Show Only: Democrats | Republicans | Media | Military
« Previous I Will Survive! | Breaking News – Elena Kagan Next »
I think we all know what happens when reasonable citizens are not allowed to conceal or operate heavy military equipment. I refer, of course, to the landmark case of Wolverines v Soviets 1984.
Ordinary Americans doing extraordinary things! Thanks, Hackedirl!
 | MrsQ Of Philly on CNN is the New Amen |
| MrsQ Of Philly is re… on GREECE |
 | !neoritter on Progress Poker |
| neoritter on Time Travel Protester |
| MrsQ Of Philly is re… on GREECE |
 | DevAd on GREECE |
| MrsQ Of Philly quick… on Better Than Coffee |
 | Whatever on GREECE |
| Whatever on GREECE |
| Whatever on Has This Certain Ring to … |
Cheezburger Company Blog
I Can Has Cheezburger? - Lolcats n Funny Pictures 
Lolcats - Lolcats n' Funny Cat Pictures
I Has A Hotdog - Loldogs n Cute Puppies 
Animal Capshunz - All of the Internet's Animals. Captioned
Animal Videos - Cute and Hilarious Animal Videos
Animal Gifs - Cute and Hilarious Animal Gifs
Daily Squee - So cute your brain might explode. 
Historic LOLs - Captioned Portraits of Yore
My Food Looks Funny - Funny Food Photos
So Much Pun - Visual Puns and Jokes
ROFLrazzi - Lol Celebs and All That's Fab Funny in Showbiz 
Totally Looks Like - Stuff That Looks Like Other Stuff
Must Have Cute - See. Want. Must Have!
If Style Could Kill - OMG Style!
Lovely Listing - Strange Findings in Real Estate Listings
![\"Quantcast\"/](\"http://pixel.quantserve.com/pixel/p-94wNw88f65Rhk.gif?labels=MTVN%20Digital%20Tribes\")
MAN!!! Where am I supposed to park my tank now? Quick, Charro grab the Handicap’d thing to hang in the window, they can’t tow me then.
____A black man, but alone; A beautiful white lady, but life is not that nice. Desire a mingle of black and white? That’s what
—[blackwhitemingle{.}c o m]––
is dedicated to do. Due to our trustful and professional services, new genlemen & beauties are joining all the time and many are making connections every day. It takes only a few minutes to submit a profile, someone there may be waiting for you. Give love a chance_____
*nukes spambot from space*
I’m sorry sir, that satellite nuke launcher is an unconcealed weapon and not allowed in this zone. You’re going to have to move it.
*beats the stuffing out of Spambot with a teddy bear then sets pair of rabid wolves on the remains*
What? They’re not weapons concealed or otherwise
[drives M88 over remains] – It’s not a weapon; it’s a tow-truck, alright, based on an M60 MBT chassis, but it’s still a tow-truck!
You can still bring in sharks with lazers
Not to worry — it’s a library. No gun-toting conservative would dare set foot in there!
Monkies fling poo at beany at the zoo.
That’s right! Cause everyone knows libraries are SOCIALIST! We buy our books gol-darnit!
Steve’s right! How sick is that? A place that lets you BORROW books for FREE? And assumes you’re gonna give them back? How naive of them. Let me guess. They get public funding too. Absolutely disgusting. Libraries are completely socialist and unamerican and should be WIPED OUT. GO CAPITALISM!
If it were run by capitalists they would have more copies of current books for the public to read
P
See…I’m really on the fence about the whole socialism/capitalism debate…I’m not really sure a)which one I’m in favor of and b)which one is going to ultimately win out so I’ve decided to hedge my bets and work at the socialist library and capitalist book store. Now that’s job security for you. Assuming…you know…that people don’t stop reading books or something.
And it will have people like me forming lines to date you! Not that we wouldn’t do that anyway, but you + librarian priviledges + staff discount…
I go to libraries all the time (and check out more books than most people here I bet).
They also sell books at the libraries for a song (and Ive bought more than Ive checked out).
Bigotted libtard myth obliterated.
Have a nice day.
Enid Blyton doesn’t count.
Zipper supports the socialistic book store! Go buy your books at Barnes & Noble you commie bastard! Support the free market economy! Stop feeding into the belief that people are entitled to books! Books aren’t a right, they’re a privilege!
Myth that Zipper understands humor obliterated!
The funniest thing posted here today is a cross post from Hacked IRL. *facepalm*
WOLVERINES!!!!!
Leftards fear guns.
It allows the people to say ‘NO’ to tyrants and tyrant wannabees.
Its cute when ppl who are afraid to leave the house without a gun project their fear on others.
I don’t have a gun at my house, I don’t carry a gun, however I am 100% in agreement with Zipper that liberals fear guns.
To most liberals (not all) they view a gun as a tool of violence, and the only reason a person would own a gun would be to shoot them. They can’t fathom the thought that someone could own a gun, and not use it in a violent manner.
I fear guns in the hands of people that will use them illegaly, but for some reason most guns used in crimes are obtained illegally. (Funny how that works, isn’t it).
I also love (I’m sure Rando and Ivan will love this one) the joy some liberals take in picking and choosing their Constitutional Amendments to “honor”. But then again the Constitution is a “dated” document that should be updated to reflect the European Ideals, and not those this country was founded on. The uproar from the left when some conservatives try and “challenge” parts of the Frist Amendment, however in the smae breath scream “Down with the 2nd.” Hypocrites on both sides really make me want to smack someone.
Picking and choosing my constitutional amendments is NOT hypocritical. Just because I agree with one doesn’t mean I automatically have to agree with all of them. I don’t have to form my belief system around the Constitution. That’s preposterous.
Rando: If you sit their and complain about any of your Constitutional Rights are being infringed on then, yes, yes you are a hypocrite. You can’t pick and choose Amendments as Rights. If you live in this country, you live by the Constitution, it’s our law. It’s that simple. As a citizen of the US, you are bound by the Constitution, the good with the bad. I’ve never understood that about the liberal mentality I guess. The Constitution is what separates America from the rest of the world.
Damn, why don’t you and the freaking constitution get a freaking room. So I have to accept the constitution as is without wanting anything to be changed about it? I can’t suggest the constitution be amended? So that’s why the constitution is EXACTLY the same is it was when it was written? No changes at all, right? Hmmm.
Legally, I’m bound by the constitution, but that doesn’t mean I have to LIKE everything about it. The constitution has lots of good stuff in it, it really does. But not everything. It makes no sense to me to say “I like free speech, so that means I have to like gun.” No. Sense. At. All.
We did, and she was tremendous.
Seriously Dude, I just find it hard to swallow when a liberal points at me and says, “Me pissing on this flag right here, is my first Amendment Right. My ability to pi$$ on everything the symbol stands for, and just dishonor the memory of thousands who died for my right to do this, is protected by the Amendment. HOLY $HIT you want a gun to defend your family against people doing illegal activity, my GOD that’s horrednous.” Sorry Rando, I don’t buy and find it actually disgusting. If I have to put up with half the stupid $hit in the first Amendment y’all can put up with legal citzens owning their right.
The constitution took her own sweet time in allowing folks like myself to vote (females), so I’m not as in love with her as you. The b!tch can grow, I’ll grant you that, but sometimes she just takes too darned long!
My beliefs aren’t subject to trade-offs, nor are they there to make you feel more or less disgusted. Forcing citizens to worship the flag or the country is disgusting IMO, and yeah, that’s what our military fights for. Those freedoms. However, I feel no guilt whatsoever in saying the 2nd amendment is wrong because I don’t think it’s actually a right. AT BEST a privilege. So IMO we’re comparing apples and oranges. Rights against non-rights.
So if I were to try and take your 1st Amendment from you, and say, “Rando you must worship Me as your god, and you can’t say anything about it, b/c I don’t believe in the 1st Amendment.” You’d be ok with that? B/c you know since people abuse the 1st, it really should go away. Maybe we should repeal woman’s right to vote, you know b/c most vote Democrat, and I don’t like that. That’s an abuse of their right. (not being serious, but just trying to show if you start taking one Amendment b/c of “abuse” or “fear” it’s a slippery slope to the others. And I thought in a “civil” society compromise was key to a peaceful society?)
Now see, I’m sticking to my beliefs here (almost said sticking to my guns, how ironic). That’s not even remotely hypocritical. I’d be betraying myself to say “well, I get my first amendent, so I can turn my back on something I feel strongly about.”
Of course I wouldn’t be okay with what you just said! And I don’t expect YOU to be okay with what I say. We’re arguing in circles on this subject yet again! We both fervently think the other one has their head up their ass on this issue, and that’s not gonna change!
Yeah? Well I can think of another person who I KNOW has their head up their @$$, and that trumps you both. So there.
*offers glycerin suppositories to Rando and ILPB, and then runs like a bunny*
But we didn’t call each other bad names.
**gives Rando a cookie**
So let’s agree to disagree is what you’re saying? I’m game. So how about poor Bret Seinbrener?
We can agree to disagree if next time you don’t bring me into it by name (which you did).
I skipped the All-Star Game because I anticipated it’d be all about Steinbrenner and nothing about the game, which is still meaningless despite the “World Series advantage.” I thought the home run derby was pretty cool though.
But the NL finally won. And scarey enought he winning pitcher was a National **shudders**
I only brought you in by name, b/c of the fact I knew what I was saying was 100% against what you thought… that’s all. It’s not like I said “B/C Rando’s a fvcking twat bag who’s moral are disgusting and can’t believe the a$$hat won’t let me have my fvcking RPG!”
I never said you insulted me. I just said you dragged me in by name, which you did. That’s all. And no RPG for you. Nobody likes a rocket whore.
But what if I only use it on people who drive Hummers and keep them idling in the “Fire Lane” so they can run into the store “for just a sec” to purchase their $10 Organic Flack Seed Prune Kiwi Alpha Alpha Soy shake, and then proceed to put their make-up on in the Fire-lane while on the cell phone, just in time to pull out and almost hit you and your kids crossing the parking lot. Oh and to then blare on their horn and yell at you for acutally being in the cross walk.
I’ll allow it.
If you’re planning on using RPGs on people who drive Suburban Useless Vehicles (SUVs), you have my blessings too.
Whoo-hoo **picks up RPG to go “Hunting”**
Paws, not all SUVs are bad. My wife drives one so we can fit eventually two kids, tow dogs and a cat in it to go visit family. However she only commutes 5 miles a day to her parking lot, where she catches a van.
I have to disagree with you on two counts – the constitution is not unique to America.
As far as I know, most or all western democracies have similar constitutions in place, guaranteeing the same basic human rights.
On the issue of the 2nd amendment – this is something that is less common – the swiss have a right (duty actually I believe) to be armed – but I know too little about the swiss to say with certainty that it is written in the constitution.
However, the original intent of the 2nd amendment was defense against any possible invasion by foreign forces (the British). Given that the US has a higher miliary budget than the rest of the world combined, I’d say this one is outdated – at least in its current form.
Nailord: Two things. The US Constitution is unique to America, hence the “US” part. There might be parts that other countires have similar ideas, but the US Constitution is an American document, by Americans and for Americans.
Original intent of the 2nd Amendment was NOT for foreign invaders, but actually to limit the power of the federal government. The whole point was an armed constituent is a lot harder to “oppress” than an unarmed one. The fact it was the 2nd Amendment, a) shows it’s importance and b) follows directly after Freedom of Speech which talks to expressing greivances about the Government to the Government. Therefore many a scholar (not just Conservatives b/c they are few and far between in the scholar business) has concluded the 2nd Amendment is about keeping the citizenry armed to limit the federal government.
Yes, I wasn’t arguing that other countries have the US constitution, just that having a constitution with these rights is not a unique thing that only the US has (with the exception of the 2nd amenment maybe).
Just trying to say that these ideals are the underlying principles for any western society – human rights, freedom of speech, etc.
On the 2nd amendment I cannot claim to be an expert, this is what I was told while in school in America (American history) – maybe it was wrong or maybe it is a disputed issue – I do not know.
But seriously? Let’s say for argument’s sake Chaney hadn’t content with just shooting his friends in the face (sorry couldn’t resist) and wanted to make America a police state – no private gun ownership in the world would prevent this from happening given the military might at his disposal.
Of course you could argue the military might not go along with such orders – but then they would oppose the government’s plan in any case with their arms.
In both scenarios you don’t need private gun ownership (handguns, semi- and automatic rifles etc.).
Did you not see what happened in Vietnam/ Afghanistan/ even Iraq. Not a single one of those countries had any real type of armor or air force, yet each with their gurilla tactics proved to be a tough, if not insurmountable force for our military. To the behest of our military, arguably the best equipped and best trained for any conventional war/ battle, but once you move to guerilla tactics, we have yet to master the art of winning.
Also the American public wouldn’t have a stomach to watch it’s own citizens beng butchered on TV, and good ole Darth Cheney wouldn’t have the support he needed.
(Note this is all conjecture as I do not believe this will happen, but I do believe in the Right to Bear Arms)
If the second was intended as a universal and unalienable right to arm bears, why does it talk so specifically about the use of firearms for hunting and/or as part of an organised militia?
Do mean why doesn’t it talk to hunting?
I don’t know, but it simply says;
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
The key statement there is “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” It doesn’t state that the Militia should be armed, and people should leave their weapons at the Militia sight. It doesn’t state only the Militia should be armed. It states that in oder to secure the State, a well regulted Militia is needed, and to have such a Militia the populace should have the right to keep and bear arms. Another key word there is “security”. Since the police can’t be everywhere, people have a right to defend themselves, for the Security of the State. You do know there is such a thing as a citizen’s arrest?
It starts by talking about the need for a “well regulated militia”, and then about the rights of the people. Since you no longer have state militias, I’d submit that your ability to belong to a body that requires to own and bear arms no longer exists, and hence that the right itself is archaic.
I could have sworn that I’d seen a version of the text that stated something about the right of the people to bear arms as part of a militia, or for hunting, but can’t remember where.
Paws: That could be a state version you were looking at.
However there are still Militias, and once again the 2nd gives us the right to have a Militia. Is a Militia necesarry, to some people yes, to other’s no. However I do believe it to be an unalienable right to defend oneself, and one’s home. A gun allows that to happen. The problem with the media is it doesn’t report “Failed Break-in; Owner was able to fend off robber by pulling a gun.” Nope all we hear about is “Gun in house kills kids.” Which actually doesn’t happen as often as someone defending themselves with a gun. IF we had a tired and true media that reported on equal basis of “good” instances of self defense and “bad” instances of self defense then y’all might be a bit more amazed at how many lives guns have actually saved.
Oh, and also,
Not use it in a violent manner?? What the fvck else is there to do with it? Clean the gutters? Open jars? It’s a GUN. It’s designed to KILL. End of story.
A gun is designed to kill, yes, but in the same way a car is designed to transport. If you use the abilities of either for evil (drug smuggling, killing people instead of animals and whatnot), then you’re misusing the intent. Neither is inherently evil.
It’s that whole designed to kill thing that creeps me out. I know that guns can be used for hunting or sport, but that doesn’t make it less creepy to me.
You know what creeps me out? Clowns.
And those little monkeys with the fez and cymbals.
No more Stephen King for you.
Clowns don’t scare me. A clown with a gun would scare me.
Clowns creeped me out before It, but thank you very much for bringing up that horrific childhood memory. What next, beating me with a stalk of celery?
What?
*hides celery behind her back*
I don’t think that would work very well. You know what would scare me? Celery…with a gun.
ZOMBIE celery with a gun
Zombie clown celery with a gun.
(See? Everything is scarier when you add “with a gun” to it. Is that a coincidence?)
I can make it scarier:
Zombie Rush Limbaugh clown with a celery.
See? You don’t need a gun for that.
That would make the clown scene near the end of Zombieland so much sweeter, though.
A POX ON YOU AND YOUR D@MN ZOMBIE CLOWN SCENE!!!!
I almost pooped myself when the clown popped up from under the bathroom stall at the beginning, and I physically couldn’t look at the screen when that stupid zombie clown came after him……
My wife almost threw up when he smashed that zombie’s head.
See Rando if anything that movie shows the need to have guns.
If we ever have the zombie apocalypse, ILPB, my zombied ass will tell you you were right before getting the shotgun to the face. And I’d go down fast as one of the fatties.
My firends and I were discussing the Zombie Apocoolypse, and were trying to figure out which Zombies would be the easiest to survive.
1) Original Night of the Living Dead Zombies:
– Slow lumbering, one on one easy to avoid
– However causes entire “dead” population to rise, and therefore would be extremely numerous
2) Dawn of the Dead (remake)/ Zombieland Zombies:
– Fast moving, limber, can climb
– However only spread with “infection” from bite and therefore less numerous
3) 28 Days later Rage Zombies
– Extremely fast, mobile, can climb use door knobs, etc…
– However only spread with “infection” from blood and therefore about as numerous as “Fast Zombies”.
– Still basically human, and therefore subject to starvation and hold up only need to be for about a month or two.
I voted for the first kind, b/c as a tubby I like slow moving.
You are leaving out something important, though not actually mentioned in the movie itself(if you watch the movie knowing this, you can see it’s true though). Dawn of the Dead zombies are blind. If you don’t make any noise, they won’t know you’re there.
What about a clown Zombie?
Double tap.
Now, the guillotine, that’s designed purely to kill and has no sporting or defensive use that I’m aware of.
Throwing stars. Those are pretty damn deadly.
But you can also hang them on the Christmas tree.
Make great ear rings.
It’s awesome at dealing with annoying heads of state. Just ask France. But it’s a lot harder to kill someone with that than with a gun now isn’t it?
“Okay, now, can you put your head here? Right here, yes. I’m, uh, gonna shampoo your hair. That’s it. You’re not going for this are you?”
A guillotine is just a really big SlapChop
You also realize in this economy there are families that use their gun to feed themselves.
Let me expand, for hunting.
Well, it would also make it easier to rob the grocery store if it came to it…
One could easily learn how to hunt with a longbow or crossbow or some other such. No guns needed.
There is a town on the border of the United States and Canada. People cross the border to work, play, eat, etc. they cross it, and cross it often. There are lots of Canadians and americans on each side. ONe year, there were 622 killings on the American side and 0 on the Canadian side. Why? Americans are allowed guns, Canadians aren’t.
Yes, lots of people use guns for hunting. But lots of people also use guns for killing people. If one looks at the paper daily, one notices a lot of fatal shootings.
When I see a gun, I think of killing. Not hunting, not cleaning sewers, killing. Guns are used by the military. For killing.
The second ammendment specifically says that guns are allowed for the intent of states keeping militias. Not for hunting.
You’re misreading the Constitution.
I have no problem with hunting, as my father’s buddy did it to help feed his family (4 kids), to supplement his salary with meat in the freezer. He did regular deer season, bow-and-arrow, muzzle-loader, and also duck and turkey. So I know for a fact that a real hunter does not need a semi-automatic rifle, a handgun or a machine gun.
I take it you’ve never tried to shoot a charging cougar or pig with a rifle?
A real hunter carries a handgun if he wants to shoot either of those quickly
Machine guns, not so much.
Feral pigs actually are a real danger in Texas; they are smart and vicious and fast as heck. Cougars I rather seriously doubt are a danger to hunters anywhere.
Consider that my husband was stalked by one the last time we went hunting, I beg to differ
“Stalked.” Did it ever actually approach him? Cougars are notorious for following people for miles, yet never approaching. (This is according to a cougar researcher who said that he often found tracks paralleling his own when he returned, but never even saw the cougars. Of course, that was in woodland that would conceal something ten feet away from you.)
This was in a partially overgrown deer lease. The cougar was about ten feet away from him and had been following him for a while. I’d rather not take the chance that it only wanted to follow him without approaching……when in doubt, err on the side of the cougar wanting to eat you.
Either which way, we carry handguns for them and for the pigs.
Rural Texas, Alaska etc are a complete different situation than urban areas. I’m VERY disappointed that the Supreme Court took away the right of a city to ban guns within their borders. Ain’t no feral pigs in Washington DC! Wackos and liars, but no cougars of the feline variety!
Maybe no feral pigs, but there are feral humans living in urban areas
“Despite reports of mountain lion attacks on people in California, mountain lion attacks are rare. Only four attacks on humans in Texas have been reported since 1980, all of them in remote areas of West Texas. From 1890–2001, there were 98 attacks across the U.S. and Canada, 17 of those were fatal.” Texas Fish & Game (who actively solicits info on cougar sightings apparently).
Yeah, I stand by my statement. People kill cougars because they want to, not because of any need. The pigs now, they are a clear and present danger. And tasty.
Don’t forget the .50 Cal rifle for the Grizzlies. Nothing else can really pierce the skull.
If you’re being aware, you have time for a shotgun for a cougar, with better stopping power and a wider killzone. If you aren’t, you only have random chance to rely on with a handgun, because if it does pounce, it won’t be from a distance (cougars are leapers not sprinters).
I don’t know much about the Feral Pigs, other than stories, so I’ll take your word for the need for a handgun.
GB, you’re right, but it’s difficult to pack both a rifle and a shotgun while deer hunting. Not to mention illegal. You can only carry one long gun while hunting, along with a handgun.
That’s why you draw straws for who gets shotgun duty. Or Do you not team hunt down there.
If by “team hunt” you mean both carrying rifles and seeing who can shoot the first deer, then yes, we team hunt
When hubby and I go hunting, he’s carrying a 7Mag and I’ve got a 30-06. We’re both armed with pistols, and that’s it. No other weapons except for the hunting knife he carries.
Cricket: Those girls can be considered a weapon, concealed or otherwise.
GB, there was a really good special on the feral pig problem. I think it was on Animal Planet. They are truly nasty and vicious, a great reminder of why introducing species is definitely not a good thing. Apparently they have Eurasian pig blood also. Unlike cougars or wolves, which generally disdain contact with humans (although cougars do exhibit normal cat curiosity), the pigs will come after you with a vengeance, preferring to attack rather than run away. From the special, it seemed as if their motto is “The best defense is a really aggressive offense.”
Mabs: It actually was normal domestic pigs. Once released into the wild it takes less than a month for them to become feral (e tusks grow to dangerous lengths and aggression). At least the special I saw. I wouldn’t want to know about the other pigs with Eurasia blood in them.
one of those discovery channel programs did an episode on the feral pig population — russian wild boars have been introduced to our feral pig population (dna proven), now the pigs are averaging 500 lbs, with 700-800 not unexpected, and because they’ve got the russian bloodlines, they get hairy and can survive in deep snow for long periods of time. they are moving north, and if they can survive siberia, they can survive anywhere on the continent. these packs also exhibit slightly different behavioral patterns than non-russian influenced packs. including pack size – and they breed like rats!
for guns, there is nothing wrong with carrying a semi-auto for much of anything that requires a rifle, and i’d much rather be able to get off a second shot if needed than track a wounded deer or elk for miles
ILPB, what BF said. THAT was the one I watched. I remember how BIG they got.
Who the heck told you we weren’t allowed guns? We have more guns per capita than the US does (of course most of our guns are long guns not pistols but we still have guns). We have tighter regulations regarding training, licensing and transport, but we’re not exactly unarmed. Just because being armed isn’t a constitutional right up here doesn’t mean we aren’t anyway.
Who was that too? I know Canadians have rifles, too much GREAT land for hunting. But really handguns are what my main concern is. And to surprise Rando and others, I’m all for the assault rifle ban (as long as collectors can get the guns rigged for Semi-Automatic for collection purposes). No one needs a fully automatic rifle, those are just too dangerous. That and RPGs.
Sorry ILBP, that was aimed at Dagon Excesltraun. Specifically the “Americans are allowed guns, Canadians aren’t.” comment.
Ok gotcha, couldn’t scroll up. **walks away with RPG under trench coat**
Even though I am against public gun ownership, I have to confess, I would LOVE to shoot an RPG on a range.
AND if you use a bow instead of gun, the meat is supposed to taste better. I have a friend that used to go hunting with her dad all the time, and they only used… I think they were composite crossbows. THey hated the wat that bullets made the meat taste. Or something.
depend what meat you want. A Brain shot (which really isn’t an efficient way to hunt) wouldn’t effect the meat. Only with a heart/ gut shot could you possibly get some residue in the meat. However a good butcher could cut that right out. Had all tpyes of meat from a deer (bow/ muzzle loader/ 30-06) couldn’t really tell a difference. Now a doe to me tastes much better than a buck.
I think her and her dad also butchered their own meat. I dunno, something about the correlation of the bullet and the meat that they didn’t like. However, they went bear hunting, with bows. I think they were nuts, but that’s just me. Though they did both use composite bows, which are pretty powerful.
And I can agree with that. Some of my dad’s friends that hun have brought back both. I like doe better than buck.
Also people collect guns without the intent to use them. Believe it or not.
Yeah, but if I had a collection of different poisons above the fireplace, you’d likely think I was nuts.
But not necessarily out to kill people.
That you know of. MWHAHAHAHA!!!
i know some people that i’d like you to met. you might even be a polite host and offer them some of your ‘special’ c0cktails? please?
Ever see Arsenic and Old Lace?
Dude some of the pre-industrial era Muskets are a work of art. Plus I wish I had gotten my Grandpa’s Luger.
I believe that; of course, if you don’t intend to use a firearm, you don’t actually need to own any ammunition for it, do you?
Do you know how hard it is to find ammunition for a pre-industrial era musket? You have to melt the lead balls yourself.
Let’s not forget you can also collect guns to shoot them. It’s surprisingly relaxing to let off some steam on a poor piece of paper or pig carcass.
No; we don’t fear guns themselves, but the morons who think that owning a gun allows them to defend themselves. In more than 50% of shootings by intruders in the USA in domestic homes, the weapon used was owned by a resident in the property.
Paws: Ummm that stat has been proven to be false. Also the “more concealed weapons lead to more shooting crimes” has been de-bunked as well.
Here are some numbers that probably won’t change your mind, but hopefully will make you think:
a) In America last year about 0.05% of Permit holders lost theri permit due to reckless/ illegal actions.
b) In America last year roughly 10% of drivers lost their license due to driving infractions/ drunk driving/ illegal activity.
c) Therefore a person getting a drivers license is more likely to abuse the priveledge of driving than someone with a concealed weapon. Yet driving isn’t a Constitutional right.
I see where you’re going with this ILPB, and I completely agree. We need tougher driving laws!
There should be a 10 week wating period on all Car Purchases. Just b/c you have a license doesn’t mean you don’t need a background check to buy a car.
I know you’re joking, but really cars kill more people a year than guns, yet you don’t see such standards on purchasing a car.
Let’s look at Chicago’s new gun laws (you know thos laws to compeltely skirt around the constitution, and I would equate to almost Jim Crowesk laws.)
1. Can not take you gun ouside the home, including backyard/ porch/ or garage = You can’t drive your car on the streets, it must stay in the driveway, if the place you need to go is outside your driveway, then you are just SOL or call a tow truck to tow you outside the city.
2. Firearms sales will be banne din the city = You can’t buy your car in the city, you have to purchase it away from your home.
3. Gun training totaling four hours in a classroom and an hour on a firing range will be required before getting a permit. But firing ranges are banned, so training must be completed outside Chicago. = You have to take drivers traing course (which I’m ok with to a point) however you’re not allowed to take the course in the city, so you have to take a bus outside the city to take your driving course.
4. To transport a gun, it will have to be “broken down,” not immediately accessible, unloaded, and in a firearm case = In order to drive you car you need to have the gas tank empty, accelerator disabled, and the car in “N” the whole time.
5. Permit-bearing owners also must individually register each gun they own within five days of purchase and are allowed to register only one handgun per 30-day period, Weis said. The registration fee is $15. = You can only buy one care every 30 days.
Once you change it from a gun (which is a constitutional right) to a far more dangerous object a car (which isn’t even constituionally protected) doesn’t it sound pretty FUBAR? Sounds pretty backa$$ward to me.
Actually, I’m only halfway joking, and I agree with you, FWIW.
And how many of those were “automotive homicides” rather than the result of a momentary misjudgement? There is no misjudgement with an assembled weapon; either it’s pointed at someone or it isn’t.
When you dirve drunk, it’s considered “automotive manslaughter”. So I’m guessing quite a few.
That’s playing with semantics and/or state-specific I think. Not that I disagree with the principle, although is it compatible; I mean, are you allowed to carry firearms whilst drunk?
According to Chicago you can’t carry a gun, period. Well unless you’re in your house.
Actually you can lose your Concealed Weapons permit, Hunting License, etc if you’re found to be using a fire arm drunk. You can acutally lose those things for driving drunk (which has nothing to do with fire arms, yet people argue has to do with your mental judgement.)
You can lose your license if caught hunting or driving drunk? I wish someone would tell some of the hunters I keep hearing about!
Depends on the state. Most states won’t alow permits to anyone with DUI on their record (of course the DUI disappears after 7 years)
Can’t you take your DUI to court, pay extra, and have it off your record immediately? I know up here, in some parts of Canada, you can… I think. o-O
“There is no misjudgement with an assembled weapon; either it’s pointed at someone or it isn’t”
Considering people mishandle guns a lot, I think you’re wrong.
Also if a lover were to shoot another lover, people would be out in droves for gun protection, etc la ti da.
How many people were out in droves of Caddy protection when on video that woman ran over her husband, not once, not twice, but four times.
I liked that though, trying to dissuade from the fact a car kills more people than guns, but a gun is still more dangerous. Why not look up, how many murders done by handguns were done with legally obtained guns?
Answer on the way, as soon as a mod figures out that I meant to refer to a penised gun!
“Considering people mishandle guns a lot, I think you’re wrong.”
This does not help your argument.
People mishandle a car alot. People mishandle a phone a lot. People mishandle construction equipment a lot. And if you’re in DC people mishandle a Metro Bus or Metro Train a lot.
If I mishandle a phone, someone doesn’t get shot in the head. Now, if I mishandle a car, yes, someone can easily be killed from that. But you get fewer fvck up chances with a gun than with most things. These are seriously dangerous devices here, and you totally act like everyone should have the damn things. *shudder*
I do. In fact, for my daughter’s 3rd birthday I plan on getting her a pink Glock .45.
Hardy har har.
if he was serious about that i fear for humanity
If you think that Cricket is either male or making a serious statement there, then I fear for humanity!
See, this is why I don’t have a problem with the government saying “You can have a gun or guns, but you have to go through a safety class first in order to do so legally.” I don’t buy the whole slippery-slope “that’s the first step to them taking our guns away” argument. I actually think a properly trained population of gun owners would REDUCE pressure by voters scared of guns to ban them by increasing safety and reducing accidents.
^^ This. And requiring gun lockers or cabinets. My father had hunting rifles (always safely unloaded), but he never locked them up. I never did like that. We gave them all to his hunting buddy after the funeral, to distribute as he saw fit. I didn’t want anyone breaking into my mother’s house to steal those rifles!
I think I could compromise my views on guns if what you two said was strictly enforced. Mostly I don’t want kids to have access to guns. And not that it really helps much, but if your kid finds your gun and shoots himself or another, YOU get charged with murder. Life, no parole. Maybe if people thought they’d spend the entire rest of their lives in prison for leaving their gun somewhere stupid they’d take better care of it.
I can agree with that, although I think requiring people to have their guns either locked up or broken down and THEN locked up is silly, especially in places where a properly trained-for weapon is the only thing between you and death.
That’s kind of like saying you can have a car but can’t have gas, and have to have the gas pedal disabled, oh and it must be kept in the garage. I grew up in a house where guns were all around, most of my friends did too. My dad taught me at a young age to respect a gun, taught me what it could do. It was his responsibility as a gun owner to do that, not the government’s job. Just like as my driving teacher it was my mom’s job to teach me not to drive distracted, to respect the speed laws (oops), and use my turn signal etc. I think people are too reliant on the Government to mandate teachings, rather than take the responsibility on themselves. Once again, the government got it’s hands into something and made people take less responsibility. Back in the good ole days, you rarely heard of Lil Timmy blowing his head of with Daddy’s shotgun while Daddy was toiling the fields.
Once again my wife shares all of y’alls thoughts which is why I don’t have a gun in the house, but if it was up to me, I would have no problem having a gun properly stored, however one easily accessable. That’s just me though. I don’t fear guns, don’t understand a fear of guns, have had guns pointed at me and still don’t fear them. I fear words more than guns, b/c words are what start revolutions, guns are what stops them.
If you’re expecting people to take responsibility for their guns, you’re going to be sorely disappointed. And as far as I’m concerned, it shows a definite lack of concern for your fellow man if you think guns should be “easily accessible” by anyone. There are FAR too many idiots out there, and guns are not toys. Idiot+gun=5 o’clock news. Idiot+child+gun=horrible tragedy that could have been prevented. I know you hate government anything, but saying people can regulate their own gun use is flat out, without a nice way of putting it, fvcking retarded. And all the children who have died at the hands of idiots who couldn’t own a gun responsibly are backing me up on this one I’m sure.
Makes me think you enjoy messing with raw data. Those stats do not imply the conclusion you made, but merely show that more people are CAUGHT violating the terms of their driver’s licenses. Period. If you actually adjusted those stats for how many hours police spend enforcing the two sets of laws respectively and for the relative percentages of time that people actually utilize each of those permits, then you might be able to make a meaningful comparison.
A point which I also made, but is awaiting a moderator to figure out that there is nothing obsene about a penised gun!
Really Mabs? REALLY? Everytime someone puts up a statistic that’s counter to your argument you call it a strawman, but every stat you put up is dead on, and GaWD forbid someone call it a strawman. I’m really fvcking tired of it. It’s fvcking relavent. WHY? B/c your bias says it ain’t.
Simple fact a car is just as dnagerous as a gun, YET the liberals who are anti-gun in this world can’t seem to fathom that. Let’s regualte guns EVEN though they are a Constitutional Right, but any fvcking moron after passing one test can get a license, but let’s not regulate that (even though it’s only a priveledge). Or better yet I can go through the Chicago Gun Law on the 1st Amendment if you want. Or how about the 14th or 15th Amendment.
Bottom line: More people in America are killed by cars than guns, YET guns have to be the thing regulated. BS!
Your conclusion isn’t valid from the data given. Sorry that you have a hard time dealing with the reality of that. Perhaps it’s YOUR bias that’s the problem here.
I never said anything about the rest of your comments. Personally I think most people are too stupid to own guns, but I also think people are too stupid to be allowed to drive. But thanks for making assumptions about what I think about the two subjects based on my political beliefs (also two unrelated pieces of data).
Paws, you just have to learn to stop using those norty words. That particular one always causes problems because it’s in so many names as well. My favorite is that you cannot use the word that means laughing that includes the n-word; ie, no s-blackperson-s. It would be nice if they just bounced your post with a ‘censored word’ message, so you could remove the ‘offensive’ item.
Actually, ISTR that you have hunting and carry concealed permits? If so, I think the fact that you disagree with him says all that needs saying about ILPB’s argument.
Actually it’s b/c Mabs loves to tear up any analogy I do. Go back in history and you’ll see it. I think it’s a game to her now.
That wasn’t an analogy. You were, as Paws puts it, comparing apples and cheese statistically. I seldom even reply to you, so I’m not sure how you’re arriving at the idea that I have any significant interest in your ‘analogies.’ But thanks for reminding why I don’t usually reply.
Yes b/c you were so polite, accusing me of manipulating data, saying I have no meaningful comparison……. maybe if you tired to reply without some sort of air of surperiority, it might work better.
Paws: Ummm that stat has been proven to be false. Also the “more concealed weapons lead to more shooting crimes” has been de-bunked as well.
Here are some numbers that probably won’t change your mind, but hopefully will make you think:
a) In America last year about 0.05% of Permit holders lost theri permit due to reckless/ illegal actions.
b) In America last year roughly 10% of drivers lost their license due to driving infractions/ drunk driving/ illegal activity.
c) Therefore a person getting a drivers license is more likely to GET CAUGHT abusing the priveledge of driving than someone with a concealed weapon. Yet driving isn’t a Constitutional right.
There Mabs is that better for you. Is it now compaing crab apples to Macintosh apples?
I still think most people are too stupid to be allowed to do either.
No, I don’t hunt, but I do target shoot occasionally and own (with my husband) a fair number of guns, plus assorted sharp objects that are not legal in the UK. I’ve never seen a reason for a CCW. Last time someone with a CCW intervened in a crime here, he missed the criminals entirely and severely wounded a couple of innocent cars. My experience is that most people are not nearly as good a shot as they think they are, even at the range. (A bit like they are not nearly as good at driving as they think they are.
)
That’s 2 people who’re saying that you’re comparing apples with cheese in your statistics, just on ignoring the fact that meaningful “this is more dangerous than that” statistics are compiled as “undesirable events per [natural] hours use”. How is this wrong, simply because you’re being called on misuse of statistics? I’m not saying that your data are wrong; just that they’re not actually compatible with each other.
The sole function of a gun is shooting things; the purpose of a vehicle is transportation. Setting out to kill or injure someone with a vehicle is a rare event; setting out to shoot something (inanimate target or animal {including people}) is pretty much the only thing you can do with a gun that requires the posession of ammunition!
What ever! If that’s how you feel you can justify why guns are “Bad mmm’kay” and need regulation, by means let it be. Bottom line, Liberals who want Gun control really have no leg to stand on, but love to throw out “Guns are dangerous Mm’kay” argument, when the proof is in the pudding, something that is used for transportation and NOT intended to kill causes more deaths in this country than something that is intended to “kill”. **shakes head**
Sorry guess my definition of something causing more deaths means it’s dangerous is absurd, but hey *dons clown and nose and runs around the room*
Brilliant! Touché ILPB!
Causes more deaths because there are more cars than guns, I’m assuming. The idea of suggesting a lethal weapon is less dangerous than the most common mode of transportation is ludicrous.
Actually either mis-used is just as dangerous. I think that’s the point that’s been over looked by the anti-gun advocates. Remember the streets of DC will run red with the blood of innocents if the ban is lifted, hmmm how’s that murder rate in DC now, oh yeah, down. It could be a coincidence, but it certainly wasn’t the sky rocket in crime one expected, especially in this economy. Even the mayor has a hard time now explaining it, but instead of eating crow he makes excuses and says, “Just wait and see, you’ll see.” Funny how the highest murder rate by gun in DC were the two years directly after the DC Gun ban went into effect. Another coincidence, too many piling up here.
If you can’t or won’t accept that a meaningful comparison of how “dangerous” 2 objects are requires a comparison of “dangerous” occurances per use period, then we really are wasting our time here.
I’m not even calling for a gun ban; just asking you to learn sufficient statistics to understand that if 2 activities occur over very different numbers of user hours per calendar year, it’s not automatically true to say that because more undesirable events per year are associated with the activity that racks up more user hours per year, the object associated with that activity is the more dangerous.
This is why I kind of like the way getting my liscence works up here. I’m in Alberta, Canada. There are 3 steps to getting your full liscence:
The way it works is you can get your learner’s liscence (must drive with an adult/someone with a full liscence in your FRONT seat passenger seat at all times) by doing a written test. The reason it is called a learner’s permit is because that adult with their full liscence sitting in your passenger seat is supposed to be telling you how to drive properly. YOu can also have no more than 3 people in the car, including yourself. THere is a zero-alchohol tolerance rule. (Our legal limit is 0.08; learners means you can not drink and drive at ALL, or your lisence is suspended for 3-6 months)
The second step Is your Graduated(sp?) Driver’s Liscence, or GDL. To obtain your GDL, you must have had your learner’s permit for two years, done a road safety training/driver’s education course, and then finally pass a road test with strict, sometimes stupid rules. This is NOT a full liscence, and has a zero-alcohol tolerance rule. (Also a 3-6 month liscence suspension, and I think you have to redo your road test… not sure on the last part though)
The final step is getting your full, regular driver’s liscence. You must have no collisions/infractions on your record for at least a year, and you must also have had your GDL for at least 2 years. You can not exceed a blood-alchohol content (BAC) level of 0.08, and even then, most people get their liscences suspended for 6-12 months for having that, because alchohol affects most people differently. I believe that the 0.08 is the average, with women (usually ones with less body mass) have a tolerance of more along the lines of 0.05-0.06, and some men have one of about 0.1. I don’t know the correct statistics, but it is still a heafty fine if you’re caught.
The thing I don’t like is that I believe drivers should be retested every 5 years, and seniors should be retested every 3 (The worst drivers I’ve seen have been the elderly, or girls my age, and it nausiates me…). I also think that doing your makeup and driving, or texting and driving, should earn you a 3month suspension of your lisence… But that may just be me…
Most US states have a similar program, but the time periods are shorter, which I think is a real mistake. We are finally getting around to automatic license suspension for DWI. I also would like to see retesting of drivers; unfortunately, I think it’s just too expensive and it would be political suicide for any politician to suggest that people actually pay a reasonable fee for the testing. Oh, and add using a cell phone, especially texting, to reasons for automatic license suspension.
How about driving REALLY slow in the passing lane? Suspension or execution?
Execution. I can not STAND when I’m going 110km/h (about 65-70m/h) down the highway, and someone’s doing 80 in the passing/fast lane. Seriously? If you’re afraid of the road, DON’T FVCKING DRIVE ON IT.
Quick test to see if you’re being “That Person”. Look in fornt of you, is the highway clear of traffic? Yes.
Look behind you is there a ton of traffic?
Yes.
You’re that a$$hat!
EXACTLY. Most people don’t care, and they’re terrified of going faster than 80km/h. Drives me insane. I’ve been stuck behind people going 60km/h on a 100km/h stretch of road… I can tell you that THAT irks me to no end.
Especially when they have ‘slow vehicle pullouts’ as some of our highways do.
So then it’s execution.
Sorry about earlier, I just really get annoyed about the “Your argument has no validity” reply, when I’m not trying to be an a$$hole about things, just trying to show som interesting numbers. Should not have lost my cool.
Apology accepted. It’s actually an interesting and, I think, relevant statistic. Most people should definitely NOT be allowed to drive cars.
And you KNOW that’s just the way I ‘talk.’ I’m sorry if you felt I was picking on you.
Remember: Meat Head Conservative.. need to use soft low tones and words, preferably mono-syllabic words as well.
You see I revised the point.
Mabs–leave Cpt. Wow out of this!
You don’t have to have a road safety training or driver’s education course to get your GDL or your full license here in Alberta. It would be a good idea, but it’s not currently happening. Driver’s training can lower your insurance, but it doesn’t affect whether you get your license or not.
Lol, well, I took it because my school had it for, basically, free. It SHOULD be manditory, I think, is what I was trying to say. I have had very little sleep, and I am immune to the wonders of caffiene. D: Sorry, lol.
Oh, don’t apologize!! I’m currently taking courses to get my driver’s license, which is why all this stuff is in the front of my head LOL (Yes, I am 38 years old and do not have my driver’s license. Please feel free to make fun of me)
That’s cool that you’re getting it. My stupid niece hasn’t gotten hers, even though she’s a photographer and we offered to host her for a week or more so she could shoot the southwest, but she’d need to be able to drive around.
I finally bit the bullet. 10 years in accident injury law will scare the heck out of you.
My grandmother is aproaching 90 and never had a driver license. Grandpa drove everywhere, and they were from a different generation, one that believed that the woman did for the man if the man allowed her to. I think it sucks for her…..married at 16, two kids by the age of 19, and living poor in the mountains with a man who didn’t feel she should learn anything.
I’m glad my dad isn’t that way.
On a lighter note, I agree with mabs that most people shoudln’t be allowed to drive. That way, they wouldn’t be impeeding my progress down the road.
Nucky, ours varies from state to state as you probably know, but in most places you only need the driver’s training classes if you’re under 18.
That would be a great idea. They don’t require it here. You can get your learner’s at 14…but you cannot qualify for a full license until 18 and you can’t get your GDL until 16. But you still don’t need lessons. My son will be taking lessons. LOL
The driving lessons I found to be really good because the instructor has their own brake, so the student KNOWS they can’t really do anything stupid. This allows them to relax a little and concentrate on the driving. I started my son in a huge private parking lot (it’s legal to drive on private property without a license).
Blahhhh, Should have remembered that too, I’m 20, and my sister is 16, and she just got her full driver’s liscence…
LACK OF SLEEP HUTS THE BRAAAAAAAAAAIN!
… Hurts**
*sends pain reliever…and chocolate*
Ooo, chocolate. I really want chocolate now… CURSE YOU! D:
… However, this makes me remember I’m making peanut butter & chocolate chip cookies tonight when I get home from work… omnomnomnom…
It varies a fair bit between provinces as well up here as well. For example, in Saskatchewan Drivers Ed is mandatory and part of High School. Of course, insurance is government run (your license IS your insurance) which so it makes sense for them to emphasize drivers education in public school (waits for the inevitable pinko Canuckistani comments).
Ignore the repetitive nonsense of the first sentence. I just spent ten min broken-recording a customer and now I’m talking in circles…
A CAR is fvcking useful for something besides killing! Most of the time you use a car, someone doesn’t get killed! You can’t say that with guns! You can’t get rid of everything that kills people because that would be everything. However, guns are an item designed to kill others. If they made a car designed to kill people, I’d want it banned too.
Obviously you’ve never used a swiss army gun. Swords are designed to kill people, should we ban them?
Actually you can use a gun not to kill there are hundreds of times growing up I went to a gun range with my dad, and I’ve yet to kill someone using a gun.
Also there is a car designed to kill people, it’s called a Toyota.
Well played on the Toyota joke.
The world would be a better place without weapons, but that’s just my silly liberal hippie peace loving naivety coming through. You know, I don’t own any swords or any guns. Interesting.
And congrats on not killing anyone. However, others have.
It also doesn’t take into account that there are more people with drivers licenses than weapons permits.
Percentages do.
The only percentages in your statistics are the ones about people getting caught. That doesn’t take into account that more people hold drivers licenses than CCWs.
That kind of was Mabs point.
A while ago, I was talking with my ex’s mom before she was my ex (the girl, not the mom), and she said that she was in bed and her husband came into the room, and the first thing she did was to go for the gun. For killing, justified as “self-defence”. and it was her husband.
One could call it an accident if she had shot, or a mistake. But she would have been fully aware that she was pulling the trigger, that someone was about to be killed.
Yes Officer, i do have a permit for my tank. Whats that? i ran over some pedestrians!?
But, if I’m a commie, I still can’t park my T-80? -_-
Wolverines? Please, Russians, or some Asians always were on their place.
T-80SMT!? Please; it’s got 6 roadwheels, so it’s more likely to be a British Chieftain with one of the “Stillbrew” armour kits on it.
So, I can bring an M16 if it’s HALF-concealed?
Happy to see ppl with a sense of humor outnumber the gun nuts here.
Liberal bias WIN!
You really are an a$$tard you know that? You’re superiority complex needs to go somewhere else and get popped like a pimple.
WIN
So you have to drive your tank around while it is covered in blankets? Seems a little dangerous to me…
Then again it would be a concealed weapon and also not allowed.
I’VE GOT IT! It must be hidden in plain sight. Hope its a Transformer.
Oh, and my one comment on the anti gun things: Banning (hand) guns doesn’t prevent or affect all the people with illegally obtained guns, you know, the people who are likely to use them.
I guess you could say that a normal person with a legal gun could flip out one day, but I have a feeling they could still do some damage without a gun.