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.

(Talking Points Memo)   Jeff Flake who said he was for, then voted against, then said he was for, then said he was against, is now saying he's for background checks again. Get this man a new pair of flip-flops, he's wearing these ones out   (livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 26
    More: Dumbass, background checks, electronic commerce, Mark Begich, pairs  
•       •       •

463 clicks; posted to Politics » on 08 May 2013 at 9:48 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2013-05-08 09:51:26 AM  
See, now here's the beauty of his superposition: Flake's position on background checks or any kind of pragmatic gun control action will only be "no" when voting is involved. Otherwise, he's for it.
 
2013-05-08 09:52:59 AM  
Sounds like he's living up to his name.
 
2013-05-08 09:54:30 AM  
Well his name is "Flake" what do you want from the guy, it's part of his family heritage.
 
2013-05-08 09:55:10 AM  

Pants full of macaroni!!: Sounds like he's living up to his name.


This.

I don't see how anyone expects anything different from a guy named "Flake."
 
2013-05-08 09:56:57 AM  
Yeah.  I'm going to sell a firearm to a friend by texting him/her.   That just sounds odd to me and an excuse to vote "no".
 
2013-05-08 10:06:18 AM  
If he keeps doing that often enough his name is going to become a verb.

Oh, wait.

/this IS reality we are in, right? It must be, since this kinda crap wouldn't pass for fiction.
 
2013-05-08 10:06:26 AM  
He's got a tough job and a very complex constituency, where some people want more guns but fear background checks and others want tough background checks.

So he does the counterintuitive: he goes on record as strongly supporting each side. He does that separately. And at different times. And it seriously works.

He's a politician. He wouldn't do it if it didn't work. It's one of the depressing wonders of political science.
 
2013-05-08 10:16:54 AM  

BitwiseShift: He's got a tough job and a very complex constituency, where some people want more guns but fear background checks and others want tough background checks.

So he does the counterintuitive: he goes on record as strongly supporting each side. He does that separately. And at different times. And it seriously works.

He's a politician. He wouldn't do it if it didn't work. It's one of the depressing wonders of political science.


Romney could take two different positions in the same sentence.  This guy is an amateur.
 
2013-05-08 10:29:17 AM  
Who would ever think a politician would ever not commit?
 
2013-05-08 10:46:02 AM  
Get this man a new pair of flip-flops, he's wearing these ones out

i0.kym-cdn.com
 
2013-05-08 11:07:45 AM  
It really is alarming to notice the utter level of control the gun lobby has on Congress.

Most Americans support background checks.

The NRA wants to make it seem like there isn't anywhere near that level of support. Totally pathetic.
 
2013-05-08 03:16:06 PM  

Pants full of macaroni!!: Sounds like he's living up to his name.


Personally if some Farker had not made this pun I would have been disappoint.
 
2013-05-08 03:34:43 PM  

whidbey: It really is alarming to notice the utter level of control the gun lobby has on Congress.

Most Americans support background checks.

The NRA wants to make it seem like there isn't anywhere near that level of support. Totally pathetic.


BC would have passed if the Democrats had not thrown in the registry.  Most Americans do support BC, you throw in a registry and support drops to a 1/3.  This, we are not creating a registry, we are just collecting all your information and we promise to delete it the next day, just does not pass the smell test for most people.
 
2013-05-08 03:53:02 PM  

pxsteel: BC would have passed if the Democrats had not thrown in the registry.


Mandatory firearms and ammunition inspection and registration like the Founders themselves implemented in 1792?
Why would any sane, conservative person object?
*rereads last question*
Never mind - asked and answered.

"Senator Giffords" sounds better to me every day.
/Please get your speech back soon, Gabby.
 
2013-05-08 04:01:51 PM  

mrshowrules: BitwiseShift: He's got a tough job and a very complex constituency, where some people want more guns but fear background checks and others want tough background checks.

So he does the counterintuitive: he goes on record as strongly supporting each side. He does that separately. And at different times. And it seriously works.

He's a politician. He wouldn't do it if it didn't work. It's one of the depressing wonders of political science.

Romney could take two different positions in the same sentence.  This guy is an amateur.


www.cutmirchi.com
 
2013-05-08 04:22:53 PM  

pxsteel: whidbey: It really is alarming to notice the utter level of control the gun lobby has on Congress.

Most Americans support background checks.

The NRA wants to make it seem like there isn't anywhere near that level of support. Totally pathetic.

BC would have passed if the Democrats had not thrown in the registry.  Most Americans do support BC, you throw in a registry and support drops to a 1/3.  This, we are not creating a registry, we are just collecting all your information and we promise to delete it the next day, just does not pass the smell test for most people.


Yeah well, we need a registry too, and no bill is going to be passed without one.

The thing I really find frustrating about gun fanatics is that they act like owning a gun is a tremendous responsibility, but when it comes time to put that responsibility into law, the tinfoil hats come out.
 
2013-05-08 04:31:19 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: pxsteel: BC would have passed if the Democrats had not thrown in the registry.

Mandatory firearms and ammunition inspection and registration like the Founders themselves implemented in 1792?


Um, Wut

1792 required ALL able bodied males to own a firearm and at least 24 rounds of ammo
 
2013-05-08 04:41:06 PM  

whidbey: pxsteel: whidbey: It really is alarming to notice the utter level of control the gun lobby has on Congress.

Most Americans support background checks.

The NRA wants to make it seem like there isn't anywhere near that level of support. Totally pathetic.

BC would have passed if the Democrats had not thrown in the registry.  Most Americans do support BC, you throw in a registry and support drops to a 1/3.  This, we are not creating a registry, we are just collecting all your information and we promise to delete it the next day, just does not pass the smell test for most people.

Yeah well, we need a registry too, and no bill is going to be passed without one.

The thing I really find frustrating about gun fanatics is that they act like owning a gun is a tremendous responsibility, but when it comes time to put that responsibility into law, the tinfoil hats come out.


Why do we need a registry.  I have a CCW, it is proof that I already passed a background check.  It would be like a police officer handing you the drivers written test every time you get pulled over, you would say, officer I already have a DL it is proof that I passed the test already.
 
2013-05-08 05:54:51 PM  

pxsteel: demaL-demaL-yeH: pxsteel: BC would have passed if the Democrats had not thrown in the registry.

Mandatory firearms and ammunition inspection and registration like the Founders themselves implemented in 1792?

Um, Wut

1792 required ALL able bodied males to own a firearm and at least 24 rounds of ammo


And they were inspected regularly. 
And registered, and reported up the chain of command to the governor and the President of the United States. See section X.
 
2013-05-08 05:56:09 PM  

pxsteel: whidbey: pxsteel: whidbey: It really is alarming to notice the utter level of control the gun lobby has on Congress.

Most Americans support background checks.

The NRA wants to make it seem like there isn't anywhere near that level of support. Totally pathetic.

BC would have passed if the Democrats had not thrown in the registry.  Most Americans do support BC, you throw in a registry and support drops to a 1/3.  This, we are not creating a registry, we are just collecting all your information and we promise to delete it the next day, just does not pass the smell test for most people.

Yeah well, we need a registry too, and no bill is going to be passed without one.

The thing I really find frustrating about gun fanatics is that they act like owning a gun is a tremendous responsibility, but when it comes time to put that responsibility into law, the tinfoil hats come out.

Why do we need a registry.  I have a CCW, it is proof that I already passed a background check.  It would be like a police officer handing you the drivers written test every time you get pulled over, you would say, officer I already have a DL it is proof that I passed the test already.


Actually, it's like the officer pulling you over and asking to see your license and registration.
 
2013-05-08 05:56:13 PM  

pxsteel: whidbey: pxsteel: whidbey: It really is alarming to notice the utter level of control the gun lobby has on Congress.

Most Americans support background checks.

The NRA wants to make it seem like there isn't anywhere near that level of support. Totally pathetic.

BC would have passed if the Democrats had not thrown in the registry.  Most Americans do support BC, you throw in a registry and support drops to a 1/3.  This, we are not creating a registry, we are just collecting all your information and we promise to delete it the next day, just does not pass the smell test for most people.

Yeah well, we need a registry too, and no bill is going to be passed without one.

The thing I really find frustrating about gun fanatics is that they act like owning a gun is a tremendous responsibility, but when it comes time to put that responsibility into law, the tinfoil hats come out.

Why do we need a registry.  I have a CCW, it is proof that I already passed a background check.  It would be like a police officer handing you the drivers written test every time you get pulled over, you would say, officer I already have a DL it is proof that I passed the test already.


Yup. That's what cops say when they pull you over: "License and nothing else, please."
 
2013-05-08 05:57:29 PM  

DeaH: pxsteel: whidbey: pxsteel: whidbey: It really is alarming to notice the utter level of control the gun lobby has on Congress.

Most Americans support background checks.

The NRA wants to make it seem like there isn't anywhere near that level of support. Totally pathetic.

BC would have passed if the Democrats had not thrown in the registry.  Most Americans do support BC, you throw in a registry and support drops to a 1/3.  This, we are not creating a registry, we are just collecting all your information and we promise to delete it the next day, just does not pass the smell test for most people.

Yeah well, we need a registry too, and no bill is going to be passed without one.

The thing I really find frustrating about gun fanatics is that they act like owning a gun is a tremendous responsibility, but when it comes time to put that responsibility into law, the tinfoil hats come out.

Why do we need a registry.  I have a CCW, it is proof that I already passed a background check.  It would be like a police officer handing you the drivers written test every time you get pulled over, you would say, officer I already have a DL it is proof that I passed the test already.

Actually, it's like the officer pulling you over and asking to see your license and registration.


You forgot "proof on insurance."
 
2013-05-08 05:58:46 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: DeaH: You forgot "proof on insurance."


Dammit.
"of"
 
2013-05-08 06:41:15 PM  

DeaH: pxsteel: whidbey: pxsteel: whidbey: It really is alarming to notice the utter level of control the gun lobby has on Congress.

Most Americans support background checks.

The NRA wants to make it seem like there isn't anywhere near that level of support. Totally pathetic.

BC would have passed if the Democrats had not thrown in the registry.  Most Americans do support BC, you throw in a registry and support drops to a 1/3.  This, we are not creating a registry, we are just collecting all your information and we promise to delete it the next day, just does not pass the smell test for most people.

Yeah well, we need a registry too, and no bill is going to be passed without one.

The thing I really find frustrating about gun fanatics is that they act like owning a gun is a tremendous responsibility, but when it comes time to put that responsibility into law, the tinfoil hats come out.

Why do we need a registry.  I have a CCW, it is proof that I already passed a background check.  It would be like a police officer handing you the drivers written test every time you get pulled over, you would say, officer I already have a DL it is proof that I passed the test already.

Actually, it's like the officer pulling you over and asking to see your license and registration.


I am perfectly OK with them going into the CCW database to confirm that it is valid.  I am not OK with all my vitals and what I bought being sent to DC where it will end up on a list.
 
2013-05-08 08:18:42 PM  

pxsteel: DeaH: pxsteel: whidbey: pxsteel: whidbey: It really is alarming to notice the utter level of control the gun lobby has on Congress.

Most Americans support background checks.

The NRA wants to make it seem like there isn't anywhere near that level of support. Totally pathetic.

BC would have passed if the Democrats had not thrown in the registry.  Most Americans do support BC, you throw in a registry and support drops to a 1/3.  This, we are not creating a registry, we are just collecting all your information and we promise to delete it the next day, just does not pass the smell test for most people.

Yeah well, we need a registry too, and no bill is going to be passed without one.

The thing I really find frustrating about gun fanatics is that they act like owning a gun is a tremendous responsibility, but when it comes time to put that responsibility into law, the tinfoil hats come out.

Why do we need a registry.  I have a CCW, it is proof that I already passed a background check.  It would be like a police officer handing you the drivers written test every time you get pulled over, you would say, officer I already have a DL it is proof that I passed the test already.

Actually, it's like the officer pulling you over and asking to see your license and registration.

I am perfectly OK with them going into the CCW database to confirm that it is valid.  I am not OK with all my vitals and what I bought being sent to DC where it will end up on a list.


If it was good enough for Washington, Adams, and Jefferson, it ought to be good enough for you.
/Return of the Militia, martherfarker: It was enacted into law three months after the adoption of Amendment II.
 
2013-05-09 01:51:32 AM  
Yeah, This is the man McCain and Kyl supported. Could anyone have expected anything different?
 
Displayed 26 of 26 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