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.

(Opposing Views)   Gun advocacy group insists that them raffling off the same gun that killed Travyon Martin was totally unintentional. Why were they doing it on the day that George Zimmerman's defense attorney was scheduled to speak, you ask? Just a coincidence   (opposingviews.com) divider line 277
    More: Unlikely, George Zimmerman, Mark O'Mara, advocacy group, Gun advocacy, Florida Today, Republican Liberty Caucus, handguns  
•       •       •

2774 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 Oct 2013 at 9:47 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-10-30 12:05:30 AM  

Bucky Katt: mediablitz: Pussies. Not even man enough to own their bullshiat.

Yep.


Let me guess. Because you didn't read the article, you think that this gun is actually the very same gun that was used to shoot Trayvon, and not simply the same model. Furthermore, if you even respond to this you'll say that you did in fact know it was just the model, then you'll come up with some retarded excuse on why people should be outraged
 
2013-10-30 12:06:28 AM  

mediablitz: Pussies. Not even man enough to own their bullshiat.


You sound like someone who would suckerpunch a fellow then be upset when the person in fear for his life shot you. Go see a doctor about that sand n your vagina.
 
2013-10-30 12:07:30 AM  

udhq: Mrbogey: udhq: The 2nd amendment was crafted primarily as a means to enforce slavery, but people tend to get a little touchy when you bring up that inconvenient truth.

It's not that the truth is inconvenient, it's the sources that are strained and convoluted. The justification you have is all too convenient. Put it to you this way, saying the 2nd Amendment was designed to enforce slavery is about as goofy as saying the banana was designed to fit into a human hand.

Interesting experiment for you. Put "2nd Amendment Slavery" into google. Note all the results are bunched around the same date and refer to a lot of the same sources. It's because it's a talking point created around the beginning of this year by a fraudulent pseudo-historian. His article was within days spread from one end of the Earth to the other. It's been debunked. Very debunked. I'd wager that you yourself never uttered the argument before it was put there by talking heads intent on manufacturing your opinion earlier this year.

What on earth makes you think that this is a new idea?

I used to work as an education consultant pre-no child, and several states had this fact on their social studies standards. I couldn't tell you which states of the top of my head, butit was printed as fact in several state-specific textbooks. I believe it was Georgia that actually had an entire section on the "Negro disarmament movement" that birthed the NRA. I actually found it pretty shocking that they would teach that stuff.


That's the very same reason that you're confused on both the 1st and 2nd Amendments. I don't think that you've ever really read them. If you have, you never really understood either one. I challenge you, only you, to find the fault in either of these. Remember, one doesn't serve without the other. On the same hand, one can't exist without the other.
 
2013-10-30 12:09:40 AM  
udhq:  I believe it was Georgia that actually had an entire section on the "Negro disarmament movement" that birthed the NRA. I actually found it pretty shocking that they would teach that stuff.

The NRA was "birthed" shortly after the "War of Northern Aggression" by a bunch of military guys from the UNION who had been dismayed by the lack of firearms training they saw in the majority of UNION conscripts during the War.

Gun control started out as a means to keep minorities from owning guns.  Even Michael Moore touches on this in "Bowling for Columbine".  A case could be made that gun control is STILL used to try to disarm minorities.
 
2013-10-30 12:10:07 AM  

JohnBigBootay: Stay classy barely veiled racist douches.


ah name calling and playing the race card, someone is going for their super liberal card!
 
2013-10-30 12:10:12 AM  

TwistedIvory: There are a lot more leftie gun owners here than I would've figured.

Cool!

As far as topicality is concerned: It's a Kel-Tec. I wouldn't buy a raffle ticket for ANY sort of Kel-Tec. They're worse than Taurus, and I've had a few of those (and all have needed factory warranty work). PF-9 or not, ugh. The advocacy group should be ashamed of being in poor taste even WITHOUT the Zimmerman connection.


There's two major U.S. brands I genuinely don't feel comfortable shooting, due to their notorious quality control issues:

Hi-Point and Kel-Tec.
 
2013-10-30 12:12:00 AM  

udhq: Ask anyone under 20, and they'll tell you that gun owners are weird and socially dysfunctional.

That demographic shift is a long-term existential threat if you believe in the second amendment, and gun owners have nobody but themselves to blame for it.

You want to preserve your second amendment rights? Stop treating your gun as a license to behave like an antisocial shiat ball of a human being.


Sooooo we're letting 20 year olds set the narrative? They're still on their parents insurance!!!
 
2013-10-30 12:12:30 AM  
Tacky.
 
2013-10-30 12:12:36 AM  

axeeugene: Ow! That was my feelings!: Believe what you want Democrats. But if think an aggressive attack on gun owners,

Right. It's the Democrats working toward sensible weapons restrictions and more thorough background checks who are perpetrating an aggressive attack on those poor, defenseless, poorly-funded, politically under-represented, peace-loving gun owners. I'm sure that representation of the situation will get you far.

It's the relentless howling from the weapons lobbies that nets us the useless, meaningless, wrong-headed kinds of restrictions we end up with - because they're all that can pass when one side is rabid. If the vociferous supporters of gun rights in this country would quit gobbling the NRA's knob and be willing to acknowledge that the gun culture in this country does indeed bring problems that need commonsense solutions, then choose to present a few ideas to help solve them instead of hollering, "MOLON LABE, biatchES! FROM MY COLD, DEAD HANDS, YOU COMMIE FASCIST BASTARDS!" then we might get somewhere sensible.

But no. It always has to devolve into this.

I think it's high time for left-leaning gun owners like myself and a few others to take a more active part in this debate...forget what I said earlier in this thread, because cooler heads have to prevail in this debate at some point. It's time to take back the goddamn asylum.


Heh, you sound credible. Glad you checked your politispeak against Herr Bloomberg's master list, don't wanna get in bad with the boss! Can't get the bonus otherwise.

//Seriously, whether you are credible or not, you come across as a sycophant, you use their terminology and everything. No one has ever credibly stated "left wing gun owner" to refer to themselves, ever. EVER.
 
2013-10-30 12:12:37 AM  

axeeugene: then we might get somewhere sensible.


And where is that? What is sensible?

Keep in mind we tried "sensible restrictions" with the 1968 GCA and it left us with the president halting the re-importation of WW2 era rifles. The current pressure against gun control is precisely because of the overreach by gun control advocates.

At the point when you realize the banker is trying to steal your home, taking out another mortgage from him isn't going to fix it.
 
2013-10-30 12:13:07 AM  
farm3.staticflickr.com
 
2013-10-30 12:14:20 AM  

udhq: kerrigand: udhq: kerrigand: udhq: kerrigand: udhq: kerrigand: udhq: The_Sponge: udhq: Ask anyone under 20, and they'll tell you that gun owners are weird and socially dysfunctional.


1) Anyone?  Make blanket statements often?  Or are you just a garden variety troll?

2) Yes, because people under 20 are known for their wisdom and vast life experience.  Oh wait, they're not.

3) Socially dysfunctional?  That's news to my friends and coworkers.

It may be a blanket statement, but it's true. This is the Columbine generation who've never known a school without metal detectors, and who've lived through the violent rhetoric of 2 separate anti government movements, the tea party and the 90s militia movement.

I'm a second amendment agnostic, I've owned guns in the past but don't currently, and I dont really care about gun rights, except when people start talking about guns as expressions of political power; this kind of rhetoric makes you a violent thug and quite literally a fascist.

All I'm saying is that if you value gun rights, PR matters. And if you want to alienate the people who will be voting on things like gun control in the future, treating the violent killing of a child as a "victory" in any way for your side is a great way to about it.

Well you can feel free to express what you think. Our 2nd Amendment, protects your right to the 1st. You may want to think about that.

Now this line does bother me. IMO, guns should not be treated as a political tool. We live in a representative democracy precisely so the rules aren't written by the most heavily armed.

While your are correct to an extent the 2nd shouldn't really be treated as a political tool. But when people such as yourself want to remove it, it affects all of us. I know that you don't think that it does, but it does. And you, are, using it as a political tool. Don't forget that. You, are, using it, as a political tool.

I never said I wanted to get rid of the second amendment, I mostly just want gun owners ...


That's not the stance that you have taken and you know it. You go ahead and keep telling yourself that it is. But you need to remember, us thugs that keep that 2nd Amendment close to our hearts, are also the thugs that keep working and believing in the 1st also. You can try to rationalize that statement all you want too. But it always comes back to you.
 
2013-10-30 12:15:55 AM  

kerrigand: udhq: Mrbogey: udhq: The 2nd amendment was crafted primarily as a means to enforce slavery, but people tend to get a little touchy when you bring up that inconvenient truth.

It's not that the truth is inconvenient, it's the sources that are strained and convoluted. The justification you have is all too convenient. Put it to you this way, saying the 2nd Amendment was designed to enforce slavery is about as goofy as saying the banana was designed to fit into a human hand.

Interesting experiment for you. Put "2nd Amendment Slavery" into google. Note all the results are bunched around the same date and refer to a lot of the same sources. It's because it's a talking point created around the beginning of this year by a fraudulent pseudo-historian. His article was within days spread from one end of the Earth to the other. It's been debunked. Very debunked. I'd wager that you yourself never uttered the argument before it was put there by talking heads intent on manufacturing your opinion earlier this year.

What on earth makes you think that this is a new idea?

I used to work as an education consultant pre-no child, and several states had this fact on their social studies standards. I couldn't tell you which states of the top of my head, butit was printed as fact in several state-specific textbooks. I believe it was Georgia that actually had an entire section on the "Negro disarmament movement" that birthed the NRA. I actually found it pretty shocking that they would teach that stuff.

That's the very same reason that you're confused on both the 1st and 2nd Amendments. I don't think that you've ever really read them. If you have, you never really understood either one. I challenge you, only you, to find the fault in either of these. Remember, one doesn't serve without the other. On the same hand, one can't exist without the other.


Didn't you JUST try to argue that the 2nd amendment granted a person right 10 minutes ago? Or was that someone else?

If that was you, you have absolutely zero standing to question anybody else's understanding of either amendment.
 
2013-10-30 12:21:05 AM  

kerrigand: udhq: kerrigand: udhq: kerrigand: udhq: kerrigand: udhq: kerrigand: udhq: The_Sponge: udhq: Ask anyone under 20, and they'll tell you that gun owners are weird and socially dysfunctional.


1) Anyone?  Make blanket statements often?  Or are you just a garden variety troll?

2) Yes, because people under 20 are known for their wisdom and vast life experience.  Oh wait, they're not.

3) Socially dysfunctional?  That's news to my friends and coworkers.

It may be a blanket statement, but it's true. This is the Columbine generation who've never known a school without metal detectors, and who've lived through the violent rhetoric of 2 separate anti government movements, the tea party and the 90s militia movement.

I'm a second amendment agnostic, I've owned guns in the past but don't currently, and I dont really care about gun rights, except when people start talking about guns as expressions of political power; this kind of rhetoric makes you a violent thug and quite literally a fascist.

All I'm saying is that if you value gun rights, PR matters. And if you want to alienate the people who will be voting on things like gun control in the future, treating the violent killing of a child as a "victory" in any way for your side is a great way to about it.

Well you can feel free to express what you think. Our 2nd Amendment, protects your right to the 1st. You may want to think about that.

Now this line does bother me. IMO, guns should not be treated as a political tool. We live in a representative democracy precisely so the rules aren't written by the most heavily armed.

While your are correct to an extent the 2nd shouldn't really be treated as a political tool. But when people such as yourself want to remove it, it affects all of us. I know that you don't think that it does, but it does. And you, are, using it as a political tool. Don't forget that. You, are, using it, as a political tool.

I never said I wanted to get rid of the second amendment, I mostly just want gun owners ...

That's not the stance that you have taken and you know it. You go ahead and keep telling yourself that it is. But you need to remember, us thugs that keep that 2nd Amendment close to our hearts, are also the thugs that keep working and believing in the 1st also. You can try to rationalize that statement all you want too. But it always comes back to you.


Believe what you want, but historically, this had just not been the case.

Look at JFK, RFK, MLK, etc. The history of America is one of 1st amendment heroes being continually silenced by 2nd amendment heroes.
 
2013-10-30 12:21:58 AM  

kerrigand: LoneWolf343: kerrigand: udhq: The_Sponge: udhq: Ask anyone under 20, and they'll tell you that gun owners are weird and socially dysfunctional.


1) Anyone?  Make blanket statements often?  Or are you just a garden variety troll?

2) Yes, because people under 20 are known for their wisdom and vast life experience.  Oh wait, they're not.

3) Socially dysfunctional?  That's news to my friends and coworkers.

It may be a blanket statement, but it's true. This is the Columbine generation who've never known a school without metal detectors, and who've lived through the violent rhetoric of 2 separate anti government movements, the tea party and the 90s militia movement.

I'm a second amendment agnostic, I've owned guns in the past but don't currently, and I dont really care about gun rights, except when people start talking about guns as expressions of political power; this kind of rhetoric makes you a violent thug and quite literally a fascist.

All I'm saying is that if you value gun rights, PR matters. And if you want to alienate the people who will be voting on things like gun control in the future, treating the violent killing of a child as a "victory" in any way for your side is a great way to about it.

Well you can feel free to express what you think. Our 2nd Amendment, protects your right to the 1st. You may want to think about that.

LOL. Name one time, ONE TIME, where the threat of armed insurrection has prevented a government office from infringing on the freedom of expression.

1775
they haven't attempted it since.
/That was your ONCE
//wanna try for two?


You mean Lexington and Concord? Didn't we lose hilariously?

Also, we wouldn't have won the war without 1.) fielding our own professional army, and 2.) convincing the French to join our side. The minuteman myth is just that, a myth.

So, no, you didn't get it this time. Try again.
 
2013-10-30 12:22:07 AM  

udhq: kerrigand: udhq: Mrbogey: udhq: The 2nd amendment was crafted primarily as a means to enforce slavery, but people tend to get a little touchy when you bring up that inconvenient truth.

It's not that the truth is inconvenient, it's the sources that are strained and convoluted. The justification you have is all too convenient. Put it to you this way, saying the 2nd Amendment was designed to enforce slavery is about as goofy as saying the banana was designed to fit into a human hand.

Interesting experiment for you. Put "2nd Amendment Slavery" into google. Note all the results are bunched around the same date and refer to a lot of the same sources. It's because it's a talking point created around the beginning of this year by a fraudulent pseudo-historian. His article was within days spread from one end of the Earth to the other. It's been debunked. Very debunked. I'd wager that you yourself never uttered the argument before it was put there by talking heads intent on manufacturing your opinion earlier this year.

What on earth makes you think that this is a new idea?

I used to work as an education consultant pre-no child, and several states had this fact on their social studies standards. I couldn't tell you which states of the top of my head, butit was printed as fact in several state-specific textbooks. I believe it was Georgia that actually had an entire section on the "Negro disarmament movement" that birthed the NRA. I actually found it pretty shocking that they would teach that stuff.

That's the very same reason that you're confused on both the 1st and 2nd Amendments. I don't think that you've ever really read them. If you have, you never really understood either one. I challenge you, only you, to find the fault in either of these. Remember, one doesn't serve without the other. On the same hand, one can't exist without the other.

Didn't you JUST try to argue that the 2nd amendment granted a person right 10 minutes ago? Or was that someone else?

If that was ...


I'm sorry, would you mind quoting me that or are you now trying to defend your position again?
 
2013-10-30 12:23:58 AM  

WhyKnot: Mugato: WhyKnot: Mugato: WhyKnot: I never said replace elections...if the government were to say...suspend elections...then yes, similar to the revolution, the people would have the means to displace the oppressors.

The thought of "the people" taking on the US military is farking ludicrous.

Yup...the same was thought about a bunch of "colonies" and the "British empire".

And you think those two scenarios are similar in any way?

Clearly military technology had advanced x1000.

That being said and all do respect to our military, how did our start of the art technology work against tribes in Afghanistan and Iraq?

How about Mumbaric in Egpyt? Or Kadafi?


You're going to compare a limited invasion force occupying a country thousands of miles away to the entire military holding our own country against a few hundred American gun nuts? Besides which, we're doing pretty well in Iraq and Afghanistan. We've had casualties of course and we shouldn't have been there in the first place but we've been occupying both countries about ten minutes after we went in.

I'm saying that it's never going to happen. No one is going to rise up against the government and if they do they'll get stomped on. It's some Red Dawn wet dream that gun people like to fantasize about.
 
2013-10-30 12:24:09 AM  

Secret Master of All Flatulence: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Oddly enough, I don't really consort with a lot of teenagers, but the three I've talked to recently (we go to the same gym) all own guns.

My 6 year old and 9 year old daughters both LOVE their guns and going to the range. Here's a picture of one such trip:
[i135.photobucket.com image 799x598]
I often wonder if the anti-gunners think that she's compensating for having a small penis...


I think she's being unduly influenced by a father with a small penis.

/get back to us when she is 30 has has the opportunity to make decisions based on her, and not her parents', opinions
 
2013-10-30 12:24:29 AM  

udhq: kerrigand: udhq: kerrigand: udhq: kerrigand: udhq: kerrigand: udhq: kerrigand: udhq: The_Sponge: udhq: Ask anyone under 20, and they'll tell you that gun owners are weird and socially dysfunctional.


1) Anyone?  Make blanket statements often?  Or are you just a garden variety troll?

2) Yes, because people under 20 are known for their wisdom and vast life experience.  Oh wait, they're not.

3) Socially dysfunctional?  That's news to my friends and coworkers.

It may be a blanket statement, but it's true. This is the Columbine generation who've never known a school without metal detectors, and who've lived through the violent rhetoric of 2 separate anti government movements, the tea party and the 90s militia movement.

I'm a second amendment agnostic, I've owned guns in the past but don't currently, and I dont really care about gun rights, except when people start talking about guns as expressions of political power; this kind of rhetoric makes you a violent thug and quite literally a fascist.

All I'm saying is that if you value gun rights, PR matters. And if you want to alienate the people who will be voting on things like gun control in the future, treating the violent killing of a child as a "victory" in any way for your side is a great way to about it.

Well you can feel free to express what you think. Our 2nd Amendment, protects your right to the 1st. You may want to think about that.

Now this line does bother me. IMO, guns should not be treated as a political tool. We live in a representative democracy precisely so the rules aren't written by the most heavily armed.

While your are correct to an extent the 2nd shouldn't really be treated as a political tool. But when people such as yourself want to remove it, it affects all of us. I know that you don't think that it does, but it does. And you, are, using it as a political tool. Don't forget that. You, are, using it, as a political tool.

I never said I wanted to get rid of the second amendment, I mostly just ...


4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-10-30 12:25:16 AM  

BadReligion: My nearly 13 year old daughter graduated from her Crickett .22 to a Savage Axis .223. She enjoys shooting a lot.


CSB:  I started mine on AR-style rifles when they were 5.  My oldest (9 years old) has become a recoil junkie.  When I started her on handguns, we moved from .22LR to 9mm, and to my surprise we went quickly to .45.  After shooting the 9mm, she told me "I need more recoil.  Don't you have anything bigger?"  I then gave her my EDC .45, figuring that it'd be plenty.  After she fired it, she told me "MORE, Daddy!  MORE!!!"  This made me laugh.  Last week, she had to write a paper for school about something that really made her happy.  Her self-selected topic:  When I told her that I'd taken her 6th Birthday off from work, and we could do whatever she wanted, just me and her, and she chose to go to the range with me.  I had nothing to do with the paper, and only heard about it after it had been turned in, graded, and returned to her.  I don't know if I should expect a "THANK YOU!" from her future boyfriends, or feel really, really bad for them.  :lol:
 
2013-10-30 12:26:57 AM  

Mugato: WhyKnot: Mugato: WhyKnot: Mugato: WhyKnot: I never said replace elections...if the government were to say...suspend elections...then yes, similar to the revolution, the people would have the means to displace the oppressors.

The thought of "the people" taking on the US military is farking ludicrous.

Yup...the same was thought about a bunch of "colonies" and the "British empire".

And you think those two scenarios are similar in any way?

Clearly military technology had advanced x1000.

That being said and all do respect to our military, how did our start of the art technology work against tribes in Afghanistan and Iraq?

How about Mumbaric in Egpyt? Or Kadafi?

You're going to compare a limited invasion force occupying a country thousands of miles away to the entire military holding our own country against a few hundred American gun nuts? Besides which, we're doing pretty well in Iraq and Afghanistan. We've had casualties of course and we shouldn't have been there in the first place but we've been occupying both countries about ten minutes after we went in.

I'm saying that it's never going to happen. No one is going to rise up against the government and if they do they'll get stomped on. It's some Red Dawn wet dream that gun people like to fantasize about.


s3.cliffpro.com

Wow, you really sound just plain old dumb.
 
2013-10-30 12:28:07 AM  

LoneWolf343: Secret Master of All Flatulence: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Oddly enough, I don't really consort with a lot of teenagers, but the three I've talked to recently (we go to the same gym) all own guns.

My 6 year old and 9 year old daughters both LOVE their guns and going to the range. Here's a picture of one such trip:
[i135.photobucket.com image 799x598]
I often wonder if the anti-gunners think that she's compensating for having a small penis...

I think she's being unduly influenced by a father with a small penis.

/get back to us when she is 30 has has the opportunity to make decisions based on her, and not her parents', opinions


lol. A guy with the username "LoneWolf" is trying to judge people. Let me guess: you're overweight, agnostic or atheist, liberal, single, long hair, pasty, work as an IT or similar job, and you wear fedoras on the reg.
 
2013-10-30 12:29:24 AM  

LoneWolf343: I think she's being unduly influenced by a father with a small penis.


Regarding my penis size:  It's obviously big enough to get the job done, as demonstrated by the fact that I have "at least" two biological children.  You can say it's small without seeing it, but I don't make a lot of money, and I've been in a monogamous relationship with the same woman for a little bit over two decades.
 
2013-10-30 12:29:37 AM  

kerrigand: udhq: kerrigand: udhq: Mrbogey: udhq: The 2nd amendment was crafted primarily as a means to enforce slavery, but people tend to get a little touchy when you bring up that inconvenient truth.

It's not that the truth is inconvenient, it's the sources that are strained and convoluted. The justification you have is all too convenient. Put it to you this way, saying the 2nd Amendment was designed to enforce slavery is about as goofy as saying the banana was designed to fit into a human hand.

Interesting experiment for you. Put "2nd Amendment Slavery" into google. Note all the results are bunched around the same date and refer to a lot of the same sources. It's because it's a talking point created around the beginning of this year by a fraudulent pseudo-historian. His article was within days spread from one end of the Earth to the other. It's been debunked. Very debunked. I'd wager that you yourself never uttered the argument before it was put there by talking heads intent on manufacturing your opinion earlier this year.

What on earth makes you think that this is a new idea?

I used to work as an education consultant pre-no child, and several states had this fact on their social studies standards. I couldn't tell you which states of the top of my head, butit was printed as fact in several state-specific textbooks. I believe it was Georgia that actually had an entire section on the "Negro disarmament movement" that birthed the NRA. I actually found it pretty shocking that they would teach that stuff.

That's the very same reason that you're confused on both the 1st and 2nd Amendments. I don't think that you've ever really read them. If you have, you never really understood either one. I challenge you, only you, to find the fault in either of these. Remember, one doesn't serve without the other. On the same hand, one can't exist without the other.

Didn't you JUST try to argue that the 2nd amendment granted a person right 10 minutes ago? Or was that someone else?

If that was ...

I'm sorry, would you mind quoting me that or are you now trying to defend your position again?


My point was simply that anyone that believes the 2nd grants an individual right fundamentally doesn't understand the text of the amendment.

If that was someone else making that argument, I apologize, I'm obviously juggling about 6 different conversations here.
 
2013-10-30 12:29:41 AM  

LoneWolf343: kerrigand: LoneWolf343: kerrigand: udhq: The_Sponge: udhq: Ask anyone under 20, and they'll tell you that gun owners are weird and socially dysfunctional.


1) Anyone?  Make blanket statements often?  Or are you just a garden variety troll?

2) Yes, because people under 20 are known for their wisdom and vast life experience.  Oh wait, they're not.

3) Socially dysfunctional?  That's news to my friends and coworkers.

It may be a blanket statement, but it's true. This is the Columbine generation who've never known a school without metal detectors, and who've lived through the violent rhetoric of 2 separate anti government movements, the tea party and the 90s militia movement.

I'm a second amendment agnostic, I've owned guns in the past but don't currently, and I dont really care about gun rights, except when people start talking about guns as expressions of political power; this kind of rhetoric makes you a violent thug and quite literally a fascist.

All I'm saying is that if you value gun rights, PR matters. And if you want to alienate the people who will be voting on things like gun control in the future, treating the violent killing of a child as a "victory" in any way for your side is a great way to about it.

Well you can feel free to express what you think. Our 2nd Amendment, protects your right to the 1st. You may want to think about that.

LOL. Name one time, ONE TIME, where the threat of armed insurrection has prevented a government office from infringing on the freedom of expression.

1775
they haven't attempted it since.
/That was your ONCE
//wanna try for two?

You mean Lexington and Concord? Didn't we lose hilariously?

Also, we wouldn't have won the war without 1.) fielding our own professional army, and 2.) convincing the French to join our side. The minuteman myth is just that, a myth.

So, no, you didn't get it this time. Try again.

I'm not here to try and appease you hot shot. I don't need to. You know the truth. I realize that you really just want a internet fight. I know you and your type. Keep telling yourself that, this isn't the truth, keep telling yourself that you're some chick magnet. Keep telling yourself that what happened, didn't happen. Go ahead, keep telling yourself that. Everyone else, knows the truth. It's not us that you have to convince. It's yourself that you have to convince.
 
2013-10-30 12:30:32 AM  

Ow! That was my feelings!: Wow, you really sound just plain old dumb.


Because I think there will never be an armed insurrection in this country in at least our lifetimes? Ok, post back in 60 years and we'll see which one of us was right.
 
2013-10-30 12:33:58 AM  

Frank N Stein: LoneWolf343: Secret Master of All Flatulence: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Oddly enough, I don't really consort with a lot of teenagers, but the three I've talked to recently (we go to the same gym) all own guns.

My 6 year old and 9 year old daughters both LOVE their guns and going to the range. Here's a picture of one such trip:
[i135.photobucket.com image 799x598]
I often wonder if the anti-gunners think that she's compensating for having a small penis...

I think she's being unduly influenced by a father with a small penis.

/get back to us when she is 30 has has the opportunity to make decisions based on her, and not her parents', opinions

lol. A guy with the username "LoneWolf" is trying to judge people. Let me guess: you're overweight,


Yes

agnostic or atheist

Christian

liberal

Depends on who you ask

single

Boyfriend

long hair

Yep, and my boyfriend loves it

pasty, work as an IT or similar job

I work outdoors, so I have a nice tan in those places that see sunlight

and you wear fedoras on the reg

I have a plaid golfer's cap. Most I ever wore it was this summer when I had to drive with the windows rolled down due to broken A/C.

Is that really all you got, tough guy?
 
2013-10-30 12:34:07 AM  

LoneWolf343: Secret Master of All Flatulence: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Oddly enough, I don't really consort with a lot of teenagers, but the three I've talked to recently (we go to the same gym) all own guns.

My 6 year old and 9 year old daughters both LOVE their guns and going to the range. Here's a picture of one such trip:
[i135.photobucket.com image 799x598]
I often wonder if the anti-gunners think that she's compensating for having a small penis...

I think she's being unduly influenced by a father with a small penis.

/get back to us when she is 30 has has the opportunity to make decisions based on her, and not her parents', opinions


Seriously dude....f*ck you. Target practice and firearm safety are great hobbies to teach kids. I'm sorry that you have a serious case of hoplophobia.
 
2013-10-30 12:36:08 AM  

udhq: My point was simply that anyone that believes the 2nd grants an individual right fundamentally doesn't understand the text of the amendment.


Well, since 5 Supreme Court Justices have EXPLICITLY stated that the 2nd Amendment DOES enumerate an individual right of individuals to both keep and bear firearms, and that such right applies not only to the Federal government, but also must constrain States and Municipalities from restricting that right, I feel comfortable that YOU don't seem to understand the text of the 2nd Amendment.  Gun control laws must now face "strict scrutiny" when they are challenged in any court.
 
2013-10-30 12:37:37 AM  

Sgt Otter: Hi-Point and Kel-Tec.


I actually wouldn't mind a super-cheap Hi-Point as a beater truck gun. Their products feel awful in the hand, but they do at least function. There are a few "Hi-Point torture tests" on YouTube that are testaments to this fact.

That being said, I owned one for a little bit just to see if I could encourage a malf out of it. No such luck. As much as I hated shooting it, it went bang every time.

I really wanted to be 100% okay with Taurus. Hell, I have a 605SS that's one of my EDC guns. It, however, has given me problems on a couple separate occasions but I really only trust that first round. I'm trying to find a decent S&W Model 60 or the like to replace the Taurus, but I've had little luck on that front.
 
2013-10-30 12:38:33 AM  
kerrigand: I'm not here to try and appease you hot shot. I don't need to. You know the truth. I realize that you really just want a internet fight. I know you and your type. Keep telling yourself that, this isn't the truth, keep telling yourself that you're some chick magnet. Keep telling yourself that what happened, didn't happen. Go ahead, keep telling yourself that. Everyone else, knows the truth. It's not us that you have to convince. It's yourself that you have to convince.

www.kcconfidential.com
 
2013-10-30 12:40:56 AM  

Secret Master of All Flatulence: udhq: My point was simply that anyone that believes the 2nd grants an individual right fundamentally doesn't understand the text of the amendment.

Well, since 5 Supreme Court Justices have EXPLICITLY stated that the 2nd Amendment DOES enumerate an individual right of individuals to both keep and bear firearms, and that such right applies not only to the Federal government, but also must constrain States and Municipalities from restricting that right, I feel comfortable that YOU don't seem to understand the text of the 2nd Amendment.  Gun control laws must now face "strict scrutiny" when they are challenged in any court.


Supreme Court Justices have also said that corporations are people, and that black people don't have the same rights as white people. Excuse me if I doubt their wisdom.

/funny how gun nuts rush to defend the sanctity of SCOTUS when it rules in their favor.
 
2013-10-30 12:41:02 AM  

Secret Master of All Flatulence: LoneWolf343: I think she's being unduly influenced by a father with a small penis.

Regarding my penis size:  It's obviously big enough to get the job done, as demonstrated by the fact that I have "at least" two biological children.  You can say it's small without seeing it, but I don't make a lot of money, and I've been in a monogamous relationship with the same woman for a little bit over two decades.


I think he was challenging you to flash him. Don't do it. It's a trick.
 
2013-10-30 12:41:09 AM  

udhq: kerrigand: udhq: kerrigand: udhq: Mrbogey: udhq: The 2nd amendment was crafted primarily as a means to enforce slavery, but people tend to get a little touchy when you bring up that inconvenient truth.

It's not that the truth is inconvenient, it's the sources that are strained and convoluted. The justification you have is all too convenient. Put it to you this way, saying the 2nd Amendment was designed to enforce slavery is about as goofy as saying the banana was designed to fit into a human hand.

Interesting experiment for you. Put "2nd Amendment Slavery" into google. Note all the results are bunched around the same date and refer to a lot of the same sources. It's because it's a talking point created around the beginning of this year by a fraudulent pseudo-historian. His article was within days spread from one end of the Earth to the other. It's been debunked. Very debunked. I'd wager that you yourself never uttered the argument before it was put there by talking heads intent on manufacturing your opinion earlier this year.

What on earth makes you think that this is a new idea?

I used to work as an education consultant pre-no child, and several states had this fact on their social studies standards. I couldn't tell you which states of the top of my head, butit was printed as fact in several state-specific textbooks. I believe it was Georgia that actually had an entire section on the "Negro disarmament movement" that birthed the NRA. I actually found it pretty shocking that they would teach that stuff.

That's the very same reason that you're confused on both the 1st and 2nd Amendments. I don't think that you've ever really read them. If you have, you never really understood either one. I challenge you, only you, to find the fault in either of these. Remember, one doesn't serve without the other. On the same hand, one can't exist without the other.

Didn't you JUST try to argue that the 2nd amendment granted a person right 10 minutes ago? Or was that someone el ...


That's fine if you were have a discussion with someone else. But are you FARKING SERIOUS? That the 2nd doesn't grant and individual with rights? Really? Really? Then, I guess none of the others grants individuals with rights. Please, by all means, enlighten us on this.
 
2013-10-30 12:43:06 AM  

Mrtraveler01: Why is it these "gun advocacy" groups make the sane and sensible gun owners look like loons?


It's just like with the Muslims.

Why won't responsible gun owners condem these assholes? I am not a gun owner but happen to like them.

This case was a tragedy pretty much no matter how you think things went down.
 
2013-10-30 12:43:23 AM  

Secret Master of All Flatulence: udhq: My point was simply that anyone that believes the 2nd grants an individual right fundamentally doesn't understand the text of the amendment.

Well, since 5 Supreme Court Justices have EXPLICITLY stated that the 2nd Amendment DOES enumerate an individual right of individuals to both keep and bear firearms, and that such right applies not only to the Federal government, but also must constrain States and Municipalities from restricting that right, I feel comfortable that YOU don't seem to understand the text of the 2nd Amendment.  Gun control laws must now face "strict scrutiny" when they are challenged in any court.


The second amendment, like most of the bor may IMPLY an individual right, but the text is a negative liberty on government.

It doesn't say "people have the right to bear arms", it says "the right to bear arms shall not by infringed (by the government)".

There's a world of difference between those two, and 150 years of jurisprudence that have declared literally thousands of such infringements to be absolutely constitutional.
 
2013-10-30 12:43:30 AM  

The_Sponge: LoneWolf343: Secret Master of All Flatulence: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Oddly enough, I don't really consort with a lot of teenagers, but the three I've talked to recently (we go to the same gym) all own guns.

My 6 year old and 9 year old daughters both LOVE their guns and going to the range. Here's a picture of one such trip:
[i135.photobucket.com image 799x598]
I often wonder if the anti-gunners think that she's compensating for having a small penis...

I think she's being unduly influenced by a father with a small penis.

/get back to us when she is 30 has has the opportunity to make decisions based on her, and not her parents', opinions

Seriously dude....f*ck you. Target practice and firearm safety are great hobbies to teach kids. I'm sorry that you have a serious case of hoplophobia.


I'm not afraid of guns. I'm afraid of stupid, angry people with guns.
 
2013-10-30 12:43:52 AM  

LoneWolf343: Supreme Court Justices have also said that corporations are people, and that black people don't have the same rights as white people. Excuse me if I doubt their wisdom.

/funny how gun nuts rush to defend the sanctity of SCOTUS when it rules in their favor.


Supreme Court Justices don't say what you say they say. Complex arguments aren't "true enough" if simplified sometimes.

What you just did was the equivalent of saying the USSC says plants grow in toilets.
 
2013-10-30 12:44:15 AM  

LoneWolf343: Secret Master of All Flatulence: udhq: My point was simply that anyone that believes the 2nd grants an individual right fundamentally doesn't understand the text of the amendment.

Well, since 5 Supreme Court Justices have EXPLICITLY stated that the 2nd Amendment DOES enumerate an individual right of individuals to both keep and bear firearms, and that such right applies not only to the Federal government, but also must constrain States and Municipalities from restricting that right, I feel comfortable that YOU don't seem to understand the text of the 2nd Amendment.  Gun control laws must now face "strict scrutiny" when they are challenged in any court.

Supreme Court Justices have also said that corporations are people, and that black people don't have the same rights as white people. Excuse me if I doubt their wisdom.

/funny how gun nuts rush to defend the sanctity of SCOTUS when it rules in their favor.


//funny how dumbasses rush to defend something they don't understand when they don't think it rules in their favor.
 
2013-10-30 12:45:13 AM  

BravadoGT: WhyKnot: Outrage at that group, but totally okay to have Trayvon's mom testify about stand-your-ground laws on Capital Hill?

because that case had everything to do with stand your ground, right? Right?!?

Ah never mind...carry on Fark libs...ain't no hate party like a Fark lib party...

I'm sure she offered some valuable insight that Congress needed--especially about the "Stand Your Ground" law that played no actual part in her thug-son's early demise or the subsequent trial...


Glad these two comments provided valuable insight into this article.

Oh wait, unrelated bullshiat actually.
 
2013-10-30 12:47:10 AM  

kerrigand: udhq: kerrigand: udhq: kerrigand: udhq: Mrbogey: udhq: The 2nd amendment was crafted primarily as a means to enforce slavery, but people tend to get a little touchy when you bring up that inconvenient truth.

It's not that the truth is inconvenient, it's the sources that are strained and convoluted. The justification you have is all too convenient. Put it to you this way, saying the 2nd Amendment was designed to enforce slavery is about as goofy as saying the banana was designed to fit into a human hand.

Interesting experiment for you. Put "2nd Amendment Slavery" into google. Note all the results are bunched around the same date and refer to a lot of the same sources. It's because it's a talking point created around the beginning of this year by a fraudulent pseudo-historian. His article was within days spread from one end of the Earth to the other. It's been debunked. Very debunked. I'd wager that you yourself never uttered the argument before it was put there by talking heads intent on manufacturing your opinion earlier this year.

What on earth makes you think that this is a new idea?

I used to work as an education consultant pre-no child, and several states had this fact on their social studies standards. I couldn't tell you which states of the top of my head, butit was printed as fact in several state-specific textbooks. I believe it was Georgia that actually had an entire section on the "Negro disarmament movement" that birthed the NRA. I actually found it pretty shocking that they would teach that stuff.

That's the very same reason that you're confused on both the 1st and 2nd Amendments. I don't think that you've ever really read them. If you have, you never really understood either one. I challenge you, only you, to find the fault in either of these. Remember, one doesn't serve without the other. On the same hand, one can't exist without the other.

Didn't you JUST try to argue that the 2nd amendment granted a person right 10 minutes ago? Or was that someone el ...

That's fine if you were have a discussion with someone else. But are you FARKING SERIOUS? That the 2nd doesn't grant and individual with rights? Really? Really? Then, I guess none of the others grants individuals with rights. Please, by all means, enlighten us on this.


If you actually sit down and read the constitution, most of it limits the rights of government rather than explicitly granting rights to individuals.

There's a lot more "congress shall make no law" than "citizens shall be granted x freedom."
 
2013-10-30 12:47:40 AM  

kerrigand: LoneWolf343: Secret Master of All Flatulence: udhq: My point was simply that anyone that believes the 2nd grants an individual right fundamentally doesn't understand the text of the amendment.

Well, since 5 Supreme Court Justices have EXPLICITLY stated that the 2nd Amendment DOES enumerate an individual right of individuals to both keep and bear firearms, and that such right applies not only to the Federal government, but also must constrain States and Municipalities from restricting that right, I feel comfortable that YOU don't seem to understand the text of the 2nd Amendment.  Gun control laws must now face "strict scrutiny" when they are challenged in any court.

Supreme Court Justices have also said that corporations are people, and that black people don't have the same rights as white people. Excuse me if I doubt their wisdom.

/funny how gun nuts rush to defend the sanctity of SCOTUS when it rules in their favor.

//funny how dumbasses rush to defend something they don't understand when they don't think it rules in their favor.


I believe I just said that.

/am I'm still waiting on that example.
 
2013-10-30 12:50:01 AM  

udhq: Secret Master of All Flatulence: udhq: My point was simply that anyone that believes the 2nd grants an individual right fundamentally doesn't understand the text of the amendment.

Well, since 5 Supreme Court Justices have EXPLICITLY stated that the 2nd Amendment DOES enumerate an individual right of individuals to both keep and bear firearms, and that such right applies not only to the Federal government, but also must constrain States and Municipalities from restricting that right, I feel comfortable that YOU don't seem to understand the text of the 2nd Amendment.  Gun control laws must now face "strict scrutiny" when they are challenged in any court.

The second amendment, like most of the bor may IMPLY an individual right, but the text is a negative liberty on government.

It doesn't say "people have the right to bear arms", it says "the right to bear arms shall not by infringed (by the government)".

There's a world of difference between those two, and 150 years of jurisprudence that have declared literally thousands of such infringements to be absolutely constitutional.


and what world of difference is that? Do you mean that only the government has the right to not be infringed, or is it you, as a person? Please, I'll go on all night with you. You're going to sooner or later, have to tell us the truth as to what you think and differentiate between person and government. I really want you to differentiate person and government.
 
2013-10-30 12:52:25 AM  

udhq: kerrigand: udhq: kerrigand: udhq: kerrigand: udhq: Mrbogey: udhq: The 2nd amendment was crafted primarily as a means to enforce slavery, but people tend to get a little touchy when you bring up that inconvenient truth.

It's not that the truth is inconvenient, it's the sources that are strained and convoluted. The justification you have is all too convenient. Put it to you this way, saying the 2nd Amendment was designed to enforce slavery is about as goofy as saying the banana was designed to fit into a human hand.

Interesting experiment for you. Put "2nd Amendment Slavery" into google. Note all the results are bunched around the same date and refer to a lot of the same sources. It's because it's a talking point created around the beginning of this year by a fraudulent pseudo-historian. His article was within days spread from one end of the Earth to the other. It's been debunked. Very debunked. I'd wager that you yourself never uttered the argument before it was put there by talking heads intent on manufacturing your opinion earlier this year.

What on earth makes you think that this is a new idea?

I used to work as an education consultant pre-no child, and several states had this fact on their social studies standards. I couldn't tell you which states of the top of my head, butit was printed as fact in several state-specific textbooks. I believe it was Georgia that actually had an entire section on the "Negro disarmament movement" that birthed the NRA. I actually found it pretty shocking that they would teach that stuff.

That's the very same reason that you're confused on both the 1st and 2nd Amendments. I don't think that you've ever really read them. If you have, you never really understood either one. I challenge you, only you, to find the fault in either of these. Remember, one doesn't serve without the other. On the same hand, one can't exist without the other.

Didn't you JUST try to argue that the 2nd amendment granted a person right 10 minutes ago? Or wa ...


Then what you're saying is that you really don't have freedom of speech.
 
2013-10-30 12:55:41 AM  

LoneWolf343: kerrigand: LoneWolf343: Secret Master of All Flatulence: udhq: My point was simply that anyone that believes the 2nd grants an individual right fundamentally doesn't understand the text of the amendment.

Well, since 5 Supreme Court Justices have EXPLICITLY stated that the 2nd Amendment DOES enumerate an individual right of individuals to both keep and bear firearms, and that such right applies not only to the Federal government, but also must constrain States and Municipalities from restricting that right, I feel comfortable that YOU don't seem to understand the text of the 2nd Amendment.  Gun control laws must now face "strict scrutiny" when they are challenged in any court.

Supreme Court Justices have also said that corporations are people, and that black people don't have the same rights as white people. Excuse me if I doubt their wisdom.

/funny how gun nuts rush to defend the sanctity of SCOTUS when it rules in their favor.

//funny how dumbasses rush to defend something they don't understand when they don't think it rules in their favor.

I believe I just said that.

/am I'm still waiting on that example.


I provided you with an example and it apparently didn't fit with what your thoughts are. If you want me to continue to validate your existence, then all you have to do is ask. I won't, but you can ask.
 
2013-10-30 12:55:54 AM  

udhq: My point was simply that anyone that believes the 2nd grants an individual right fundamentally doesn't understand the text of the amendment.


In that respect, you are correct. The individual right right is inherent; the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects it.
 
2013-10-30 12:56:30 AM  

Mugato: Ow! That was my feelings!: Wow, you really sound just plain old dumb.

Because I think there will never be an armed insurrection in this country in at least our lifetimes? Ok, post back in 60 years and we'll see which one of us was right.


I think if stupid, clueless people like you don't back off and stop sucking off Michael Bloomberg, your '60 years' will be 20 or less. I think as a Federal employee, your opinion is biased and untrustworthy. Want people to respect you? Stop sucking the teet.
 
2013-10-30 12:56:38 AM  

kerrigand: udhq: Secret Master of All Flatulence: udhq: My point was simply that anyone that believes the 2nd grants an individual right fundamentally doesn't understand the text of the amendment.

Well, since 5 Supreme Court Justices have EXPLICITLY stated that the 2nd Amendment DOES enumerate an individual right of individuals to both keep and bear firearms, and that such right applies not only to the Federal government, but also must constrain States and Municipalities from restricting that right, I feel comfortable that YOU don't seem to understand the text of the 2nd Amendment.  Gun control laws must now face "strict scrutiny" when they are challenged in any court.

The second amendment, like most of the bor may IMPLY an individual right, but the text is a negative liberty on government.

It doesn't say "people have the right to bear arms", it says "the right to bear arms shall not by infringed (by the government)".

There's a world of difference between those two, and 150 years of jurisprudence that have declared literally thousands of such infringements to be absolutely constitutional.

and what world of difference is that? Do you mean that only the government has the right to not be infringed, or is it you, as a person? Please, I'll go on all night with you. You're going to sooner or later, have to tell us the truth as to what you think and differentiate between person and government. I really want you to differentiate person and government.


No, the text of the 2nd says the right shall not be infringed by government. It's a restriction on the power of government rather than blanket declaration of a universal right.

The founding fathers thought that explicitly doling out rights implied that these rights are granted by government, rather than "God-given" and inalienable, so they tried to avoid doing so wherever possible.
 
2013-10-30 12:57:50 AM  

LoneWolf343: Secret Master of All Flatulence: udhq: My point was simply that anyone that believes the 2nd grants an individual right fundamentally doesn't understand the text of the amendment.

Well, since 5 Supreme Court Justices have EXPLICITLY stated that the 2nd Amendment DOES enumerate an individual right of individuals to both keep and bear firearms, and that such right applies not only to the Federal government, but also must constrain States and Municipalities from restricting that right, I feel comfortable that YOU don't seem to understand the text of the 2nd Amendment.  Gun control laws must now face "strict scrutiny" when they are challenged in any court.

Supreme Court Justices have also said that corporations are people, and that black people don't have the same rights as white people. Excuse me if I doubt their wisdom.

/funny how gun nuts rush to defend the sanctity of SCOTUS when it rules in their favor.


Similarly, as Senator Rand Paul has noted, Supreme Court Justices have stated that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is Constitutional, but their declaration does not actually mean that the Act is Constitutional.

Gun control advocates who argue that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution does not protect and individual right to keep and bear arms are intellectually equivalent to Tea Party members.
 
2013-10-30 01:00:24 AM  

Ow! That was my feelings!: I think if stupid, clueless people like you don't back off and stop sucking off Michael Bloomberg, your '60 years' will be 20 or less. I think as a Federal employee, your opinion is biased and untrustworthy. Want people to respect you? Stop sucking the teet.


I don't even know who the fark Michael Bloomberg is. I'm not anti-gun. I have a gun. All I'm saying is that the gun nuts who actually think that someday they're going to rise up against the government are full of shiat. And I'm not wrong.
 
Displayed 50 of 277 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


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

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report