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.

(Daily Mail)   The wife of Dolphins QB Ryan Tannehill returns rental car and leaves an AR-15 on the backseat. Police say not to panic, the weapon has the same power and accuracy as her husband's throwing arm   (dailymail.co.uk) divider line 471
    More: Florida, Ryan Tannehill, dolphins, Dolphins quarterback  
•       •       •

7599 clicks; posted to Sports » on 16 Jan 2014 at 11:13 AM (48 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-01-16 01:40:23 PM  
cdn.lolcaption.com


blog.gunspec.com


i881.photobucket.com
thegunstorelasvegas.com
s3-live.tapcdn.com
 
2014-01-16 01:40:44 PM  

Dimensio: HotWingConspiracy: This is what gun owners consider responsible. The bar gets lower every single day.

You are correct, as is evident by all of the posts describing Ms. Tannehill's behavior as "responsible".


Haven't seen any condemnation either. Well, I have seen condemnation of the press for over-reacting. But the fact remains that a child who has no experience handling a weapon found it. Luckly, that girl did the right thing and got an adult. You get a stupid kid, and it could have been much much worse.
 
2014-01-16 01:40:55 PM  

Publikwerks: The law should be anything capable of firing more than 6 shots without reloading is banned.


How is that restriction not arbitrary and capricious?  All those lever action Winchesters and Brownings would now be illegal to own?

Because these are such a danger to society these days

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2014-01-16 01:41:38 PM  

Publikwerks: The law should be anything capable of firing more than 6 shots without reloading is banned.


Why?

Most murders happen with far fewer shots than that, and there are plenty of defensive scenarios where more could be necessary.

Besides, anyone planning to murder a lot of people could just carry more guns. Or switch to something like arson, which is likely to kill a lot more people.
 
2014-01-16 01:43:38 PM  

Dimensio: Publikwerks: The law should be anything capable of firing more than 6 shots without reloading is banned.

Your unreasonable and irrational proposal will be given all of the consideration that it deserves.


How so is it irrational? Explain to me how one would need more than 6 shots in a non-military/non-police situation.

I'm 100% open minded about it.
 
2014-01-16 01:43:57 PM  
1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-01-16 01:45:46 PM  

Publikwerks: Dimensio: Publikwerks: The law should be anything capable of firing more than 6 shots without reloading is banned.

Your unreasonable and irrational proposal will be given all of the consideration that it deserves.

How so is it irrational? Explain to me how one would need more than 6 shots in a non-military/non-police situation.

I'm 100% open minded about it.


Obviously when the roving gangs of 7 rapists that are so common in the country break into your house.
 
2014-01-16 01:50:16 PM  

Publikwerks: Dimensio: Publikwerks: The law should be anything capable of firing more than 6 shots without reloading is banned.

Your unreasonable and irrational proposal will be given all of the consideration that it deserves.

How so is it irrational? Explain to me how one would need more than 6 shots in a non-military/non-police situation.

I'm 100% open minded about it.


You could be attacked by 7 people, or you could be attacked by fewer people and miss a shot or two, or an attacker may not be stopped after being hit.

This woman barely managed to defend herself and her children from one attacker with the six rounds she had.
 
2014-01-16 01:50:34 PM  

JesseL: Publikwerks: The law should be anything capable of firing more than 6 shots without reloading is banned.

Why?

Most murders happen with far fewer shots than that, and there are plenty of defensive scenarios where more could be necessary.

Besides, anyone planning to murder a lot of people could just carry more guns. Or switch to something like arson, which is likely to kill a lot more people.


To address your defensive point - limiting shots per reload benefits the defender. It would be far easier to have 5 guns in your bedroom than carry 5 guns as you break into a house.

Now as for most people get killed with the first shots - well, those cannot be stopped without banning all guns. Are you advocating that? If not, then those people under any other scenario, die. Having low shots per reload or belt fed weapons makes no difference.

And if gets people to switch to other methods like arson, thats a good thing. Arson is alot slower, and much more preventable. Knife wounds are far more survivable and defendable. Guns are an efficient killing machine, and getting people to switch to less efficient methods of killing is a good thing.
 
2014-01-16 01:51:26 PM  

JesseL: Or switch to something like arson, which is likely to kill a lot more people.


"If guns are banned, they'll do something even worse!" makes zero sense.

If shooters wanted to do something even worse, they'd do something even worse.
 
2014-01-16 01:51:44 PM  

croesius: lilplatinum: croesius: lilplatinum: /guess what, assholes - the dictionary says a clip and a magazine are the same thing, so they are

Irregardless of what a dictionary declares, those two terms both have an ideal definition. The fact that they are used interchangeably doesn't alter the fact that a clip most accurately describes one thing, and a magazine most accurately describes another.

Gun nuts get their tiny little dicks bent out of shape when someone defines an assault weapon in a way they feel is not justified, and then get their tiny little dicks bent out of shape when somoene accurately uses a word as it is defined in a dictionary. 

Its almost as if they only care about correct definitions when it is politically expedient to their reckless little hobby.

Many words, when used as defined in a dictionary, can lend themselves to a muddled meaning. For instance, "car", as defined by Webster's dictionary, can mean a variety of things, such as an automobile, or the basket of a hot-air balloon. If someone stepped out of a hot-air balloon, you could technically say "They stepped out of their car, and fell 500 feet to their death". It is more appropriate to use the definition of a word that is closest in meaning to the idea you are trying to convey. Engaging in pedantic wordplay this way serves only to obfuscate.


Sorry Dipshiats, "Assault Weapon" for the purposes of this example, is defined by statute. Saying that they are playing a semantic game is no more valid an excuse than ignorance. The government has defined what an "Assault Weapon" is, and no matter how hard you biatch and cry about it, you are completely and utterly wrong in this example.

/She should, however, be barred from having any carry license in the fututre. It's obvious she is not a responsible gun owner.
 
2014-01-16 01:54:29 PM  
img.fark.net

Lol. Hoplophobs
 
2014-01-16 01:55:01 PM  

Publikwerks: To address your defensive point - limiting shots per reload benefits the defender. It would be far easier to have 5 guns in your bedroom than carry 5 guns as you break into a house.


Are you serious? That is completely and monumentally wrong.

Keeping 5 guns handy and usable at all times (as they would need to be for defense - defenders lack initiative in an attack and don't know when or where it will happen) is a hell of a lot harder than figuring out how to carry 5 guns.
 
2014-01-16 01:55:03 PM  

lilplatinum: I don't believe for a nanosecond that all of you champions of lingustic purity never use vernacular terminology for things that could be described in a more technically precise way, you just get your panties in a wad when it comes to your hobbies.


If this type of relaxed and generalized vernacular finds its way into proposals, you can bet that folks are going to point out the flaws.  In addition, if you are making a point in a debate, it pays to be clear and concise.

If you are joking around with your buddies on the range, no one really cares.
 
2014-01-16 01:55:22 PM  

JesseL: This woman barely managed to defend herself and her children from one attacker with the six rounds she had.


Perhaps her dumb ass should spend more time at the range, or perhaps buy something more appropriate for home defense... like a shotgun.
 
2014-01-16 01:56:52 PM  

HeadLever: If this type of relaxed and generalized vernacular finds its way into proposals, you can bet that folks are going to point out the flaws.  In addition, if you are making a point in a debate, it pays to be clear and concise.


I already said above that if legislation is written in the vernacular rather than being technical, it is very poorly  written.  As most knee jerk gun legislation, admittedly, often is.
 
2014-01-16 01:57:08 PM  

Publikwerks: And if gets people to switch to other methods like arson, thats a good thing. Arson is alot slower, and much more preventable. Knife wounds are far more survivable and defendable. Guns are an efficient killing machine, and getting people to switch to less efficient methods of killing is a good thing.


What was the deadliest mass muder in US history?
 
2014-01-16 01:58:27 PM  

lilplatinum: JesseL: This woman barely managed to defend herself and her children from one attacker with the six rounds she had.

Perhaps her dumb ass should spend more time at the range, or perhaps buy something more appropriate for home defense... like a shotgun.


She hit the guy five times in the face and neck. Perhaps you should just recognize a stupid idea for what it is and not make a fool of yourself defending it?
 
2014-01-16 01:59:42 PM  
She almost threw up, but only got a minor case of the runs.
 
2014-01-16 02:00:32 PM  

JesseL: Publikwerks: Dimensio: Publikwerks: The law should be anything capable of firing more than 6 shots without reloading is banned.

Your unreasonable and irrational proposal will be given all of the consideration that it deserves.

How so is it irrational? Explain to me how one would need more than 6 shots in a non-military/non-police situation.

I'm 100% open minded about it.

You could be attacked by 7 people, or you could be attacked by fewer people and miss a shot or two, or an attacker may not be stopped after being hit.

This woman barely managed to defend herself and her children from one attacker with the six rounds she had.


According to that story she emptied her weapon after he came into view. Thats a poor reaction. She stopped aimed fire and was just unloading. I'm not saying I would have been better, but I don't think 10 more rounds would have yielded better results.

And it did stop him. It didn't kill him, but he ceased doing anything other than bleeding.

Now, if you want to make a case that you could have to fend off a small gang, I just have to say too bad. You show me an example where someone ran out of ammo defending themselves that doesn't military action, and I will give you're scenario some weight. But by that logic, everyone should get to have a FGM-148 Javelin incase a tank decides to do a little B&E
 
2014-01-16 02:01:28 PM  
I can't believe I read this WHOLE THING.
 
2014-01-16 02:01:45 PM  
We need gladius control. Don't listen to the plebeian fantasies that Rome will be sacked one day. We have legions to protect our glorious city.
 
2014-01-16 02:02:35 PM  

BlackMtnMan: She almost threw up, but only got a minor case of the runs.


So, she plays football like her husband as well as resembles him physically.
 
2014-01-16 02:03:37 PM  

Publikwerks: JesseL: Publikwerks: Dimensio: Publikwerks: The law should be anything capable of firing more than 6 shots without reloading is banned.

Your unreasonable and irrational proposal will be given all of the consideration that it deserves.

How so is it irrational? Explain to me how one would need more than 6 shots in a non-military/non-police situation.

I'm 100% open minded about it.

You could be attacked by 7 people, or you could be attacked by fewer people and miss a shot or two, or an attacker may not be stopped after being hit.

This woman barely managed to defend herself and her children from one attacker with the six rounds she had.

According to that story she emptied her weapon after he came into view. Thats a poor reaction. She stopped aimed fire and was just unloading. I'm not saying I would have been better, but I don't think 10 more rounds would have yielded better results.

And it did stop him. It didn't kill him, but he ceased doing anything other than bleeding.

Now, if you want to make a case that you could have to fend off a small gang, I just have to say too bad. You show me an example where someone ran out of ammo defending themselves that doesn't military action, and I will give you're scenario some weight. But by that logic, everyone should get to have a FGM-148 Javelin incase a tank decides to do a little B&E


Lucky for me I guess that most of the country is never going to take ideas like yours seriously and I can continue carrying a pistol that holds 18 rounds without really worrying about what you think.
 
2014-01-16 02:05:08 PM  

lilplatinum: I already said above that if legislation is written in the vernacular rather than being technical, it is very poorly  written.


And if you try to debate a topic in the vernacular, you are likely going to get smacked around quite a bunch.
 
2014-01-16 02:05:32 PM  

JesseL: Publikwerks: To address your defensive point - limiting shots per reload benefits the defender. It would be far easier to have 5 guns in your bedroom than carry 5 guns as you break into a house.

Are you serious? That is completely and monumentally wrong.

Keeping 5 guns handy and usable at all times (as they would need to be for defense - defenders lack initiative in an attack and don't know when or where it will happen) is a hell of a lot harder than figuring out how to carry 5 guns.


How is it harder keeping 5 guns ready than 1 gun ready. I mean, I'll concede that the attacker has the element of surprise, but by your former points - most murders are in the first few shots. So if they get you by surprise, it doesn't matter if you have a glock 18 with a 40 round clip under your pillow. You will most likely never wake up from dreamytime.
 
2014-01-16 02:05:49 PM  
That broad's got some teeth.  Homeschooled?
 
2014-01-16 02:08:02 PM  

Frank N Stein: [img.fark.net image 850x523]

Lol. Hoplophobs


Jesus f--king Christ, was this the Word of the Day in the NRAs newsletter this week, or the RNCs talking points memo?

If I had driven around for two days with an unknown gun in the car - not knowing if the safety was on or off, loaded or not, REALLY not knowing why the owner didn't TRACK IT DOWN FOR TWO DAYS (*best* case scenario, too dumb to realize they left a weapon behind - worse, they left it behind *intentionally*) - yeah, I'd freak out a bit too.  This is not irrational.

/gunsgunsgunsgunsguns!
//not compensating for anything!
 
2014-01-16 02:08:53 PM  

croesius: netweavr: Dimensio: Super Chronic: Fully loaded, indeed.

I do not know why reckless endangerment charges were not considered.

It's not loaded, look at the photo.

I did a double-take at that part of the article myself. Pretty devious of them to casually describe the vehicle as "Fully Loaded" in context that they know people will freak out about.


thatsthejoke.jpg

/meaning the joke that inspired my post y'all are responding too
 
2014-01-16 02:09:23 PM  

Publikwerks: How so is it irrational?


Because it is an arbitrary and capricious limitation on an enumerated right.  I noticed you did not address my request on why you thought that it wasn't an arbitrary and capricious limitation.
 
2014-01-16 02:10:46 PM  

JesseL: Publikwerks: And if gets people to switch to other methods like arson, thats a good thing. Arson is alot slower, and much more preventable. Knife wounds are far more survivable and defendable. Guns are an efficient killing machine, and getting people to switch to less efficient methods of killing is a good thing.

What was the deadliest mass muder in US history?


Oh, aren't you adorable.

/murder.
 
2014-01-16 02:12:11 PM  

Publikwerks: How is it harder keeping 5 guns ready than 1 gun ready.


so let me get this straight - it is OK to keep 5 guns with 6 rounds each but not 1 gun with 7 rounds?  And you are serious about this?
 
2014-01-16 02:12:13 PM  

JesseL: Lucky for me I guess that most of the country is never going to take ideas like yours seriously and I can continue carrying a pistol that holds 18 rounds without really worrying about what you think.


Thank god you can have that to walk around in one of the safest periods of human history ever... not sure how one could cope with crippling paranoia otherwise.
 
2014-01-16 02:12:54 PM  

JesseL: Publikwerks: JesseL: Publikwerks: Dimensio: Publikwerks: The law should be anything capable of firing more than 6 shots without reloading is banned.

Your unreasonable and irrational proposal will be given all of the consideration that it deserves.

How so is it irrational? Explain to me how one would need more than 6 shots in a non-military/non-police situation.

I'm 100% open minded about it.

You could be attacked by 7 people, or you could be attacked by fewer people and miss a shot or two, or an attacker may not be stopped after being hit.

This woman barely managed to defend herself and her children from one attacker with the six rounds she had.

According to that story she emptied her weapon after he came into view. Thats a poor reaction. She stopped aimed fire and was just unloading. I'm not saying I would have been better, but I don't think 10 more rounds would have yielded better results.

And it did stop him. It didn't kill him, but he ceased doing anything other than bleeding.

Now, if you want to make a case that you could have to fend off a small gang, I just have to say too bad. You show me an example where someone ran out of ammo defending themselves that doesn't military action, and I will give you're scenario some weight. But by that logic, everyone should get to have a FGM-148 Javelin incase a tank decides to do a little B&E

Lucky for me I guess that most of the country is never going to take ideas like yours seriously and I can continue carrying a pistol that holds 18 rounds without really worrying about what you think.


Well, you can think that, but I'm pretty sure that large capacity magazines have been banned, and could be banned again. If you can't defend your position, it far more likely than you think.

Last polling I saw put it at about 50% want more gun control.
 
2014-01-16 02:13:00 PM  

lilplatinum: Publikwerks: Dimensio: Publikwerks: The law should be anything capable of firing more than 6 shots without reloading is banned.

Your unreasonable and irrational proposal will be given all of the consideration that it deserves.

How so is it irrational? Explain to me how one would need more than 6 shots in a non-military/non-police situation.

I'm 100% open minded about it.

Obviously when the roving gangs of 7 rapists that are so common in the country break into your house.


So why draw the line at six shots?  Why not a single sht rifle or hand gun and if you think yo may need more than one shot  buy tow guns and keep then next to each other.?

I for one am not too big on government limiting me to what it defines I need.  It will already  fine  you (or is it a tax? )for having too good a  health plan.

I realize that  there is a political ideology that  prescribes that point of view ( "to each according to their needs" IIRC) but I would prefer it was not running our country.


This is a .22 revolver, holds 10 shots.  A real menace to society

accurateshooter.net


This devastating  bit of firepower holds 15 to 17 rounds of .22 ammo

picturearchive.gunauction.com
Of course this only holds five rounds so it may be relatively harmless

3.bp.blogspot.com


www.spearfishingplanet.com


You know how some chicks don't think  men should be allowed to make laws about abortion. Maybe the ignorant about guns should not be allowed to make gun laws.
 
2014-01-16 02:13:17 PM  

JesseL: lilplatinum: JesseL: This woman barely managed to defend herself and her children from one attacker with the six rounds she had.

Perhaps her dumb ass should spend more time at the range, or perhaps buy something more appropriate for home defense... like a shotgun.

She hit the guy five times in the face and neck. Perhaps you should just recognize a stupid idea for what it is and not make a fool of yourself defending it?


When did I defend it?   I was just giving her some practical advice... if you shoot someone in the face and neck with a shotgun, you will not need to do it 4 more times.
 
2014-01-16 02:13:27 PM  

pyrotek85: inner ted: Dimensio: inner ted: so what ARE barrel shrouds, folding stocks, laser sights, holographic sights & high capacity magazines for??? just to look cool & scary?  to be able to recreate your favorite rifle from bf4 or cod? surely they have some function that adds to the ability of the weapon right?

What purpose is served by banning such features?

couldn't quite figure out a decent answer?

I think their point is that the onus is on you to explain why people shouldn't have them, we don't have to justify their legality.


please highlight from my post where I asked they be banned.
 
2014-01-16 02:14:00 PM  

Publikwerks: JesseL: Publikwerks: To address your defensive point - limiting shots per reload benefits the defender. It would be far easier to have 5 guns in your bedroom than carry 5 guns as you break into a house.

Are you serious? That is completely and monumentally wrong.

Keeping 5 guns handy and usable at all times (as they would need to be for defense - defenders lack initiative in an attack and don't know when or where it will happen) is a hell of a lot harder than figuring out how to carry 5 guns.

How is it harder keeping 5 guns ready than 1 gun ready. I mean, I'll concede that the attacker has the element of surprise, but by your former points - most murders are in the first few shots. So if they get you by surprise, it doesn't matter if you have a glock 18 with a 40 round clip under your pillow. You will most likely never wake up from dreamytime.


You do realize your whole argument is nothing more than "if you have nothing to hide"
 
2014-01-16 02:14:45 PM  

Publikwerks: Last polling I saw put it at about 50% want more gun control.


Ok, I'll use both hands while shooting my pistol next time.
 
2014-01-16 02:15:26 PM  

HeadLever: lilplatinum: I already said above that if legislation is written in the vernacular rather than being technical, it is very poorly  written.

And if you try to debate a topic in the vernacular, you are likely going to get smacked around quite a bunch.


Depending on what level of debate you are having.  shiat slinging in forums is not debate, and the technical difference between a clip and a magazine (in gun nut terms, since they are identical in common terms) is probably irrelevant in the vast majority of gun discussions unless you are proposing some sort of limitation and need to clarify if it applies to both.
 
2014-01-16 02:16:17 PM  

Dimensio: HotWingConspiracy: Dimensio: HotWingConspiracy: This is what gun owners consider responsible. The bar gets lower every single day.

You are correct,

As always.

Might I suggest, in the future, however that you provide direct references or quotes from individuals who expressed the sincere belief that the act of leaving a firearm in a rented vehicle is responsible behavior. Doing so will eliminate any ability for any challenger to claim that you are attempting to exaggerate or even to fully misrepresent reality.


Don't hold your breath. He just disappears from threads when asked to back up his bullshiat. I'm still waiting on a citation from him on a universal background check bill with no included bans that was supposedly voted down because NRA.

So how about it Hotwing? You going to back up your big talk or what? I suspect we just won't hear from you again in this thread.
 
2014-01-16 02:16:22 PM  

I just put a similar EOTech optics setup on my rifle. But I know where mine is, and won't be leaving it in a rental car.

i74.photobucket.com
 
2014-01-16 02:16:27 PM  
NOW I HAVE
AN AR 15

HO HO HO
 
2014-01-16 02:16:37 PM  

StreetlightInTheGhetto: Frank N Stein: [img.fark.net image 850x523]

Lol. Hoplophobs

Jesus f--king Christ, was this the Word of the Day in the NRAs newsletter this week, or the RNCs talking points memo?

If I had driven around for two days with an unknown gun in the car - not knowing if the safety was on or off, loaded or not, REALLY not knowing why the owner didn't TRACK IT DOWN FOR TWO DAYS (*best* case scenario, too dumb to realize they left a weapon behind - worse, they left it behind *intentionally*) - yeah, I'd freak out a bit too.  This is not irrational.

/gunsgunsgunsgunsguns!
//not compensating for anything!


sit down. I think you might throw up.
 
2014-01-16 02:16:39 PM  

sweetmelissa31: Do all white football players and their wives look exactly the same? Because this could be a generic photo of any white football player and his wife.

[i.dailymail.co.uk image 634x572]


Not too far off...
i.cdn.turner.com

Simlar...
celebbabylaundry.com

A little different:
media.nesn.com

Hmm...
www.thefamedriven.com

/nttawwt
/low-hanging fruit
 
2014-01-16 02:16:58 PM  

hasty ambush: lilplatinum: Publikwerks: Dimensio: Publikwerks: The law should be anything capable of firing more than 6 shots without reloading is banned.

Your unreasonable and irrational proposal will be given all of the consideration that it deserves.

How so is it irrational? Explain to me how one would need more than 6 shots in a non-military/non-police situation.

I'm 100% open minded about it.

Obviously when the roving gangs of 7 rapists that are so common in the country break into your house.

So why draw the line at six shots?  Why not a single sht rifle or hand gun and if you think yo may need more than one shot  buy tow guns and keep then next to each other.?

I for one am not too big on government limiting me to what it defines I need.  It will already  fine  you (or is it a tax? )for having too good a  health plan.

I realize that  there is a political ideology that  prescribes that point of view ( "to each according to their needs" IIRC) but I would prefer it was not running our country.


This is a .22 revolver, holds 10 shots.  A real menace to society

[accurateshooter.net image 540x309]


This devastating  bit of firepower holds 15 to 17 rounds of .22 ammo

[picturearchive.gunauction.com image 700x700]
Of course this only holds five rounds so it may be relatively harmless

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 400x298]


[www.spearfishingplanet.com image 484x275]


You know how some chicks don't think  men should be allowed to make laws about abortion. Maybe the ignorant about guns should not be allowed to make gun laws.

images.sodahead.com
 
2014-01-16 02:17:29 PM  

HeadLever: Publikwerks: Last polling I saw put it at about 50% want more gun control.

Ok, I'll use both hands while shooting my pistol next time.


HAHAHAHAHA It's funny, 'cos you don't care about taking lives in order to maintain your tough-guy facade! Hyuk, hyuk! Get it!?
 
2014-01-16 02:18:29 PM  

lilplatinum: shiat slinging in forums is not debate,


Oh, so you are not worried about making a salient point and are only interested in 'shait slinging'?  In that case, I'll just bundle your points within that context and conveniently flush them down the toilet.
 
2014-01-16 02:18:56 PM  

EyeballKid: HeadLever: Publikwerks: Last polling I saw put it at about 50% want more gun control.

Ok, I'll use both hands while shooting my pistol next time.

HAHAHAHAHA It's funny, 'cos you don't care about taking lives in order to maintain your tough-guy facade! Hyuk, hyuk! Get it!?


Liberals are supposed to be the funny ones. Save the sanctimonious crying for conservatives.
 
2014-01-16 02:20:19 PM  

Frank N Stein: Liberals are supposed to be the funny ones. Save the sanctimonious crying for conservatives.


And the ones who act like they're aloof and above it all are supposed to be self-absorbed, delusional dickholes. Keep up the good work.
 
Displayed 50 of 471 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | 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