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.

(WWLTV New Orleans) NewsFlash At least one dozen shot at New Orleans Mothers Day parade   (wwltv.com) divider line 673
    More: NewsFlash, New Orleans Mothers Day, NOPD Superintendent Ronal Serpas  
•       •       •

23109 clicks; posted to Main » on 12 May 2013 at 4:31 PM (48 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»


Want to get NewsFlash notifications in email?

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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-12 07:01:22 PM
This is why I don't leave my house :(
 
2013-05-12 07:01:40 PM
Once again, the real victims of this mass shooting: Gun owners.
 
2013-05-12 07:01:42 PM

Slappajo: luckyeddie: Slappajo: I'll just leave this here:   http://reason.com/blog/2013/05/10/americans-who-favor-stricter-gun-co n trol

Well, you've convinced me.

Only 11,078 gun homicide deaths in a year. Hardly worth farking mentioning, is it?

Actually, I was referring the bias mentioned in the article.  And statistically, no 11,078 gun homicide deaths is not worth mentioning.  Shiat happens.  People die everyday for one reason or another.  Thinking we can control all of them is completely delusional.


Please stop using "accidents happen" to justify doing nothing.  Because as much as you deny it, that's exactly what you're doing.  And by doing nothing, you increase the chance that the "accident happens" to you.
 
2013-05-12 07:03:00 PM

Stone Meadow: So, are we to surmise then that the shooters were NOLA PD?


Only if the parade was trying to escape over a bridge towards Hammond.
 
2013-05-12 07:04:31 PM

ontariolightning: Facts:,less people with less guns = less gun murders, gun accidents, gun suicides. Less people dying or getting injured by gunis a good thing or not is it?


Facts:,less people with less pools = less pool murders, pool accidents, pool suicides. Less people dying or getting injured by pools is a good thing or not is it?
 
2013-05-12 07:04:31 PM

Infernalist: EVERYBODY PANIC: Hey, that's my hometown. Only a dozen injured? And this is news? Meh.

You have amazingly low expectations.


Low expectations? No, I had very high expectation, being raised in New Orleans. We have Jazz, blues, voodoo, impossible political corruption, a truly evil police department... and then there is Mardi Gras. We are a very shallow people. In New Orleans, there is no tomorrow, only right now and nobody is allowed to mess with one's having fun, or else. I had expectations of many more shootings, and wonder why this is news. Oh wait, it's about Mother's Day. Yeah, that's news. We usually wait until after dark on Mother's Day to shoot folks  .
 
2013-05-12 07:05:51 PM

a_real_human_being: Actually, I think grenades are a better comparison item than C4. Revised argument:


img195.imageshack.us

"People shouldn't be able to buy grenades because they're lousy for hunting and tend to obliterate your dinner or trophy, and they'll cause  way too much property damage for home defense."

Your argument against guns apparently sucks.
 
2013-05-12 07:06:21 PM

GUTSU: ontariolightning: Facts:,less people with less guns = less gun murders, gun accidents, gun suicides. Less people dying or getting injured by gunis a good thing or not is it?

Facts:,less people with less pools = less pool murders, pool accidents, pool suicides. Less people dying or getting injured by pools is a good thing or not is it?


pools were not invented to kill
 
2013-05-12 07:06:50 PM

daRog: [i.imgur.com image 639x304]


Fantasy weapon, your argument is invalid.
 
2013-05-12 07:09:15 PM

ontariolightning: GUTSU: ontariolightning: Facts:,less people with less guns = less gun murders, gun accidents, gun suicides. Less people dying or getting injured by gunis a good thing or not is it?

Facts:,less people with less pools = less pool murders, pool accidents, pool suicides. Less people dying or getting injured by pools is a good thing or not is it?

pools were not invented to kill


So people that get drowned aren't important to you, there deaths are somehow less worthy of your attention? Do you not care about all the children that die in pools each year?
 
2013-05-12 07:09:15 PM

ontariolightning: GUTSU: ontariolightning: Facts:,less people with less guns = less gun murders, gun accidents, gun suicides. Less people dying or getting injured by gunis a good thing or not is it?

Facts:,less people with less pools = less pool murders, pool accidents, pool suicides. Less people dying or getting injured by pools is a good thing or not is it?

pools were not invented to kill


Fun fact: Children are 100% more likely to die from a pool than a gun. Which is amazing considering that guns are weapons and pools are not. Clearly we have a pool problem in this country.

You want to protect children, don't you?
 
2013-05-12 07:10:06 PM

IlGreven: Slappajo: luckyeddie: Slappajo: I'll just leave this here:   http://reason.com/blog/2013/05/10/americans-who-favor-stricter-gun-co n trol

Well, you've convinced me.

Only 11,078 gun homicide deaths in a year. Hardly worth farking mentioning, is it?

Actually, I was referring the bias mentioned in the article.  And statistically, no 11,078 gun homicide deaths is not worth mentioning.  Shiat happens.  People die everyday for one reason or another.  Thinking we can control all of them is completely delusional.

Please stop using "accidents happen" to justify doing nothing.  Because as much as you deny it, that's exactly what you're doing.  And by doing nothing, you increase the chance that the "accident happens" to you.


I'm not saying "accidents happen."  I'm saying that instead of fighting over this and wasting time, money, and resources on something that is way down on the list of "how people die" we should focus more on the things that are actually killing the most people.  You know, more bang for your buck so to speak.

And if the "accident happens" to me, it does.  There's not a damn thing you or anyone else can do about it. Like I said before, you can't control everything.
 
2013-05-12 07:11:07 PM

Theaetetus: a_real_human_being: Actually, I think grenades are a better comparison item than C4. Revised argument:

[img195.imageshack.us image 492x559]

"People shouldn't be able to buy grenades because they're lousy for hunting and tend to obliterate your dinner or trophy, and they'll cause  way too much property damage for home defense."

Your argument against guns apparently sucks.


Shoot a dear with an automatic assault rifle and see how well the meat turns out.
 
2013-05-12 07:11:34 PM

ontariolightning: Speaking of mass events killing people, what is gonna happen as the gun nuts march in DC with their weapons?


Nothing, a side note to someone that got in above you, lanza was a liberal who hated his mothers reactionary conservatism, so he killed her and went to a school where she didn't and had never worked and murdered a bunch of unrelated children, that's the story right now right? Is there a trial, or some other compendium of evidence? Of course not, the offender is already dead, no investigation necessary.

People walking in circles.
Wait, what's the current narrative again? I have such a hard time keeping up with the revisions, at least i know we've always been at war with east Asia.
 
2013-05-12 07:11:38 PM

Theaetetus: a_real_human_being: Actually, I think grenades are a better comparison item than C4. Revised argument:

[img195.imageshack.us image 492x559]

"People shouldn't be able to buy grenades because they're lousy for hunting and tend to obliterate your dinner or trophy, and they'll cause  way too much property damage for home defense."

Your argument against guns apparently sucks.


Second Amendment isn't about hunting, nice try Fudd. And it's not exclusively about home defense either. It's about defending yourself from tyranny. If the government is coming for you then you should be allowed by the Second Amendment to lob as many grenades as you can at the fascists.

Your argument against the Second Amendment apparently sucks.
 
2013-05-12 07:12:57 PM

Theaetetus: "People shouldn't be able to buy grenades because they're lousy for hunting and tend to obliterate your dinner or trophy, and they'll cause way too much property damage for home defense."


Actually that sounds more like an argument for why people shouldn't WANT to buy grenades. Whereas I was talking about why they shouldn't be ALLOWED TO.
 
2013-05-12 07:13:12 PM

Frank N Stein: ontariolightning: GUTSU: ontariolightning: Facts:,less people with less guns = less gun murders, gun accidents, gun suicides. Less people dying or getting injured by gunis a good thing or not is it?

Facts:,less people with less pools = less pool murders, pool accidents, pool suicides. Less people dying or getting injured by pools is a good thing or not is it?

pools were not invented to kill

Fun fact: Children are 100% more likely to die from a pool than a gun. Which is amazing considering that guns are weapons and pools are not. Clearly we have a pool problem in this country.

You want to protect children, don't you?


You mean like putting a cover on a pool when you don't use it?
 
2013-05-12 07:13:49 PM

flamingboard: Theaetetus: a_real_human_being: Actually, I think grenades are a better comparison item than C4. Revised argument:

[img195.imageshack.us image 492x559]

"People shouldn't be able to buy grenades because they're lousy for hunting and tend to obliterate your dinner or trophy, and they'll cause  way too much property damage for home defense."

Your argument against guns apparently sucks.

Shoot a dear with an automatic assault rifle and see how well the meat turns out.


I wasn't aware that the 2nd amendment was for hunting, seeing how it isn't mentioned. Thank you for informing me of this well hidden secret.
 
2013-05-12 07:14:14 PM

a_real_human_being: iq_in_binary: a_real_human_being: iq_in_binary: a_real_human_being: Actually, I think grenades are a better comparison item than C4. Revised argument:

[img195.imageshack.us image 492x559]

Completely legal to purchase and own, actually. Depending on state and local laws, of course. But at the Federal level, it's just a $200 tax stamp.

That you didn't know that shows how uneducated you are on the subject.

[img203.imageshack.us image 445x500]

Yes, yes it does. It's a shame that common sense and American law are often so far apart in this particular domain. Regardless, please help to educate me (genuine request). If you take the last few gun massacres, would it have been possible for that perpetrator (considering the city/state) to purchase hand grenades as easily as it was for them to purchase a gun? I guess that I'm asking if it's possible to legally purchase hand grenades without being subject to any sort of background check, and/or being asked WHY you require them.

You're talking to the guy that proposes expanding those very same laws to pretty much all semi-autos, so long as certain concessions are made.

You're so rabid about the subject you're even tearing into the people that are on your side.

Ironic that you would try and allude to my lack of education, even on this very subject.

[img826.imageshack.us image 500x299]

Wow. I make a genuine request for information, after you snidely remarked at how uneducated I am on the subject, and you respond only with paranoid vitriol.

I think you have me confused with someone else. Not everyone on the internet is trying to troll you.

/"rabid"?
//lolwut


Sorry.

No, you're not going to own anything controlled by the NFA without a background check, this includes grenades, grenade launchers, machine guns (legal), suppressors (also known in Hollywood as "Silencers," also legal in 38 states), Anti Material and Anti Aircraft guns (yes, legal). You're not going to go into a store and buy a gun without one. You're not going to walk into a gun show and purchase one without a background check either, so the whole "gun show loophole" talking point needs to be taken out back and shot.

The only way you're getting a gun without a background check is either through theft or through straw purchases, both are already illegal. I'm actually a proponent for and would fight hard to enable a NICS system available to the public. Make it a smartphone app, even. I'm also a proponent for purchase limits, say 1 handgun a month. That could very easily be built into the NICS system. Rifles aren't really problem guns in this country as far as crime is concerned, I don't see why we should have purchase limits for them, but if we have to have one to assuage the people's concerns, fine, say 3 rifles a month. THAT right there would clear up the straw purchase problem. It simply makes it too much effort to make money doing it. You no longer have the capability to go buy a dozen handguns and sell them out of the back of your car for a quick turn around.

As far as the mass shootings are concerned, tie in a reporting system to include serious mental health issues, allow reports to be filed by healthcare and social services personnel. Allow for an inspection, and allow for confiscation if the inspection is failed. Fine with that too, so long as there are extremely stringent guidelines for what constitutes a failed inspection, I do not want to hear about a confiscation because a single guy kept a .38 in his nightstand.

Those are all steps that would actually work, as in they would curb gun violence and help stop mass shootings. Another AWB would not.
 
2013-05-12 07:14:25 PM

you are a puppet: hardinparamedic: LookForTheArrow: YOURE THE ONE SUGGESTING WE BAN GUNS. SMART PEOPLE ARE SUGGESTING WE CONTROL THEM, JERKFACE

you are a puppet: Whoa, there are people trying to ban all the guns? And blatantly even?

You haven't been on FARK in the past several weeks, have you?

People like  ontariolightning are just as bad as people who act like anyone talking regulation means Obummer is gonna march in and jackboot their throats while they take their guns.

I've been on almost every day. So a guy named ontariolightning is trying to ban all the guns? Sounds like a Canadian. Any Americans? Any politicians or political groups trying to blatantly ban all the guns, anyone of note, any proposed legislation to ban all the guns, or just a Canadian guy on the internet?


I want to ban all guns, sir. /)
 
2013-05-12 07:14:31 PM

flamingboard: Shoot a dear with an automatic assault rifle and see how well the meat turns out.


77/10 pretty good troll
 
2013-05-12 07:14:40 PM

flamingboard: Theaetetus: a_real_human_being: Actually, I think grenades are a better comparison item than C4. Revised argument:

[img195.imageshack.us image 492x559]

"People shouldn't be able to buy grenades because they're lousy for hunting and tend to obliterate your dinner or trophy, and they'll cause  way too much property damage for home defense."

Your argument against guns apparently sucks.

Shoot a dear with an automatic assault rifle and see how well the meat turns out.


What's a dear?
 
2013-05-12 07:15:41 PM

coeyagi: Nabb1: coeyagi: Nabb1: EVERYBODY PANIC: Hey, that's my hometown. Only a dozen injured? And this is news? Meh.

Local reports seem to indicate one gang member shooting at another in a crowd and hitting just about everyone else but the guy he wanted to shoot. But, hey, political circle jerk.

Don't worry, your status quo of thousands dead per year will be maintained.  The NRA has bought everyone up, fear not, patriot.

I'm sure that if the Senate's background check bill had passed, gun violence in New Orleans would be drastically reduced, especially considering that all licensed gun dealers in Louisiana already do them.

Facepalm.  Yes, if it doesn't solve EVERY crime, it isn't worth doing.  Mrs. Edelstein called, she wants to change your 4th grade civics grade from a C to an F.


Spend a decade in the old city. Pick any neighborhood in New Orleans. Then get back with me on this. You live in "America", a much safer place than New Orleans. It ain't Detroit, but it has it's own otherworldly environment. In New Orleans, violence is expected, guns or no guns. We're not just shallow, we get creative about violence when the humidity matches the summer temperatures.
 
2013-05-12 07:17:33 PM
Almost 500 comments into a mass shooting thread and nobody's blamed the Tea Party yet?

img.photobucket.com
 
2013-05-12 07:18:25 PM
Seems that people seem to forget that intermediate calibers on relatively accurate rifles are good for hunting.

Oops.
 
2013-05-12 07:18:27 PM
Frank N Stein:

Fun fact: Children are 100% more likely to die from a pool than a gun. Which is amazing considering that guns are weapons and pools are not. Clearly we have a pool problem in this country.

You want to protect children, don't you?


Pools were not made for the purpose to maim. Your argument is no different than "if gays can marry then so should humans be legal to marry animals. It's reactionary to the reactionary and ill thought out
 
2013-05-12 07:19:19 PM
I'm sure that the shooters were otherwise law-abiding citizens with current state-issued concealed carry permits, and the enaction of more restrictive gun laws would have served to deter them from shooting up this parade.
 
2013-05-12 07:20:08 PM
maybe it was one of those 3-D printed guns?
 
2013-05-12 07:20:35 PM

GilRuiz1: Almost 500 comments into a mass shooting thread and nobody's blamed the Tea Party yet?


Why would they?
 
2013-05-12 07:21:00 PM

Ghastly: Second Amendment isn't about hunting, nice try Fudd. And it's not exclusively about home defense either. It's about defending yourself from tyranny. If the government is coming for you then you should be allowed by the Second Amendment to lob as many grenades as you can at the fascists.


Not sure if serious.
 
2013-05-12 07:21:02 PM

flamingboard: Theaetetus: a_real_human_being: Actually, I think grenades are a better comparison item than C4. Revised argument:

[img195.imageshack.us image 492x559]

"People shouldn't be able to buy grenades because they're lousy for hunting and tend to obliterate your dinner or trophy, and they'll cause  way too much property damage for home defense."

Your argument against guns apparently sucks.

Shoot a dear with an automatic assault rifle and see how well the meat turns out.


You can't go into a gun store and walk out with an automatic assault rifle, no matter how much you try and pass that myth off it doesn't change the fact that it NEVER HAPPENS. The only way you're getting your hands on an automatic assault rifle is with a thorough background check, and investigation into your character by the local CLEO, surrendering your fourth amendment rights, sending in fingerprint cards, and getting approved by BATFE to own it via the NFA tax stamp process.

There are thousands upon thousands of homes with NFA weapons in this country and not a single one of those NFA controlled weapons has been used in a crime. Ever. Never ever. Not since the establishment of the NFA.

So you can take this bullshiat rhetoric that you can go buy an automatic assault rifle at the local gun shop and go take a flying fark at a rolling donut.
 
2013-05-12 07:21:37 PM

ontariolightning: Frank N Stein:

Fun fact: Children are 100% more likely to die from a pool than a gun. Which is amazing considering that guns are weapons and pools are not. Clearly we have a pool problem in this country.

You want to protect children, don't you?

Pools were not made for the purpose to maim. Your argument is no different than "if gays can marry then so should humans be legal to marry animals. It's reactionary to the reactionary and ill thought out


The intent of the tool is irrelevant.  That's a fun fact for you.  Especially when it's spelled out in the Constitution.
 
2013-05-12 07:22:10 PM

iq_in_binary: Sorry.

No, you're not going to own anything controlled by the NFA without a background check, this includes grenades, grenade launchers, machine guns (legal), suppressors (also known in Hollywood as "Silencers," also legal in 38 states), Anti Material and Anti Aircraft guns (yes, legal). You're not going to go into a store and buy a gun without one. You're not going to walk into a gun show and purchase one without a background check either, so the whole "gun show loophole" talking point needs to be taken out back and shot.

The only way you're getting a gun without a background check is either through theft or through straw purchases, both are already illegal.


Thank you for the information.
 
2013-05-12 07:22:35 PM

Ghastly: Theaetetus: a_real_human_being: Actually, I think grenades are a better comparison item than C4. Revised argument:

[img195.imageshack.us image 492x559]

"People shouldn't be able to buy grenades because they're lousy for hunting and tend to obliterate your dinner or trophy, and they'll cause  way too much property damage for home defense."

Your argument against guns apparently sucks.

Second Amendment isn't about hunting, nice try Fudd. And it's not exclusively about home defense either. It's about defending yourself from tyranny. If the government is coming for you then you should be allowed by the Second Amendment to lob as many grenades as you can at the fascists.

Your argument against the Second Amendment apparently sucks.


You may be misreading my post: I never made an argument about the Second Amendment. I was simply responding to the poster as requested.
Your apology is graciously accepted.
 
2013-05-12 07:23:12 PM

Mugato: GilRuiz1: Almost 500 comments into a mass shooting thread and nobody's blamed the Tea Party yet?

Why would they?


To feed their insatiable persecution complex of course!

Everyone knows that there isn't a group more persecuted in this country than the Tea Party. Fox News told me so.

The poor delicate flowers...
 
2013-05-12 07:24:08 PM
ronaprhys:
The intent of the tool is irrelevant.  That's a fun fact for you.  Especially when it's spelled out in the Constitution.

How is the intent irrelevant? It's always about intent in criminal law.
 
2013-05-12 07:24:23 PM

Mrtraveler01: Mugato: GilRuiz1: Almost 500 comments into a mass shooting thread and nobody's blamed the Tea Party yet?

Why would they?

To feed their insatiable persecution complex of course!

Everyone knows that there isn't a group more persecuted in this country than the Tea Party. Fox News told me so.

The poor delicate flowers...


Really? I don't watch Fox News, but I find it kind of hard to believe they'd claim that the Tea Party is the most persecuted group in the US.
 
2013-05-12 07:24:56 PM

Ghastly: Theaetetus: a_real_human_being: Actually, I think grenades are a better comparison item than C4. Revised argument:

[img195.imageshack.us image 492x559]

"People shouldn't be able to buy grenades because they're lousy for hunting and tend to obliterate your dinner or trophy, and they'll cause  way too much property damage for home defense."

Your argument against guns apparently sucks.

Second Amendment isn't about hunting, nice try Fudd. And it's not exclusively about home defense either. It's about defending yourself from tyranny. If the government is coming for you then you should be allowed by the Second Amendment to lob as many grenades as you can at the fascists.

Your argument against the Second Amendment apparently sucks.


GUTSU: flamingboard: Theaetetus: a_real_human_being: Actually, I think grenades are a better comparison item than C4. Revised argument:

[img195.imageshack.us image 492x559]

"People shouldn't be able to buy grenades because they're lousy for hunting and tend to obliterate your dinner or trophy, and they'll cause  way too much property damage for home defense."

Your argument against guns apparently sucks.

Shoot a dear with an automatic assault rifle and see how well the meat turns out.

I wasn't aware that the 2nd amendment was for hunting, seeing how it isn't mentioned. Thank you for informing me of this well hidden secret.


Well that's technically correct; but since the Colonists went to war with weapons that also doubled as hunting muskets (were hunting weapons to be exact, no full autos/claymores/mortars/etc. in 1776) and hunting was essential for survival anywhere but in the few large colonial cities, that was most likely assumed.

IRT tyranny that is a nice theory, but our 'well armed militia' would have lost the war without the weapons, gunpowder, (read one study that said the colonies got 90% of their gunpowder from France) uniforms, etc. provided by France and other sympathetic (or just wanting to f*ck England) countries.

If a 'well armed population is a polite population', what's wrong with they USA then?
 
2013-05-12 07:26:14 PM

ontariolightning: ronaprhys:
The intent of the tool is irrelevant.  That's a fun fact for you.  Especially when it's spelled out in the Constitution.

How is the intent irrelevant? It's always about intent in criminal law.


Let's see here - over-extrapolation FTMFW!

Try again.
 
2013-05-12 07:26:36 PM

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Mrtraveler01: Mugato: GilRuiz1: Almost 500 comments into a mass shooting thread and nobody's blamed the Tea Party yet?

Why would they?

To feed their insatiable persecution complex of course!

Everyone knows that there isn't a group more persecuted in this country than the Tea Party. Fox News told me so.

The poor delicate flowers...

Really? I don't watch Fox News, but I find it kind of hard to believe they'd claim that the Tea Party is the most persecuted group in the US.


True.

They just biatch at how the MSM media is against them and that the America that they know and love is dying.

Then they have the daily feature on who is being mean to the Tea Party today.

For a group that likes to talk shiat about liberals and basically anyone who disagrees with them, they got thin skin when it comes to people criticizing them.
 
2013-05-12 07:27:22 PM

Gleeman: since the Colonists went to war with weapons that also doubled as hunting muskets (were hunting weapons to be exact, no full autos/claymores/mortars/etc. in 1776) and hunting was essential for survival anywhere but in the few large colonial cities, that was most likely assumed.


The Colonists also went to war with cannons and carronades, so, no, it's not a reasonable limitation to assume.
 
2013-05-12 07:28:06 PM

Gleeman: Ghastly: Theaetetus: a_real_human_being: Actually, I think grenades are a better comparison item than C4. Revised argument:

[img195.imageshack.us image 492x559]

"People shouldn't be able to buy grenades because they're lousy for hunting and tend to obliterate your dinner or trophy, and they'll cause  way too much property damage for home defense."

Your argument against guns apparently sucks.

Second Amendment isn't about hunting, nice try Fudd. And it's not exclusively about home defense either. It's about defending yourself from tyranny. If the government is coming for you then you should be allowed by the Second Amendment to lob as many grenades as you can at the fascists.

Your argument against the Second Amendment apparently sucks.

GUTSU: flamingboard: Theaetetus: a_real_human_being: Actually, I think grenades are a better comparison item than C4. Revised argument:

[img195.imageshack.us image 492x559]

"People shouldn't be able to buy grenades because they're lousy for hunting and tend to obliterate your dinner or trophy, and they'll cause  way too much property damage for home defense."

Your argument against guns apparently sucks.

Shoot a dear with an automatic assault rifle and see how well the meat turns out.

I wasn't aware that the 2nd amendment was for hunting, seeing how it isn't mentioned. Thank you for informing me of this well hidden secret.

Well that's technically correct; but since the Colonists went to war with weapons that also doubled as hunting muskets (were hunting weapons to be exact, no full autos/claymores/mortars/etc. in 1776) and hunting was essential for survival anywhere but in the few large colonial cities, that was most likely assumed.

IRT tyranny that is a nice theory, but our 'well armed militia' would have lost the war without the weapons, gunpowder, (read one study that said the colonies got 90% of their gunpowder from France) uniforms, etc. provided by France and other sympathetic (or just wanting to f*ck England) countrie ...


My question is that if it's my Constitutional right to buy a hand grenade, how come the SC hasn't struck down any laws that regulate the purchase of them?
 
2013-05-12 07:28:26 PM

Gleeman: Ghastly: Theaetetus: a_real_human_being: Actually, I think grenades are a better comparison item than C4. Revised argument:

If a 'well armed population is a polite population', what's wrong with they USA then?


Compare the murder rates of rural areas to urban areas. There is an entire world of difference.
 
2013-05-12 07:29:09 PM

Gleeman: Well that's technically correct; but since the Colonists went to war with weapons that also doubled as hunting muskets (were hunting weapons to be exact, no full autos/claymores/mortars/etc. in 1776) and hunting was essential for survival anywhere but in the few large colonial cities, that was most likely assumed.


Huh? There were mines, mortars, cannons, semiauto rifles even.

Now, this was also a period of time where the military lagged decades behind the private sector in terms of weapons technology, but they existed.
 
2013-05-12 07:30:29 PM

Gleeman: what's wrong with they USA then?



We've created a culture where "it's not my fault" and "the world owes me a living".
 
2013-05-12 07:31:28 PM

Theaetetus: Gleeman: since the Colonists went to war with weapons that also doubled as hunting muskets (were hunting weapons to be exact, no full autos/claymores/mortars/etc. in 1776) and hunting was essential for survival anywhere but in the few large colonial cities, that was most likely assumed.

The Colonists also went to war with cannons and carronades, so, no, it's not a reasonable limitation to assume.


Your average Colonist kept a cannon/carronade in their cabin?
 
2013-05-12 07:31:38 PM

Mrtraveler01: Gleeman: Ghastly: Theaetetus: a_real_human_being: Actually, I think grenades are a better comparison item than C4. Revised argument:

[img195.imageshack.us image 492x559]

"People shouldn't be able to buy grenades because they're lousy for hunting and tend to obliterate your dinner or trophy, and they'll cause  way too much property damage for home defense."

Your argument against guns apparently sucks.

Second Amendment isn't about hunting, nice try Fudd. And it's not exclusively about home defense either. It's about defending yourself from tyranny. If the government is coming for you then you should be allowed by the Second Amendment to lob as many grenades as you can at the fascists.

Your argument against the Second Amendment apparently sucks.

GUTSU: flamingboard: Theaetetus: a_real_human_being: Actually, I think grenades are a better comparison item than C4. Revised argument:

[img195.imageshack.us image 492x559]

"People shouldn't be able to buy grenades because they're lousy for hunting and tend to obliterate your dinner or trophy, and they'll cause  way too much property damage for home defense."

Your argument against guns apparently sucks.

Shoot a dear with an automatic assault rifle and see how well the meat turns out.

I wasn't aware that the 2nd amendment was for hunting, seeing how it isn't mentioned. Thank you for informing me of this well hidden secret.

Well that's technically correct; but since the Colonists went to war with weapons that also doubled as hunting muskets (were hunting weapons to be exact, no full autos/claymores/mortars/etc. in 1776) and hunting was essential for survival anywhere but in the few large colonial cities, that was most likely assumed.

IRT tyranny that is a nice theory, but our 'well armed militia' would have lost the war without the weapons, gunpowder, (read one study that said the colonies got 90% of their gunpowder from France) uniforms, etc. provided by France and other sympathetic (or just wanting to f*ck England) ...


Because there are no prohibitions on them, just strict controls.

Things like the AWB and the Hughes amendment, however, would be struck down in todays SC if challenged.
 
2013-05-12 07:32:19 PM

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Really? I don't watch Fox News, but I find it kind of hard to believe they'd claim that the Tea Party is the most persecuted group in the US.


Well we are talking about Fox News, the #1 highest rated TV news source that constantly goes on about the right being persecuted by the "mainstream media". Projection is not foreign to them.
 
2013-05-12 07:33:01 PM

Gleeman: Theaetetus: Gleeman: since the Colonists went to war with weapons that also doubled as hunting muskets (were hunting weapons to be exact, no full autos/claymores/mortars/etc. in 1776) and hunting was essential for survival anywhere but in the few large colonial cities, that was most likely assumed.

The Colonists also went to war with cannons and carronades, so, no, it's not a reasonable limitation to assume.

Your average Colonist kept a cannon/carronade in their cabin?


Not the average colonist - but if the colonist had money, there were no real restrictions.
 
2013-05-12 07:33:03 PM

iq_in_binary: Mrtraveler01: Gleeman: Ghastly: Theaetetus: a_real_human_being: Actually, I think grenades are a better comparison item than C4. Revised argument:

[img195.imageshack.us image 492x559]

"People shouldn't be able to buy grenades because they're lousy for hunting and tend to obliterate your dinner or trophy, and they'll cause  way too much property damage for home defense."

Your argument against guns apparently sucks.

Second Amendment isn't about hunting, nice try Fudd. And it's not exclusively about home defense either. It's about defending yourself from tyranny. If the government is coming for you then you should be allowed by the Second Amendment to lob as many grenades as you can at the fascists.

Your argument against the Second Amendment apparently sucks.

GUTSU: flamingboard: Theaetetus: a_real_human_being: Actually, I think grenades are a better comparison item than C4. Revised argument:

[img195.imageshack.us image 492x559]

"People shouldn't be able to buy grenades because they're lousy for hunting and tend to obliterate your dinner or trophy, and they'll cause  way too much property damage for home defense."

Your argument against guns apparently sucks.

Shoot a dear with an automatic assault rifle and see how well the meat turns out.

I wasn't aware that the 2nd amendment was for hunting, seeing how it isn't mentioned. Thank you for informing me of this well hidden secret.

Well that's technically correct; but since the Colonists went to war with weapons that also doubled as hunting muskets (were hunting weapons to be exact, no full autos/claymores/mortars/etc. in 1776) and hunting was essential for survival anywhere but in the few large colonial cities, that was most likely assumed.

IRT tyranny that is a nice theory, but our 'well armed militia' would have lost the war without the weapons, gunpowder, (read one study that said the colonies got 90% of their gunpowder from France) uniforms, etc. provided by France and other sympathetic (or just wanting to ...


I'm not a fan of bans either and think that strengthening background checks is a more effective way to handle it instead of a full on ban.
 
Displayed 50 of 673 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report