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.

(WSMV Nashville)   Senator Campfield posted a photo that has been circulating on many gun rights websites, showing what is titled as an "assault pressure cooker" and includes labels such as "tactical pistol grip" and "can cook for hours without reloading"   (wsmv.com ) divider line 73
    More: Dumbass, Campfield, Channel 4 News, assault pressure cooker, Sandy Hook Elementary School, senator  
•       •       •

3719 clicks; posted to Politics » on 23 Apr 2013 at 10:11 AM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Archived thread
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-04-23 09:12:02 AM  
6 votes:
Gun nuts take that "we can't have gun control because other things kill people too" argument seriously.
I don't think it's trolling.
2013-04-23 08:35:29 AM  
5 votes:
TN Senator be trollin.

While this would have been benign and un-newsworthy if it had been posted by a regular Joe, it's not a smart move to do shiat like this when you're a Senator.  Keep it classy, guy.  Stick to sending dick picks to your mistresses like everyone else in government.
2013-04-23 11:42:26 AM  
4 votes:
When used correctly, a gun results in a dead person/thing.  When used correctly, a pressure cooker results in dinner.
2013-04-23 11:24:52 AM  
4 votes:

GoldSpider: Tomahawk513: How does this relate to guns? Well, a few months ago, 20 kids were wiped out in an instant by a person with a particularly lethal firearm.

By "particularly lethal" do you mean "semi-automatic"?  Just wondering.



Yeah seriously.  An assault rifle is impossible to define, so I want to bait you into saying something that is technically incorrect so that I can accuse you of trying to ban something you don't even understand.
2013-04-23 11:19:27 AM  
4 votes:

Frank N Stein: Car_Ramrod: Frank N Stein: Car_Ramrod: Frank N Stein: Car_Ramrod: TerminalEchoes: according to Obama's exact words

Just reminding everyone that you're a liar. You know people can use the internet to look things up, right?

"If even one child's life can be saved, then we need to act"

It's on the White House website.

That's not what TE was referring to.

Nevertheless, it is what Obama believes. Why else would he have it on his website?

Well ignoring the fact that the person I was responding to was lying, which was the point of my post, why would Obama talk about the need to stop children from dying due to guns, in remarks specifically discussing gun violence? Probably because he's not an asshole.

So do you support any measure that would prevent just one child from dying?


::Bud Nippers:: It's not possible to prevent every kid from dying prematurely, things like disease, neglect, abuse, and just plain old stupidity will see to that.  However, as a society, we have a responsibility to try to prevent kids from dying prematurely, so we place strict regulations on food, provide health insurance and nutrition assistance to children, engineer strict building codes so kids don't fall off stuff or can't climb over it, and use PSAs as well as harsh punishments for child abuse.  How does this relate to guns?  Well, a few months ago, 20 kids were wiped out in an instant by a person with a particularly lethal firearm.  One or two and we might write it off to a horrific accident, or a horrible murderer, but 20?  That doesn't just happen.  Therefore, it is understandable, responsible even to take steps that could prevent a similar scenario, just like we do in other aspects of society.
2013-04-23 11:26:47 AM  
3 votes:

MichiganFTL: Also, to everyone who says "guns aren't as regulated as cars or ::insert object here::", I think you'll find that there are a TON of regulations, both federal and state on guns right now.

For instance, just at the federal level, there are:

NFA 1934, Omnibus CC & SSA 1968, GCA of 1968, FOPA 1986, GFSZA 1990, Brady Handgun VPA 1993, PoLCiAA. Throw in all of the state laws on top of that and you'd be surprised they are pretty regulated as is. Not saying there's not room for improvement, but don't believe people who say there's no regulation to firearms in this country.



Yes, and the NRA is constantly working to undermine these laws.  This is the problem I have with most pro-NRA gun owners.  They're willing to ignore all the harm the NRA is doing because, in their mind, the NRA's overall goal of "protecting against gun confiscation" is a noble one.

That, and the fact that the NRA is a corporate whore lobbying group with a borderline cult-like following.
2013-04-23 11:02:40 AM  
3 votes:
The fact that there are people in this thread defending this "pressure cooker control" nonsense shows what a hive-mind the gun nuts have become.  They've really surrendered their ability to apply critical thinking to their own paranoid, false notions that owning a gun is so incredibly important that it truly is a matter of life and death in our society.

Keep towing the line for your corporate lobbyist NRA overlords, morons.
2013-04-23 10:56:33 AM  
3 votes:

Jim_Callahan: optimistic_cynic: True but even in competition the object is do destroy the object you're shooting at whether it be a paper target or clay pigeons, it is still a tool for destruction. I would say the same for for archery as well.

/likes guns but does support stronger background checks

By that logic, boiling things in pressurized oil isn't exactly good for them, or constructive...


Perhaps, but I'm still pretty sure that guns were originally designed for killing and killing only as opposed to say a knife that has both utility and killing purposes.
2013-04-23 10:50:03 AM  
3 votes:
So he wants to regulate guns like we do explosives? I'm OK with this.
2013-04-23 10:45:50 AM  
3 votes:

TerminalEchoes: according to Obama's exact words


Just reminding everyone that you're a liar. You know people can use the internet to look things up, right?
2013-04-23 10:45:43 AM  
3 votes:
Ugh.  To all the gun nuts out there:  "THIS shiat IS GETTING REALLY OLD.  PLEASE STOP FILLING UP MY FACEBOOK NEWSFEED WITH YOUR MORONIC ARGUMENTS."

Jesus.  If you were consistent at all, you would say that it is your god-given right to make pressure cooker bombs because they're necessary to defend against a tyrannical government. And, you would be arguing to repeal the laws making the manufacture and possession of IEDs illegal.   After all, "the bomb didn't kill those people, a crazy nutjob did!  Don't blame the innocent bomb!"

On wait.  Making that argument would make you sound even more crazy.  I guess you gotta draw the line somewhere.  Good thing your favorite hobby doesn't involve stockpiling pressure cooker bombs, or you'd be going nuts right now.
2013-04-23 10:32:09 AM  
3 votes:
If Dzhokar had escaped on Friday, Sen. Campfield would support his purchase of firearms without a background check.

But HA HA PRESSURE COOKERS HA.
2013-04-23 10:16:33 AM  
3 votes:

markfara: Well, that sure shoots the "guns are the only way to kill people" argument -- you know, the one that the gun-control advocates base their entire argument on -- right in the ass.


What does it do for the argument that guns are only designed for killing? Because that's normally the one used, not the one you pulled out of your ass.
2013-04-23 09:22:13 AM  
3 votes:

vpb: Gun nuts take that "we can't have gun control because other things kill people too" argument seriously.
I don't think it's trolling.


I think it's a quick and easy "out" to ignore the conversation, and you're right that it's not trolling. I think they legitimately believe there is no reason to consider guns any differently from any other object, and there is no reason to even track or acknowledge crimes done with guns. After all, crime's crime and furthermore suchas
2013-04-23 12:08:01 PM  
2 votes:

Lando Lincoln: Why are we so goddamned afraid to try to tackle mental health problems?


Because the puritanical, prosperity gospel-ish society in which we inhabit states that good things come to good people and bad things happen to bad people, which leads to a great many people believing that mental illness is a moral failure instead of a medical issue. Compound that mentality with the belief that any increase in taxes is an abomination unto us as a society and you have both those with mental illness keeping quiet about it and those who don't possess the means to treat themselves being left to their own devices.
2013-04-23 12:00:32 PM  
2 votes:

Lando Lincoln: Let's work on reducing the crazy person problem instead of the object problem.


If we reduce the fetishization of guns in this country we can also solve the problem of gun violence. There's a stark difference between a passionate hobbyist and some gun nut whose entire being is defined by guns and gun ownership. It's culturally ingrained into a lot of people that their status and worth as a person is dependent on their ability to possess and shoot firearms for a lot of people.

It's the opposite side of the coin that Obama mentioned a few years ago about people clinging to guns and gods. It's not just that somebody wants to make background checks mandatory. It's that in this scary and changing world these people are holding tight to whatever they can to make sense of it. So when somebody proposes making background checks mandatory - because two dozen five-year-olds were viciously murdered - it's an assault on their core belief structure. Rationality has no part in it because these people aren't rational.

They're scared children - much like those kindergarteners felt as they begged for their lives - clinging to a life raft in a world that has no place for them.
2013-04-23 11:48:05 AM  
2 votes:

Lando Lincoln: vpb: Gun nuts take that "we can't have gun control because other things kill people too" argument seriously.
I don't think it's trolling.

The argument is that it's not the guns that are killing people. It's the crazy people behind them. Take away a crazy person's gun and they'll still manage to kill people with other objects. Let's work on reducing the crazy person problem instead of the object problem.


They kill a lot less people, which is kind of the goal
2013-04-23 11:28:20 AM  
2 votes:

MichiganFTL: jrodr018: MichiganFTL: Chummer45: MichiganFTL: Chummer45: GanjSmokr: While this is stupid to try to blame pressure cookers for this situation, some don't feel it is stupid to try to blame guns for gun violence...  are there any other situations that people try to blame on objects instead of the people who used those objects or is it just guns?


Have you ever considered that this is a strawman argument, and that the point of gun control isn't to "blame" guns for violence, but to take common-sense measures to reduce the prevalence and availability of guns in our society?   Have you ever considered the mountains of evidence that countries with strict gun regulation have dramatically lower rates of gun violence and homicide in general?

Like Mexico, the Middle East, Russia, Brazil?

Or Switzerland, Finland, Sweden, Norway, France? 

Yeah, keep pushing that we can solve everything because getting rid of guns would be a magic bullet.


Yeah that's exactly what I argued.   Getting rid of guns would result in a utopian society.  You know what, you're right.  lets stockpile as many deadly weapons as possible.  That will make everyone a lot safer.

Jesus.

What are your 'common sense' measures? Or are you just mad that there are a ton of countries with high gun ownership per capita with low murder/violence rates and that there are a ton of countries with low gun ownership per capita with high murder/violence rates which pokes holes in your 'mountains of evidence' argument?

Hey as long as we have the same regulations and training as those countries you listed, I am all for it.

which ones?


I am sure you know these, but I will list them after a brief google search:

Switzerland: Conscripted militia (military gun training)
Finland: Firearms Act 1998 (individuals HAVE to demonstrate a valid reason to have guns)
Sweden: Vapenlagen law 1996, all permits have to be obtained from the police

I can keep going, but I am sure you knew all of these. Study it out.
2013-04-23 11:03:54 AM  
2 votes:

MichiganFTL: Chummer45: GanjSmokr: While this is stupid to try to blame pressure cookers for this situation, some don't feel it is stupid to try to blame guns for gun violence...  are there any other situations that people try to blame on objects instead of the people who used those objects or is it just guns?


Have you ever considered that this is a strawman argument, and that the point of gun control isn't to "blame" guns for violence, but to take common-sense measures to reduce the prevalence and availability of guns in our society?   Have you ever considered the mountains of evidence that countries with strict gun regulation have dramatically lower rates of gun violence and homicide in general?

Like Mexico, the Middle East, Russia, Brazil?

Or Switzerland, Finland, Sweden, Norway, France? 

Yeah, keep pushing that we can solve everything because getting rid of guns would be a magic bullet.



Yeah that's exactly what I argued.   Getting rid of guns would result in a utopian society.  You know what, you're right.  lets stockpile as many deadly weapons as possible.  That will make everyone a lot safer.

Jesus.
2013-04-23 11:00:07 AM  
2 votes:
As a person who owns guns, supports gun rights, and doesn't think any meaningful legislation will be passed (that is not to say legislation will not be passed, just that it won't be meaningful, i.e. will not solve the gun violence problem), let me just say that most of the strawman arguments posed by gun rights advocates totally suck balls and don't serve to prove anything other than there's a lot of mouth breathers with guns.  Also, a lot of the arguments posed by gun control advocates are ill-informed, lacking in fact, based upon heresay, and also void of any reason or understanding of the myriad of different cultures contained right here in our great nation.  It seems that those that yell the loudest, on both sides, need to shut the fark up and let the adults figure it out, because they have no farking clue what they are actually talking about.  Emotion, vitriol, and misinformation are things that should never be used as a catalyst to legislation, or a lack thereof.
2013-04-23 10:51:56 AM  
2 votes:

GanjSmokr: While this is stupid to try to blame pressure cookers for this situation, some don't feel it is stupid to try to blame guns for gun violence...  are there any other situations that people try to blame on objects instead of the people who used those objects or is it just guns?


You think this whole thing is about blame? No wonder we can't get anywhere. Not everything is a moral crusade. We just want less dead kids.
2013-04-23 10:41:05 AM  
2 votes:

TerminalEchoes: thurstonxhowell: TerminalEchoes: thurstonxhowell: TerminalEchoes: vpb: Gun nuts take that "we can't have gun control because other things kill people too" argument seriously.
I don't think it's trolling.

During the State of the Union speech back in January, didn't President Obama say "if we can do anything to protect just one child, shouldn't we do it?" Sure. A child was killed by a pressure cooker. Regulate! It's not trolling, it's using Obama's manipulative tactics against him.

Run with that. Seriously, keep repeating it. Regulating guns in response to gun violence is the exact same thing as regulating pressure cookers in response to the Boston bombings. Always say that. People will respect you.

According to Obama's speech, yes it's the same thing. Of course it's stupid. I won't debate that.

Repeat my last post, but insert "Obama said that" right before "regulating guns in response". This is an idea that must spread. It is clearly a well-thought out point. You might get Obama impeached over this.

See, now you're just putting words in my mouth. My point was that his knee jerk Appeal to Emotion (or For the Children) speech was nothing but rhetoric and not clearly thought out. No one wants to seriously regulate pressure cookers. People are just pointing out that--according to Obama's exact words--anything that has ever killed a child should be regulated or banned.



I've bolded the place where your strawman falls apart.
2013-04-23 10:40:29 AM  
2 votes:

TerminalEchoes: vpb: Gun nuts take that "we can't have gun control because other things kill people too" argument seriously.
I don't think it's trolling.

During the State of the Union speech back in January, didn't President Obama say "if we can do anything to protect just one child, shouldn't we do it?" Sure. A child was killed by a pressure cooker. Regulate! It's not trolling, it's using Obama's manipulative tactics against him.


Actually, he didn't say that. So, your argument is null and void. Try not to use quotes for something you're not quoting. And try not to make things up.
2013-04-23 10:34:37 AM  
2 votes:

TerminalEchoes: During the State of the Union speech back in January, didn't President Obama say "if we can do anything to protect just one child, shouldn't we do it?" Sure. A child was killed by a pressure cooker. Regulate! It's not trolling, it's using Obama's manipulative tactics against him.



Yes, please shout from the rooftops that regulating pressure cookers would be as effective as regulating the sale of guns. I'm sure your arguments would not at all be considered completely inane.
2013-04-23 10:34:21 AM  
2 votes:
Campfield is the same douchenozzle that wanted to punish poor kids who don't do well in school by effectively taking food out of their mouthes.  Fark him sideways.

One old fool I know thinks that pressure cooker picture is hilarious and somehow insightful.  He also thinks a  graphic suggesting the surviving bomber could someday be an advisor, ala Ayers,  to President Obama is clever.

It's almost as if he is acknowledging that Democrats could very well continue to be elected to the highest office until the year that the bomber gets out of prison....if he ever does.
2013-04-23 10:22:23 AM  
2 votes:

markfara: Well, that sure shoots the "guns are the only way to kill people" argument -- you know, the one that the gun-control advocates base their entire argument on -- right in the ass.



Really? Because last time I checked, pressure cookers weren't specifically manufactured to mortally wound stuff.
2013-04-23 10:21:35 AM  
2 votes:

TerminalEchoes: vpb: Gun nuts take that "we can't have gun control because other things kill people too" argument seriously.
I don't think it's trolling.

During the State of the Union speech back in January, didn't President Obama say "if we can do anything to protect just one child, shouldn't we do it?" Sure. A child was killed by a pressure cooker. Regulate! It's not trolling, it's using Obama's manipulative tactics against him.


Run with that. Seriously, keep repeating it. Regulating guns in response to gun violence is the exact same thing as regulating pressure cookers in response to the Boston bombings. Always say that. People will respect you.
2013-04-23 10:13:48 AM  
2 votes:
Well, that sure shoots the "guns are the only way to kill people" argument -- you know, the one that the gun-control advocates base their entire argument on -- right in the ass.
2013-04-23 09:01:10 AM  
2 votes:
I hadn't seen the photo before, and the one in TFA is kind of small, so here ya go:
25.media.tumblr.com
2013-04-23 12:00:10 PM  
1 vote:

Ned Stark: CPennypacker: Lando Lincoln: vpb: Gun nuts take that "we can't have gun control because other things kill people too" argument seriously.
I don't think it's trolling.

The argument is that it's not the guns that are killing people. It's the crazy people behind them. Take away a crazy person's gun and they'll still manage to kill people with other objects. Let's work on reducing the crazy person problem instead of the object problem.

They kill a lot less people, which is kind of the goal

Reducing the number of crazed and dispossessed people reduces the number of people they kill just the same as reducing the effectiveness of each individual crazed and dispossessed.


How would you say we do that?

Oh I know! We could check a person's background before they buy a gun to see if they are crazed or dispossessed. That's a great idea!
2013-04-23 11:36:05 AM  
1 vote:

Dimensio: vpb: Gun nuts take that "we can't have gun control because other things kill people too" argument seriously.
I don't think it's trolling.

Gun ban advocates claim that pistol grips and collapsing stocks enhance the lethality of a rifle. I know that it is not trolling; they really are that stupid.


Technically, they make the gun viable in scenarios that they would otherwise be unwieldy -- like indoors or in close quarters.   It doesn't make the bullets any more deadly but it does make the weapon more deadly.
2013-04-23 11:29:55 AM  
1 vote:

GoldSpider: Tomahawk513: How does this relate to guns? Well, a few months ago, 20 kids were wiped out in an instant by a person with a particularly lethal firearm.

By "particularly lethal" do you mean "semi-automatic"?  Just wondering.


Specifically, I mean
1) a fairly easy to handle (as opposed to a longer or heavier rifle)
2) semi-automatic weapon with a (as opposed to pump action, lever action, bolt action, etc.)
3) detachable magazine of (vs fixed)
4) 20-30 rounds.  (vs 5-8 in a revolver, 10-15 in most handguns, 8 or so in a shotgun, etc.)

Really it's a combination of those things that makes one weapon more lethal than another.
2013-04-23 11:25:01 AM  
1 vote:

GanjSmokr: CPennypacker: GanjSmokr: CPennypacker: GanjSmokr:

I asked you this once in a previous thread, and you stopped talking to me... what amount of children killed by guns will be "acceptable" to you?

Why does it have to be a specific number? Can we agree that it is too high right now and work to reduce it? Or does that idea remain invalid unless I tell you that I want to reduce the number of murdered kids x%. Cuz if I have to pick a reduction percentage I want it would be 100%, but we have to be realistic.

I want to know because I'd like to know when there will be enough laws for you to be satisfied.

If, as you just said, you want it to be a 100% reduction, then there will never be enough laws for you and you'll never be satisfied with the situation.  Thanks for being honest here at least.

Are you saying you're ok with kids dying?

For the record, I'm not OK with kids dying in general.

I'm fine with preventing the deaths of children.  As long as you are actually doing something that will prevent the deaths of children.  IMO, most of the proposed  knee-jerk reactionary law changes will do nothing to do that and then you'll want more laws because we didn't reduce the number of children killed with the first new set of laws that was passed.  When does that end?

/for some people, it will only end with the repeal of the 2nd


We could start with the background checks that had wide support but died anyway because one of the two major political parties in this country serve the gun lobby over their own constituents
2013-04-23 11:22:57 AM  
1 vote:
It would be absurd for someone to propose a pressure cooker ban, pressure cooker regulations, or pressure cooker registration, so it's equally absurd for anyone to propose similar things for guns, which are the exact same thing!

Guns are just metal things, like any other thing made of metal.  We don't regulate spoons!  Why would we regulate guns?

It's crazy that some people in here don't understand this incredibly convincing and persuasive argument.
2013-04-23 11:19:11 AM  
1 vote:

Frank N Stein: Car_Ramrod: Frank N Stein: Car_Ramrod: Frank N Stein: Car_Ramrod: TerminalEchoes: according to Obama's exact words

Just reminding everyone that you're a liar. You know people can use the internet to look things up, right?

"If even one child's life can be saved, then we need to act"

It's on the White House website.

That's not what TE was referring to.

Nevertheless, it is what Obama believes. Why else would he have it on his website?

Well ignoring the fact that the person I was responding to was lying, which was the point of my post, why would Obama talk about the need to stop children from dying due to guns, in remarks specifically discussing gun violence? Probably because he's not an asshole.

So do you support any measure that would prevent just one child from dying?


You really shouldn't telegraph your talking points so much. "We need to act" does not mean "Let's just do anything for shiats and giggles". What is hard to understand about that? I believe there are steps we can take to reduce gun violence while still allowing responsible people to enjoy their 2nd Amendment rights. I would need to see individual suggestions before I give them my support. Just because gun nuts don't want any regulations, doesn't mean I want every regulation.

Do you think nothing can/should be done? That everything is perfect as is? That there is no policy or regulation that might help address gun violence?
2013-04-23 11:18:49 AM  
1 vote:

MichiganFTL: Chummer45: MichiganFTL: Chummer45: GanjSmokr: While this is stupid to try to blame pressure cookers for this situation, some don't feel it is stupid to try to blame guns for gun violence...  are there any other situations that people try to blame on objects instead of the people who used those objects or is it just guns?


Have you ever considered that this is a strawman argument, and that the point of gun control isn't to "blame" guns for violence, but to take common-sense measures to reduce the prevalence and availability of guns in our society?   Have you ever considered the mountains of evidence that countries with strict gun regulation have dramatically lower rates of gun violence and homicide in general?

Like Mexico, the Middle East, Russia, Brazil?

Or Switzerland, Finland, Sweden, Norway, France? 

Yeah, keep pushing that we can solve everything because getting rid of guns would be a magic bullet.


Yeah that's exactly what I argued.   Getting rid of guns would result in a utopian society.  You know what, you're right.  lets stockpile as many deadly weapons as possible.  That will make everyone a lot safer.

Jesus.

What are your 'common sense' measures? Or are you just mad that there are a ton of countries with high gun ownership per capita with low murder/violence rates and that there are a ton of countries with low gun ownership per capita with high murder/violence rates which pokes holes in your 'mountains of evidence' argument?


Look, I'm not here to get into the weeds on a stupid internet argument with you (that you have no doubt spent hours on gun forums prepping for).   My original statement was correct when you look at western, industrialized nations that are similar to the U.S.  Looking at those statistics, objectively, leads to the conclusion that less guns = less violent crime.

The United States is a massive outlier when it comes to per capita gun ownership, and a huge outlier when it comes to per capita gun homicides.  You can sit here and pretend that "correlation does not equal causation" in this instance all you want, but the bottom line is that I can't have a rational discussion with you, because you're clearly way too impassioned in your defense of unregulated gun ownership, and have already labeled me as a "gun control advocate."

I guess if you can rest easy knowing that your hobby is protected, while thousands of Americans are killed or wounded thanks in no small part to the huge availability of guns in our country, then so be it.

I just hope you realize that you're caught up in a hugely profitable political/industrial machine that has gotten so good, that it convinced its members to buy huge amounts of guns, ammo, and accessories in response to the brutal shooting of two dozen or so elementary school kids.  And the best part?  The NRA/industry group convinced all of its members that they had no choice but to spend all of that money in donations and purchases, because the "enemy" (i.e., gun control advocates) left them no choice.
2013-04-23 11:12:45 AM  
1 vote:

GoldSpider: GoldSpider: Anyone opposed to "proposal X" finds himself defending himself against a charge that he opposes reducing child victims.

CPennypacker: Are you saying you're ok with kids dying?

Thanks for so thoroughly demonstrating my point.


If you read how our discussion started you would realize that your point doesn't apply to what I'm saying.
2013-04-23 11:08:47 AM  
1 vote:

GanjSmokr: CPennypacker: GanjSmokr:

I asked you this once in a previous thread, and you stopped talking to me... what amount of children killed by guns will be "acceptable" to you?

Why does it have to be a specific number? Can we agree that it is too high right now and work to reduce it? Or does that idea remain invalid unless I tell you that I want to reduce the number of murdered kids x%. Cuz if I have to pick a reduction percentage I want it would be 100%, but we have to be realistic.

I want to know because I'd like to know when there will be enough laws for you to be satisfied.

If, as you just said, you want it to be a 100% reduction, then there will never be enough laws for you and you'll never be satisfied with the situation.  Thanks for being honest here at least.


Are you saying you're ok with kids dying?
2013-04-23 11:07:42 AM  
1 vote:

Frank N Stein: Car_Ramrod: Frank N Stein: Car_Ramrod: TerminalEchoes: according to Obama's exact words

Just reminding everyone that you're a liar. You know people can use the internet to look things up, right?

"If even one child's life can be saved, then we need to act"

It's on the White House website.

That's not what TE was referring to.

Nevertheless, it is what Obama believes. Why else would he have it on his website?


Well ignoring the fact that the person I was responding to was lying, which was the point of my post, why would Obama talk about the need to stop children from dying due to guns, in remarks specifically discussing gun violence? Probably because he's not an asshole.
2013-04-23 11:06:33 AM  
1 vote:

GoldSpider: Fart_Machine: Because pressure cookers already come pre-equipped with explosives?

A perception about pressure cookers as an instrument of terrorism has been formed in the public where none existed before.  Same as box-cutters after 9/11.


Yup just like shoes and underwear are associated with terrorism. Try more straw.
2013-04-23 11:04:54 AM  
1 vote:

mysticcat: Fortunately, Senator Campfield, in whose district I grew up many moons ago, will not be around to troll us after the next election.  He'll be bankrolled out of office.


This. Knoxville has alot of idiots in it, but most are smart enough to recognize this loser for what he is: a closet case with a tiny dick.

I met him once. As swarmy and condescending as you would think.

/Has he been outed as a "secret gay" yet?
2013-04-23 11:04:08 AM  
1 vote:

GanjSmokr: CPennypacker: GanjSmokr: While this is stupid to try to blame pressure cookers for this situation, some don't feel it is stupid to try to blame guns for gun violence...  are there any other situations that people try to blame on objects instead of the people who used those objects or is it just guns?

You think this whole thing is about blame? No wonder we can't get anywhere. Not everything is a moral crusade. We just want less dead kids.

I asked you this once in a previous thread, and you stopped talking to me... what amount of children killed by guns will be "acceptable" to you?

Lord_Baull: GanjSmokr: While this is stupid to try to blame pressure cookers for this situation, some don't feel it is stupid to try to blame guns for gun violence...  are there any other situations that people try to blame on objects instead of the people who used those objects or is it just guns?


I hear all the time in the news about how "the car" careeened out of control and crashed into the Farmer's Market. You also hear about family tragedies when "the gun went off accidentally."

We blame the elderly driver that drove the car into the Farmer's Market, not the car. We don't then start banning that make and model of car that was driven either.  And when you say "the gun went off accidentally", I don't see any people being blamed - just the "gun".  Had you said "Someone accidentally fired the gun" instead of "the gun went off accidentally", that would be blaming a person.



You need to pay more attention.
2013-04-23 11:02:45 AM  
1 vote:
GanjSmokr:

I asked you this once in a previous thread, and you stopped talking to me... what amount of children killed by guns will be "acceptable" to you?

Why does it have to be a specific number? Can we agree that it is too high right now and work to reduce it? Or does that idea remain invalid unless I tell you that I want to reduce the number of murdered kids x%. Cuz if I have to pick a reduction percentage I want it would be 100%, but we have to be realistic.

Ned Stark:
Well I tried explaing the concept and you just couldn't grasp it so I tried analogy. You've heard of them before, right?

Sure I have. Yours is just bad and doesn't apply.
2013-04-23 10:56:43 AM  
1 vote:

GanjSmokr: While this is stupid to try to blame pressure cookers for this situation, some don't feel it is stupid to try to blame guns for gun violence...  are there any other situations that people try to blame on objects instead of the people who used those objects or is it just guns?



Have you ever considered that this is a strawman argument, and that the point of gun control isn't to "blame" guns for violence, but to take common-sense measures to reduce the prevalence and availability of guns in our society?   Have you ever considered the mountains of evidence that countries with strict gun regulation have dramatically lower rates of gun violence and homicide in general?
2013-04-23 10:55:21 AM  
1 vote:

GoldSpider: thurstonxhowell: I think you're underanalyzing the fact that we do blame shooters. Like, all the time. We even put them in prison. Trials and everything.

That explains why the rhetoric is largely confined to "gun control" and not "would-be shooter control".


It doesn't, but it does blow a tremendous hole in the "we don't blame shooters" theory. What with the fact that we obviously do, and all.
2013-04-23 10:54:45 AM  
1 vote:

GanjSmokr: While this is stupid to try to blame pressure cookers for this situation, some don't feel it is stupid to try to blame guns for gun violence...  are there any other situations that people try to blame on objects instead of the people who used those objects or is it just guns?



I hear all the time in the news about how "the car" careeened out of control and crashed into the Farmer's Market. You also hear about family tragedies when "the gun went off accidentally."
2013-04-23 10:50:34 AM  
1 vote:

Car_Ramrod: TerminalEchoes: according to Obama's exact words

Just reminding everyone that you're a liar. You know people can use the internet to look things up, right?


"If even one child's life can be saved, then we need to act"

It's on the White House website.
2013-04-23 10:49:05 AM  
1 vote:

Ned Stark: CPennypacker: Ned Stark: CPennypacker: Ned Stark: CPennypacker: Is the senator making a toung in cheeck critique of gun laws, that they do not address what makes the gun dangerous? Perhaps we should do what he wants and make bullets illegal instead.

Pointing out that a position is intensly stupid in addition to being an infringement of fundamental rights is not an endorsement of a less intensely stupid form of the same infringement.

I'm just taking it to its logical conclusion.

Except you aren't. I just pointed out the critical flaw in your reasoning. Stupidity was never the sole objection.

Sure I am. He's mocking the AWB because it doesn't do anything. So fair enough, let's implement legislation that does, because clearly that is what he wants, or else why mock the legislation? What else could he want? He wouldn't be engaging in any intellectual dishonesty at all would he? Because I wouldn't expect that from an esteemed member of our legislative body, nosiree.

If Republicans tomorrow staretd up a crusade to close the borders to Asian immigration and to deport all the Asians already here in order to reduce crime, in addition to all the wholly justified crices of racism, authoritarianism, fascism, etc. There would be plenty of Democrats laughingly pointing out that Asians are in fact underrepresented I'm crime. Not a single one of them would mean "so lets deport blacks".


i.chzbgr.com
2013-04-23 10:46:31 AM  
1 vote:

GoldSpider: Wellon Dowd: My first reaction is that it is illegal to manufacture, possess, or use a bomb. Further we highly regulate the operation of automobiles and most states require people who do so to be insured. So why the pro-gun folks are trying to draw parallels between them is beyond me.

I think you're over-analyzing the very simple point of the graphic: "blame".


I think you're underanalyzing the fact that we do blame shooters. Like, all the time. We even put them in prison. Trials and everything.
2013-04-23 10:41:33 AM  
1 vote:

TerminalEchoes: thurstonxhowell: TerminalEchoes: thurstonxhowell: TerminalEchoes: vpb: Gun nuts take that "we can't have gun control because other things kill people too" argument seriously.
I don't think it's trolling.

During the State of the Union speech back in January, didn't President Obama say "if we can do anything to protect just one child, shouldn't we do it?" Sure. A child was killed by a pressure cooker. Regulate! It's not trolling, it's using Obama's manipulative tactics against him.

Run with that. Seriously, keep repeating it. Regulating guns in response to gun violence is the exact same thing as regulating pressure cookers in response to the Boston bombings. Always say that. People will respect you.

According to Obama's speech, yes it's the same thing. Of course it's stupid. I won't debate that.

Repeat my last post, but insert "Obama said that" right before "regulating guns in response". This is an idea that must spread. It is clearly a well-thought out point. You might get Obama impeached over this.

See, now you're just putting words in my mouth. My point was that his knee jerk Appeal to Emotion (or For the Children) speech was nothing but rhetoric and not clearly thought out. No one wants to seriously regulate pressure cookers. People are just pointing out that--according to Obama's exact words--anything that has ever killed a child should be regulated or banned.


OK, fair enough. "Obama said that" was obviously putting words in your mouth when what you meant to say was "according to Obama's exact words". I apologize for completely misstating your idea. I don't know how I could have gotten it so, so wrong.
2013-04-23 10:38:01 AM  
1 vote:

jehovahs witness protection: Dayum...you lefties are thin skinned.
Go home and play with your dolls, little girls.



Says the guy that complains because Michelle appeared on the Oscars.
2013-04-23 10:37:24 AM  
1 vote:

vpb: Gun nuts take that "we can't have gun control because other things kill people too" argument seriously.
I don't think it's trolling.


Gun ban advocates claim that pistol grips and collapsing stocks enhance the lethality of a rifle. I know that it is not trolling; they really are that stupid.
2013-04-23 10:35:11 AM  
1 vote:
Thanks for the ammo, Senator.
2013-04-23 10:34:54 AM  
1 vote:

Ned Stark: CPennypacker: Ned Stark: CPennypacker: Is the senator making a toung in cheeck critique of gun laws, that they do not address what makes the gun dangerous? Perhaps we should do what he wants and make bullets illegal instead.

Pointing out that a position is intensly stupid in addition to being an infringement of fundamental rights is not an endorsement of a less intensely stupid form of the same infringement.

I'm just taking it to its logical conclusion.

Except you aren't. I just pointed out the critical flaw in your reasoning. Stupidity was never the sole objection.


Sure I am. He's mocking the AWB because it doesn't do anything. So fair enough, let's implement legislation that does, because clearly that is what he wants, or else why mock the legislation? What else could he want? He wouldn't be engaging in any intellectual dishonesty at all would he? Because I wouldn't expect that from an esteemed member of our legislative body, nosiree.
2013-04-23 10:34:31 AM  
1 vote:

thurstonxhowell: TerminalEchoes: thurstonxhowell: TerminalEchoes: vpb: Gun nuts take that "we can't have gun control because other things kill people too" argument seriously.
I don't think it's trolling.

During the State of the Union speech back in January, didn't President Obama say "if we can do anything to protect just one child, shouldn't we do it?" Sure. A child was killed by a pressure cooker. Regulate! It's not trolling, it's using Obama's manipulative tactics against him.

Run with that. Seriously, keep repeating it. Regulating guns in response to gun violence is the exact same thing as regulating pressure cookers in response to the Boston bombings. Always say that. People will respect you.

According to Obama's speech, yes it's the same thing. Of course it's stupid. I won't debate that.

Repeat my last post, but insert "Obama said that" right before "regulating guns in response". This is an idea that must spread. It is clearly a well-thought out point. You might get Obama impeached over this.


See, now you're just putting words in my mouth. My point was that his knee jerk Appeal to Emotion (or For the Children) speech was nothing but rhetoric and not clearly thought out. No one wants to seriously regulate pressure cookers. People are just pointing out that--according to Obama's exact words--anything that has ever killed a child should be regulated or banned.
2013-04-23 10:34:09 AM  
1 vote:

vpb: Gun nuts take that "we can't have gun control because other things kill people too" argument seriously.
I don't think it's trolling.


Eh, the "these models are 'assault models' and should be banned because they're scary" argument is stupid and deserves to be mocked.

However, the joke's kind of a dead-horse one at this point, since the people that suggested that argument were mocked, told to fark off, and not allowed to write the bill last time.  The last bill was about background checks and other measures regarded as sensible by basically everyone, and didn't have any of the "assault weapons" stupidity that the .gif is making fun of.

Lord_Baull: Really? Because last time I checked, pressure cookers weren't specifically manufactured to mortally wound stuff.


They're actually pretty dangerous, if you're saying that seriously and genuinely don't know.  I would probably take a kid to a gun range before I let them hang out near even a seemingly properly-working pressure cooker.

I mean, obviously they're not rigged as actual bombs by default, but a latch failure can give you a faceful of boiling oil at four or five paces and they do occasionally explode.  I would treat them with the same if not more respect you'd give a loaded firearm while using them.  If you have kids at your cook-out I'd stick to less dangerous stuff like grilling.
2013-04-23 10:33:16 AM  
1 vote:

vpb: Gun nuts take that "we can't have gun control because other things kill people too" argument seriously.
I don't think it's trolling.


One of my cousins, whom I usually ignore, posted this on Facebook:

i.imgur.com

My first reaction is that it is illegal to manufacture, possess, or use a bomb. Further we highly regulate the operation of automobiles and most states require people who do so to be insured. So why the pro-gun folks are trying to draw parallels between them is beyond me.
2013-04-23 10:33:13 AM  
1 vote:
Do we now have the dumbest politicians in recent memory? Why is this sounding so much like Idiocracy?
2013-04-23 10:32:35 AM  
1 vote:

jaybeezey: The same joke has been made 100 times on fark about everything that kills someone. Get a sense of humor or go home.


I would argue that the people who are making the same joke they've heard 100 times before should get a sense of humor, or at least find someone with one to imitate.
2013-04-23 10:31:49 AM  
1 vote:
Do we know yet where the Tsarnaevs got their AR-15 and handguns?
2013-04-23 10:30:59 AM  
1 vote:

TerminalEchoes: vpb: Gun nuts take that "we can't have gun control because other things kill people too" argument seriously.
I don't think it's trolling.

During the State of the Union speech back in January, didn't President Obama say "if we can do anything to protect just one child, shouldn't we do it?" Sure. A child was killed by a pressure cooker. Regulate! It's not trolling, it's using Obama's manipulative tactics against him.


Let's ban guns and you can have all the pressure cookers to defend yourself.

Such a smart argument.
2013-04-23 10:30:58 AM  
1 vote:
wsmv.images.worldnow.com

Evil, black.  ?!?!?!

/tries to find some popcorn.
2013-04-23 10:28:31 AM  
1 vote:
butt hurt thread is butt hurt.

The same joke has been made 100 times on fark about everything that kills someone. Get a sense of humor or go home.
2013-04-23 10:28:01 AM  
1 vote:

jehovahs witness protection: Dayum...you lefties are thin skinned.
Go home and play with your dolls, little girls.


If I called this stupid I would be accused of making an ad hominem attack.

Look at it
2013-04-23 10:25:53 AM  
1 vote:

Farce-Side: optimistic_cynic: What does it do for the argument that guns are only designed for killing? Because that's normally the one used, not the one you pulled out of your ass.

Several guns are designed for competition shooting, and not for actual killing.  It just so happens that they are also very good for killing, but cost hundreds to sometimes thousands of dollars more than another gun designed only for killing.


True but even in competition the object is do destroy the object you're shooting at whether it be a paper target or clay pigeons, it is still a tool for destruction. I would say the same for for archery as well.

/likes guns but does support stronger background checks
2013-04-23 10:23:17 AM  
1 vote:

vpb: Gun nuts take that "we can't have gun control because other things kill people too" argument seriously.
I don't think it's trolling.


You can take something seriously and stil be a petulant douchebag about it.
2013-04-23 10:22:25 AM  
1 vote:

TerminalEchoes: vpb: Gun nuts take that "we can't have gun control because other things kill people too" argument seriously.
I don't think it's trolling.

During the State of the Union speech back in January, didn't President Obama say "if we can do anything to protect just one child, shouldn't we do it?" Sure. A child was killed by a pressure cooker. Regulate! It's not trolling, it's using Obama's manipulative tactics against him.


Pressure cookers already have way more safety features than a standard pistol.  If you have some suggestions to improve their safely, please go ahead and write them down.
2013-04-23 10:21:11 AM  
1 vote:
you know what's weird about the word queue

queueueueueueueueueueueueueueueue would be pronounced the same
2013-04-23 10:18:57 AM  
1 vote:

KittyGlitterSparkles: Que partisan bickering.


Que?

www.virginmedia.com
2013-04-23 10:15:33 AM  
1 vote:
Is the senator making a toung in cheeck critique of gun laws, that they do not address what makes the gun dangerous? Perhaps we should do what he wants and make bullets illegal instead.
2013-04-23 10:14:53 AM  
1 vote:
Republican state senator from a Southern state?  Check.
Stupid moronic comment coming from said senator?  Check
Refusal to apologize for stupid moronic comment?  Check

Must be a day ending in a y.
2013-04-23 10:14:27 AM  
1 vote:

LasersHurt: I think it's a quick and easy "out" to ignore the conversation, and you're right that it's not trolling. I think they legitimately believe there is no reason to consider guns any differently from any other object, and there is no reason to even track or acknowledge crimes done with guns. After all, crime's crime and furthermore suchas


Crime. Boy, I don't know.
2013-04-23 09:55:44 AM  
1 vote:
Fortunately, Senator Campfield, in whose district I grew up many moons ago, will not be around to troll us after the next election.  He'll be bankrolled out of office.
 
Displayed 73 of 73 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
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