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 92
    More: Stupid, Jay Mohr, second amendment, Boston Marathon, 2nd amendment, Adam Baldwin, Twitter, Boston, Fox Sports Radio  
•       •       •

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



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-04-17 11:15:18 PM
6 votes:
sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net
2013-04-17 08:10:09 PM
6 votes:
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 08:43:32 PM
3 votes:

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 08:29:14 PM
3 votes:

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 08:24:31 PM
3 votes:

Nemo's Brother: Another liberal douche idiot.


www.moccasin.com.au
2013-04-17 08:23:18 PM
3 votes:
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That said I don't think the 2nd Amendment needs to be repealed.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 08:22:52 PM
3 votes:
Another liberal douche idiot.
2013-04-17 08:13:22 PM
3 votes:
The problem with the gun control debate is that it always involves idiots like these two.
2013-04-17 08:08:21 PM
3 votes:
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 08:08:07 PM
3 votes:
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.
2013-04-18 02:06:44 AM
2 votes:
Liberal douche bag actor speaks...and we listen? Why? We know they are morons....
2013-04-18 01:45:47 AM
2 votes:

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 12:30:44 AM
2 votes:
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 12:27:15 AM
2 votes:

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?
2013-04-17 11:07:46 PM
2 votes:

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 09:35:12 PM
2 votes:
Ahh yes, gun control. The issue that makes Democrats use fear to push their agenda.
2013-04-17 08:45:46 PM
2 votes:
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 08:43:24 PM
2 votes:

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 08:38:48 PM
2 votes:

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 08:36:48 PM
2 votes:

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 08:36:33 PM
2 votes:
Douchenozzle. Mohr, not Baldwin.
2013-04-17 08:35:20 PM
2 votes:

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 08:35:06 PM
2 votes:
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 08:34:00 PM
2 votes:
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 08:24:22 PM
2 votes:
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 08:21:16 PM
2 votes:
Jay Mohr can go to hell:

cdn2.mamapop.com
2013-04-17 08:14:55 PM
2 votes:
Remember, if you say something as an actor on a TV show, you must support that position for the rest of your life.
2013-04-17 08:14:27 PM
2 votes:

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!
2013-04-18 03:03:26 PM
1 votes:

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 02:50:31 PM
1 votes:

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 01:19:40 PM
1 votes:

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 11:06:29 AM
1 votes:
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 10:42:41 AM
1 votes:

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 09:52:52 AM
1 votes:

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 09:51:03 AM
1 votes:
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 09:30:55 AM
1 votes:

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 08:56:29 AM
1 votes:

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 08:53:24 AM
1 votes:
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 08:31:42 AM
1 votes:

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 07:03:23 AM
1 votes:

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 03:56:44 AM
1 votes:
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 03:40:18 AM
1 votes:

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 03:07:48 AM
1 votes:

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 02:59:48 AM
1 votes:

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 02:47:43 AM
1 votes:

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 01:33:03 AM
1 votes:
BOMB GOES OFF; 1 CHILD DIES

BUSHMASTER GOES OFF; 26 CHILDREN DIE
2013-04-18 01:07:17 AM
1 votes:

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 01:01:57 AM
1 votes:

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 01:01:50 AM
1 votes:
BOMB GOES OFF; 2.1% OF VICTIMS DIE

BUSHMASTER GOES OFF; 93% OF VICTIMS DIE
2013-04-18 12:55:26 AM
1 votes:
Cpl.D:
I agree with you completely.  The problem is those are all long term fixes and won't be done any time soon.  It addresses the long term issues nicely, but it doesn't do anything to reduce the number of massacres in the short term.

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

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

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

He killed more people that all the 'mass murder school rampage shootings' of the last 20 or 50 years with some paint thinner and a lighter.
2013-04-18 12:46:31 AM
1 votes:

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 12:43:44 AM
1 votes:

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 12:38:31 AM
1 votes:

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 12:37:15 AM
1 votes:

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 12:36:54 AM
1 votes:

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 12:32:32 AM
1 votes:
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 12:31:22 AM
1 votes:

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 12:30:57 AM
1 votes:

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.
2013-04-17 11:29:05 PM
1 votes:

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 11:14:39 PM
1 votes:

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 11:06:20 PM
1 votes:
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 10:52:35 PM
1 votes:

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 10:16:01 PM
1 votes:

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 10:10:12 PM
1 votes:
I think I've seen a few violent movies that he's been in.

Typical liberal hypocrite douche.
2013-04-17 10:09:59 PM
1 votes:

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 09:55:23 PM
1 votes:

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 09:37:00 PM
1 votes:

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 09:34:20 PM
1 votes:

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 09:31:15 PM
1 votes:
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 09:19:53 PM
1 votes:

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 09:07:20 PM
1 votes:

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 09:05:18 PM
1 votes:

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 09:04:16 PM
1 votes:

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 08:47:45 PM
1 votes:

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 08:46:26 PM
1 votes:
So are only guns now considered "arms"?

Wow the NRA has done a good job brain washing people.
2013-04-17 08:45:55 PM
1 votes:

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 08:44:00 PM
1 votes:

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 08:42:33 PM
1 votes:

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 08:38:23 PM
1 votes:
#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 08:36:05 PM
1 votes:

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 08:33:14 PM
1 votes:

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 08:30:47 PM
1 votes:

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 08:25:57 PM
1 votes:
Obvious false flag.  No true liberal believes in the amendment process.
2013-04-17 08:24:06 PM
1 votes:

Summoner101: Jay Mohr can go to hell:


He should never be forgiven for what he did to that girl.
2013-04-17 08:21:01 PM
1 votes:
Interesting. He's so irrelevant that these people all find it necessary to retweet or respond. Got it.
2013-04-17 08:20:11 PM
1 votes:
Animal Mother - 1
Guy who rigs comedy competitions - 0
2013-04-17 08:19:16 PM
1 votes:
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 08:18:30 PM
1 votes:
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.
MFK
2013-04-17 08:15:01 PM
1 votes:
Boy, they aren't even subtle with hit pieces anymore
2013-04-17 08:14:47 PM
1 votes:
*troll-thread.jpg*
2013-04-17 08:11:38 PM
1 votes:
His new radio show is awful... but still better then Rome's show.
2013-04-17 08:01:55 PM
1 votes:
You can take my right to bear bombs from my cold, musk-scented hands

a248.e.akamai.net
 
Displayed 92 of 92 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report