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.

(CNN)   Man kills his family. Time to talk common sense crossbow control, and might as well add halberds and franciscas to the list, for the sake of the children   (cnn.com) divider line 132
    More: Sad, Broward County Sheriff's Office, urban areas, WSVN, throat  
•       •       •

3797 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 Dec 2013 at 8:05 AM (20 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-12-05 08:08:01 AM
Cool. I'm first in like to cockpunch subby and whichever admin instagreened this.
 
2013-12-05 08:09:46 AM
Vote for Pedro
 
2013-12-05 08:10:11 AM
I don't understand why you gun grabbers have to inject your politics in to tragedy.

OH WAIT
 
2013-12-05 08:11:37 AM
If only the rest of the family had crossbows, this tragedy could have been averted.
/Donate to your local Crossbows for Tots program this holiday season
 
2013-12-05 08:12:41 AM
If 10,000 people per year were being crossbowed to death...then yes. It would be time to talk crossbow control. That would be sensible.
 
2013-12-05 08:13:45 AM
They can have my trebuchet when they pry it from my cold, dead fingers.
 
2013-12-05 08:14:53 AM
How long do papal bulls remain in effect?  Does the Catholic Church still "forbid" the use of crossbows against other Christians?
 
2013-12-05 08:16:03 AM
McDonaldo!
 
2013-12-05 08:18:01 AM
i.imgur.com
 
2013-12-05 08:19:05 AM

Mr_Fabulous: If 10,000 people per year were being crossbowed to death...then yes. It would be time to talk crossbow control. That would be sensible.


Let's not get crazy here.  More people die from [whatever] than crossbows.  Why do you hate my freedoms?
 
2013-12-05 08:19:11 AM
static1.wikia.nocookie.net

Approves of crossbow control.
 
2013-12-05 08:22:02 AM
Some people just have to do things the hard way.
 
2013-12-05 08:22:31 AM
Gee. I'll bet I can't guess which Farker submitted this retarded headline.
 
2013-12-05 08:23:03 AM

Zeno-25: [i.imgur.com image 425x298]


Nobody was ever killed by a tweet.  Much less mass tweet-deaths occuring every month.  Don't be stupid.
 
2013-12-05 08:23:06 AM

HotWingConspiracy: I don't understand why you gun grabbers have to inject your politics in to tragedy.

OH WAIT


OH WAIT, we're not allowed to talk about weapons now are we?

Do you want to discuss your micropenis instead?
 
2013-12-05 08:25:28 AM

Kyro: Zeno-25: [i.imgur.com image 425x298]

Nobody was ever killed by a tweet.  Much less mass tweet-deaths occuring every month.  Don't be stupid.


Let him go, he's strawmanning.
 
2013-12-05 08:25:49 AM

spawn73: HotWingConspiracy: I don't understand why you gun grabbers have to inject your politics in to tragedy.

OH WAIT

OH WAIT, we're not allowed to talk about weapons now are we?


It's very insensitive to murderers.

Do you want to discuss your micropenis instead?

I don't generally bring it up, but you seem interested.
 
2013-12-05 08:25:50 AM
Should have just buried the hatchet?
 
2013-12-05 08:27:37 AM
If only Congress had renewed the 2nd Lateran Council!
 
2013-12-05 08:31:23 AM

Mr_Fabulous: If 10,000 people per year were being crossbowed to death...then yes. It would be time to talk crossbow control. That would be sensible.


No it wouldn't.

It says "right to keep and bear arms".  Crossbows are arms, as are compound bows, recurve/longbows, knives, swords, etc.

It doesn't say "right to keep and bear firearms", though of course they are a subset of "arms", and are thus included.

One hundred years from now, assuming it hasn't been amended out of existence, it will also cover whatever sort of ray guns my grandkids will be using.
 
2013-12-05 08:32:19 AM
img.fark.net

Also approves of crossbow control.
 
2013-12-05 08:33:33 AM

Kyro: Zeno-25: [i.imgur.com image 425x298]

Nobody was ever killed by a tweet.  Much less mass tweet-deaths occuring every month.  Don't be stupid.


How do you *KNOW* that?

I can point to several cases where people killed other people because they were inspired by the mere words of others.  But how do you track that on a consistent basis?

*ALL* substantive individual rights have a significant cost to society.  If they didn't, they wouldn't require protection, because nobody would be trying to infringe upon them.
 
2013-12-05 08:36:00 AM
Probably gang related.
 
2013-12-05 08:37:55 AM
José Maldonado never reported the attack to police, but it was his father's confession to a friend on Tuesday that set authorities on his trail.

Why the hell wouldn't you call the police?  Is this an usual event in that family?
 
2013-12-05 08:40:24 AM

Queensowntalia: If only the rest of the family had crossbows, this tragedy could have been averted.
/Donate to your local Crossbows for Tots program this holiday season


Dad made me my first crossbow when I was 10.

I still have it, 36 years later, and it still works.
 
2013-12-05 08:40:50 AM

Sock Ruh Tease: [static1.wikia.nocookie.net image 420x576]

Approves of crossbow control.


I love that guy as an actor, but he really pisses me off with his attitude every movie/show he does.

/wish the crossbolt went through the eye instead
 
2013-12-05 08:42:50 AM
www.likecool.com

I am not requesting a complete prohibition upon civilian crossbow ownership, but any rational and sane individual will agree that no one has any need for a military-style assault crossbow like the one pictured above, which is far more deadly and dangerous than everyday hunting crossbows.
 
2013-12-05 08:42:54 AM

dittybopper: How do you *KNOW* that?


Words aren't bullets.

dittybopper: I can point to several cases where people killed other people because they were inspired by the mere words of others.


Now you're two steps removed from the freedom of the press and still comparing it to gun ownership.  If we're going down the Six Degrees of How A Freedom Kills People road, I'd be glad to pull from my ass a reason why your freedom of religion killed my grandmother.

dittybopper: *ALL* substantive individual rights have a significant cost to society.  If they didn't, they wouldn't require protection, because nobody would be trying to infringe upon them.


The freedom of speech - which asserted as being equally dangerous as the right to bear arms - has limitations.  But attempting to limit the right to bear arms after repeated and horrific abuses of it is somehow out of the question.
 
2013-12-05 08:45:11 AM

Kyro: But attempting to limit the right to bear arms after repeated and horrific abuses of it is somehow out of the question.


Lots of restrictions have already been passed.  Federally and in every state.  As I'm sure you are aware.
 
2013-12-05 08:45:50 AM
You know who else tried to institute crossbow control? Several popes, a few kings, a duke and a partridge in a pear tree. They didn't like how common folk could actually kill a knight so easily.
 
2013-12-05 08:47:19 AM

dittybopper: Mr_Fabulous: If 10,000 people per year were being crossbowed to death...then yes. It would be time to talk crossbow control. That would be sensible.

No it wouldn't.

It says "right to keep and bear arms".  Crossbows are arms, as are compound bows, recurve/longbows, knives, swords, etc.

It doesn't say "right to keep and bear firearms", though of course they are a subset of "arms", and are thus included.

One hundred years from now, assuming it hasn't been amended out of existence, it will also cover whatever sort of ray guns my grandkids will be using.



You mean I have the right to "keep and bear" a grenade launcher, or a shoulder launched SAM, or a RPG? Those too would fall under the category of "arms" if by that you mean "a weapon that one individual can operate and carry". I suppose a flamethrower or bangalore torpedo is also acceptable under the 2nd Amendment?
 
2013-12-05 08:48:37 AM
I didn't realize the Borgia where still doing their thing. Hmm.
 
2013-12-05 08:49:54 AM

Bendal: dittybopper: Mr_Fabulous: If 10,000 people per year were being crossbowed to death...then yes. It would be time to talk crossbow control. That would be sensible.

No it wouldn't.

It says "right to keep and bear arms".  Crossbows are arms, as are compound bows, recurve/longbows, knives, swords, etc.

It doesn't say "right to keep and bear firearms", though of course they are a subset of "arms", and are thus included.

One hundred years from now, assuming it hasn't been amended out of existence, it will also cover whatever sort of ray guns my grandkids will be using.


You mean I have the right to "keep and bear" a grenade launcher, or a shoulder launched SAM, or a RPG? Those too would fall under the category of "arms" if by that you mean "a weapon that one individual can operate and carry". I suppose a flamethrower or bangalore torpedo is also acceptable under the 2nd Amendment?


Actually you have the right to own all of those. Just fill out the proper NFA form and find someone to sell you one.
 
2013-12-05 08:50:49 AM

The Muthaship: Lots of restrictions have already been passed.  Federally and in every state.  As I'm sure you are aware.


Restrictions already existing does not preclude new or updated restrictions from being necessary.  Some laws are reviewed and decided to be removed, updated, or replaced.  "Amended" if you will.

upload.wikimedia.org

As I'm sure you are aware.
 
2013-12-05 08:51:05 AM
Ahh, my piss yellow favorites have shiat on the thread already. Color me shocked.

Isn't it a little soon to be politicizing this national crossbow tragedy?
 
2013-12-05 08:52:06 AM

dittybopper: [derp]


Your headline sucks, but at least this time you seem to have managed to sort the search results properly.
 
2013-12-05 08:53:49 AM

mutterfark: Should have just buried the hatchet?


Funny you should say that
i41.photobucket.com
 
2013-12-05 08:54:40 AM

Kyro: "Amended" if you will.


List your common sense amendments, then.  I'm not opposed to a certain degree of regulation, but most of the logical ones already exist.  And nothing is going to stop criminals from obtaining a weapon anyway.

There are way more restrictions in place against the 2nd amendment than there are the 1st.
 
2013-12-05 08:58:30 AM

The Muthaship: Kyro: "Amended" if you will.

List your common sense amendments, then.  I'm not opposed to a certain degree of regulation, but most of the logical ones already exist.  And nothing is going to stop criminals from obtaining a weapon anyway.

There are way more restrictions in place against the 2nd amendment than there are the 1st.


Please don't tempt them. I kinda like having access to plans for the hydrogen bomb.
 
2013-12-05 08:58:47 AM
We should ban any kind of wedge or anything with a sharp edge, really.  They only have one purpose.
 
2013-12-05 09:00:43 AM

The Muthaship: Kyro: But attempting to limit the right to bear arms after repeated and horrific abuses of it is somehow out of the question.

Lots of restrictions have already been passed.  Federally and in every state.  As I'm sure you are aware.


Civilians are still able to legally acquire firearms, therefore more restrictions are necessary.
 
2013-12-05 09:05:13 AM
You can take away bombs, guns, crossbows, and knives....and people will use stones.  You take away stones and people will use their bare hands....then what, cut off babies hands, you know...to protect the children.

Banning guns will not stop the production, sale, or use of guns it will just make it another criminal industry, like pot, and cocaine, and heroin, and everything that else has been banned but is still available to everyone in the world willing to deal with a crook to get what they want. Now, if you want to take the manufacturing and sales of guns out of the hands of regulated industry and make go underground...unregulated, and run by criminals then by all means ban guns.

In short, trying to ban guns is as intelligent as a pet rock, and anyone that thinks banning guns is a good idea are about as bright as a pet rock (well, the pet rock would likely have a higher IQ if we are going to be honest).
 
2013-12-05 09:06:23 AM

HotWingConspiracy: spawn73: HotWingConspiracy: I don't understand why you gun grabbers have to inject your politics in to tragedy.

OH WAIT

OH WAIT, we're not allowed to talk about weapons now are we?

It's very insensitive to murderers.

Do you want to discuss your micropenis instead?

I don't generally bring it up, but you seem interested.


Yes, the correlation is fascinating.
 
2013-12-05 09:06:59 AM
Hi, guys. What's going on in this thread?

content.internetvideoarchive.com
 
2013-12-05 09:12:32 AM
Looks like he double crossed 'em.

/Why no Florida tag subby?
 
2013-12-05 09:12:47 AM

HotWingConspiracy: spawn73: HotWingConspiracy: I don't understand why you gun grabbers have to inject your politics in to tragedy.

OH WAIT

OH WAIT, we're not allowed to talk about weapons now are we?

It's very insensitive to murderers.

Do you want to discuss your micropenis instead?

I don't generally bring it up...


I hear they have a little blue pill to help you with that.
 
2013-12-05 09:16:19 AM

skozlaw: dittybopper: [derp]

Your headline sucks, but at least this time you seem to have managed to sort the search results properly.


I'm not subby.
 
2013-12-05 09:17:33 AM

The Muthaship: List your common sense amendments, then.


Expanded background checks are easily within reason and would be a damn fine start.  Gun retailers are for them, the public is for them, but damned if it isn't political suicide for a congressman to vote for them.  And it might just prevent a handful of these mass shootings(which are what spook people most, despite being a small total of gun deaths) in which the shooter ran into zero roadblocks between him and a firearm despite having reports of mental illness on his record.

The Muthaship: And nothing is going to stop criminals from obtaining a weapon anyway.


Crimes being committed isn't an argument for halting efforts to stop them.  No law is going to be perfect, but refusing to act based on the imperfections of a solution is a lazy argument and a dangerous philosphy.
 
2013-12-05 09:17:39 AM

spawn73: HotWingConspiracy: spawn73: HotWingConspiracy: I don't understand why you gun grabbers have to inject your politics in to tragedy.

OH WAIT

OH WAIT, we're not allowed to talk about weapons now are we?

It's very insensitive to murderers.

Do you want to discuss your micropenis instead?

I don't generally bring it up, but you seem interested.

Yes, the correlation is fascinating.


What correlation? You got all hepped up on penis and now aren't making any sense.
 
2013-12-05 09:25:20 AM

Kyro: Expanded background checks are easily within reason and would be a damn fine start.


Expanded how?  I've had a background check run on me every time I've purchased a gun in a store.  I think totally unregulated gun shows/swap meets are a dangerous way to allow the transfer of weapons, but gun stores are doing fine, it seems.

Kyro: Crimes being committed isn't an argument for halting efforts to stop them.  No law is going to be perfect, but refusing to act based on the imperfections of a solution is a lazy argument and a dangerous philosphy.


I agree, I'm glad no one made such an argument.  But, as you stated, the mass shootings we've seen lately are sparking the debate about further gun restrictions.  No law can prevent a criminal from committing a crime.  The laws are pretty much designed to deal with the aftermath.  The lazy argument lies in asserting that gun ownership restrictions would likely prevent such crimes.  I'm for laws that inhibit criminals from obtaining weapons, not ones that inhibit law abiding citizens from enjoying their rights.
 
Displayed 50 of 132 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report