TerminalSaint posted:

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Firearms manufactures generally aren't in the habit of selling guns illegally, so of course there will be a legal sale at some point in the life of the gun.

cheerfullydrab posted:

From what I can tell the guy is saying that all the crime in the US happens in urban neighborhoods where "those people" live, so it would be wrong to do anything to keep blammo death machines out of the hands of scared white people.

TerminalSaint posted:

When I first saw that I kept waiting for him to bring race into it outright.

I personally feel he actually makes some good points; specifically rifles being uncommon in crimes and much more importantly, poverty being a root cause of violent crime. If anything I'm happy that so many conservatives are watching and agreeing with a video that explicitly states poverty, employment, and education need to be addressed. It's a shame the conclusion seems to be that a higher bar to gun ownership wouldn't help, though.

quote:

Dear Gabby Giffords, please fall in a hole and stay there. Just because you got shot doesn't make you the only person, or even government official, to ever have been shot at. Your idiotic tirade against guns is nonsense. I'll introduce you to people who have really been targeted, people who have actually "come under fire", people who are true American heroes that have done far more for this country than your pathetic rear end has ever done. The vast majority will tell you that guns are not the problem. You're a loving dumbass for not listening.

People want to ban hi-cap magazines. What if someone is panicking and has trouble hitting the target? Should that person risk being raped and killed because they aren't expert marksmen? No. If they happen to have a hi-cap magazine loaded up, they have more chances to defend themselves in the heat of the moment.

The loving Constitution (Democrats know this better as "that fancy, soft toilet paper stuff") does NOT (NOT NOT NOT) say "the right of the people to keep and bear arms can be limited and controlled to whatever extent the government feels necessary". It actually says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." SHALL NOT, you dumb bitch. Go fall in a hole, and take all the rest of the gun haters with you.

/end rant

Laranzu posted:

I keep a friend on Facebook specificly for posts like this. He has had worse. Much worse. Pretty surpised he hasn't found freep yet.

Token Cracker posted:

The problem for me isn't so much the class/race blaming it's that he made a video in response to media discussion of gun violence in the US following a mass shooting, smugly (SO SMUG) chastises the media for not accurately presenting the available data, then proceeds to not accurately present the available data by totally ignoring gun related crime stats. His argument is trash.

Wang_Tang posted:

The Sin of Onan posted:

Oh come on! Who on Earth could possibly oppose elected officials being paid to serve? This guy is outright stating that government should only be open to the rich!

Did Hitler Want War? posted:

On Sept. 1, 1939, 70 years ago, the German Army crossed the Polish frontier. On Sept. 3, Britain declared war.

Six years later, 50 million Christians and Jews had perished. Britain was broken and bankrupt, Germany a smoldering ruin. Europe had served as the site of the most murderous combat known to man, and civilians had suffered worse horrors than the soldiers.

By May 1945, Red Army hordes occupied all the great capitals of Central Europe: Vienna, Prague, Budapest, Berlin. A hundred million Christians were under the heel of the most barbarous tyranny in history: the Bolshevik regime of the greatest terrorist of them all, Joseph Stalin.

What cause could justify such sacrifices?

The German-Polish war had come out of a quarrel over a town the size of Ocean City, Md., in summer. Danzig, 95 percent German, had been severed from Germany at Versailles in violation of Woodrow Wilson’s principle of self-determination. Even British leaders thought Danzig should be returned.

Why did Warsaw not negotiate with Berlin, which was hinting at an offer of compensatory territory in Slovakia? Because the Poles had a war guarantee from Britain that, should Germany attack, Britain and her empire would come to Poland’s rescue.

But why would Britain hand an unsolicited war guarantee to a junta of Polish colonels, giving them the power to drag Britain into a second war with the most powerful nation in Europe?

Was Danzig worth a war? Unlike the 7 million Hong Kongese whom the British surrendered to Beijing, who didn’t want to go, the Danzigers were clamoring to return to Germany.

Comes the response: The war guarantee was not about Danzig, or even about Poland. It was about the moral and strategic imperative “to stop Hitler” after he showed, by tearing up the Munich pact and Czechoslovakia with it, that he was out to conquer the world. And this Nazi beast could not be allowed to do that.

If true, a fair point. Americans, after all, were prepared to use atom bombs to keep the Red Army from the Channel. But where is the evidence that Adolf Hitler, whose victims as of March 1939 were a fraction of Gen. Pinochet’s, or Fidel Castro’s, was out to conquer the world?

After Munich in 1938, Czechoslovakia did indeed crumble and come apart. Yet consider what became of its parts.

The Sudeten Germans were returned to German rule, as they wished. Poland had annexed the tiny disputed region of Teschen, where thousands of Poles lived. Hungary’s ancestral lands in the south of Slovakia had been returned to her. The Slovaks had their full independence guaranteed by Germany. As for the Czechs, they came to Berlin for the same deal as the Slovaks, but Hitler insisted they accept a protectorate.

Now one may despise what was done, but how did this partition of Czechoslovakia manifest a Hitlerian drive for world conquest?

Comes the reply: If Britain had not given the war guarantee and gone to war, after Czechoslovakia would have come Poland’s turn, then Russia’s, then France’s, then Britain’s, then the United States.

We would all be speaking German now.

But if Hitler was out to conquer the world — Britain, Africa, the Middle East, the United States, Canada, South America, India, Asia, Australia — why did he spend three years building that hugely expensive Siegfried Line to protect Germany from France? Why did he start the war with no surface fleet, no troop transports and only 29 oceangoing submarines? How do you conquer the world with a navy that can’t get out of the Baltic Sea?

If Hitler wanted the world, why did he not build strategic bombers, instead of two-engine Dorniers and Heinkels that could not even reach Britain from Germany?

Why did he let the British army go at Dunkirk?

Why did he offer the British peace, twice, after Poland fell, and again after France fell?

Why, when Paris fell, did Hitler not demand the French fleet, as the Allies demanded and got the Kaiser’s fleet? Why did he not demand bases in French-controlled Syria to attack Suez? Why did he beg Benito Mussolini not to attack Greece?

Because Hitler wanted to end the war in 1940, almost two years before the trains began to roll to the camps.

Hitler had never wanted war with Poland, but an alliance with Poland such as he had with Francisco Franco’s Spain, Mussolini’s Italy, Miklos Horthy’s Hungary and Father Jozef Tiso’s Slovakia.

Indeed, why would he want war when, by 1939, he was surrounded by allied, friendly or neutral neighbors, save France. And he had written off Alsace, because reconquering Alsace meant war with France, and that meant war with Britain, whose empire he admired and whom he had always sought as an ally.

As of March 1939, Hitler did not even have a border with Russia. How then could he invade Russia?

Winston Churchill was right when he called it “The Unnecessary War” — the war that may yet prove the mortal blow to our civilization.

The Sin of Onan posted:

Oh come on! Who on Earth could possibly oppose elected officials being paid to serve? This guy is outright stating that government should only be open to the rich!

Dr. Arbitrary posted:

Well, it looks like enacting some serious reforms in an area where a lot of people are dying or getting hurt can actually yield HUGE results. Imagine if we took gun violence as seriously as we did healthcare reform.

baw posted:

Don't post screeds. People who get their news from image macros won't read a screed. Brevity is the most important thing in Facebook discussion.

Laranzu posted:

I keep a friend on Facebook specificly for posts like this. He has had worse. Much worse. Pretty surpised he hasn't found freep yet.

Troll Bridgington posted:

I usually don't have much crazy on my Facebook feed, but this popped up today:



I guess it's time to purge the friend list again.

Laranzu posted:

I keep a friend on Facebook specificly for posts like this. He has had worse. Much worse. Pretty surpised he hasn't found freep yet.

Evan Montegarde posted:

Ex-Gen. Stanley McChrystal endorsed gun control measures yesterday too, might play well with the military worship among these kinda people. Or they'll call him a traitor and lube up their guns while singing them lullabies one more time.

Evan Montegarde posted:

Ex-Gen. Stanley McChrystal endorsed gun control measures yesterday too, might play well with the military worship among these kinda people. Or they'll call him a traitor and lube up their guns while singing them lullabies one more time.

bobkatt013 posted:

He is a General in name only.

Evan Montegarde posted:

Yes, thus the "Ex-" preceding it that I posted

Dude went down for talking poo poo about the Obama Administration too so maybe right-wingers would be more sympathetic to what he has to say? Ah, who am I kidding.

Laranzu posted:

I keep a friend on Facebook specificly for posts like this. He has had worse. Much worse. Pretty surpised he hasn't found freep yet.

Troll Bridgington posted:

I usually don't have much crazy on my Facebook feed, but this popped up today:



I guess it's time to purge the friend list again.

downout posted:

Facebook's found this gem:

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10200197848930023

The comments it's brought out of the woodwork are wonderful! Such insightful comments as: "Obama care at it's finest!".

Evan Montegarde posted:

Ex-Gen. Stanley McChrystal endorsed gun control measures yesterday too, might play well with the military worship among these kinda people. Or they'll call him a traitor and lube up their guns while singing them lullabies one more time.

Armyman25 posted:

My cousin posted this:



I don't even know where to start.

bobkatt013 posted:

Just found this on my facebook page http://www.nagr.org/obamasaysbanguns.aspx?pid=fb9. The kid who posted it used to be a hippy they he became a huge Ron Paul fan.

Armyman25 posted:

My cousin posted this:



I don't even know where to start.

Sarion posted:

Supreme Court already ruled that such a ban would be Unconstitutional. So case closed; way to be four years too late.

Sarion posted:

Sounds like a opportunity to link him to the Reagan editorial where he supported the Brady Bill.


The first time I saw this, I thought it was supposed to be a joke; making fun of the conspiracy macro in the bottom left of the image. Has it been adopted as a serious part of the "Obama conspiracy

KayTee posted:

I'm almost certain an iteration of this has been brought up before - this is a new iteration in Newspaper format with "Jan 2013" on it...

This loving thing...



Are there any decent responses to it?

I don't care if my own dad "unfriends" me over this. I've got to point out that some the "Jeremy Kyle Scroungers" in that article refer to me, his own mother, his mother-in-law, his sister, his brother, his sister-in-law, his brother-in-law... and him. Some stats and numbers for the others would be great to pad it out with too.