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.

(NewsBusters)   88% of FoxNews.com readers support the right for people to carry guns in public...oh, sorry.. I meant MSNBC.com readers   (newsbusters.org) divider line 548
    More: Strange, prisoner swap  
•       •       •

2649 clicks; posted to Main » on 07 Aug 2014 at 9:38 AM (29 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-08-07 11:03:00 AM  

firefly212: From coming to town after Columbine

...


Thank you for confirming you lack on knowledge regarding the real world.
 
2014-08-07 11:03:04 AM  

The Name: Amending the Constitution to enshrine firearm ownership as a basic human right, or at least creating an amendment that could be interpreted as doing such, is probably the most short-sighted thing the Founding Fathers (peace be upon them) ever did.  And yes, I'm counting the slavery stuff.


Gun ownership is worse than slavery.  Got it.

And I bet you think only the gun rights crowd engages in hyperbole and says stupid shiat.
 
2014-08-07 11:03:13 AM  
By the way, what this thread needs is fewer POGS and more PAWGs.
 
2014-08-07 11:03:44 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: I'm a liberal gun-owner


Ditto.  Here's to sane, rational gun control and a quick death to the NRA in its current state.
 
2014-08-07 11:04:01 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: I take that to mean you're not receiving government assistance. I'm not sure what your point was.


That is irrelevant to the fact of the matter.  Pretty much everyone receives government assistance in one form or the other.

public roads, water, sewer, mortgage deductions, subsidized energy, maybe even some direct assistance to pay for healthcare, or food.

Not of that is mutually exclusive with me filling my freezer every year.
 
2014-08-07 11:05:03 AM  

karnal: Epic Fap Session: karnal: Epic Fap Session: karnal: TwistedIvory: Once again:

http://www.theliberalgunclub.com/

There are more of us out there than you think.

Maybe we should start a database.

This is what derpers projecting their fears onto others looks like.

Go ahead.


Looks as if someone projected their derp all over your face. Here's a tissue.  Clean yourself up.

Sick burn. I bet you're the funniest guy in detention.

Only paranoid people think there is any possible scenario where "leftists" come for your guns. It is a delusion you share with many other nut bags.

Ok Ok....it's kind of hard to have a serious conversation with you when you have that derp all over your face....wipe it off and then we can talk.


Could you be any more sexual latently homosexual?
img.fark.net
 
2014-08-07 11:05:24 AM  

BMulligan: Fark It: BMulligan: dittybopper: The National Shooting Sports Foundation is the lobbying group that represents firearms manufacturers.  The NRA is the lobbying group of gun *OWNERS*.

Repetition isn't argument. No matter how many times you repeat your claim, it remains nonsense.

You misquoted ditty, he's not the one claiming that the NRA is the lobbying arm of the gun industry.

At best gun manufacturers are neutral on banning private sales.  They would actually stand to benefit if there was a ban on private sales, it would drive more people out of the secondary market and into gun stores.

I quoted him correctly. Read it again.

redmid17: BMulligan: dittybopper: The National Shooting Sports Foundation is the lobbying group that represents firearms manufacturers.  The NRA is the lobbying group of gun *OWNERS*.

Repetition isn't argument. No matter how many times you repeat your claim, it remains nonsense.

When NPR and Bloomberg say the nra doesn't rep gun manufacturers, you'd think people would be more receptive.

Right now the repetition without support is saying that the nra support the gun manufacturers despite multiple boycotts organized against them by the nra.

And yet those manufacturers continue to provide significant financial support. Go figure.


Millions of dollars aren't insignificant, true. They are, however, dwarfed by the roughly 50% of the $250 million budget provided by the members.

If you want a real world, classless analogy, here's one: The NRA is the heavy drinking husband who makes a bunch of money. The NSSF is the quiet wife who gets smacked around when she "says  something stupid."
 
2014-08-07 11:05:30 AM  
enry:  If you go out and ask a dozen random people who represents gun manufacturers, you'll get over eight that say it's the NRA and maybe one or two that has heard of the NSSF.

And if you go out and ask a dozen random people what the main function Planned Parenthood is, you'll get over eight that will answer "abortion".  It doesn't mean anything other than, by and large, our public is very, very uninformed.
 
2014-08-07 11:06:40 AM  

redmid17: If you want a real world, classless analogy, here's one: The NRA is the heavy drinking husband who makes a bunch of money. The NSSF is the quiet wife who gets smacked around when she "says  something stupid."


and the bottle of whiskey is albert einstein
 
2014-08-07 11:07:22 AM  

Click Click D'oh: rewind2846: What he is not is some second amendment nutjob who has to make up for a lack of adequate genitalia with a gun.

<Summon Dittybopper>


i58.tinypic.com

Gotta love that Oleg Volk.  Who else would get an attractive woman to strip nekkid and pose with a Brown Bess?
 
2014-08-07 11:08:09 AM  

OregonVet: If you have a nice functional fishing pole you clearly have plenty of money too.


hunting or fishing does not necessarily produce money.  It offsets cost that would otherwise be used to buy beef, pork, chicken, fish etc..
 
2014-08-07 11:10:20 AM  

sprawl15: redmid17: If you want a real world, classless analogy, here's one: The NRA is the heavy drinking husband who makes a bunch of money. The NSSF is the quiet wife who gets smacked around when she "says  something stupid."

and the bottle of whiskey is albert einstein


Nah the NRA doesn't splurge on old whiskey. We're talking Ten High or McCormick here. You know, the classy stuff.
 
2014-08-07 11:10:33 AM  

GnomePaladin: cameroncrazy1984: I'm a liberal gun-owner

Ditto.  Here's to sane, rational gun control and a quick death to the NRA in its current state.


Do you guys really want the NRA to go away, leaving gun rights groups that exist because they thought the NRA compromised too much?  Is that really what you want?

GnomePaladin: cameroncrazy1984: I'm a liberal gun-owner

Ditto.  Here's to sane, rational gun control and a quick death to the NRA in its current state.


The problem is that gun control advocates think that gun control can never be insane or irrational.

FilmBELOH20: enry:  If you go out and ask a dozen random people who represents gun manufacturers, you'll get over eight that say it's the NRA and maybe one or two that has heard of the NSSF.

And if you go out and ask a dozen random people what the main function Planned Parenthood is, you'll get over eight that will answer "abortion".  It doesn't mean anything other than, by and large, our public is very, very uninformed.


+1, 5-star post, gorilla-high-fiving-shark.jpg
 
2014-08-07 11:10:56 AM  

dittybopper: Click Click D'oh: rewind2846: What he is not is some second amendment nutjob who has to make up for a lack of adequate genitalia with a gun.

<Summon Dittybopper>



Gotta love that Oleg Volk.  Who else would get an attractive woman to strip nekkid and pose with a Brown Bess?


Someone with enough money to hire a model?
 
2014-08-07 11:11:29 AM  

GnomePaladin: cameroncrazy1984: I'm a liberal gun-owner

Ditto.  Here's to sane, rational gun control and a quick death to the NRA in its current state.


This.
 
2014-08-07 11:11:44 AM  

dookdookdook: Conservatives are highly overrepresented online, even on "liberal" sites.  Something about near total anonymity seems to attract people who love to spout hateful, anti-social garbage.


Trailltrader: Prog's have been told this over and over again. And you still don't believe it.

Told what?  That we must be pants-shiattingly terrified of everything and everybody in the world around us at all times and spend hundreds or thousands of dollars to arm ourselves against the infinitesimal chance that something bad will happen to us that guns could solve instead of make worse?


well you guys are certainly pants-shiattingly terrified of firearms for one.
 
2014-08-07 11:11:47 AM  

Rwa2play: Satan's Superfluous Nipple: firefly212: Trailltrader: Prog's have been told this over and over again.  And you still don't believe it.

OK so lets try this real world example: someone in your family gets mugged, and afterwards you think "Gee, if I'd only had a gun".

Welcome to the NRA, we've been protecting your firearm rights since 1889, and we're the oldest civil rights organization in the world.

As a Coloradan, Fark the NRA and the donkey show they rode in on. From coming to town after Columbine to fighting against the ability of psychiatrists to stop mentally unstable people from getting guns to fighting universal background checks, fark you in every way imaginable. I have a gun, and I like it very much... my roomate also as a gun, and he likes his very much... background checks were not cumbersome, and in the event that I become mentally incapacitated, I WANT someone to take the damn gun away.

You jackasses are protecting murderers and the insane, at the expense of law-abiding, gun-owning citizens. You are to gun rights what WBC is to traditional heterosexual marriages... you're so farking over-zealous and unreasonable that you're turning all sane and rational people against you.

It sounds like you have anger issues. Maybe someone should take your gun away.

Thanks for proving the point of some people on this thread.


Except I generally think most liberals have anger issues and they want to ban guns because they know they can't trust themselves to not go postal over every little thing. And then they project their emotional instabilty on everyone else.
 
2014-08-07 11:11:54 AM  

HeadLever: OregonVet: If you have a nice functional fishing pole you clearly have plenty of money too.

hunting or fishing does not necessarily produce money.  It offsets cost that would otherwise be used to buy beef, pork, chicken, fish etc..


And it's recreation too. I've never *needed* to go hunting or fishing, but it was a fun way to spend a few days or hours hanging out with my friends and family.
 
2014-08-07 11:12:17 AM  

Satan's Superfluous Nipple: Except I generally think most liberals have anger issues and they want to ban guns because they know they can't trust themselves to not go postal over every little thing. And then they project their emotional instabilty on everyone else.


That's because you have shiat for brains.
 
2014-08-07 11:13:06 AM  

Rwa2play: 1) A lot of us "liberals", "progressives" are for the 2nd Amendment and would continue to support it.
2) The difference between us is that we're not advocating a return to the Wild farkin' west that Mr. Trailtrader seems to imply.


If you support the second amendment, then you in effect support a return to the wild west, because it's the second amendment that makes it nearly impossible to pass common-sense gun control.

Hey, how about this idea: maybe it's time to put aside our mindless devotion to every farking thing the Founding Fathers (peace be upon them) wrote and thought, and do what makes sense for people in THIS millennium.  Every single consumer product is subject to regulation if we the people decide through our representatives that said regulation is needed.  Guns are the only consumer product that that basic, common-sense principle doesn't apply to, thanks to the second amendment.  Unless you really believe that we need about one gun per person in this country to stave off an ever-present threat of tyranny, what farking sense does that make?
 
2014-08-07 11:13:38 AM  

Fark It: GnomePaladin: cameroncrazy1984: I'm a liberal gun-owner

Ditto.  Here's to sane, rational gun control and a quick death to the NRA in its current state.

Do you guys really want the NRA to go away, leaving gun rights groups that exist because they thought the NRA compromised too much?  Is that really what you want?


Yes because the NRA's backed by gun manufacturers, who are only interested in people buying as many weapons as they can put out.

Besides, there's always this organization if you want a pro-gun group:  http://www.theliberalgunclub.com/
 
2014-08-07 11:14:18 AM  

The Name: Rwa2play: 1) A lot of us "liberals", "progressives" are for the 2nd Amendment and would continue to support it.
2) The difference between us is that we're not advocating a return to the Wild farkin' west that Mr. Trailtrader seems to imply.

If you support the second amendment, then you in effect support a return to the wild west, because it's the second amendment that makes it nearly impossible to pass common-sense gun control.

Hey, how about this idea: maybe it's time to put aside our mindless devotion to every farking thing the Founding Fathers (peace be upon them) wrote and thought, and do what makes sense for people in THIS millennium.  Every single consumer product is subject to regulation if we the people decide through our representatives that said regulation is needed.  Guns are the only consumer product that that basic, common-sense principle doesn't apply to, thanks to the second amendment.  Unless you really believe that we need about one gun per person in this country to stave off an ever-present threat of tyranny, what farking sense does that make?


Yes, the complete lack of consumer and safety regulations on firearms is astounding.
 
2014-08-07 11:14:23 AM  

AngryDragon: Constitutionally guaranteed individual right. SCOTUS says so.


"Rights" are not absolute, and along with those "rights" come "responsibilities", such as the responsibility a person has for not being a dick around other people. The chest-thumping apes who bellow and whine about "rights" tend to forget this. The right to carry also comes with the responsibility not to be a dick. Simple.
 
2014-08-07 11:14:37 AM  

Satan's Superfluous Nipple: Rwa2play: Satan's Superfluous Nipple: firefly212: Trailltrader: Prog's have been told this over and over again.  And you still don't believe it.

OK so lets try this real world example: someone in your family gets mugged, and afterwards you think "Gee, if I'd only had a gun".

Welcome to the NRA, we've been protecting your firearm rights since 1889, and we're the oldest civil rights organization in the world.

As a Coloradan, Fark the NRA and the donkey show they rode in on. From coming to town after Columbine to fighting against the ability of psychiatrists to stop mentally unstable people from getting guns to fighting universal background checks, fark you in every way imaginable. I have a gun, and I like it very much... my roomate also as a gun, and he likes his very much... background checks were not cumbersome, and in the event that I become mentally incapacitated, I WANT someone to take the damn gun away.

You jackasses are protecting murderers and the insane, at the expense of law-abiding, gun-owning citizens. You are to gun rights what WBC is to traditional heterosexual marriages... you're so farking over-zealous and unreasonable that you're turning all sane and rational people against you.

It sounds like you have anger issues. Maybe someone should take your gun away.

Thanks for proving the point of some people on this thread.

Except I generally think most liberals have anger issues and they want to ban guns because they know they can't trust themselves to not go postal over every little thing. And then they project their emotional instabilty on everyone else.


And Conservatives don't?
 
2014-08-07 11:15:58 AM  

The Name: Rwa2play: 1) A lot of us "liberals", "progressives" are for the 2nd Amendment and would continue to support it.
2) The difference between us is that we're not advocating a return to the Wild farkin' west that Mr. Trailtrader seems to imply.

If you support the second amendment, then you in effect support a return to the wild west, because it's the second amendment that makes it nearly impossible to pass common-sense gun control.

Hey, how about this idea: maybe it's time to put aside our mindless devotion to every farking thing the Founding Fathers (peace be upon them) wrote and thought, and do what makes sense for people in THIS millennium.  Every single consumer product is subject to regulation if we the people decide through our representatives that said regulation is needed.  Guns are the only consumer product that that basic, common-sense principle doesn't apply to, thanks to the second amendment.  Unless you really believe that we need about one gun per person in this country to stave off an ever-present threat of tyranny, what farking sense does that make?


Guns are unregulated?  Really?  What regulations do you propose?

/I don't think you said "commonsense" enough
 
2014-08-07 11:15:59 AM  

FilmBELOH20: enry:  If you go out and ask a dozen random people who represents gun manufacturers, you'll get over eight that say it's the NRA and maybe one or two that has heard of the NSSF.

And if you go out and ask a dozen random people what the main function Planned Parenthood is, you'll get over eight that will answer "abortion".  It doesn't mean anything other than, by and large, our public is very, very uninformed.


Yes, because PP is at the forefront of abortion rights.  Funny that.  They're known for many other things, but when questions about abortion come up, PP is the one that steps up to take the questions.  When questions arise for gun manufacturers, the NRA steps up.
 
2014-08-07 11:17:07 AM  

HeadLever: OregonVet: If you have a nice functional fishing pole you clearly have plenty of money too.

hunting or fishing does not necessarily produce money.  It offsets cost that would otherwise be used to buy beef, pork, chicken, fish etc..


When I was a teenager in the Adirondack mountains, I knew a family that derived a lot of their food from hunting, much of it legal, some of it not.

The local DEC guys knew about it, but didn't do anything.  Apparently there was some kind of unspoken understanding that so long as the poaching wasn't really egregious they'd turn a blind eye, because the family couldn't afford the fines and legal fees.  If it weren't for the occasional deer taken out of season the kids wouldn't have to go without meat for a while.  If they actually charged the father and/or mother (both did it), they couldn't pay, which would mean jail time, which would certainly mean they'd become a burden on the state and county, and possibly have their kids sent to foster homes.  Probably lose their home also.
 
2014-08-07 11:17:30 AM  

The Name: Rwa2play: 1) A lot of us "liberals", "progressives" are for the 2nd Amendment and would continue to support it.
2) The difference between us is that we're not advocating a return to the Wild farkin' west that Mr. Trailtrader seems to imply.

If you support the second amendment, then you in effect support a return to the wild west, because it's the second amendment that makes it nearly impossible to pass common-sense gun control.


Yet you completely miss my second point (bolded).  I'd want regulations so that, if you want a gun, you can have one but that the farking thing is not a toy you can just leave around for someone to pick up.
 
2014-08-07 11:17:35 AM  

bdub77: Satan's Superfluous Nipple: Except I generally think most liberals have anger issues and they want to ban guns because they know they can't trust themselves to not go postal over every little thing. And then they project their emotional instabilty on everyone else.

That's because you have shiat for brains.


And you just helped reinforce my view of liberals.
 
2014-08-07 11:17:41 AM  

The Name: If you support the second amendment, then you in effect support a return to the wild west, because it's the second amendment that makes it nearly impossible to pass common-sense gun control.


Except that the "Wild West" only really existed as a construct of Hollywood from the 50s-80s for the purposes of making exciting movies in Italy.

This logic is perfectly in line with the "blood in the streets" rhetoric that was around while states were passing concealed carry laws in the '90s.  It's a fear tactic completely unsupported by history or reason, used only to generate an emotional response.

It's idiot pandering.
 
2014-08-07 11:18:07 AM  

Satan's Superfluous Nipple: bdub77: Satan's Superfluous Nipple: Except I generally think most liberals have anger issues and they want to ban guns because they know they can't trust themselves to not go postal over every little thing. And then they project their emotional instabilty on everyone else.

That's because you have shiat for brains.

And you just helped reinforce my view of liberals.


And you just proved my point.
 
2014-08-07 11:18:53 AM  

Rwa2play: Fark It: GnomePaladin: cameroncrazy1984: I'm a liberal gun-owner

Ditto.  Here's to sane, rational gun control and a quick death to the NRA in its current state.

Do you guys really want the NRA to go away, leaving gun rights groups that exist because they thought the NRA compromised too much?  Is that really what you want?

Yes because the NRA's backed by gun manufacturers, who are only interested in people buying as many weapons as they can put out.

Besides, there's always this organization if you want a pro-gun group:  http://www.theliberalgunclub.com/


BARRETT: [...] And I think many people in the gun industry, given a choice, would not take the conspiratorial sort of paranoid approach that LaPierre specializes in. That said, they are doing nothing to try to deter him - for two reasons. One, they're afraid of the consumer boycotts that the NRA can organize if it chooses. And two, the NRA's hype actually does benefit the gun industry.

INSKEEP: Is that a real possibility, that the NRA could organize a boycott of Smith & Wesson or some other brand of firearm?

BARRETT: It's not just a real possibility; it's something that has happened in the past. In 2000, which really was the last time before the current round of debate that we had a live gun control debate at the national level. Smith and Wesson actually tried to step up and arrive at a truce with the Clinton administration and with government officials around the country who were suing the gun industry. And Smith & Wesson agreed to settle those lawsuits and to comply with an unprecedented level of regulation. The result of that was that the NRA, other gun rights groups, encouraged gun buyers to boycott Smith & Wesson. In the space of six to eight months, the company almost went out of business. Plants were shut down, production lines were closed, and ultimately, the company changed ownership, reneged on the settlement and was accepted back into the fold. This is not a theoretical possibility. This is what happens when you cross the NRA.


If the NRA is backed by gun manufacturer's it's because the NRA has a gun to their head. There not necessarily in it willingly. It's much more appropriate to say the NRA forces their hand than to say the manufacturers support them.
 
2014-08-07 11:19:03 AM  
The funny thing is that I never really considered firearm regulation a big issue. Sure, I favored some reasonable tightening up of the existing regulations, but nothing too serious and it certainly wasn't a priority for me. But then I started interacting with actual gun nuts, and my whole attitude changed. People (some of them are in this very thread) who start foaming at the mouth every time the subject of firearms comes up are weird and scary, and have finally convinced me that there are quite a few people who can't be trusted with a squirt gun, much less an actual weapon. Were it not for the NRA and its acolytes, I would be far less concerned about controlling access to firearms.

Just last week I was in Harrison, Idaho and stopped in for a beer. There was a guy wearing a T-shirt with an illustration of an AK-47 or similar, with text that read "Why do I need it? I didn't, until I found out it pissed you off." That's the one guy in the room who absolutely shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a gun (or sharp objects, for that matter).
 
2014-08-07 11:19:41 AM  

Satan's Superfluous Nipple: bdub77: Satan's Superfluous Nipple: Except I generally think most liberals have anger issues and they want to ban guns because they know they can't trust themselves to not go postal over every little thing. And then they project their emotional instabilty on everyone else.

That's because you have shiat for brains.

And you just helped reinforce my view of liberals.


That they have better explanations/arguments than yours for opposing/advocating issues and are not all "God and patriotism above common sense"?
 
2014-08-07 11:19:57 AM  

Fark It: GnomePaladin: cameroncrazy1984: I'm a liberal gun-owner

Ditto.  Here's to sane, rational gun control and a quick death to the NRA in its current state.

The problem is that gun control advocates think that gun control can never be insane or irrational.


And gun rights advocates think that they should be able to own nuclear weapons.  Painting with a broad brush is fun!

FilmBELOH20: enry:  If you go out and ask a dozen random people who represents gun manufacturers, you'll get over eight that say it's the NRA and maybe one or two that has heard of the NSSF.

And if you go out and ask a dozen random people what the main function Planned Parenthood is, you'll get over eight that will answer "abortion".  It doesn't mean anything other than, by and large, our public is very, very uninformed.

+1, 5-star post, gorilla-high-fiving-shark.jpg


Yet it continued to prove my point.  So yes, +1.
 
2014-08-07 11:20:28 AM  

BMulligan: There was a guy wearing a T-shirt with an illustration of an AK-47 or similar, with text that read "Why do I need it? I didn't, until I found out it pissed you off." That's the one guy in the room who absolutely shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a gun (or sharp objects, for that matter).


Why not?  His shirt made you asspained?  Really?
 
2014-08-07 11:21:37 AM  

redmid17: I've never *needed* to go hunting or fishing, but it was a fun way to spend a few days or hours hanging out with my friends and family.


Yeah, I have seen it from both sides. My entire annual beef consumption is pretty much one steak and maybe a dozen hamburgers all from restaurants.  This is not because of *need to*, but because of desire not to pay over $10/lb for steak and $5/pound for hamburger and $12/pound for salmon and the fact that I enjoy hunting and fishing.
 
2014-08-07 11:21:42 AM  
You can safely ignore the results of any online poll that invites the general public to "tell us what you think!" Unless it is research that is administered by actual research people, and weighted for all the usual shiat (gender, age, income, education, race, etc.), the results are - without qualification - worthless.

That's why good research is so goddam expensive. Weeding out the crazies and making sure that all your respondents aren't old white guys or helicopter moms or bored teenagers trying to fark with the results just for the lulz requires effort.
 
2014-08-07 11:22:09 AM  

redmid17: If the NRA is backed by gun manufacturer's it's because the NRA has a gun to their head. There not necessarily in it willingly. It's much more appropriate to say the NRA forces their hand than to say the manufacturers support them.


So why not back an organization like the Liberal Gun Club, openly state their intentions/goals and ditch the NRA?  The NRA needs them more than the other way around.
 
2014-08-07 11:22:33 AM  

dittybopper: HeadLever: OregonVet: If you have a nice functional fishing pole you clearly have plenty of money too.

hunting or fishing does not necessarily produce money.  It offsets cost that would otherwise be used to buy beef, pork, chicken, fish etc..

When I was a teenager in the Adirondack mountains, I knew a family that derived a lot of their food from hunting, much of it legal, some of it not.

The local DEC guys knew about it, but didn't do anything.  Apparently there was some kind of unspoken understanding that so long as the poaching wasn't really egregious they'd turn a blind eye, because the family couldn't afford the fines and legal fees.  If it weren't for the occasional deer taken out of season the kids wouldn't have to go without meat for a while.  If they actually charged the father and/or mother (both did it), they couldn't pay, which would mean jail time, which would certainly mean they'd become a burden on the state and county, and possibly have their kids sent to foster homes.  Probably lose their home also.


That's an edge case I'd be okay with.  The DEC knew who they were, knew they weren't causing trouble, and let it slide.

/otherwise they'd be moochers on welfare or something
 
2014-08-07 11:22:35 AM  

dittybopper: Gotta love that Oleg Volk.  Who else would get an attractive woman to strip nekkid and pose with a Brown Bess?


[inigomontoya.jpg]


Also, anti-gun bigot?? Lolwut?
 
2014-08-07 11:22:39 AM  

BMulligan: The funny thing is that I never really considered firearm regulation a big issue. Sure, I favored some reasonable tightening up of the existing regulations, but nothing too serious and it certainly wasn't a priority for me. But then I started interacting with actual gun nuts, and my whole attitude changed. People (some of them are in this very thread) who start foaming at the mouth every time the subject of firearms comes up are weird and scary, and have finally convinced me that there are quite a few people who can't be trusted with a squirt gun, much less an actual weapon. Were it not for the NRA and its acolytes, I would be far less concerned about controlling access to firearms.

Just last week I was in Harrison, Idaho and stopped in for a beer. There was a guy wearing a T-shirt with an illustration of an AK-47 or similar, with text that read "Why do I need it? I didn't, until I found out it pissed you off." That's the one guy in the room who absolutely shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a gun (or sharp objects, for that matter).


So I take it you didn't find this guy funny?

i.imgur.com
 
2014-08-07 11:22:56 AM  

BMulligan: Just last week I was in Harrison, Idaho and stopped in for a beer. There was a guy wearing a T-shirt with an illustration of an AK-47 or similar, with text that read "Why do I need it? I didn't, until I found out it pissed you off." That's the one guy in the room who absolutely shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a gun (or sharp objects, for that matter).


So, because his T-shirt angered you he should be stripped of his rights?

What a little dictator you've become.
 
2014-08-07 11:23:12 AM  
dittybopper:

Gotta love that Oleg Volk.  Who else would get an attractive woman to strip nekkid and pose with a Brown Bess?

Well you know what Trailltrader says!  "Remember, you get more cooperation with a gun and a smile than you do just the smile alone!"

Anyone could do it.  You just smile and point a gun at her!
 
2014-08-07 11:24:14 AM  

Rwa2play: The Name: Rwa2play: 1) A lot of us "liberals", "progressives" are for the 2nd Amendment and would continue to support it.
2) The difference between us is that we're not advocating a return to the Wild farkin' west that Mr. Trailtrader seems to imply.

If you support the second amendment, then you in effect support a return to the wild west, because it's the second amendment that makes it nearly impossible to pass common-sense gun control.

Yet you completely miss my second point (bolded).  I'd want regulations so that, if you want a gun, you can have one but that the farking thing is not a toy you can just leave around for someone to pick up.


Yes, and it's because of the second amendment that you can't pass any "guns are not toys" laws without creating a constitutional crisis that the gun nuts, by the way, usually win.
 
2014-08-07 11:24:26 AM  

Fark It: BMulligan: There was a guy wearing a T-shirt with an illustration of an AK-47 or similar, with text that read "Why do I need it? I didn't, until I found out it pissed you off." That's the one guy in the room who absolutely shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a gun (or sharp objects, for that matter).

Why not?  His shirt made you asspained?  Really?


Because if you're going to buy something just to piss someone off it means you have the maturity of a toddler.
 
2014-08-07 11:24:52 AM  

enry: Yet it continued to prove my point. So yes, +1.


No, it didn't.  Those people who would say that the main function of Planned Parenthood is abortion are wrong, even if they're a majority.  That was the point.

And gun rights advocates think that they should be able to own nuclear weapons.  Painting with a broad brush is fun!

Citation needed.  Could you also direct me to a gun control law that goes too far for gun control activists and was repealed?  I want to know of these gun control ideas that are too much for gun control activists.  I'm having trouble, the Brady Campaign keeps on revising their scorecards so that no state goes far enough, not even California and New York.
 
2014-08-07 11:24:57 AM  

Rwa2play: Satan's Superfluous Nipple: bdub77: Satan's Superfluous Nipple: Except I generally think most liberals have anger issues and they want to ban guns because they know they can't trust themselves to not go postal over every little thing. And then they project their emotional instabilty on everyone else.

That's because you have shiat for brains.

And you just helped reinforce my view of liberals.

That they have better explanations/arguments than yours for opposing/advocating issues and are not all "God and patriotism above common sense"?


No, that they're immature and don't have the ability to have a reasonable discussion about anything.
 
2014-08-07 11:25:18 AM  

dittybopper: Click Click D'oh: rewind2846: What he is not is some second amendment nutjob who has to make up for a lack of adequate genitalia with a gun.

<Summon Dittybopper>

[i58.tinypic.com image 640x513]

Gotta love that Oleg Volk.  Who else would get an attractive woman to strip nekkid and pose with a Brown Bess?


[dumbasses with 'assault rifles' in coffee shop.jpg]

But they're not compensating.

/alternately: she didn't have one, and now does.  Doesn't matter the length.  She's still compensating.
 
2014-08-07 11:25:56 AM  

Rwa2play: redmid17: If the NRA is backed by gun manufacturer's it's because the NRA has a gun to their head. There not necessarily in it willingly. It's much more appropriate to say the NRA forces their hand than to say the manufacturers support them.

So why not back an organization like the Liberal Gun Club, openly state their intentions/goals and ditch the NRA?  The NRA needs them more than the other way around.


I'm not an NRA member and I don't support them financially, never have. I just looked over their website. Looks like I will be giving them some money.

Been looking for a gun rights group to join/donate to. NRA is whacked out. SAF wins a lot of court cases but their mail makes the NRA look like Bloomberg. The GOA are even more pro-gun than the NRA.

The LGC looks like a damn good option.
 
Displayed 50 of 548 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is 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