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.

(WIVB)   Local community organizer who advocated passage of the NY SAFE act that forbids firearms on school grounds arrested for...wait for it   (wivb.com) divider line 280
    More: Obvious, NY SAFE, community organizer, passage, firearms, elementary schools  
•       •       •

6160 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 Feb 2014 at 3:04 PM (32 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-02-10 03:43:58 PM

shda5582: What we are expecting is that he won't, he'll get off with a wrist slap, be a free man and STILL carrying his gun with no consequences.


it's a black dude...
 
2014-02-10 03:44:03 PM
♪ Community organizers♫ ...what are they good for?.. ♫ absolutely nothing...SayitAgain.♫ .
 
2014-02-10 03:46:35 PM

DanInKansas: This is a pretty classic "nuh-uh" style of argumentation. Make an assertion, imply anyone who disagrees with the assertion is stupid and/or evil, and when challenged to substantiate the assertion, respond with


Okay, but you're going to apply this same standard to the guy who posted the Weeners that he replied to, right?

Mell of a Hess: If by that you mean that they notify people who wish to do harm to others that, if they're carrying a gun in a gun free zone, then they should not fear any immediate reprisal or resistance?


You're going to make him prove or substantiate that assertion, right?

Otherwise, this would be pretty classic "hypocrisy" style of argumentation.  Demand the people who disagree with you provide evidence, while allowing unsubstantiated assertions from people who agree with you.
 
2014-02-10 03:47:29 PM
i.imgur.com
 
2014-02-10 03:48:39 PM

lennavan: DanInKansas: This is a pretty classic "nuh-uh" style of argumentation. Make an assertion, imply anyone who disagrees with the assertion is stupid and/or evil, and when challenged to substantiate the assertion, respond with

Okay, but you're going to apply this same standard to the guy who posted the Weeners that he replied to, right?

Mell of a Hess: If by that you mean that they notify people who wish to do harm to others that, if they're carrying a gun in a gun free zone, then they should not fear any immediate reprisal or resistance?

You're going to make him prove or substantiate that assertion, right?

Otherwise, this would be pretty classic "hypocrisy" style of argumentation.  Demand the people who disagree with you provide evidence, while allowing unsubstantiated assertions from people who agree with you.


See three or four posts up.  I showed my work.
 
2014-02-10 03:49:05 PM

Mell of a Hess: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/335739/facts-about-mass-shoo tin gs-john-fund


Mell of a Hess: Gun-free zones have been the most popular response to previous mass killings. But many law-enforcement officials say they are actually counterproductive.


Hey look, here's another article.

Ever since the massacres in Aurora, Colo., and Newtown, Conn., this idea has been repeated like some surreal requiem: The reason that mass gun violence keeps happening is because the United States is full of places that ban guns.

...


With its overtones of fear and heroism, the argument makes for slick sound bites. But here's the problem: Both its underlying assumptions are contradicted by data.

 
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/03/24/nras-gun-free-zone- my th--column/2015657/

Shame what just happened to your unsubstantiated assertion.  This is awkward.
 
2014-02-10 03:49:08 PM

Mikey1969: This is funny... While I can imagine the occasional Joe Sixpack forgetting about his gun and wandering into a school, or even the airport, I can NOT understand how a guy who specifically endorsed a change in the laws regarding bringing a gun onto school grounds would bring a gun onto school grounds.


Most likely, he assumed that a) the law doesn't apply to him, and b) if caught, he could just call a cop/mayor/attorney and this will never get prosecuted.  AKA above the law, like cops.
 
2014-02-10 03:49:12 PM

HotWingConspiracy: Mr. Eugenides: HotWingConspiracy: In this thread, dullards will employ bumper sticker wisdom to show the world they can't understand the utility of a gun free zone.

Surely you meant to type futility, not utility.

Nope. They work as intended.


You mean by expelling kids who happen to eat their sandwich into the shape of a gun, or by suspending kids who make a gun shape with their hands on the playground?
 
2014-02-10 03:49:47 PM

Mell of a Hess: lennavan: DanInKansas: This is a pretty classic "nuh-uh" style of argumentation. Make an assertion, imply anyone who disagrees with the assertion is stupid and/or evil, and when challenged to substantiate the assertion, respond with

Okay, but you're going to apply this same standard to the guy who posted the Weeners that he replied to, right?

Mell of a Hess: If by that you mean that they notify people who wish to do harm to others that, if they're carrying a gun in a gun free zone, then they should not fear any immediate reprisal or resistance?

You're going to make him prove or substantiate that assertion, right?

Otherwise, this would be pretty classic "hypocrisy" style of argumentation.  Demand the people who disagree with you provide evidence, while allowing unsubstantiated assertions from people who agree with you.

See three or four posts up.  I showed my work.


Look three or four posts up.  I debunked your stupid "work."
 
2014-02-10 03:51:01 PM

HotWingConspiracy: As the news tells us daily, today's responsible gun owner is tomorrow's family killer/office slayer. It's just a shame that gun owners turn out to be irresponsible people so often. We've tried to work with them.


Unreasonable bans based upon arbitrary characteristics is not "working with" firearm owners. Classifying all firearm owners as future murderers is irrational and dishonest.
 
2014-02-10 03:51:27 PM
Dumbass tag is more appropriate. One would think that someone who helped pass the NY SAFE act would not be a big fan of firearms in general and have intelligence not to break his own law.
 
2014-02-10 03:51:46 PM

HotWingConspiracy: We've tried to work with them.


No you haven't. You've tried to pass any and all anti-gun laws that anyone has even hinted at being able to curb firearms-related violence (with, or more generally without evidence that it can help, usually justifying it with the idea that "anything is better than nothing!"), and when your BS is called out for what it is you throw up you hands and loudly proclaim "See? We tried, but these gun nuts just won't compromise!".

/Holy run-on sentence Batman!
 
2014-02-10 03:53:40 PM

HotWingConspiracy: Mr. Eugenides: HotWingConspiracy: In this thread, dullards will employ bumper sticker wisdom to show the world they can't understand the utility of a gun free zone.

Surely you meant to type futility, not utility.

Nope. They work as intended.


Shirley, you can submit a nice graph that shows the number of shootings going down, for you to make such an authoritative statement.
 
2014-02-10 03:54:28 PM
No, No, it's different when HE does it. He's an activist, AN ACTIVIST!
 
2014-02-10 03:54:34 PM
"School officials say police will be increasing their presence at the school for the remainder of the week..."


Why would they find this necessary?
 
2014-02-10 03:54:38 PM

LessO2: Just a sad reminder how everything boil downs to crossing our fingers that your kid doesn't get shot at school.


How many kids have been killed by being shot in school in the last, say, 10 years?  Let's exclude suicides, and not count adults and those shootings on college campuses.  Just elementary, middle, and high schools.

I count 42 in the last 10 years, according to the Wikipedia page on US school shootings.  That's 4.2 kids per year.

The US Census says that in 2012 there were a total of 58,496,000 kids enrolled in daycare/kindergarten, elementary school, and high school (or just 49,730,000 if you exclude daycare/kindergarten).

So the odds of your school-aged child being killed in a school shooting are about 1 in 12 to 14 million.

For perspective, the odds of being killed by a lightning strike in any year in the US are about 1 in 7,000,000.
 
2014-02-10 03:57:13 PM

HotWingConspiracy: YixilTesiphon: HotWingConspiracy: Mr. Eugenides: HotWingConspiracy: In this thread, dullards will employ bumper sticker wisdom to show the world they can't understand the utility of a gun free zone.

Surely you meant to type futility, not utility.

Nope. They work as intended.

Sending people who haven't harmed others to jail, while doing nothing about those who intend to cause harm?

WHYCOME DEY SENDIN LAW 'BIDIN PEOPLE TO JAIL


Did somebody mention "Shotgun Joe" Biden, the guy who recommends blatantly illegal self-defense by shooting through doors with a shotgun?
 
2014-02-10 03:57:33 PM

GanjSmokr: "School officials say police will be increasing their presence at the school for the remainder of the week..."


Why would they find this necessary?


Blogger moms.

nathantimmel.com
 
2014-02-10 03:57:37 PM
HotWingConspiracy:


What I really love is the people that biatch about these laws the most are the reason they were enacted in the first place.

Please explain.  Are you making the gun owners equivalent of the "all men are rapists because they have a penis" argument?

You are sounding more and more like you just have an irrational fear of guns and attribute all kinds of bad traits on anyone that owns one.
 
2014-02-10 03:57:58 PM
There really are irrational gun-grabbers out there.  My favorite was a person--in favor of these "gun-free" zones--who was shown a map of local schools with the radii of gun-free zones plotted on it.  One freeway went through a zone.  Someone asked her if it would be OK to set up a checkpoint on the freeway to stop everyone and check for guns, as they were technically felons (never mind there'd be no way to know you were anywhere near a school when going by at 70 mph).

She thought it was an AWESOME idea.

Not a rational person worth listening to, but that's exactly the sort that will push for more laws.
 
2014-02-10 03:59:55 PM

dittybopper: LessO2: Just a sad reminder how everything boil downs to crossing our fingers that your kid doesn't get shot at school.

How many kids have been killed by being shot in school in the last, say, 10 years?  Let's exclude suicides, and not count adults and those shootings on college campuses.  Just elementary, middle, and high schools.

I count 42 in the last 10 years, according to the Wikipedia page on US school shootings.  That's 4.2 kids per year.

The US Census says that in 2012 there were a total of 58,496,000 kids enrolled in daycare/kindergarten, elementary school, and high school (or just 49,730,000 if you exclude daycare/kindergarten).

So the odds of your school-aged child being killed in a school shooting are about 1 in 12 to 14 million.

For perspective, the odds of being killed by a lightning strike in any year in the US are about 1 in 7,000,000.


And every day in the US, two children die from drowning.  That's over 700 children under 14 annually.
http://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/water-safety/waterinjur ie s-factsheet.html
 
2014-02-10 04:01:21 PM

lennavan: Mell of a Hess: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/335739/facts-about-mass-shoo tin gs-john-fund

Mell of a Hess: Gun-free zones have been the most popular response to previous mass killings. But many law-enforcement officials say they are actually counterproductive.

Hey look, here's another article.

Ever since the massacres in Aurora, Colo., and Newtown, Conn., this idea has been repeated like some surreal requiem: The reason that mass gun violence keeps happening is because the United States is full of places that ban guns.

...

With its overtones of fear and heroism, the argument makes for slick sound bites. But here's the problem: Both its underlying assumptions are contradicted by data. 
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/03/24/nras-gun-free-zone- my th--column/2015657/

Shame what just happened to your unsubstantiated assertion.  This is awkward.


I can't figure out why you liberals insist on calling people names.  It does nothing for the conversation.

Here, I stole this from someone, to refute your "awkward" post:

"There's a GAPING problem with your article. You simply dismiss the idea that mass shooters happened to target an area that was gun free out of "coincidence." That's a nice little way of dismissing what is more-than-likely a secondary motivation for the location of their rampage. Just because there's a bigger, more personal motivator for attacking, say, an elementary school, does NOT mean that the fact that its a gun free zone by law is irrelevant. There's no such thing as coincidence.
Take Sandy Hook, for example. The Connecticut State Police Colonel said in New Orleans this year at the IACP annual conference that they believe Adam Lanza's motive for attacking Sandy Hook Elementary was because it was the path of least resistance wherein he could rack up the most kills, as in a video game. One of the primary reasons it was a path of least resistance is BECAUSE it was a gun free zone." Here's the source:
http://m.nydailynews.com/1.1291408
 
2014-02-10 04:01:30 PM

dittybopper: So the odds of your school-aged child being killed in a school shooting are about 1 in 12 to 14 million.

For perspective, the odds of being killed by a lightning strike in any year in the US are about 1 in 7,000,000.


For additional perspective - schools, rec sports leagues and so on don't let kids play outside if there is lightning because it's too dangerous.
 
2014-02-10 04:02:41 PM

Callous: HotWingConspiracy:


What I really love is the people that biatch about these laws the most are the reason they were enacted in the first place.

Please explain.  Are you making the gun owners equivalent of the "all men are rapists because they have a penis" argument?

You are sounding more and more like you just have an irrational fear of guns and attribute all kinds of bad traits on anyone that owns one.


1.  You look like an idiot.  Disallowing guns on school grounds is about lowering a simple risk factor without pretending it'll stop the most driven school shootings.  If you've never been in a situation in high school where you'd escalate to shooting another student if you had a gun, you've never gone through puberty.

It's not farking complicated, and you guys are really dumb about it.
 
2014-02-10 04:03:46 PM

rkiller1: dittybopper: LessO2: Just a sad reminder how everything boil downs to crossing our fingers that your kid doesn't get shot at school.

How many kids have been killed by being shot in school in the last, say, 10 years?  Let's exclude suicides, and not count adults and those shootings on college campuses.  Just elementary, middle, and high schools.

I count 42 in the last 10 years, according to the Wikipedia page on US school shootings.  That's 4.2 kids per year.

The US Census says that in 2012 there were a total of 58,496,000 kids enrolled in daycare/kindergarten, elementary school, and high school (or just 49,730,000 if you exclude daycare/kindergarten).

So the odds of your school-aged child being killed in a school shooting are about 1 in 12 to 14 million.

For perspective, the odds of being killed by a lightning strike in any year in the US are about 1 in 7,000,000.

And every day in the US, two children die from drowning.  That's over 700 children under 14 annually.
http://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/water-safety/waterinjur ie s-factsheet.html


Clearly we need bathtub and swimming pool control.  You don't need a bath tub you can have a shower, you don't need a swimming pool you can use a sprinkler.
 
2014-02-10 04:04:18 PM

Mell of a Hess: I can't figure out why you liberals insist on calling people names.


I didn't call YOU names, I called your argument stupid.  I can't figure out why you conservatives keep trying to nail yourselves up on that cross.  Seems sacrilegious if you ask me.

Mell of a Hess: It does nothing for the conversation.


So calling your argument stupid is terrible.  But calling anyone who criticizes your source a whiner is perfectly acceptable and furthers the conversation:
 

Mell of a Hess: I never know which publications you FARKers will decry as blatantly conservative


Mell of a Hess you got yourself in here.
 
2014-02-10 04:05:07 PM

Headso: shda5582: What we are expecting is that he won't, he'll get off with a wrist slap, be a free man and STILL carrying his gun with no consequences.

it's a black dude...


Yea, but he was a "Community Organizer".

You know who else was a community organizer don't you?
 
2014-02-10 04:06:57 PM

ikanreed: Callous: HotWingConspiracy:


What I really love is the people that biatch about these laws the most are the reason they were enacted in the first place.

Please explain.  Are you making the gun owners equivalent of the "all men are rapists because they have a penis" argument?

You are sounding more and more like you just have an irrational fear of guns and attribute all kinds of bad traits on anyone that owns one.

1.  You look like an idiot.  Disallowing guns on school grounds is about lowering a simple risk factor without pretending it'll stop the most driven school shootings.  If you've never been in a situation in high school where you'd escalate to shooting another student if you had a gun, you've never gone through puberty.

It's not farking complicated, and you guys are really dumb about it.


Where's number 2?

And on who's looking stupid front, who ever advocated allowing children to carry?  The conversation has always been about licensed adults.
 
2014-02-10 04:07:28 PM

Callous: For perspective, the odds of being killed by a lightning strike in any year in the US are about 1 in 7,000,000.

And every day in the US, two children die from drowning. That's over 700 children under 14 annually.
http://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/water-safety/waterinjur ie s-factsheet.html

Clearly we need bathtub and swimming pool control. You don't need a bath tub you can have a shower, you don't need a swimming pool you can use a sprinkler.


I nearly penned that schools would be safer if we allowed guns and declared them "water free" zones, but didn't wanna jump into the political fray.
 
2014-02-10 04:09:02 PM
At its heart liberalism is about imposing stuff on the other guy, taxes and gun control beign classic examples.

Sen. Jay Rockefeller supported an assault weapons ban but owns one.

Rose O'Donnell supports gun control but has her own armed body guards

anti-gun idiot Michael Moore has armed body guards, one of whom was arrested for gun law violations.
 
2014-02-10 04:09:37 PM

GanjSmokr: "School officials say police will be increasing their presence at the school for the remainder of the week..."


Why would they find this necessary?


Total FUBAR.
More likely to be shot by cop than a mass shooter, so this response makes perfect STOOPID.
 
2014-02-10 04:09:47 PM

ikanreed: Callous: HotWingConspiracy:


What I really love is the people that biatch about these laws the most are the reason they were enacted in the first place.

Please explain.  Are you making the gun owners equivalent of the "all men are rapists because they have a penis" argument?

You are sounding more and more like you just have an irrational fear of guns and attribute all kinds of bad traits on anyone that owns one.

1.  You look like an idiot.  Disallowing guns on school grounds is about lowering a simple risk factor without pretending it'll stop the most driven school shootings.  If you've never been in a situation in high school where you'd escalate to shooting another student if you had a gun, you've never gone through puberty.

It's not farking complicated, and you guys are really dumb about it.


Ah, yes.  The name caller.  Welcome.

If you've never been in a situation in high school where you'd escalate to shooting another student if you had a gun, you've never gone through puberty.

I've never felt that way.  I own several guns.  I have been enraged as an adult and as a pubescent teen.  Nope, never wanted to "escalate" my anger to the level of firing a handgun at a human being.

Guess I'm just funny that way.  Hmmm.
 
2014-02-10 04:10:04 PM

Callous: ikanreed: Callous: HotWingConspiracy:


What I really love is the people that biatch about these laws the most are the reason they were enacted in the first place.

Please explain.  Are you making the gun owners equivalent of the "all men are rapists because they have a penis" argument?

You are sounding more and more like you just have an irrational fear of guns and attribute all kinds of bad traits on anyone that owns one.

1.  You look like an idiot.  Disallowing guns on school grounds is about lowering a simple risk factor without pretending it'll stop the most driven school shootings.  If you've never been in a situation in high school where you'd escalate to shooting another student if you had a gun, you've never gone through puberty.

It's not farking complicated, and you guys are really dumb about it.

Where's number 2?

And on who's looking stupid front, who ever advocated allowing children to carry?  The conversation has always been about licensed adults.


Check the mirror.
 
2014-02-10 04:10:22 PM

ikanreed: Callous: HotWingConspiracy:


What I really love is the people that biatch about these laws the most are the reason they were enacted in the first place.

Please explain.  Are you making the gun owners equivalent of the "all men are rapists because they have a penis" argument?

You are sounding more and more like you just have an irrational fear of guns and attribute all kinds of bad traits on anyone that owns one.

1.  You look like an idiot.  Disallowing guns on school grounds is about lowering a simple risk factor without pretending it'll stop the most driven school shootings.  If you've never been in a situation in high school where you'd escalate to shooting another student if you had a gun, you've never gone through puberty.

It's not farking complicated, and you guys are really dumb about it.


I don't think it was students SAFE was aimed at. Did someone say students should be able to carry guns on campus?

/because that would be dumb
 
2014-02-10 04:10:50 PM

Mell of a Hess: Here, I stole this from someone, to refute your "awkward" post:


I'm really curious, I cited a study with numbers and data and actual facts and evidence.  Where did you get your source that refuted it from?  Well the cool part about the internet and Google is I can just copy/paste your post into Google and find it myself.

Google Search - "There's a GAPING problem with your article. You simply dismiss the idea that mass shooters happened to target an area "

http://www.armedwithreason.com/the-gun-free-zone-myth-no-relationshi p- between-gun-free-zones-and-mass-shootings/

"ArmedWithReason.com?"  Seems legit, lets read more.

About - Evan and Devin write about guns.
This is a blog dedicated to academically refuting pro-gun myths, and providing a scholarly defense of gun control. The site is authored by Evan DeFilippis and Devin Hughes.


You "refuted" a study with a goddamn BLOG?  Are you serious?  Let me get this straight.

Mell of a Hess: Dude, you're getting hammered. Do you want to go do some research and get back with us?


You want HotWingConspiracy to do some research and get back to us.  And you're going to counter with BLOGS?
 
2014-02-10 04:11:43 PM

ikanreed: If you've never been in a situation in high school where you'd escalate to shooting another student if you had a gun, you've never gone through puberty.


Wow, I've never wanted to escalate ANYTHING to that extent, and I think I've gone through puberty.
/But to make sure, lemme check and get back to you.
//Just WOW
 
2014-02-10 04:11:52 PM

lennavan: Mell of a Hess:

I didn't call YOU names

... calling your argument stupid is terrible.  But calling anyone who criticizes your source a whiner is perfectly acceptable and furthers the conversation:


I didn't criticize your documentation, nor did I label you a whiner.
 
2014-02-10 04:12:10 PM

lennavan: Mell of a Hess: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/335739/facts-about-mass-shoo tin gs-john-fund

Mell of a Hess: Gun-free zones have been the most popular response to previous mass killings. But many law-enforcement officials say they are actually counterproductive.

Hey look, here's another article.

Ever since the massacres in Aurora, Colo., and Newtown, Conn., this idea has been repeated like some surreal requiem: The reason that mass gun violence keeps happening is because the United States is full of places that ban guns.

...

With its overtones of fear and heroism, the argument makes for slick sound bites. But here's the problem: Both its underlying assumptions are contradicted by data.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/03/24/nras-gun-free-zone- my th--column/2015657/

Shame what just happened to your unsubstantiated assertion.  This is awkward.


Except every premise is flawed in your opinion article.

"No less a fantasy is the idea that gun-free zones prevent armed civilians from saving the day. Not one of the 62 mass shootings we documented was stopped this way"

Yeah, because the vast majority of those were gun free zones and law abiding citizens pay attention to that law.

"Veteran FBI, ATF and police officials say that an armed citizen opening fire against an attacker in a panic-stricken movie theater or shopping mall is very likely to make matters worse. "

Except the article itself points out that this case has NEVER HAPPENED.  Not once.  So we're afraid of something that might happen

Try again.
 
2014-02-10 04:12:18 PM

Callous: Where's number 2?

And on who's looking stupid front, who ever advocated allowing children to carry? The conversation has always been about licensed adults.


Is it?  I mean,  no one ever bothers to say that, because, you know, stupid positions don't lend themselves to getting these points out up front.
 
2014-02-10 04:12:32 PM

hasty ambush: At its heart liberalism is about imposing stuff on the other guy, taxes and gun control beign classic examples.

Sen. Jay Rockefeller supported an assault weapons ban but owns one.

Rose O'Donnell supports gun control but has her own armed body guards

anti-gun idiot Michael Moore has armed body guards, one of whom was arrested for gun law violations.


Lesson?:
Hypocrisy is VERY profitable, when "real" and not the just shut down kind!
 
2014-02-10 04:14:24 PM
Well, I had hoped that this thread would be funny instead of annoying.

People willing to make multiple posts are clearly not too busy to substantiate their position.

Whether you're liberal or conservative, the whole "I'm right because things" argument makes me want to add you to my ignore list.

I'm just too afraid you'll say something funny or smart in a different thread.
 
2014-02-10 04:14:58 PM

ikanreed: If you've never been in a situation in high school where you'd escalate to shooting another student if you had a gun, you've never gone through puberty


I've never heard anyone suggest arming high school students.  In fact, it's a felony in all 50 states for a minor to be in possession of a firearm.
 
2014-02-10 04:15:54 PM

lennavan: dittybopper: So the odds of your school-aged child being killed in a school shooting are about 1 in 12 to 14 million.

For perspective, the odds of being killed by a lightning strike in any year in the US are about 1 in 7,000,000.

For additional perspective - schools, rec sports leagues and so on don't let kids play outside if there is lightning because it's too dangerous.


For even more perspective:  People bent on committing massacres generally pick "gun free zones" largely because there aren't likely to be people who can return fire.

That's not to say guns belong in schools, necessarily, but the regulations that you and I will obey as a matter of course are always ignored by those intent on wrongdoing.

/Murder is already illegal, you know.
 
2014-02-10 04:16:05 PM

Coconice: Well, I had hoped that this thread would be funny instead of annoying.

People willing to make multiple posts are clearly not too busy to substantiate their position.

Whether you're liberal or conservative, the whole "I'm right because things" argument makes me want to add you to my ignore list.

I'm just too afraid you'll say something funny or smart in a different thread.


People get worked-up over gun things.  It's almost as if a gun were a metaphor for penis.
 
2014-02-10 04:16:23 PM

lennavan:  And you're going to counter with BLOGS?


Nope - I used that because I liked the response and wished to copy it.  The National Review is not a blog.
 
2014-02-10 04:17:14 PM

HotWingConspiracy: In this thread, dullards will employ bumper sticker wisdom to show the world they can't understand the utility of a gun free zone.

  insist that if all the people who legally own firearms would just turn them in, there would be no firearms left on the streets.
 
2014-02-10 04:17:21 PM

Mell of a Hess: lennavan:  And you're going to counter with BLOGS?

Nope - I used that because I liked the response and wished to copy it.  The National Review is not a blog.


The article I posted included a study that debunked your National Review article.  You countered that with a blog.
 
2014-02-10 04:17:49 PM

hasty ambush: At its heart liberalism is about imposing stuff on the other guy, taxes and gun control beign classic examples.

Sen. Jay Rockefeller supported an assault weapons ban but owns one.

Rose O'Donnell supports gun control but has her own armed body guards

anti-gun idiot Michael Moore has armed body guards, one of whom was arrested for gun law violations.


You don't say.
A rich West Virginian owns an AR-15 that was a gift from his kinfolk?
And rich people who have received death threats have bodyguards?
I'm surprised.
 
2014-02-10 04:18:13 PM

AngryDragon: ikanreed: If you've never been in a situation in high school where you'd escalate to shooting another student if you had a gun, you've never gone through puberty

I've never heard anyone suggest arming high school students.  In fact, it's a felony in all 50 states for a minor to be in possession of a firearm.


Their side of the argument isn't holding water so he switched to trying to punch holes in ours with "You want to arm kids!!!!" BS.
 
2014-02-10 04:18:24 PM

AngryDragon: In fact, it's a felony in all 50 states for a minor to be in possession of a firearm.


Ha.  When you make things up, it makes it look like nutters who don't understand their own pet issue.  With parental permission, there is no state in which posessing a large firearm is illegal.  Taking them into a school, per this exact law we're defending, is a felony in every state, but that couldn't possibly be what you mean.
 
Displayed 50 of 280 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 »






Report