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  
•       •       •

7584 clicks; posted to Sports » on 16 Jan 2014 at 11:13 AM (40 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 02:54:51 PM  

oh_please: Seriously, everyone arguing here is a farking tard.

You're not going to change anyone's opinion, especially the people who think that banning guns will solve all our problems, and we'll all hold hands and sing "Kumbya".


Don't worry gun owners, nobody is going to take your death toys.

Just let the rest of us biatch for a little bit the next time some young man piles kindergartners and teachers into a corner and unloads dozens of rounds into them, okay?
 
2014-01-16 02:56:44 PM  

HeadLever: Publikwerks: Well, unless you are open to limiting the number of guns you own?

Don't deflect the question.  Please respond.


I think someone owning 5 guys that are only capable of 6 shots is safer than someone own a weapons that is capable of firing 100's of rounds with little interruption
 
2014-01-16 02:57:01 PM  

mjohnson71: oh_please: Seriously, everyone arguing here is a farking tard.

You're not going to change anyone's opinion, especially the people who think that banning guns will solve all our problems, and we'll all hold hands and sing "Kumbya".

Don't worry gun owners, nobody is going to take your death toys.

Just let the rest of us biatch for a little bit the next time some young man piles kindergartners and teachers into a corner and unloads dozens of rounds into them, okay?


Deal
 
2014-01-16 02:57:11 PM  

Publikwerks: As I said, I am open to change - if it make sense to exempt something,


Fair enough.  You and I are on opposite sides here, but this kind of discussion is refreshing.  As you can see, the details are sticky here.  Trying to cut down on crime by limiting firearm features is very problematic.  Many features that make them easy to commit a crime with are the same features that help them be a good self defense weapon or useful in many circumstances.
 
2014-01-16 02:57:27 PM  

BadReligion: Dimensio: BadReligion: 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 image 850x637]

I use a simple ring sight (the rifle itself is an A3 model and included no rear sight at retail). I do not know whether I should feel impoverished or snobbish.

Both? I like the EOTech stuff I have, really improves my accuracy. I am not the best marksman out there.


I never claimed to be a reliable marksman.
 
2014-01-16 02:57:56 PM  

keypusher: hasty ambush: 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]

I was thinking that all football players wives looked the same, you sound racist.


[www.athleteswives.com image 299x433]


[4.bp.blogspot.com image 256x320]

Wow, good work.  Who is the guy in the top picture?


Russell Kaepernick. Graduated from Nevada and then played a season at Wisconsin in grad school. 1st pick in the 2012 draft. Pretty much universally recognized as the successor to Manning/Brady/Brees/Rodgers
 
2014-01-16 02:58:41 PM  

mjohnson71: Don't worry gun owners, nobody is going to take your death toys.

Just let the rest of us biatch for a little bit the next time some young man piles kindergartners and teachers into a corner and unloads dozens of rounds into them, okay?


Heavens, no!!! It will be totally inappropriate to discuss how to stop a tragedy after that tragedy has happened! Wayne LaPierre will have to have his fainting couch pulled out!
 
2014-01-16 02:58:46 PM  

Publikwerks: HeadLever: Publikwerks: Well, unless you are open to limiting the number of guns you own?

Don't deflect the question.  Please respond.

I think someone owning 5 guys that are only capable of 6 shots is safer than someone own a weapons that is capable of firing 100's of rounds with little interruption


www.bizpacreview.com

This place just got a lot cooler in my mind.
 
2014-01-16 02:59:48 PM  

mjohnson71: oh_please: Seriously, everyone arguing here is a farking tard.

You're not going to change anyone's opinion, especially the people who think that banning guns will solve all our problems, and we'll all hold hands and sing "Kumbya".

Don't worry gun owners, nobody is going to take your death toys.

Just let the rest of us biatch for a little bit the next time some young man piles kindergartners and teachers into a corner and unloads dozens of rounds into them, okay?


You are not helping. There are lots of responsible people who own guns, and I don't want to make life overly difficult for them. And I am willing to work with them, but when you spout stupid like this, it puts them on the defensive and makes it an us vs them.

Stop
 
2014-01-16 03:01:30 PM  

Publikwerks: I think someone owning 5 guys that are only capable of 6 shots is safer than someone own a weapons that is capable of firing 100's of rounds with little interruption


The problem is that it is really not.  Large magazines are often prone to feeding issues.   Also this*

*Results are not typical, but with a bit of practice, reloading a revolver takes a few seconds.
 
2014-01-16 03:01:33 PM  

Publikwerks: mjohnson71: oh_please: Seriously, everyone arguing here is a farking tard.

You're not going to change anyone's opinion, especially the people who think that banning guns will solve all our problems, and we'll all hold hands and sing "Kumbya".

Don't worry gun owners, nobody is going to take your death toys.

Just let the rest of us biatch for a little bit the next time some young man piles kindergartners and teachers into a corner and unloads dozens of rounds into them, okay?

You are not helping. There are lots of responsible people who own guns, and I don't want to make life overly difficult for them. And I am willing to work with them, but when you spout stupid like this, it puts them on the defensive and makes it an us vs them.

Stop


Ok. I'm going to favorite you as "gun grabber, but reasonable. Do not troll" lol
 
2014-01-16 03:03:07 PM  

lilplatinum: I love when the tiny dick bregade gets their panties in a wad when people don't use their preferred nomenclature for their stupid little toys.

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


I love it how people who are scared shiatless of guns tend to be so obsessed with dicks.
 
2014-01-16 03:03:11 PM  

Publikwerks: You are not helping. There are lots of responsible people who own guns, and I don't want to make life overly difficult for them. And I am willing to work with them, but when you spout stupid like this, it puts them on the defensive and makes it an us vs them.



So, these responsible gun owners will get on the defensive if making one portion of their lives inconvenient for the sake of possibly preventing a mass murder is considered? You're right, they sound like totally rational people to me.
 
2014-01-16 03:04:47 PM  

pyrotek85: I especially live the idea that "assault weapon" is a "made up" phrase.

All language is "made up". I assume gun nuts think that LaPierre brought a dictionary carved on a rock that he had from a burning plant down from a mountain?


What difference does it really make anyway?


vatandosh.com

"It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again. And most importantly...not blame me."
 
2014-01-16 03:05:03 PM  

HeadLever: Publikwerks: As I said, I am open to change - if it make sense to exempt something,

Fair enough.  You and I are on opposite sides here, but this kind of discussion is refreshing.  As you can see, the details are sticky here.  Trying to cut down on crime by limiting firearm features is very problematic.  Many features that make them easy to commit a crime with are the same features that help them be a good self defense weapon or useful in many circumstances.


I agree, cutting down on guns is not the solution. It may be part of it a solution, but it has to be done right, or it has bad repercussions.

I am not against gun ownership, and once my kids get older, I plan on picking up an over/under 12 gauge or a semiautomatic shotgun, because I took a class at LL Bean for father day on skeet shooting, and I had a blast(sorry, bad pun).
 
2014-01-16 03:05:47 PM  

oh_please: Seriously, everyone arguing here is a farking tard.

You're not going to change anyone's opinion, especially the people who think that banning guns will solve all our problems, and we'll all hold hands and sing "Kumbya".


You know there is a damn middle ground that most Americans probably fall into, right?  I know that makes the "slippery slope that will lead to banning all guns" narrative harder to swallow, but it is true.

I grew up with uncles who are hunters and family in Detroit.  I'm not opposed to reasonable and responsible gun ownership.  I am opposed to this blind worship of guns at the expense of everything else, where any step - no matter how modest - proposed to solve a real freaking problem gets shouted down with cries of fascism.
 
2014-01-16 03:07:03 PM  
BTW - Forgive my poor grammar. It's the end of the day, and after 8 hours of screen time, my brain and eyes get foggy.
 
2014-01-16 03:07:58 PM  

EyeballKid: Publikwerks: You are not helping. There are lots of responsible people who own guns, and I don't want to make life overly difficult for them. And I am willing to work with them, but when you spout stupid like this, it puts them on the defensive and makes it an us vs them.


So, these responsible gun owners will get on the defensive if making one portion of their lives inconvenient for the sake of possibly preventing a mass murder is considered? You're right, they sound like totally rational people to me.


We could stop all sorts of violent crime from happening if we repealed the 4th too. Surely you wouldn't mind making your life a little bit inconvenient by allowing the police to search your house at random.
 
2014-01-16 03:09:39 PM  

EyeballKid: Publikwerks: You are not helping. There are lots of responsible people who own guns, and I don't want to make life overly difficult for them. And I am willing to work with them, but when you spout stupid like this, it puts them on the defensive and makes it an us vs them.


So, these responsible gun owners will get on the defensive if making one portion of their lives inconvenient for the sake of possibly preventing a mass murder is considered? You're right, they sound like totally rational people to me.


When a firearm prohibitionist claims that a law that prohibiting the transformation of this into this will prevent mass murder, derision is warranted.
 
2014-01-16 03:12:39 PM  

Publikwerks: BTW - Forgive my poor grammar. It's the end of the day, and after 8 hours of screen time, my brain and eyes get foggy.


I recommend drinking. It provides a plausible excuse.
 
2014-01-16 03:13:44 PM  

hasty ambush: 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.


Wow, you really sell that argument.
 
2014-01-16 03:13:46 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".


...well, the posters are too busy arguing about the semantics about how the weapon left behind to be described to cheerlead or condemn the actual incident...except to condemn the dumbass "ibrul media" who doesn't describe the weapon left behind as they want it to be described.

/Hell, someone will probably condemn me for calling the weapon left behind a weapon.
 
2014-01-16 03:13:50 PM  

EyeballKid: Publikwerks: You are not helping. There are lots of responsible people who own guns, and I don't want to make life overly difficult for them. And I am willing to work with them, but when you spout stupid like this, it puts them on the defensive and makes it an us vs them.


So, these responsible gun owners will get on the defensive if making one portion of their lives inconvenient for the sake of possibly preventing a mass murder is considered? You're right, they sound like totally rational people to me.


Crazy people are going to do crazy things. And to be fair, trying to write a law to try and prevent shootings like Newtown is bad. Way more people die in random crimes than in mass shootings. But they are just nameless faces. The reason Newtown got the attention it did was it was little kids. It was shocking, and stood out from the other gun violence.   I have a son the age of the Newtown victims, and let me tell you, it farking tore my heart out. But I also know thatemotional law is bad law. And using tragedy to pass a law might work, but I'm not doing it.
 
2014-01-16 03:14:36 PM  

Frank N Stein: Ok. I'm going to favorite you as "gun grabber, but reasonable. Do not troll" lol


Yeah, what happened here?  An honest argument broke out in the middle of a Fark gun thread.  WTH?
 
2014-01-16 03:14:53 PM  
static.giantbomb.com
 
2014-01-16 03:15:05 PM  

Dimensio: Publikwerks: BTW - Forgive my poor grammar. It's the end of the day, and after 8 hours of screen time, my brain and eyes get foggy.

I recommend drinking. It provides a plausible excuse.


I still have to commute home, and if there is something far more dangerous than a gun, its a drunk driver.
 
2014-01-16 03:15:27 PM  

IlGreven: 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".

...well, the posters are too busy arguing about the semantics about how the weapon left behind to be described to cheerlead or condemn the actual incident...except to condemn the dumbass "ibrul media" who doesn't describe the weapon left behind as they want it to be described.

/Hell, someone will probably condemn me for calling the weapon left behind a weapon.


Several people, Dimensio and myself included, condemned it.
 
2014-01-16 03:18:04 PM  

MythDragon: Mikey1969: Richard C Stanford: God, just everything about that article...
The dumbass leaving his $2,000 dollar rifle in a rental car and forgetting about it.
The Mails hysterical all-caps ASSAULT RIFLE! head line, showing exactly how much they know about firearms.
And this little gem from the "victims":
"'Oh my God, it's a gun,' Ms Fleissig's daughter said. 'I said, 'I think I'm going to throw up,' she recalled."

Yeah, the stress of the situation will do that to you... I mean, what do you do? Do you contact the rental company? Do you try and track down the owner yourself? Do you contact the police? Do you claim the rifle for your own, citing Finders keepers? Do you sell it? Do you take it to the range for a few hours and THEN return it?

As long as you buy your own ammo, and bring it back cleaned, (and I mean a decent cleaning where you tear down the bolt carrier group and use CLP, not just a quick hit of the brush to the ejector port area), it's all good. Just like stea-uh borrowing a sports car. It's understood you bring it back with a full tank and a wax job.


Yeah, I'd give her a wax job...  :-)
 
2014-01-16 03:21:07 PM  

Mikey1969: Yeah, I'd give her a wax job...  :-)


I think we can all agree that is just good manners.
 
2014-01-16 03:25:06 PM  

StreetlightInTheGhetto: oh_please: Seriously, everyone arguing here is a farking tard.

You're not going to change anyone's opinion, especially the people who think that banning guns will solve all our problems, and we'll all hold hands and sing "Kumbya".

You know there is a damn middle ground that most Americans probably fall into, right?  I know that makes the "slippery slope that will lead to banning all guns" narrative harder to swallow, but it is true.

I grew up with uncles who are hunters and family in Detroit.  I'm not opposed to reasonable and responsible gun ownership.  I am opposed to this blind worship of guns at the expense of everything else, where any step - no matter how modest - proposed to solve a real freaking problem gets shouted down with cries of fascism.


This right here.

I was raised with guns. Started shooting at a young age and always taught gun safety along with their place. I own a Mossberg 500 and a hand me down S&W 64 for home protection. I still can't figure why anyone needs anything more than that.
 
2014-01-16 03:25:08 PM  

Dimensio: When a firearm prohibitionist claims that a law that prohibiting the transformation of this into this will prevent mass murder, derision is warranted.


Like how pro-capital punishment people  insist that killing people will teach people not to kill people?
 
2014-01-16 03:27:09 PM  

umad: EyeballKid: Publikwerks: You are not helping. There are lots of responsible people who own guns, and I don't want to make life overly difficult for them. And I am willing to work with them, but when you spout stupid like this, it puts them on the defensive and makes it an us vs them.


So, these responsible gun owners will get on the defensive if making one portion of their lives inconvenient for the sake of possibly preventing a mass murder is considered? You're right, they sound like totally rational people to me.

We could stop all sorts of violent crime from happening if we repealed the 4th too. Surely you wouldn't mind making your life a little bit inconvenient by allowing the police to search your house at random.


Wow. So, that's the next step, then? Mr. LaPierre has trained you well. Now, sit. Beg. Give me a paw? GOOD BOY.
 
2014-01-16 03:29:59 PM  

mjohnson71: StreetlightInTheGhetto: oh_please: Seriously, everyone arguing here is a farking tard.

You're not going to change anyone's opinion, especially the people who think that banning guns will solve all our problems, and we'll all hold hands and sing "Kumbya".

You know there is a damn middle ground that most Americans probably fall into, right?  I know that makes the "slippery slope that will lead to banning all guns" narrative harder to swallow, but it is true.

I grew up with uncles who are hunters and family in Detroit.  I'm not opposed to reasonable and responsible gun ownership.  I am opposed to this blind worship of guns at the expense of everything else, where any step - no matter how modest - proposed to solve a real freaking problem gets shouted down with cries of fascism.

This right here.

I was raised with guns. Started shooting at a young age and always taught gun safety along with their place. I own a Mossberg 500 and a hand me down S&W 64 for home protection. I still can't figure why anyone needs anything more than that.


Mossberg 500 is a damn fine shotgun. But the short answer to your question is that it's really not about "need", because that's kind of an arbitrary and vague requirement.
 
2014-01-16 03:31:08 PM  

EyeballKid: Dimensio: When a firearm prohibitionist claims that a law that prohibiting the transformation of this into this will prevent mass murder, derision is warranted.

Like how pro-capital punishment people  insist that killing people will teach people not to kill people?


The primary argument (from those who do not simply admit that support of the death penalty is based upon a desire for vengeance rather than justice) is that a potential consequence of execution serves to deter homicide. Derision should therefore be based upon the complete lack of any compelling evidence in support of such a conclusion.
 
2014-01-16 03:31:49 PM  
The only things in the sports tab that generate more responses than this are nfl threads and wrasslin threads. Drew should stick a gun thread in the tab more often and maybe more people would look at it. This may work for the business tab as well.
 
2014-01-16 03:33:54 PM  
FOUL DEMON I CAST THEE OUT OF MY SPORTS TAB

GET THEE BACK WITH THE DROOLERS AND DIDDLERS AND DEGENERATES OF THE POLITICS TAB

END COMMUNICATION
 
2014-01-16 03:34:51 PM  

Igor Jakovsky: The only things in the sports tab that generate more responses than this are nfl threads and wrasslin threads. Drew should stick a gun thread in the tab more often and maybe more people would look at it. This may work for the business tab as well.


You forgot a "pizza" tab.
 
2014-01-16 03:36:19 PM  

Frank N Stein: mjohnson71: StreetlightInTheGhetto: oh_please: Seriously, everyone arguing here is a farking tard.

You're not going to change anyone's opinion, especially the people who think that banning guns will solve all our problems, and we'll all hold hands and sing "Kumbya".

You know there is a damn middle ground that most Americans probably fall into, right?  I know that makes the "slippery slope that will lead to banning all guns" narrative harder to swallow, but it is true.

I grew up with uncles who are hunters and family in Detroit.  I'm not opposed to reasonable and responsible gun ownership.  I am opposed to this blind worship of guns at the expense of everything else, where any step - no matter how modest - proposed to solve a real freaking problem gets shouted down with cries of fascism.

This right here.

I was raised with guns. Started shooting at a young age and always taught gun safety along with their place. I own a Mossberg 500 and a hand me down S&W 64 for home protection. I still can't figure why anyone needs anything more than that.

Mossberg 500 is a damn fine shotgun. But the short answer to your question is that it's really not about "need", because that's kind of an arbitrary and vague requirement.


As is "want".
 
2014-01-16 03:40:16 PM  

Publikwerks: HeadLever: Publikwerks: Well, unless you are open to limiting the number of guns you own?

Don't deflect the question.  Please respond.

I think someone owning 5 guys that are only capable of 6 shots is safer than someone own a weapons that is capable of firing 100's of rounds with little interruption


Yeah. Five Guys is a pretty safe bet. Sure, the fries have a ton of oil in them, but it's a popular restaurant that's always got a crowd, even in today's (semi)health conscious United States.
 
2014-01-16 03:41:45 PM  

mjohnson71: Frank N Stein: mjohnson71: StreetlightInTheGhetto: oh_please: Seriously, everyone arguing here is a farking tard.

You're not going to change anyone's opinion, especially the people who think that banning guns will solve all our problems, and we'll all hold hands and sing "Kumbya".

You know there is a damn middle ground that most Americans probably fall into, right?  I know that makes the "slippery slope that will lead to banning all guns" narrative harder to swallow, but it is true.

I grew up with uncles who are hunters and family in Detroit.  I'm not opposed to reasonable and responsible gun ownership.  I am opposed to this blind worship of guns at the expense of everything else, where any step - no matter how modest - proposed to solve a real freaking problem gets shouted down with cries of fascism.

This right here.

I was raised with guns. Started shooting at a young age and always taught gun safety along with their place. I own a Mossberg 500 and a hand me down S&W 64 for home protection. I still can't figure why anyone needs anything more than that.

Mossberg 500 is a damn fine shotgun. But the short answer to your question is that it's really not about "need", because that's kind of an arbitrary and vague requirement.

As is "want".


Rights aren't really subject to either.
 
2014-01-16 03:42:17 PM  
I'm not saying that I would keep it...but I know I would have to think about it for a while before making a decision.
 
2014-01-16 03:42:56 PM  

mjohnson71: StreetlightInTheGhetto: oh_please: Seriously, everyone arguing here is a farking tard.

You're not going to change anyone's opinion, especially the people who think that banning guns will solve all our problems, and we'll all hold hands and sing "Kumbya".

You know there is a damn middle ground that most Americans probably fall into, right?  I know that makes the "slippery slope that will lead to banning all guns" narrative harder to swallow, but it is true.

I grew up with uncles who are hunters and family in Detroit.  I'm not opposed to reasonable and responsible gun ownership.  I am opposed to this blind worship of guns at the expense of everything else, where any step - no matter how modest - proposed to solve a real freaking problem gets shouted down with cries of fascism.

This right here.

I was raised with guns. Started shooting at a young age and always taught gun safety along with their place. I own a Mossberg 500 and a hand me down S&W 64 for home protection. I still can't figure why anyone needs anything more than that.


I have a .22 derringer and a single shot 20 gauge. I don't see why you need that arsenal you have.
 
2014-01-16 03:46:48 PM  

BadReligion: mjohnson71: StreetlightInTheGhetto: oh_please: Seriously, everyone arguing here is a farking tard.

You're not going to change anyone's opinion, especially the people who think that banning guns will solve all our problems, and we'll all hold hands and sing "Kumbya".

You know there is a damn middle ground that most Americans probably fall into, right?  I know that makes the "slippery slope that will lead to banning all guns" narrative harder to swallow, but it is true.

I grew up with uncles who are hunters and family in Detroit.  I'm not opposed to reasonable and responsible gun ownership.  I am opposed to this blind worship of guns at the expense of everything else, where any step - no matter how modest - proposed to solve a real freaking problem gets shouted down with cries of fascism.

This right here.

I was raised with guns. Started shooting at a young age and always taught gun safety along with their place. I own a Mossberg 500 and a hand me down S&W 64 for home protection. I still can't figure why anyone needs anything more than that.

I have a .22 derringer and a single shot 20 gauge. I don't see why you need that arsenal you have.


Tell you what. I'll trade down to a muzzle load rifle like the ones used when the 2nd Amendment was written 200+ years ago, will that make you happy?
 
2014-01-16 03:47:04 PM  

HeadLever: 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 image 600x133]


Hey, I've got one of those!  Leave them alone!!
 
2014-01-16 03:49:41 PM  

mjohnson71: I still can't figure why anyone needs anything more than that.


For my hunting (big game, small game, varmint etc) you are going to need something different than a shotgun and pistol to have any success.

Not to mention if you get into benchrest or some other competitive shooting.
 
2014-01-16 03:53:07 PM  

bikerbob59: Hey, I've got one of those!  Leave them alone!!


What caliber?

1886 in a .40-82
 
2014-01-16 03:54:39 PM  

StreetlightInTheGhetto: oh_please: Seriously, everyone arguing here is a farking tard.

You're not going to change anyone's opinion, especially the people who think that banning guns will solve all our problems, and we'll all hold hands and sing "Kumbya".

You know there is a damn middle ground that most Americans probably fall into, right?  I know that makes the "slippery slope that will lead to banning all guns" narrative harder to swallow, but it is true.

I grew up with uncles who are hunters and family in Detroit.  I'm not opposed to reasonable and responsible gun ownership.  I am opposed to this blind worship of guns at the expense of everything else, where any step - no matter how modest - proposed to solve a real freaking problem gets shouted down with cries of fascism.


The problem is that gun control advocates do not negotiate in good faith. Compromise is a two way street. Taking away my rights and taking a bit more of it down the road is not a compromise. In my home state of NY, a large swath of semiautomatic rifles were labelled assault weapons. For a stretch I couldn't legally load more than 7 rounds into my 10 round capacity magazines. NYC has started confiscating firearms from residents. Now the state is talking about banning "high power sniper rifles". How can the casual observer not state this is incrementalism at work?

You want compromise? You get universal background checks and I get a repeal of the Hughes amendment and nationwide ccw reciprocity. Both sides should walk away overjoyed and there would be no negative effect on crime.
 
2014-01-16 04:01:23 PM  

mjohnson71: BadReligion: mjohnson71: StreetlightInTheGhetto: oh_please: Seriously, everyone arguing here is a farking tard.

You're not going to change anyone's opinion, especially the people who think that banning guns will solve all our problems, and we'll all hold hands and sing "Kumbya".

You know there is a damn middle ground that most Americans probably fall into, right?  I know that makes the "slippery slope that will lead to banning all guns" narrative harder to swallow, but it is true.

I grew up with uncles who are hunters and family in Detroit.  I'm not opposed to reasonable and responsible gun ownership.  I am opposed to this blind worship of guns at the expense of everything else, where any step - no matter how modest - proposed to solve a real freaking problem gets shouted down with cries of fascism.

This right here.

I was raised with guns. Started shooting at a young age and always taught gun safety along with their place. I own a Mossberg 500 and a hand me down S&W 64 for home protection. I still can't figure why anyone needs anything more than that.

I have a .22 derringer and a single shot 20 gauge. I don't see why you need that arsenal you have.

Tell you what. I'll trade down to a muzzle load rifle like the ones used when the 2nd Amendment was written 200+ years ago, will that make you happy?


Yup. And don't forget to only practice free speech using only your voice, handwritten notes on quill and parchment, and paper on old style printing presses. The founders weren't talking about the internet when they wrote the 1st ammendment, after all.
 
2014-01-16 04:03:45 PM  

croesius: The Jami Turman Fan Club: Mikey1969: whizbangthedirtfarmer: Mikey1969: Of course, looking at the gun, I also would have my doubts that it was used in any crime, you don't often drop that kind of cabbage on your choice of weapon for drive bys...

It's exactly the kind of weapon you'd use for an assassination attempt.

I can see a TV series now...airheaded hot model wife of an NFL QB by day, airheaded assassin for hire by night...

I would imagine a proper assassination attempt would use a caliber with a bit more oomph.

To really reach out and touch someone:
[truthaboutguns-zippykid.netdna-ssl.com image 608x335]


Exactly the wrong tool for an assassin. What you want is a .22 pistol with subsonic ammo. You shoot them twice in the back of the head, nobody even notices the report.
 
2014-01-16 04:04:46 PM  

hasty ambush: 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.


I'm OK with this. Republicans cannot vote on anything that takes a basic understanding of science and/or logic.
 
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 »






Report