex marriage you've got to lose the 2nd amendment issue.

The guns that are killing police in NYC and Chicago (just to trot out an overly cliche, trite example) aren't the guns that are being used for game and sport in rural areas. But as of right now, when you say "gun control" and you don't make that differentiation it spells trouble for moderates and blue-dogs in those areas.

A kickass messaging campaign would go a long ways towards this. Blow off the NRA and consider embracing the GOA wholeheartedly, who seem to be more responsible gun owners and less of a shill for the firearms industry. Offer firearms safety courses (hunter's safety courses) throughout these areas to teach safe, responsible firearm ownership. And blanket every form of media available with a simple message explaining that hunting and sport are a part of this country's past, and any gun control legislation being considered is not aimed at these weapons. Open with that, and people will be open to the background checks and banning some of the more insane death-dealers out there today.


I like that idea. I've never been part of the NRA, but am in GOA. I also think, though, that there are probably folks on the gun control side that specifically want to take on the NRA. LaPierre and the NRA are the big boogymen right now. The only issue with what you say there that I'd point out is that there are firearms(specifially the AR family) that are used for hunting and target shooting, and legislation aimed at them is therefore aimed at hunting and sporting firearms-in that case. Other than that, I like your suggestion.
 
2013-04-17 09:35:12 PM  
Ahh yes, gun control. The issue that makes Democrats use fear to push their agenda.
 
2013-04-17 09:36:03 PM  

StoPPeRmobile: If I were a dictator it would be the first thing I would do.


I'd buy out all the newspapers.

Information is more important then firepower.
 
2013-04-17 09:37:00 PM  

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.
 
2013-04-17 09:37:21 PM  

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


It's assault weapon terrorism bombing control now.
 
2013-04-17 09:39:52 PM  

fluffy2097: machoprogrammer: Ahh yes, gun control. The issue that makes Democrats use fear to push their agenda.

It's assault weapon terrorism bombing control now.


"Assault weapons" is on the outs, as is "military-style weapons", because nobody bought what they were selling. Now it's "rapid-fire weapons". You have to admire the persistence.
 
2013-04-17 09:40:11 PM  

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


Fair enough.

Shall we compare this to the list of issues where Republicans use fear to push their agenda?
 
2013-04-17 09:40:44 PM  

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


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

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


Then the government would still have artillery, flamethrowers, tanks, planes, explosives, cruise missiles and nukes. Oddly, no one is throwing a fit about not being able to similarly arm themselves.
 
2013-04-17 09:40:47 PM  
On the plus side, if hell freezes over and we repeal the Second Amendment we'll still have plentiful guns because people don't follow gun laws so why even care?
 
2013-04-17 09:41:27 PM  

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


Sigh. "Fear to push their propaganda". Republican projection is so tiring.
 
2013-04-17 09:41:36 PM  

Adolf Oliver Nipples: "Assault weapons" is on the outs, as is "military-style weapons", because nobody bought what they were selling. Now it's "rapid-fire weapons". You have to admire the persistence.


Military-style rapid fire high capacity assault terrorism pressure cookers?
 
2013-04-17 09:41:47 PM  

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


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

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


If you believe in democracy, then WE ARE THE GOVERNMENT!  How the hell can people say "WE'RE THE GREATEST DEMOCRACY IN THE WORLD!"  and then in the very same breath worry about "GOVERNMENT" taking away their rights?  You can't have it both ways!
 
2013-04-17 09:43:02 PM  

fluffy2097: StoPPeRmobile: If I were a dictator it would be the first thing I would do.

I'd buy out all the newspapers.

Information is more important then firepower.


If I were Dictator, I would ban firearms, and shut down the internet until I had 'fixed' google to only display information that I wanted it to display.  Unlimited access to the information that I would want to rabble to have.  Finally, government ownership of every industry.
 
2013-04-17 09:44:13 PM  

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

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


Ah, the old standby
 
2013-04-17 09:45:03 PM  
Herman Borrach:
Then the government would still have artillery, flamethrowers, tanks, planes, explosives, cruise missiles and nukes. Oddly, no one is throwing a fit about not being able to similarly arm themselves.

Because Americans assume that American soldiers would be reticent to murder their own countrymen with flame throwers.

/They also assume correctly.
 
2013-04-17 09:45:17 PM  

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

Fair enough.

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


Oops this is the one I meant to quote
 
2013-04-17 09:46:48 PM  

Great Janitor: If I were Dictator, I would ban firearms, and shut down the internet until I had 'fixed' google to only display information that I wanted it to display. Unlimited access to the information that I would want to rabble to have. Finally, government ownership of every industry.


Information first. Information and infrastructure always come first in any war.

Then they won't even know that you took away the guns if you control the flow of information.

They'd just wake up and be criminals that you could arrest without anyone reporting on it.
 
2013-04-17 09:47:36 PM  

Adolf Oliver Nipples: Stop talking about it and DO IT. You know how, the Constitution tells you how.

What's that you say? You can't do it? Then shut the fark up about it.


Kind of like how the right has totally shut up about abortion?
 
2013-04-17 09:49:14 PM  

fluffy2097: Herman Borrach:
Then the government would still have artillery, flamethrowers, tanks, planes, explosives, cruise missiles and nukes. Oddly, no one is throwing a fit about not being able to similarly arm themselves.

Because Americans assume that American soldiers would be reticent to murder their own countrymen with flame throwers.

/They also assume correctly.


Yup.

Also please note we use(d) these things in Afghanistan and Iraq and somehow our people still keep getting killed.  Plus you can have a flamethrower and a tank and a plane and explosives... I wonder what it's like to be that uninformed about something I voice so many stupid opinions on.
 
2013-04-17 09:51:59 PM  

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

Fair enough.

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

Why not?  Nobody recognizes the 4th any longer.


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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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


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

jedihirsch: JAYNE COBB IS RIGHT.

How dare you question him

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


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

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

Fair enough.

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

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


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

AeAe: What if the government turns on the people?


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

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

Jay Mohr, you're not helping.


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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


To be fair, you are in the politics tab.

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

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

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


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

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


You've revealed yourself to be an idiot?

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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


so because the citizenry is out gunned that we should give up all our weaponry?  Is that what you're saying?
 
2013-04-17 10:17:36 PM  

24.media.tumblr.com
You can take my gun from my cold dead hands.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Fair enough.

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To be fair, you are in the politics tab.

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


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

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


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

//What I'd like to see being discussed is the _fourth_ amendment, as that seems to be the one we're blatantly ignoring half the time anyhow.
 
2013-04-17 10:35:47 PM  

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

...
shows an extreme ignorance of history.  Someone else having bigger guns doesn't magically make smaller guns less capable of killing people, resistance movements throughout history, including most of the successful ones, were massively outgunned by their opponents.  And yet the US, Ireland, and France all appear to be independent nations now.  Hm.
 
2013-04-17 10:39:48 PM  

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

jedihirsch: JAYNE COBB IS RIGHT.

How dare you question him

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

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


No both are assholes and you're one too for picking sides
 
2013-04-17 10:45:02 PM  
I shall keep my right to bear arms as long as there are bears for me to cut the arms off!
 
2013-04-17 10:45:43 PM  
  I'm new to this whole gun debate. Can anyone give me the elevator pitch?
 
2013-04-17 10:48:09 PM  

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


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

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


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


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

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

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


The mail isn't angry at anyone.

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

Typical liberal hypocrite douche.


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

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

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


I seem to remember Iraqi insurgents having plenty of guns and IEDs, which made life not so easy for our troops over there. That, and if the populace has guns, tyranny is going to be hard to establish in the first place.
 
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 10:58:42 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 11:19:59 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 11:32:26 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 11:43:53 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.
 
2013-04-18 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.
 
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 12:50:38 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 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.
 
2013-04-18 02:52:51 AM  

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.
 
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.
 
2013-04-18 08:46:24 AM  
To all parties involved:

img.photobucket.com
 
2013-04-18 08:53:24 AM  
I don't know what if anything should be done about the amendment.  Since we can not have an intelligent discussion without demonizing anyone who disagrees with us, we cannot possibly come up with a coherent much less intelligent answer.

But I do know this.  Doing it in response to a single horrifying incident is wrong.  Making any decision out of fear is unAmerican.  Look at the Patriot act, a moment of panic and fear, and now we cannot get any of those rights back.


Gun violence, and mass violence is a horror.  Please please think a moment, take a breath, maybe hear why someone else disagrees with you.  Only then can we figure this out and protect ourselves, AND our rights.
 
2013-04-18 08:56:29 AM  

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


If he'd bought the bomb at Bob's Bomb Store, I'd blame out lax bomb laws.
 
2013-04-18 08:56:52 AM  

hideous: Making any decision out of fear is unAmerican


Not for more than the last 11 years it isn't.
 
2013-04-18 08:58:08 AM  
And here I thought the Stupid tag was a reference to the fact that there is any coverage of either one of their opinions. Opinions are like a-holes, everyone has one and nobody cares about others.
 
2013-04-18 09:10:41 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: 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.


No I haven't. I simply don't accept some internet dullard's hamfisted attempt to group me with strangers. BTW, what kind of loser catalogs fark threads?

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?


You're telling me that guns don't keep you safe from crazy people? That's going to break a lot of hearts.
 
2013-04-18 09:18:23 AM  

MisterRonbo: 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 think the gun's time is actually drawing to a close.

As technology gets better and we become more expert at storing and releasing energy, weapons like lasers and coil guns will become more of a thing (especially when 3d printing makes them easier to manufacture and they have no dependence on explosives or quality metal work).
By the time you've got a consumer model 3d printer that can do the work, you'll have dozens of new ways for humans to harm each other that are not gunpowder dependant.

It will be beyond the domain of government to prevent people from owning weapons by the old method.   We will have to choose between punishing offenders after the fact or preemptively barring knowledge and technology from open public access, because you won't have the option to simply register weapons.

We will have to decide if our fellow humans are citizens with rights or serfs to be ruled.
 
2013-04-18 09:23:12 AM  
What I said..

 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?

What you got out of it..

You're telling me that guns don't keep you safe from crazy people? That's going to break a lot of hearts.

You might want to attend those reading classes you've been skipping.  No, nobody claimed a gun is a magical shield that keeps you from any and all injury, we claim that they give you a chance to stay alive in many situations, however.
 
2013-04-18 09:30:55 AM  

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.

If that were actually true and not a made up number it would have passed with ease.

 
2013-04-18 09:51:03 AM  
Could undermine his fledgling talk sports show.  Plenty of guys who would have listened to slam man because he is a reasonably good host, will tune out because they disagree with his politics.  That is another way Jim Rome was, and always will be, better - he left his politics at the doorstep when he walked into the studio.
 
2013-04-18 09:52:42 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: What I said..

 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?

What you got out of it..

You're telling me that guns don't keep you safe from crazy people? That's going to break a lot of hearts.

You might want to attend those reading classes you've been skipping.  No, nobody claimed a gun is a magical shield that keeps you from any and all injury, we claim that they give you a chance to stay alive in many situations, however.


But statiscally it's been proven that the opposite is true* ... Your gut feelings aside.


*Now isn't that fascinating .. I just tried to google a citation to back up the fact (that I've read many times in a variety of online and print publications) that people are in more danger in a home with guns than without and what were 6 of the top 10 results? Gun control "debunking" sites.

How strange that Google would produce opposite results to what I searched for .. It's almost like someone has spent a shiat-ton of money SEOing that black is white.

The top link was this little gem: http://rense.com/general32/nine.htm A kooky-Times-New-Roman-Drudge-stylesheet-sucky-blog.

Top link from an actual news source? Ana Marie Cox (phwoar!) in the Guardian saying how rubbish Obama's gun control attempts have been

AND my local shop is out of tin-foil .... WTF!

/glad I live in England and don't have to deal with any of you Roy Rogers phallus obsessed farkers

/you're all stoopid
 
2013-04-18 09:52:52 AM  

TheShavingofOccam123: BOMB GOES OFF; 2.1% OF VICTIMS DIE

BUSHMASTER GOES OFF; 93% OF VICTIMS DIE


Really?  You mean bomb goes off in Boston a week ago.  Bomb goes off in Oklahoma City and that percentage changes a bit, huh?  Don't ever think a bomb is less destructive than a bullet, that is really bad.
 
2013-04-18 10:06:01 AM  

jaybeezey: 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.

If that were actually true and not a made up number it would have passed with ease.


As of last week,   only 4% of Americans thing gun control is the most important problem facing America.  Even after Sandy Hook, it never got higher than 6%.

The support for gun control may be widespread, but it's shallow compared to things like the economy (24%), unemployment (18%), federal budget deficit (11%), and general dissatisfaction with government (16%).

Opposition to gun control may be a bit narrower, but it's *MUCH* deeper, and much more grass-roots.  That's how the NRA can influence the process:  It's not a mere matter of money.  Mayor Bloomberg's gun control group, MAIG, has spent just as much money as the NRA in the last election, but the NRA can deliver (or deny) something that MAIG can't: grassroots activism and votes, and that, in the end, is all politicians really care about.
 
2013-04-18 10:06:14 AM  
i48.photobucket.com
 
2013-04-18 10:08:47 AM  

way south: 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?


Only about 3 or 4 percent of that 90 percent would actually vote against a candidate for not supporting background checks, which again is a problem among the voting populace, not within the system.  Just because 90 percent of people give a certain answer to a poll doesn't mean they put one shred of thought into the question when they're not being asked about it.  This is a problem of depth vs. breadth that comes up a lot in studies of polling and policy.

It's the gun owners who don't want to see any reform passed that actually take the time to call their congressmen, get out on the streets in protest and get the (lack of) policy they want as a result.

I'm not trying to white knight for politicians or suggest that our system isn't broken, but as long as so many of our policy decisions come down to regular people getting out and casting ballots, we really have no excuse beyond the rampant ignorance and anti-intellectualism that plagues American culture.
 
2013-04-18 10:18:19 AM  

dittybopper: jaybeezey: 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.

If that were actually true and not a made up number it would have passed with ease.

As of last week,   only 4% of Americans thing gun control is the most important problem facing America.  Even after Sandy Hook, it never got higher than 6%.

The support for gun control may be widespread, but it's shallow compared to things like the economy (24%), unemployment (18%), federal budget deficit (11%), and general dissatisfaction with government (16%).

Opposition to gun control may be a bit narrower, but it's *MUCH* deeper, and much more grass-roots.  That's how the NRA can influence the process:  It's not a mere matter of money.  Mayor Bloomberg's gun control group, MAIG, has spent just as much money as the NRA in the last election, but the NRA can deliver (or deny) something that MAIG can't: grassroots activism and votes, and that, in the end, is all politicians really care about.



Check my massive poll! It's deep and not at all narrow:
46% Of Americans believe in Creationism
 
2013-04-18 10:19:35 AM  

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,


I am anti-religion, but I don't want to see the first amendment changed to get rid of the "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"to stop other people from worshiping whatever make believe monster they want.
 
2013-04-18 10:20:34 AM  
The vote against was most likely due to riders in the bill that the general public doesn't know about. That being said, who really gives a flying fark what Mohr thinks?
 
2013-04-18 10:28:19 AM  

Mr. Cat Poop: 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,

I am anti-religion, but I don't want to see the first amendment changed to get rid of the "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"to stop other people from worshiping whatever make believe monster they want.


Because of course gun ownership and freedom of expression are equally important.  You can't have a democracy or freedom without both.

/This is what gun nuts actually believe.
 
2013-04-18 10:42:41 AM  

The Name: Mr. Cat Poop: 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,

I am anti-religion, but I don't want to see the first amendment changed to get rid of the "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"to stop other people from worshiping whatever make believe monster they want.

Because of course gun ownership and freedom of expression are equally important.  You can't have a democracy or freedom without both.

/This is what gun nuts actually believe.




Just for grins, name one civilization that disarmed the populace then brought democracy?
 
2013-04-18 10:44:24 AM  

Mrfusticle: But statiscally it's been proven that the opposite is true* ... Your gut feelings aside.


12,000 gun deaths vs 80,000 alcohol deaths.  You're lying.

Mrfusticle: *Now isn't that fascinating .. I just tried to google a citation to back up the fact (that I've read many times in a variety of online and print publications) that people are in more danger in a home with guns than without and what were 6 of the top 10 results? Gun control "debunking" sites.

How strange that Google would produce opposite results to what I searched for .. It's almost like someone has spent a shiat-ton of money SEOing that black is white.


You sound paranoid.
 
2013-04-18 10:53:37 AM  
That settles it then. With both Mohr and Wheaton angry at the 2nd Amendment/NRA I think it's really time for some changes guys! The has-been/never-was voice will be heard!
 
2013-04-18 10:53:48 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Mrfusticle: But statiscally it's been proven that the opposite is true* ... Your gut feelings aside.

12,000 gun deaths vs 80,000 alcohol deaths.  You're lying.

Mrfusticle: *Now isn't that fascinating .. I just tried to google a citation to back up the fact (that I've read many times in a variety of online and print publications) that people are in more danger in a home with guns than without and what were 6 of the top 10 results? Gun control "debunking" sites.

How strange that Google would produce opposite results to what I searched for .. It's almost like someone has spent a shiat-ton of money SEOing that black is white.

You sound paranoid.


Hence my tin-foil joke that you didn't quote, Buckaroo.

Like I said, I don't live over there so you can shoot as many kids in the face as you like.. I was just trying to give a indication of the amused/revolted face most of us in the rest of the world* have with your hair-splitting bollocks on this subject.

/yes, I know y'all don't give two shiats what we think
//stop killing brown people if you don't care then

*here is your citation
 
2013-04-18 10:58:54 AM  

StoPPeRmobile: The Name: Mr. Cat Poop: 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,

I am anti-religion, but I don't want to see the first amendment changed to get rid of the "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"to stop other people from worshiping whatever make believe monster they want.

Because of course gun ownership and freedom of expression are equally important.  You can't have a democracy or freedom without both.

/This is what gun nuts actually believe.

Just for grins, name one civilization that disarmed the populace then brought democracy?


History isn't a goddamn moebius strip.

And in any case, I can name plenty that had democracy and then managed to "disarm" the populace without falling into tyranny -pretty much all of Western Europe, for example.
 
2013-04-18 11:06:29 AM  
The Name:Because of course gun ownership and freedom of expression are equally important.  You can't have a democracy or freedom without both.

/This is what gun nuts actually believe.


So some rights are more important than others? I disagree.
Expression and self-defense are both fundamental human rights, guy.


MrFusticle:
  *Now isn't that fascinating .. I just tried to google a citation to back up the fact (that I've read many times in a variety of online and print publications) that people are in more danger in a home with guns than without and what were 6 of the top 10 results? Gun control "debunking" sites.

How strange that Google would produce opposite results to what I searched for .. It's almost like someone has spent a shiat-ton of money SEOing that black is white.


You're talking Kellerman stats. Lets just check wikipedia here. You can use this as a launchpad to find deeper analysis and critique by other researches. I won't handhold you through it.
I'll quote a bit.

"Several academic papers have been published severely questioning Kellerman's methodology, selective capture of data, and refusal to provide raw data from his gun-risk studies so as to substantiate his methods and result validity. While Kellerman has backed away from his previous statement that people are "43 times more likely" to be murdered in their own home if they own and keep a gun in their home, he still proposes that the risk is 2.7 times higher. The critiques included Henry E. Schaffer, J. Neil Schuman, and criminologists Gary Kleck, Don Kates, and others."

I'm a scientist, and whenever somebody refuses to release methodology and data it fires up all of my B.S. alarms.
 
2013-04-18 11:16:07 AM  

utsagrad123: As the winner of his Twitter Hat Trick contest today, I'm really getting a kick



Ihhh maymee fill gray, yuno

/Hey, Matty boy!
//Don, man.
////Your head ain't right, Matty.
////Hey, Matty!
//I AM THE CHAMPION
//Loo-SEEEanna!
///Its very, very sensitive
//No, no, no, no, no, no, no
//Ihhh maymee fill gray, yuno
 
2013-04-18 11:16:59 AM  

BayouOtter: self-defense


which has absolutely nothing to do with the second amendment.
 
2013-04-18 11:21:04 AM  

The Name: BayouOtter: self-defense

which has absolutely nothing to do with the second amendment.


Yes, it does. (Do you have some arguments, or is this going to be just a 'yes huh!' 'no way!' back and forth until some hair is pulled?)
 
2013-04-18 11:21:52 AM  

utsagrad123: As the winner of his Twitter Hat Trick contest today, I'm really getting a kick



whoa.  you really are the THT.

I doff my hat, sir.  I have never been read even once.  I've called in a few times (when the show started and it was easy to get on) but haven't been read yet.
 
2013-04-18 11:25:05 AM  

rickythepenguin: utsagrad123: As the winner of his Twitter Hat Trick contest today, I'm really getting a kick


whoa.  you really are the THT.

I doff my hat, sir.  I have never been read even once.  I've called in a few times (when the show started and it was easy to get on) but haven't been read yet.


Lol yeah.   It's really random sometimes.  Sometimes I send it some really funny stuff and it never gets read.  Other times I send in half assed jokes and they get read.  There's no real rhyme or reason to it...  Kinda like getting headlines greenlit on Fark.
 
2013-04-18 11:27:03 AM  

The Name: which has absolutely nothing to do with the second amendment.


True, but it's perfectly reasonable to conclude that such an explicit "right to bear arms" would include the right to use said arms in all ways not deemed unlawful.

Unless, of course, you're in the minority who believes the 2nd guarantees no such private ownership right, which I believe you are.
 
2013-04-18 11:29:46 AM  

GoldSpider: The Name: which has absolutely nothing to do with the second amendment.

True, but it's perfectly reasonable to conclude that such an explicit "right to bear arms" would include the right to use said arms in all ways not deemed unlawful.

Unless, of course, you're in the minority who believes the 2nd guarantees no such private ownership right, which I believe you are.


Also in the minority:

upload.wikimedia.org
upload.wikimedia.org
upload.wikimedia.org
upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-04-18 11:32:20 AM  

CPennypacker: GoldSpider: The Name: which has absolutely nothing to do with the second amendment.

True, but it's perfectly reasonable to conclude that such an explicit "right to bear arms" would include the right to use said arms in all ways not deemed unlawful.

Unless, of course, you're in the minority who believes the 2nd guarantees no such private ownership right, which I believe you are.

Also in the minority:


I see you didn't actually read the minority opinions.
 
2013-04-18 11:33:32 AM  

CPennypacker: Also in the minority:

upload.wikimedia.org
upload.wikimedia.org
upload.wikimedia.org
upload.wikimedia.org


A truth that is... interesting... to say the least.
 
2013-04-18 11:34:59 AM  

BayouOtter: The Name: BayouOtter: self-defense

which has absolutely nothing to do with the second amendment.

Yes, it does. (Do you have some arguments, or is this going to be just a 'yes huh!' 'no way!' back and forth until some hair is pulled?)


If the all-holy Founding Fathers had intended the second amendment to be a guarantee of persons' ability to ensure their personal protection, and not a provision ensuring states' abilities to raise militias, then they would have farking said so.  You can't stretch the semiotics of the constitution to get whatever the hell you want out of it.

Also, most of the other amendments are reactions to restrictions on liberties that had been placed on the colonies by England, the third amendment being the most obvious example.  Did King George ever pass a decree that people couldn't protect themselves when attacked by a mugger or rapist?  Was government's forcing people to let criminals do whatever they want to them a serious concern in the eighteenth century?  Indeed, has that ever been a concern anywhere?

This "self-protection" argument about the second amendment is an anachronism.  It has deeper roots in late twentieth century crime wave panic and anti-government paranoia than it does in the Enlightenment.
 
2013-04-18 11:37:30 AM  

BayouOtter: CPennypacker: GoldSpider: The Name: which has absolutely nothing to do with the second amendment.

True, but it's perfectly reasonable to conclude that such an explicit "right to bear arms" would include the right to use said arms in all ways not deemed unlawful.

Unless, of course, you're in the minority who believes the 2nd guarantees no such private ownership right, which I believe you are.

Also in the minority:

I see you didn't actually read the minority opinions.


how so?
 
2013-04-18 11:43:05 AM  
About the Breyer dissent (wiki):  "It proposes that firearms laws be reviewed by balancing the interests (i.e., "'interest-balancing' approach") of Second Amendment protections against the government's compelling interest of preventing crime."

An unsettling assertion, considering how frequently the "government's compelling interest of preventing crime/terrorism" seems to supersede our other supposedly-guaranteed rights.
 
2013-04-18 11:45:02 AM  
The Name:
If the all-holy Founding Fathers

Woah, I'm sorry, you must be from some other reality where America is a crazy theocracy with the Founding Fathers as Saints or Prophets. Please go back and stay away.

Also, most of the other amendments are reactions to restrictions on liberties that had been placed on the colonies by England, the third amendment being the most obvious example.  Did King George ever pass a decree that people couldn't protect themselves

The British monarchy was sort of obsessed with seizing arms and obtaining a complete monopoly on force, so yes.
 
2013-04-18 11:52:39 AM  

CPennypacker: Also in the minority:


Funny. Allegedly no individual right yet no one has done anything about it for hundreds of years. Seems legit.
 
2013-04-18 12:01:45 PM  
I wonder what other individual rights I have by accident and no one noticed.
 
2013-04-18 12:03:45 PM  
 
2013-04-18 12:10:49 PM  

The Name: StoPPeRmobile: The Name: Mr. Cat Poop: 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,

I am anti-religion, but I don't want to see the first amendment changed to get rid of the "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"to stop other people from worshiping whatever make believe monster they want.

Because of course gun ownership and freedom of expression are equally important.  You can't have a democracy or freedom without both.

/This is what gun nuts actually believe.

Just for grins, name one civilization that disarmed the populace then brought democracy?

History isn't a goddamn moebius strip.

And in any case, I can name plenty that had democracy and then managed to "disarm" the populace without falling into tyranny -pretty much all of Western Europe, for example.




Aren't those all representative democracies?

Not the same.
 
2013-04-18 12:22:39 PM  

The Name: And in any case, I can name plenty that had democracy and then managed to "disarm" the populace without falling into tyranny -pretty much all of Western Europe, for example.


That's only true if you only count the last 60 years of history, which seems to me to be pretty short sighted.  History didn't start when your mother was born, you know.
 
2013-04-18 12:24:06 PM  

BayouOtter: The Name: BayouOtter: self-defense

which has absolutely nothing to do with the second amendment.

Yes, it does. (Do you have some arguments, or is this going to be just a 'yes huh!' 'no way!' back and forth until some hair is pulled?)


All the arguments have been played out. At least logically, they have. So, now we deal with irrational. Yay!
 
2013-04-18 12:31:08 PM  

The Name: Mr. Cat Poop: 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,

I am anti-religion, but I don't want to see the first amendment changed to get rid of the "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"to stop other people from worshiping whatever make believe monster they want.

Because of course gun ownership and freedom of expression are equally important.  You can't have a democracy or freedom without both.

/This is what gun nuts actually believe.


My point is that if you start carving up the second amendment, then the first might be next. And instead of removing the "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" I'm afraid the retarded Christian right wing nutjobs will get enough power to remove the "shall make no law establishing" part. I don't want to live in a theocracy. And my guns are locked up in a safe at home. I don't have a problem with background checks and training, I do have a problem with disarming citizens because some people wet their pants whenever someone dies from violence. It certainly wasn't guns that killed and maimed the people in Boston. Are we gonna start taking away pressure cookers now?
 
2013-04-18 12:36:16 PM  

Mr. Cat Poop: My point is that if you start carving up the second amendment, then the first might be next.


What do you mean "might be"?  This started happening long ago.
 
2013-04-18 12:47:25 PM  

Mr. Cat Poop: The Name: Mr. Cat Poop: 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,

I am anti-religion, but I don't want to see the first amendment changed to get rid of the "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"to stop other people from worshiping whatever make believe monster they want.

Because of course gun ownership and freedom of expression are equally important.  You can't have a democracy or freedom without both.

/This is what gun nuts actually believe.

My point is that if you start carving up the second amendment, then the first might be next. And instead of removing the "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" I'm afraid the retarded Christian right wing nutjobs will get enough power to remove the "shall make no law establishing" part. I don't want to live in a theocracy. And my guns are locked up in a safe at home. I don't have a problem with background checks and training, I do have a problem with disarming citizens because some people wet their pants whenever someone dies from violence. It certainly wasn't guns that killed and maimed the people in Boston. Are we gonna start taking away pressure cookers now?




Due process is no longer needed in out technologically-advanced, modern society. It only hinders Law Enforcement. If all people were forced to obey then there would be no need for rights. We would all be safe.
 
2013-04-18 12:55:58 PM  
Spell-check makes me lazy.
 
2013-04-18 12:59:03 PM  

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.

Oh, and major props for the Nikki Cox shotgun to the face joke upthread a ways.  LOL



You sir need to read the current laws and stop listening to idiots on TV.

The Gun control act of 1968 requires any person that makes a living selling firearms or ammunition to have an FFL. They require mail order (includes internet) sales to go through an FFL (The brady bill requires all firearms purchases through an FFL pass a background check even ones at gun shows). Bullets designed to be armor piercing are not for sale to the general public. The machine gun registery was closed in 1986 - no new machineguns can be sold to civilians. The ones made before 1986 have shot up in value to prices that are beyond the reach of almost anyone other than your rich uncle. (15000+ for any rifle caliber machinegun). Not to mention the fact you have to have a local DA, Police Chief, or Sherrif sign off on the paperwork, send fingerprints and photos, pay 200 extra, AND wait 6mo to a year for atf to approve the transfer.

On assault rifles -

Google ruger mini14 ranch rifle.

Google AR-15

Google Barret 50cal

Google M4

One of those is an assault rifle - the other three are semiauto rifles. the semi means one pull of the trigger fires a round and loads the next but does not fire it even if the trigger is held down. An Assault Rifle can fire full auto - meaning you can hold the trigger down and as long as there are bullets it will fire.

As for converting a semi auto to a full auto the ATF gives a ruling on EVERY weapon produced by an FFL- They test for violations of the law and an easily coverted semi to full auto breaks the law.

As it sits the ONLY area where our "firearms laws" fall down is the fact that law enforcement can't go and find out if someone has ever been treated for a mental disorder.

Patient healthcare data is protected by several laws, but the most well known are Hipaa  and the privacy act of 1974. They cover who can and can't look at medical records and the penalties associated with sharing that information.

So you're complaint is not with gun control laws it's with patient privacy laws and any person who's ever had the clap, been raped, had a penile reduction, a boob job, a mastectomy, nose job, lap band, Viagra perscription, etc will be fighting to keep that information private.

So enjoy your crusade to open med records up to inspection I'll be watching with popcorn.

Sources so you know I'm not blowing smoke:

USC 18 sec 82 stat 1213 (guncontrol act of 1968)
18 U.S.C. § 921 et seq (FOPA - closed the machine gun registry in 1986 modified by the brady bill in the 90's for NICS)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_carbine">http://en.wikipedia.org/wik i/M4_carbine

http://www.ruger.com/products/mini14RanchRifle/models.html">http://w ww.ruger.com/products/mini14RanchRifle/models.html \

http://barrett.net/firearms/model82a1">http://barrett.net/firearms/m odel82a1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR- 15

http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/understanding/coveredentities/go v taccess.html"

http://www.gunbroker.com/Machine-Guns/BI.aspx?Keywords=Full+auto">ht tp://www.gunbroker.com/Machine-Guns/BI.aspx?Keywords=Full+auto

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/national-firearms-act-processing-time s .html">http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/national-firearms-act-processi ng-times .html

If you're not convinced by this thats ok. Someone who was on the fence will read this post and be better informed.
 
2013-04-18 01:05:59 PM  

dittybopper: The Name: And in any case, I can name plenty that had democracy and then managed to "disarm" the populace without falling into tyranny -pretty much all of Western Europe, for example.

That's only true if you only count the last 60 years of history, which seems to me to be pretty short sighted.  History didn't start when your mother was born, you know.


And as I've already said twice in this thread, history isn't a goddamn moebius strip.
 
2013-04-18 01:17:22 PM  

The Name: dittybopper: The Name: And in any case, I can name plenty that had democracy and then managed to "disarm" the populace without falling into tyranny -pretty much all of Western Europe, for example.

That's only true if you only count the last 60 years of history, which seems to me to be pretty short sighted.  History didn't start when your mother was born, you know.

And as I've already said twice in this thread, history isn't a goddamn moebius strip.


Yes, it's more like rolling dice of infinite sides.

But those are not democracies they are representative democracies. Think classic-era Greece for true democracy.
 
2013-04-18 01:19:40 PM  

The Name: And as I've already said twice in this thread, history isn't a goddamn moebius strip.


I'm not really sure what that is supposed to mean, but if I can guess from the context of this discussion, it means we have nothing to learn from the past.
 
2013-04-18 01:28:35 PM  

Mr. Cat Poop: My point is that if you start carving up the second amendment, then the first might be next. And instead of removing the "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" I'm afraid the retarded Christian right wing nutjobs will get enough power to remove the "shall make no law establishing" part. I don't want to live in a theocracy.


You zany Americans are always good for a laugh. Seriously, if you're that scared that if you don't have guns your democracy will inevitably fall apart, then maybe it wasn't much of a democracy to begin with.

After some prick used an AR-15 with a 30 round magazine to kill 35 people and wound 21 others in 1996, we Aussies banned that shiat posthaste. In the 17 years since, I haven't seen any signs of our country falling into tyranny or theocracy.

And nothing whatsoever of value was lost.

Maybe we just don't live in enough fear.

Mind you, I have to concede that if we had more politicians like the former GOP Presidential candidate Rick Perry advocating for creationism in schools, executing the intellectually disabled, and denying our fellow citizens proper healthcare, we might be a bit more worried.

cesinaction.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-04-18 01:52:02 PM  

StoPPeRmobile: The Name: Mr. Cat Poop: 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,

I am anti-religion, but I don't want to see the first amendment changed to get rid of the "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"to stop other people from worshiping whatever make believe monster they want.

Because of course gun ownership and freedom of expression are equally important.  You can't have a democracy or freedom without both.

/This is what gun nuts actually believe.

Just for grins, name one civilization that disarmed the populace then brought democracy?


Japan, England, pretty much everyone but the U.S. What was your point?
 
2013-04-18 01:58:08 PM  
Tman144:

Japan, England, pretty much everyone but the U.S. What was your point?

England is now a civilization?

lol
 
2013-04-18 02:01:25 PM  

fluffy2097: Tman144:

Japan, England, pretty much everyone but the U.S. What was your point?

England is now a civilization?

lol



Yep.

xbox360media.ign.com
Says so right there. "Select you civilization."
 
2013-04-18 02:01:30 PM  

Trapper439: Mr. Cat Poop: My point is that if you start carving up the second amendment, then the first might be next. And instead of removing the "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" I'm afraid the retarded Christian right wing nutjobs will get enough power to remove the "shall make no law establishing" part. I don't want to live in a theocracy.

You zany Americans are always good for a laugh. Seriously, if you're that scared that if you don't have guns your democracy will inevitably fall apart, then maybe it wasn't much of a democracy to begin with.

After some prick used an AR-15 with a 30 round magazine to kill 35 people and wound 21 others in 1996, we Aussies banned that shiat posthaste. In the 17 years since, I haven't seen any signs of our country falling into tyranny or theocracy.

And nothing whatsoever of value was lost.

Maybe we just don't live in enough fear.

Mind you, I have to concede that if we had more politicians like the former GOP Presidential candidate Rick Perry advocating for creationism in schools, executing the intellectually disabled, and denying our fellow citizens proper healthcare, we might be a bit more worried.

[cesinaction.files.wordpress.com image 340x461]


Your last paragraph nails it. This country is full of people that believe that America is a Christian nation and they are Hell-bent on shoving it down everyone's throats. These are people that passed a law to give vouchers to people so they can use government money to send their kids to religious schools. Then they started shiatting themselves when they realized the scary Muslims could use the vouchers too. I side with them on the second amendment issue because they just might unwittingly reinforce the first amendment along with it.
 
2013-04-18 02:43:02 PM  

Mr. Cat Poop: Your last paragraph nails it. This country is full of people that believe that America is a Christian nation and they are Hell-bent on shoving it down everyone's throats. These are people that passed a law to give vouchers to people so they can use government money to send their kids to religious schools. Then they started shiatting themselves when they realized the scary Muslims could use the vouchers too. I side with them on the second amendment issue because they just might unwittingly reinforce the first amendment along with it.


What you're saying here in that last sentence is really interesting to me. I'm genuinely curious about why you would think that reinforcement of the first amendment, "unwittingly" or otherwise, would be a bad thing, or, for that matter, in any way connected to the second amendment.

/too many commas
 
2013-04-18 02:50:31 PM  

The Name: dittybopper: The Name: And in any case, I can name plenty that had democracy and then managed to "disarm" the populace without falling into tyranny -pretty much all of Western Europe, for example.

That's only true if you only count the last 60 years of history, which seems to me to be pretty short sighted.  History didn't start when your mother was born, you know.

And as I've already said twice in this thread, history isn't a goddamn moebius strip.


No, but anyone with a passing familiarity with the subject knows that while history doesn't repeat itself, if does *RHYME*.  A lot.  The same sorts of things happen over and over, in slightly different ways.

The fact that you can't recognize the patterns speaks more to your limitations than anything else.
 
2013-04-18 02:59:40 PM  

Trapper439: Mr. Cat Poop: Your last paragraph nails it. This country is full of people that believe that America is a Christian nation and they are Hell-bent on shoving it down everyone's throats. These are people that passed a law to give vouchers to people so they can use government money to send their kids to religious schools. Then they started shiatting themselves when they realized the scary Muslims could use the vouchers too. I side with them on the second amendment issue because they just might unwittingly reinforce the first amendment along with it.

What you're saying here in that last sentence is really interesting to me. I'm genuinely curious about why you would think that reinforcement of the first amendment, "unwittingly" or otherwise, would be a bad thing, or, for that matter, in any way connected to the second amendment.

/too many commas


It wouldn't be a bad thing. They just can't see past one issue at a time, like the deal with the vouchers. They honestly did not see that other religions might use them. They only thought that they were helping Christians get out of the evil public schools. When a terrorist Muslim used the vouchers too then the fundies flipped the fark out. So if they spend all this effort to cement the Bill of Rights as untouchable to protect the second amendment, then it could have the unforeseen (to them) benefit of making them keep their mitts off the establishment clause in the future.
 
2013-04-18 03:03:26 PM  

Tman144: StoPPeRmobile: The Name: Mr. Cat Poop: 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,

I am anti-religion, but I don't want to see the first amendment changed to get rid of the "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"to stop other people from worshiping whatever make believe monster they want.

Because of course gun ownership and freedom of expression are equally important.  You can't have a democracy or freedom without both.

/This is what gun nuts actually believe.

Just for grins, name one civilization that disarmed the populace then brought democracy?

Japan, England, pretty much everyone but the U.S. What was your point?


Japan only became a democracy because to continue on it's tyrannical path it would have become a radioactive wasteland.  In other words, it was *IMPOSED* on them by outside forces (ie., the US).

Also, we regularly mock the UK as the "Nanny State" for stupid meddling in individual lives that would be blatantly unconstitutional in the US, and it wasn't always so.

In fact, our Second Amendment has solid roots in the rights of English subjects:  We didn't make it up out of whole-cloth in 1789.
 
2013-04-18 03:26:10 PM  

Mr. Cat Poop:  So if they spend all this effort to cement the Bill of Rights as untouchable to protect the second amendment, then it could have the unforeseen (to them) benefit of making them keep their mitts off the establishment clause in the future.



Ah, OK, I see where you're coming from now. You're saying that their staunch defense of the Constitution as they see it might come back to bite them on the ass later on. Thanks for clearing that up.

It's interesting to me how Americans seem to see the law as an integrated whole rather than an amalgam of rules for different issues*. Gotta go now, but have a good one.

/*Will check back later to see if I've profoundly missed your point
 
2013-04-18 05:13:50 PM  
Jay Mohr calls for repeal of Second Amendment on Twitter.


Yes if only the second amendment allowed us to pass background check and waiting periods for cook-wear this tragedy could have been averted.


FFS moonbats for once in your g.d. useless lives focus on the problem at hand, rather than leaching off the bodies of innocent and irrelevant people.
 
2013-04-18 05:46:44 PM  
I hate guns, but I wouldn't repeal the 2nd Amendment.

What I would ask is that we clarify it. It's an awful mess of an Amendment that seems to have been written by someone who was doing some heavy drugs a the time. The syntax is confusing and the point of it gets lost in the way it is phrased.

However, whatever happens, I just want the gun nuts to know that having all the rifles and shotguns in the world won't protect you if the federal government decides to go on the offensive against you. You're pretty stupid if you think holing up in your house with an arsenal will work against a nation that spends as much as we do on defense. We have tanks that will roll right over you and your house. We have satellites that can pinpoint you inside your house and point the missiles right at your front door. We have thousands of trained soldiers who WILL see you as the enemy if they are told to do so. We have weapons that will render your little gun-pile a puddle of slag. They have armor and vehicles that wouldn't be harmed AT ALL by anything you have in your little arsenal.

So if you think this whole survivalist thing is to protect you from the government, or to overthrow the government when they don't serve the people, you're living in a fantasy. There's no way an armed civilian militia will be able to revolt against the United States government in this day and age. The high-tech toys they have make your guns look like crappy slingshots, and your survival training look like cub scout meetings.
 
2013-04-18 08:26:05 PM  

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]


Explosives, and bombs specifically, are already under very tight legal controls.  Guns are not.  Obviously, people blame the actors in both cases.  That pic is stupid.
 
2013-04-18 08:39:27 PM  

dittybopper: Tman144: StoPPeRmobile: The Name: Mr. Cat Poop: 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,

I am anti-religion, but I don't want to see the first amendment changed to get rid of the "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"to stop other people from worshiping whatever make believe monster they want.

Because of course gun ownership and freedom of expression are equally important.  You can't have a democracy or freedom without both.

/This is what gun nuts actually believe.

Just for grins, name one civilization that disarmed the populace then brought democracy?

Japan, England, pretty much everyone but the U.S. What was your point?

Japan only became a democracy because to continue on it's tyrannical path it would have become a radioactive wasteland.  In other words, it was *IMPOSED* on them by outside forces (ie., the US).

Also, we regularly mock the UK as the "Nanny State" for stupid meddling in individual lives that would be blatantly unconstitutional in the US, and it wasn't always so.

In fact, our Second Amendment has solid roots in the rights of English subjects:  We didn't make it up out of whole-cloth in 1789.


Lol, bullshiat. The second amendment did not guarantee a personal right to bear arms until 2010.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chicago

Prior to the 14th amendment, if an individual state wanted to disarm its citizens there would have been NO argument from the Supreme Court. England has never had a personal, absolute, right to bear arms. The English bill of rights people like to cite simply transferred the power to take your guns away from the crown and gave it to parliament.

Nice try on moving the goalposts though.
 
2013-04-18 09:38:58 PM  

Tman144: Lol, bullshiat. The second amendment did not guarantee a personal right to bear arms until 2010.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chicago


It's interesting how gun grabbers believe that when the amendments refer to "the people" they mean individuals..that is, all the amendments except for the 2nd.
 
Displayed 407 of 407 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report