Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(Rome News-Tribune)   If you had three days after Georgia's "guns in bars" bill was signed for the first fatal shooting in a bar, come on up and collect your prize   (northwestgeorgianews.com) divider line 355
    More: Obvious, Floyd County, guns  
•       •       •

11991 clicks; posted to Main » on 27 Apr 2014 at 8:12 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-04-28 09:30:57 PM  

theprinceofwands: Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on your view), it doesn't matter. The law doesn't require an ACTUAL threat to use self defense. It merely requires a perceived threat on the part of the actor. So long as 12 people say 'it would have been reasonable to feel threatened', self-defense is authorized.


Yeah, but would a "reasonable" person be thinking like someone who is drunk? If a drunk person pulled a gun on a random person because they thought they looked like satan, would a reasonable person find that a real threat?

AngryDragon: I don't care about abortion in any way. I do resent the hypocrisy that supports abortion because a woman can do with her body as she pleases, but denigrates firearms ownership which is me protecting my person as I please.


I do too... I'm generally liberal in my ideology, but I'm a pretty firm supporter of the constitution, including the second amendment... I think it's theoretically possible some restrictions might be useful, like universal background checks, but yeah I'll lean towards the pro-gun side more than the anti-gun side most of the time...

I just don't think you need to invent strawmen to make your point... It's not valid to say all liberals are "anti-gun" and "pro-abortion"...
 
2014-04-28 09:42:00 PM  

Mugato: nhdjoseywales: 'm willing to wager my home and car you didn't hand a guy $50 and get a gun permit at a gun show. I excitedly await your evidence. Oh wait, you don't have any because either you don't understand the problem with saying "X" when you mean "Y" or you are just a liar. Maybe some of both?

Just read the Goddamned thread.

Jesus you people are tiresome.


Seems like I underestimated. 13 and counting
 
2014-04-28 10:12:12 PM  

theprinceofwands:

Nice attempted distraction, but I have moved nothing.

You what's nice about slapping a color on someone?  It makes it easier to find their posts in a large thread.  See you started with this

theprinceofwands: bojon:
Add in a 50K insurance policy to be on the safe side.

No requirements for insurance can be held lawful/constitutional. Attempts to require it would result in immediate, total revolution.


Your response to me on this matter was

No hyperbole whatsoever. In fact, there are a number of militias that have included this in their 'bright line' statements.

And

I'll put my money on 10-30 million active participants, with up to 150-200 million siding with them. Remember that ~85% of citizens object to even handgun bans, and that's what's responsible for ~75% of violence. As evidence I would remind you that many of us already joined the military, often during a time of war, demonstrating that we are fully prepared to kill or die for what we believe in.

When people began pointing out how silly this was(with historical events to support it) you started on about the French Revolution and other violent overthrows of oppressive leaders.  When it's shown that this has nothing to do with your original statement all of a sudden it's

'Revolution' doesn't require firing weapons at people however. Organizing widespread strikes, refusing to pay taxes, and pursuing removal of officials are all valid methods.

Your approach changes every time your position is challenged.  That's moving the goalposts.
 
2014-04-29 02:45:46 AM  

TwistedFark: Pokey.Clyde: EvilEgg: My solution is they have to wear their permits like badges.

Kind of defeats the purpose of concealed carry, doesn't it?

/didn't think that one all the way through, did you?

I'm 100% against concealed carry. They should be visible. After all, isn't the wet dream wank fantasy that you'll use the gun to save the day instead of shoot yourself in the ass? Might as well make it visible so everyone knows you're a total badass, amirite????


Good post.
(if you are willing to ignore the fact that you dont have a god-damned clue what you are talking about.. and it wasnt near as clever as you thought it was...)
 
2014-04-29 05:30:11 AM  

AngryDragon: 20X as many shootings occur by criminals in Chicago every week. Millions of legal gun owners go their entire lives without shooting anyone for any reason.The statistics do not support your position.


So you're saying that for every old white guy who shoots a  42 year old father in a movie theatre for texting with his cell phone during the previews, there are twenty times as many "criminals in Chicago" who kill people, therefore everyone in society would be safer if everyone was armed?

I am intrigued by this line of reasoning.
 
Displayed 5 of 355 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
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