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.

(Talking Points Memo)   Republican hero Joe the Plumber on the USCB mass killing: "Your dead kids don't trump my constitutional rights"   (talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 373
    More: Asinine, Joe the Plumber, constitutional right, Isla Vista, UC Santa Barbara  
•       •       •

3459 clicks; posted to Politics » on 27 May 2014 at 2:37 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-05-27 12:16:06 PM  
img.fark.net
 
2014-05-27 12:18:28 PM  

FlashHarry: [img.fark.net image 349x198]


Well, I see this thread has been taken care of.
 
2014-05-27 12:20:37 PM  
So I take it he is pro-abortion.
 
2014-05-27 12:25:35 PM  

clancifer: So I take it he is pro-abortion.


well, to be fair - nobody is "pro-abortion."
 
2014-05-27 12:27:46 PM  

FlashHarry: clancifer: So I take it he is pro-abortion.

well, to be fair - nobody is "pro-abortion."


True enough.
 
2014-05-27 12:29:11 PM  
F this guy, and F McCain for giving him a microphone.
 
2014-05-27 12:29:23 PM  

FlashHarry: clancifer: So I take it he is pro-abortion.

well, to be fair - nobody is "pro-abortion."


False. Someone greenlit "Gigli."
 
2014-05-27 12:31:24 PM  
Those aren't dead children, those are freedom bodies!!!
 
2014-05-27 12:31:57 PM  
Full letter:
I am sorry you lost your child. I myself have a son and daughter and the one thing I never want to go through, is what you are going through now. But:

As harsh as this sounds - your dead kids don't trump my Constitutional rights.

Richard Martinez, whose son (Christopher) was among the murdered, choked back tears at a news conference, blaming politicians the next day: "The talk about gun rights. What about Chris' right to live?" Martinez said - and much more.

There are no critical words for a grieving father. He can say whatever he wants and blame whoever he'd like - it's okay by me. You can't take a step in his shoes - at least I can't.

But the words and images of Mr. Martinez blaming "the proliferation of guns", lobbyists, politicians, etc.; will be exploited by gun-grab extremists as are all tragedies involving gun violence and the mentally ill by the anti-Second Amendment Left.

As a father, husband and a man, it is my responsibility to protect my family. I will stand up for that right vehemently. Please believe me, as a father I share your grief and I will pray for you and your family, as I do whenever I hear about senseless tragedies such as this.

We still have the Right to Bear Arms and I intend to continue to speak out for that right, and against those who would restrict it - even in the face of this horrible incident by this sad and insane individual. I almost said "Obama Voter" but I'm waiting for it to be official.

I noticed the mainstream media have stopped the practice of immediately reporting the psycho maniac is a conservative Tea Party Republican Christian. Guess they're sick of having to hide being wrong every time when it comes out the whacko votes Democrat?

Mr. Martinez and anyone calling for more restrictions on American's rights need to back off and stop playing into the hands of the folks who merely capitalize on these horrific events for their own political ends.

They don't care about your family or your dead children at all. They sound like they do, whereas I sound uncaring and like I say, harsh. Don't be fooled - I care about your family and mine. The future of our very liberty lies in the balance of this fight.

In conclusion, I cannot begin to imagine the pain you are going through, having had your child taken away from you. However, any feelings you have toward my rights being taken away from me, lose those.
 
jbc [TotalFark]
2014-05-27 12:35:43 PM  
FTFA: Addressing Martinez directly, Wurzelbacher wrote that "anyone calling for more restrictions on American's rights need to back off and stop playing into the hands of the folks who merely capitalize on these horrific events for their own political ends."

Joe the Douchebag needs to spend less time reading the Second Amendment and more time reading about apostrophe use and hypocrisy.
 
2014-05-27 12:36:47 PM  

JolobinSmokin: Those aren't dead children, those are freedom bodies!!!


Constitution Corpses.
 
2014-05-27 12:39:14 PM  
Here's the deal: The Constitutional rights granted under the Bill of Rights are extremely important and cannot be taken away from the people, but that doesn't mean that they aren't subject to reasonable restrictions that are necessary for the operation of a functional society.

The First Amendment guarantees the right to freedom of speech, and freedom of the press.  Does that mean that I can reveal national security information, and publish it in the newspaper or post it on the internet, without fear of criminal prosecution?  No, of course not--ask Edward Snowden about that, for example. The right to freedom of speech isn't absolute, and it's subject to reasonable restrictions necessary for the functioning of society.

The First Amendment also guarantees that right to free exercise of religion.  Does that mean that my religion can do ritual sacrifices of virgins each full moon and we'll never be charged with murder, because it's our sincere religious belief that the Gods require us to do that?  No, of course not.  The right to free exercise of religion isn't absolute, and it's subject to reasonable restrictions necessary for the functioning of society.

The Second Amendment guarantees (in language that is far less clear than other guarantees of the Bill of Rights) the right to keep and bear arms.  Does that mean that prisoners (who, let's not forget, are still protected by the Constitution and retain all their constitutional rights to the extent their exercise of those rights isn't inconsistent with incarceration) can carry around loaded Glocks strapped to their hips, as you or I might be able to do if we want to?  No, of course not  The right to keep and bear arms isn't absolute, and it's subject to reasonable restrictions necessary for the functioning of society.

So anybody who thinks that the Second Amendment is sacrosanct in all circumstances and there can be no restrictions whatsoever on the rights it confers is either delusional or a farking idiot.  We can have a legitimate argument about whether any given restriction is reasonable, necessary, or workable, and reasonable minds usually can disagree about that in any given case. But if your argument is that the Constitution prohibits any restrictions whatsoever of this particular constitutional right (unlike all other Constitutional rights, which nobody disagrees are subject to reasonable restrictions), then you've already lost the argument.
 
2014-05-27 12:43:28 PM  

Cyberluddite: Here's the deal: The Constitutional rights granted under the Bill of Rights are extremely important and cannot be taken away from the people, but that doesn't mean that they aren't subject to reasonable restrictions that are necessary for the operation of a functional society.

The First Amendment guarantees the right to freedom of speech, and freedom of the press.  Does that mean that I can reveal national security information, and publish it in the newspaper or post it on the internet, without fear of criminal prosecution?  No, of course not--ask Edward Snowden about that, for example. The right to freedom of speech isn't absolute, and it's subject to reasonable restrictions necessary for the functioning of society.

The First Amendment also guarantees that right to free exercise of religion.  Does that mean that my religion can do ritual sacrifices of virgins each full moon and we'll never be charged with murder, because it's our sincere religious belief that the Gods require us to do that?  No, of course not.  The right to free exercise of religion isn't absolute, and it's subject to reasonable restrictions necessary for the functioning of society.

The Second Amendment guarantees (in language that is far less clear than other guarantees of the Bill of Rights) the right to keep and bear arms.  Does that mean that prisoners (who, let's not forget, are still protected by the Constitution and retain all their constitutional rights to the extent their exercise of those rights isn't inconsistent with incarceration) can carry around loaded Glocks strapped to their hips, as you or I might be able to do if we want to?  No, of course not  The right to keep and bear arms isn't absolute, and it's subject to reasonable restrictions necessary for the functioning of society.

So anybody who thinks that the Second Amendment is sacrosanct in all circumstances and there can be no restrictions whatsoever on the rights it confers is either delusional or a farking idiot.  We can have a legitimate argument about whether any given restriction is reasonable, necessary, or workable, and reasonable minds usually can disagree about that in any given case. But if your argument is that the Constitution prohibits any restrictions whatsoever of this particular constitutional right (unlike all other Constitutional rights, which nobody disagrees are subject to reasonable restrictions), then you've already lost the argument.


Well said.
 
2014-05-27 12:47:15 PM  

zedster: As a father, husband and a man, it is my responsibility to protect my family. I will stand up for that right vehemently. Please believe me, as a father I share your grief and I will pray for you and your family, as I do whenever I hear about senseless tragedies such as this.


Like protect them by not allowing the mentally deranged have access to guns? strengthen access to mental health care so those with mental health issues are not a threat to themselves or others? I bet he supports the no fly list but the idea of a don't sell list for guns is bad because it might contain non-brown people

zedster: We still have the Right to Bear Arms and I intend to continue to speak out for that right, and against those who would restrict it - even in the face of this horrible incident by this sad and insane individual. I almost said "Obama Voter" but I'm waiting for it to be official.

I noticed the mainstream media have stopped the practice of immediately reporting the psycho maniac is a conservative Tea Party Republican Christian. Guess they're sick of having to hide being wrong every time when it comes out the whacko votes Democrat?



Go f**K yourself with a bayonet equipped blunderbuss

zedster: Mr. Martinez and anyone calling for more restrictions on American's rights need to back off and stop playing into the hands of the folks who merely capitalize on these horrific events for their own political ends.


Like when gun manufactures use the limited cases of armed citizens stopping other armed citizens to try to create more armed citizens knowing full well the chance of self harm or accidental discharge injuring others is far higher than the chance they engage in 1st or 3rd party self defense?

zedster: In conclusion, I cannot begin to imagine the pain you are going through, having had your child taken away from you. However, any feelings you have toward my rights being taken away from me, lose those.


This has become a corner stone of us keeping poor whites from voting for their own best interests, please stop shining a light on this issue with your burning seething pain that makes it hard to attack you. Don't exploit your moment in the spot light for your own ends, want to talk about small business taxes on businesses you don't own and never will?
 
2014-05-27 12:48:19 PM  

Cyberluddite: Here's the deal: The Constitutional rights granted under the Bill of Rights are extremely important and cannot be taken away from the people, but that doesn't mean that they aren't subject to reasonable restrictions that are necessary for the operation of a functional society.

The First Amendment guarantees the right to freedom of speech, and freedom of the press.  Does that mean that I can reveal national security information, and publish it in the newspaper or post it on the internet, without fear of criminal prosecution?  No, of course not--ask Edward Snowden about that, for example. The right to freedom of speech isn't absolute, and it's subject to reasonable restrictions necessary for the functioning of society.

The First Amendment also guarantees that right to free exercise of religion.  Does that mean that my religion can do ritual sacrifices of virgins each full moon and we'll never be charged with murder, because it's our sincere religious belief that the Gods require us to do that?  No, of course not.  The right to free exercise of religion isn't absolute, and it's subject to reasonable restrictions necessary for the functioning of society.

The Second Amendment guarantees (in language that is far less clear than other guarantees of the Bill of Rights) the right to keep and bear arms.  Does that mean that prisoners (who, let's not forget, are still protected by the Constitution and retain all their constitutional rights to the extent their exercise of those rights isn't inconsistent with incarceration) can carry around loaded Glocks strapped to their hips, as you or I might be able to do if we want to?  No, of course not  The right to keep and bear arms isn't absolute, and it's subject to reasonable restrictions necessary for the functioning of society.

So anybody who thinks that the Second Amendment is sacrosanct in all circumstances and there can be no restrictions whatsoever on the rights it confers is either delusional or a farking idiot.  We can have a legitimate argument about whether any given restriction is reasonable, necessary, or workable, and reasonable minds usually can disagree about that in any given case. But if your argument is that the Constitution prohibits any restrictions whatsoever of this particular constitutional right (unlike all other Constitutional rights, which nobody disagrees are subject to reasonable restrictions), then you've already lost the argument.


That'll do it. Last one in the thread, turn out the lights. :)
 
2014-05-27 01:04:18 PM  

Cyberluddite: Here's the deal: The Constitutional rights granted under the Bill of Rights are extremely important and cannot be taken away from the people, but that doesn't mean that they aren't subject to reasonable restrictions that are necessary for the operation of a functional society.

The First Amendment guarantees the right to freedom of speech, and freedom of the press.  Does that mean that I can reveal national security information, and publish it in the newspaper or post it on the internet, without fear of criminal prosecution?  No, of course not--ask Edward Snowden about that, for example. The right to freedom of speech isn't absolute, and it's subject to reasonable restrictions necessary for the functioning of society.

The First Amendment also guarantees that right to free exercise of religion.  Does that mean that my religion can do ritual sacrifices of virgins each full moon and we'll never be charged with murder, because it's our sincere religious belief that the Gods require us to do that?  No, of course not.  The right to free exercise of religion isn't absolute, and it's subject to reasonable restrictions necessary for the functioning of society.

The Second Amendment guarantees (in language that is far less clear than other guarantees of the Bill of Rights) the right to keep and bear arms.  Does that mean that prisoners (who, let's not forget, are still protected by the Constitution and retain all their constitutional rights to the extent their exercise of those rights isn't inconsistent with incarceration) can carry around loaded Glocks strapped to their hips, as you or I might be able to do if we want to?  No, of course not  The right to keep and bear arms isn't absolute, and it's subject to reasonable restrictions necessary for the functioning of society.

So anybody who thinks that the Second Amendment is sacrosanct in all circumstances and there can be no restrictions whatsoever on the rights it confers is either delusional or a farking idiot.  We can ha ...


All that's very nicely said, and sounds good in theory, but ignores the most important point. Which is that the first amendment, because it was not armed, was unable to prevent its absolute rights from being taken away by people who wanted to do it harm. The second amendment, meanwhile, was able to defend itself. There's a message there, for those who care to see it.
 
2014-05-27 01:13:06 PM  

zedster: zedster: As a father, husband and a man, it is my responsibility to protect my family. I will stand up for that right vehemently. Please believe me, as a father I share your grief and I will pray for you and your family, as I do whenever I hear about senseless tragedies such as this.

Like protect them by not allowing the mentally deranged have access to guns? strengthen access to mental health care so those with mental health issues are not a threat to themselves or others? I bet he supports the no fly list but the idea of a don't sell list for guns is bad because it might contain non-brown people

zedster: We still have the Right to Bear Arms and I intend to continue to speak out for that right, and against those who would restrict it - even in the face of this horrible incident by this sad and insane individual. I almost said "Obama Voter" but I'm waiting for it to be official.

I noticed the mainstream media have stopped the practice of immediately reporting the psycho maniac is a conservative Tea Party Republican Christian. Guess they're sick of having to hide being wrong every time when it comes out the whacko votes Democrat?


Go f**K yourself with a bayonet equipped blunderbuss

zedster: Mr. Martinez and anyone calling for more restrictions on American's rights need to back off and stop playing into the hands of the folks who merely capitalize on these horrific events for their own political ends.

Like when gun manufactures use the limited cases of armed citizens stopping other armed citizens to try to create more armed citizens knowing full well the chance of self harm or accidental discharge injuring others is far higher than the chance they engage in 1st or 3rd party self defense?

zedster: In conclusion, I cannot begin to imagine the pain you are going through, having had your child taken away from you. However, any feelings you have toward my rights being taken away from me, lose those.

This has become a corner stone of us keeping poor whites from vo ...


You seem to have signed in under the wrong account.
 
2014-05-27 01:21:02 PM  

propasaurus: zedster: zedster: As a father, husband and a man, it is my responsibility to protect my family. I will stand up for that right vehemently. Please believe me, as a father I share your grief and I will pray for you and your family, as I do whenever I hear about senseless tragedies such as this.

Like protect them by not allowing the mentally deranged have access to guns? strengthen access to mental health care so those with mental health issues are not a threat to themselves or others? I bet he supports the no fly list but the idea of a don't sell list for guns is bad because it might contain non-brown people

zedster: We still have the Right to Bear Arms and I intend to continue to speak out for that right, and against those who would restrict it - even in the face of this horrible incident by this sad and insane individual. I almost said "Obama Voter" but I'm waiting for it to be official.

I noticed the mainstream media have stopped the practice of immediately reporting the psycho maniac is a conservative Tea Party Republican Christian. Guess they're sick of having to hide being wrong every time when it comes out the whacko votes Democrat?


Go f**K yourself with a bayonet equipped blunderbuss

zedster: Mr. Martinez and anyone calling for more restrictions on American's rights need to back off and stop playing into the hands of the folks who merely capitalize on these horrific events for their own political ends.

Like when gun manufactures use the limited cases of armed citizens stopping other armed citizens to try to create more armed citizens knowing full well the chance of self harm or accidental discharge injuring others is far higher than the chance they engage in 1st or 3rd party self defense?

zedster: In conclusion, I cannot begin to imagine the pain you are going through, having had your child taken away from you. However, any feelings you have toward my rights being taken away from me, lose those.

This has become a corner stone of us keeping poor white ...


no, I posted the full text of his letter and than responded to it inline. The link links to a link that has the full letter, I thought I would save people time and post it in the thread
 
2014-05-27 01:30:19 PM  
Okay, so the Constitution says you have the right to keep and bear arms.  Does it also say that you have to right to keep and bear arms without any restrictions or conditions ever?  I don't think that any rational person is talking about banning all guns without exception.  What we would like is a lot more accountability in the firearm industry.  These are weapons that have one purpose, to destroy and it would be nice if we could start getting a handle on them.

Personally I like the idea of requiring training and insurance before you can own a firearm, the same as with a car.  If you want to exercise your rights, prove that you are mature and competent enough to do so without being a danger to others.  Your right to keep and bear arms does not trump my right to live.
 
2014-05-27 01:35:37 PM  

jchic: the Constitution says you have the right to keep and bear arms.  Does it also say that you have to right to keep and bear arms without any restrictions or conditions ever?


no, in fact the supreme court has said that the right can be regulated. (just like the right to free speech is regulated - yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater, for example)
 
2014-05-27 01:43:42 PM  
While it is unsurprising to me that this pig ignorant shiat wizard doesn't know what the fark he's talking about with regards to the Constitution there's another point he spectacularly misses.

It's the classic conservative error of only understanding positive freedom and not negative freedom as well. Of course to understand this you would actually have to care about freedom enough to read some Isaiah Berlin which is much more work than just yelling freedom while masturbating in your eagle boxer shorts.
 
2014-05-27 01:49:09 PM  

Pocket Ninja: All that's very nicely said, and sounds good in theory, but ignores the most important point. Which is that the first amendment, because it was not armed, was unable to prevent its absolute rights from being taken away by people who wanted to do it harm. The second amendment, meanwhile, was able to defend itself. There's a message there, for those who care to see it.


Another masterpiece for the collection, lol.  :D

/well played
 
2014-05-27 02:07:57 PM  
By my count, although it may not be official, but I think this massacre is:

3 hammer/knife combo
3 gun

Where is the outrage for hammer and knife restrictions?

Now I may not have witnessed any of this massacre, or any other recent killings. I could pretty much guaren-farking-tee that the guns didn't load and go out and kill the victims by themselves.

I would say you could chalk this one (as with the others) with shiatty 'parenting' and counseling via SSRI prescriptions and a 15 minute weekly talk with a shrink.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-05-27 02:13:46 PM  

zedster: Full letter:

Mr. Martinez and anyone calling for more restrictions on American's rights need to back off and stop playing into the hands of the folks who merely capitalize on these horrific events for their own political ends.

They don't care about ...


Sounds like a douche all right.
 
2014-05-27 02:33:56 PM  
www.godlikeproductions.com
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-05-27 02:35:19 PM  

Sniffers Row: By my count, although it may not be official, but I think this massacre is:

3 hammer/knife combo
3 gun

Where is the outrage for hammer and knife restrictions?

Now I may not have witnessed any of this massacre, or any other recent killings. I could pretty much guaren-farking-tee that the guns didn't load and go out and kill the victims by themselves.

I would say you could chalk this one (as with the others) with shiatty 'parenting' and counseling via SSRI prescriptions and a 15 minute weekly talk with a shrink.


The outrage is more over the fact that there are assholes who try to keep anything from being done about shootings.    There are regulations on the type of knife you can carry and where you can carry it and the same should apply for guns.

If there were some powerful knife equivalent of the NRA fighting bans on switchblades and such there would be outrage over that too.  Of course, more people are killed by bare handed assailants than by hammers and knives combined, and more by firearms than all other weapons combined, so that might have something to do with it too.
 
2014-05-27 02:41:11 PM  

FlashHarry: clancifer: So I take it he is pro-abortion.

well, to be fair - nobody is "pro-abortion."


China. Those who refuse to regulate the industry. Or was it a trick question?
 
2014-05-27 02:41:15 PM  
Regardless of your stance on 2nd Amendment issues, "Sorry your kid got shot in the face, but let me tell you how this affects me" is never a good way to start a conversation.
 
2014-05-27 02:42:10 PM  
He's technically correct. Infact if the shooter was never convicted of a felony then there is no basis to take away his constitutional rights either. They are in the constitution because they are basic rights that must be protected even when it's not popular to do so
 
2014-05-27 02:42:37 PM  

FlashHarry: clancifer: So I take it he is pro-abortion.

well, to be fair - nobody is "pro-abortion."


i am pro abortion
 
2014-05-27 02:42:45 PM  
Keep in mind, this guy became famous for not understanding the difference between the profit and the revenue of his hypothetical business.
 
2014-05-27 02:42:48 PM  

Cyberluddite: Here's the deal: The Constitutional rights granted under the Bill of Rights are extremely important and cannot be taken away from the people, but that doesn't mean that they aren't subject to reasonable restrictions that are necessary for the operation of a functional society.

The First Amendment guarantees the right to freedom of speech, and freedom of the press.  Does that mean that I can reveal national security information, and publish it in the newspaper or post it on the internet, without fear of criminal prosecution?  No, of course not--ask Edward Snowden about that, for example. The right to freedom of speech isn't absolute, and it's subject to reasonable restrictions necessary for the functioning of society.

The First Amendment also guarantees that right to free exercise of religion.  Does that mean that my religion can do ritual sacrifices of virgins each full moon and we'll never be charged with murder, because it's our sincere religious belief that the Gods require us to do that?  No, of course not.  The right to free exercise of religion isn't absolute, and it's subject to reasonable restrictions necessary for the functioning of society.

The Second Amendment guarantees (in language that is far less clear than other guarantees of the Bill of Rights) the right to keep and bear arms.  Does that mean that prisoners (who, let's not forget, are still protected by the Constitution and retain all their constitutional rights to the extent their exercise of those rights isn't inconsistent with incarceration) can carry around loaded Glocks strapped to their hips, as you or I might be able to do if we want to?  No, of course not  The right to keep and bear arms isn't absolute, and it's subject to reasonable restrictions necessary for the functioning of society.

So anybody who thinks that the Second Amendment is sacrosanct in all circumstances and there can be no restrictions whatsoever on the rights it confers is either delusional or a farking idiot.  We can ha ...


Probably one of the most rational, logical, and well thought out things I've ever read. Well done, sir (or madam).
 
2014-05-27 02:43:02 PM  

vpb: If there were some powerful knife equivalent of the NRA fighting bans on switchblades and such there would be outrage over that too.  Of course, more people are killed by bare handed assailants than by hammers and knives combined, and more by firearms than all other weapons combined, so that might have something to do with it too.


I'll give you my arms when you pry them from my cold, dead shoulders!
 
2014-05-27 02:43:12 PM  
who the fark cares what he thinks?
 
2014-05-27 02:44:11 PM  

BSABSVR: Regardless of your stance on 2nd Amendment issuesanything, "Sorry your kid got shot in the face, but let me tell you how this affects me" anything Joe the Not Plumber says is never a good way to start a conversation.


Broadened to cover everything.
 
2014-05-27 02:44:30 PM  

zedster: We still have the Right to Bear Arms and I intend to continue to speak out for that right, and against those who would restrict it - even in the face of this horrible incident by this sad and insane individual. I almost said "Obama Voter" but I'm waiting for it to be official.


Good thing no one is using this tragedy for partisan gain.

Because that would be just awful.
 
2014-05-27 02:44:30 PM  
Super! I know when complex societal issues rear their heads, my first thought is, "I wonder what some guy with a high school education named Sam who used to work as an assistant to a plumber and who enjoyed hobbies like spousal abuse and not paying his taxes things about this."
 
2014-05-27 02:44:44 PM  

Pocket Ninja: All that's very nicely said, and sounds good in theory, but ignores the most important point. Which is that the first amendment, because it was not armed, was unable to prevent its absolute rights from being taken away by people who wanted to do it harm. The second amendment, meanwhile, was able to defend itself. There's a message there, for those who care to see it.


Reminds me of the closing monologue that Comedy Central censored from the 201st episode of South Park where Kyle, Jesus, and Santa all came to the conclusion that threatening violence and terrorizing people is the only way to be guaranteed that you'll get what you want.
 
2014-05-27 02:45:18 PM  
Samuel Wurzelbacher.. ..

No wonder he likes "Joe the Plumber" so much better, it really rolls off the tongue in comparison to 'Samuel Wurzelbacher'...
 
2014-05-27 02:46:15 PM  
I wonder what well-ordered militia he's a member of.
 
2014-05-27 02:46:16 PM  
This wasn't large enough to actually threaten any sort of new legislation on gun control.  If Sandy Hook wasn't, this most definitely isn't.

It'd probably be in their best interests to not freak out like someone is coming for their guns, especially when there is no political will in this country to do it, and the GOP can stop all legislation, especially legislation they don't like, if they want to.
 
2014-05-27 02:46:20 PM  

Tigger: While it is unsurprising to me that this pig ignorant shiat wizard doesn't know what the fark he's talking about with regards to the Constitution there's another point he spectacularly misses.

It's the classic conservative error of only understanding positive freedom and not negative freedom as well. Of course to understand this you would actually have to care about freedom enough to read some Isaiah Berlin which is much more work than just yelling freedom while masturbating in your eagle boxer shorts.


Uhhhh conservatives are criticized for not acknowledging positive rights. Not negative rights. Positive rights are the ones that are usually not actually rights.
 
2014-05-27 02:48:38 PM  
The subtext of his message is "Oh God, please give me another 'pundit' job, Fox News? I'll say whatever you want me to say. I'll wear a dickey made of angry hornets on air, I'm just so tired of signing autographs at the Boat Show for $3 each."
 
2014-05-27 02:48:39 PM  
He is right. Scalia et al ruled that people have a right to own guns for the purpose of self defense in 2008 and they incorporated this nonsense in 2010. This is why voting for Democrats matters.
 
2014-05-27 02:49:52 PM  
I'm stunned that the FARK headline/clickbait was an ACTUAL verbatim quote.

A literal, word-for-word exact quote.

Dude needs a straightening out or something. That's sociopathic.
 
2014-05-27 02:49:55 PM  

Warlordtrooper: He's technically correct. Infact if the shooter was never convicted of a felony then there is no basis to take away his constitutional rights either. They are in the constitution because they are basic rights that must be protected even when it's not popular to do so


In fairness it is in the consitution because of a uniquely american historical accident not because firearm ownership is some sort of basic right. the rest of western civilisation couldn't give a fark about firearm ownership as a basic right.
 
2014-05-27 02:49:55 PM  
i.cdn.turner.com

"Oops I dropped my visegrips"
 
2014-05-27 02:51:21 PM  
Your rights end when it affects someone else. I think killing people affects someone else.
 
2014-05-27 02:52:06 PM  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: F this guy, and F McCain for giving him a microphone.


Let's be fair. While McCain certainly gave an idiot a microphone (namely Palin), this particular idiot got his microphone from Roger Ailes.
 
2014-05-27 02:52:48 PM  

Cyberluddite: The First Amendment guarantees the right to freedom of speech, and freedom of the press.  Does that mean that I can reveal national security information, and publish it in the newspaper or post it on the internet, without fear of criminal prosecution?  No, of course not--ask Edward Snowden about that, for example. The right to freedom of speech isn't absolute, and it's subject to reasonable restrictions necessary for the functioning of society.


He can't, because he agreed not to.  But if I didn't sign the paper and someone gave me the stuff, I could publish it to my heart's content (see the Pentagon Papers).  Now, they might put me in the pokey for playing footsie with Secrecy McSpiesalot, but the actual publishing/reading aloud in Wal-Mart is perfectly legal for me.  This would be why the feds shiat a brick every time they find out something went missing* - because once it migrates out into the wild, they can't actually do anything to stop it being disseminated.

* Considering some alphabetic agency loses a laptop full of Ultra/Enigma-level secrets every half-hour on the dot, you would think it would be easier to simply gin up plausible bullshiat and release that into the wild so that no one could tell the real stuff from the fake.
 
Displayed 50 of 373 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