|
Best response to make his blood boil "Have you ever actually read the constitution, and I don't mean the 4th grade level of reading 10 amendments from it. I mean the actual constitution. Thing is terrible. It's vague as hell and doesn't address poo poo for the 21st century so we're left with endless 5-4 supreme court decisions. I mean you wouldn't even have a right to privacy if it wasn't for activist judges activating all over the constitution and deciding privacy is implied by way of like four different amendments that never mention privacy." e: Or for something shorter but with probably the same blood boiling power, I guess you could just go with Constitution sucks man, you know who got theirs right? France 
Amused to Death fucked around with this message at 20:41 on Jan 23, 2013 |
#
?
Jan 23, 2013 20:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 01:54 |
|
|
What exactly is "NOBAMA's takeover of the US as we know it"? The feeling of utter dread that he may one day be the most powerful leader of the free world, the President of the United States of America?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2013 20:41
|
|
|
No, the best response is to now like the onion piece entitled "http://www.theonion.com/articles/area-man-passionate-defender-of-what-he-imagines-c,2849/" and say, "look they wrote an article about you too! "seiferguy posted:People react so hilariously to images that the feel attacks their character. I remember when a guy posted the "THEY DIDN'T CHANGE FERTILIZER AFTER MCVEIGH BOMBED OKC" and I calmly responded to that claim (and only that claim) saying that they did, and provided the source. Then someone immediately responded "SO YOU MEAN THEY SHOULD TAKE OUR GUNS, RIGHT? THEY WANT OUR GUNS" Years of being propagandized have conditioned some people into intellectual zombies. They can be totally awesome people in some regards, but as soon as you push that conditioned response button its full speed to crazy town. Heck Yes! Loam! fucked around with this message at 20:58 on Jan 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2013 20:42
|
|
|
People react so hilariously to images that the feel attacks their character. I remember when a guy posted the "THEY DIDN'T CHANGE FERTILIZER AFTER MCVEIGH BOMBED OKC" and I calmly responded to that claim (and only that claim) saying that they did, and provided the source. Then someone immediately responded "SO YOU MEAN THEY SHOULD TAKE OUR GUNS, RIGHT? THEY WANT OUR GUNS" I don't know what causes people to live in constant fear of these things.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2013 20:52
|
|
|
oshuaj posted:I liked an Onion headline on facebook, and now my Limbaugh-fan uncle is having a very heated argument with me, except I haven't argued back really so I think he might have lost his mind? I think we can go ahead and make a rule that "if you feel the urge to respond three times in rapid succession to a Facebook status before anyone responds to you, YOU might be a reactionary douchebag!"
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2013 21:02
|
|
|
Goddammit. I had mentioned on facebook that a studio I previously worked for was closing. Of course, one of my parents chimes in with typical "blame Obama and his healthcare/increased wages bills!". I clarified to them that their holding company was dumb as poo poo and made non-stop bad decisions that sunk the companies, and they still went on with "it doesn't matter what mistakes the boardroom made, it's Obama's fault!". How loving desperate do you have to be to re-purpose bad news like this? 
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2013 21:30
|
|
|
I posted a funny face picture on facebook yesterday and within 15 minutes someone commented with a Paul Ryan joke. Politics is even in funny faces now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2013 21:41
|
|
|
miscellaneous14 posted:Goddammit. I had mentioned on facebook that a studio I previously worked for was closing. Of course, one of my parents chimes in with typical "blame Obama and his healthcare/increased wages bills!". I clarified to them that their holding company was dumb as poo poo and made non-stop bad decisions that sunk the companies, and they still went on with "it doesn't matter what mistakes the boardroom made, it's Obama's fault!". It's not about desperation, this is the upshot of decades--perhaps a century--of propaganda. It is a concerted effort by the capitalist class to convince the workers that they should never be held responsible for any failure.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2013 21:46
|
|
|
miscellaneous14 posted:Goddammit. I had mentioned on facebook that a studio I previously worked for was closing. Of course, one of my parents chimes in with typical "blame Obama and his healthcare/increased wages bills!". I clarified to them that their holding company was dumb as poo poo and made non-stop bad decisions that sunk the companies, and they still went on with "it doesn't matter what mistakes the boardroom made, it's Obama's fault!". Insert "thanksobama.gif" of guy spilling tray of food. But yeah, it's basically showing how well propaganda works.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2013 21:53
|
|
|
Sword of Chomsky posted:Years of being propagandized have conditioned some people into intellectual zombies. They can be totally awesome people in some regards, but as soon as you push that conditioned response button its full speed to crazy town. Don't bother. Either respond with incredulous sarcasm, which confuses crazy people because you appear to be agreeing with them and there's nothing to argue with, or play the "what" game until the clock runs out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2013 22:02
|
|
|
 Nobody messes with my Chucky!  But seriously, let me get this straight: with all these people talking about how a renewed AWB and magazine limits won't make a difference, don't you WANT a gun owner contributing to new laws?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2013 22:19
|
|
|
oshuaj posted:I liked an Onion headline on facebook, and now my Limbaugh-fan uncle is having a very heated argument with me, except I haven't argued back really so I think he might have lost his mind? "So you're saying my parents didn't raise me right?" Start working now to make that next family gettogether awkward as all gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2013 22:20
|
|
|
swiss_army_chainsaw posted:
What people who make images like that don't realize is "anti-gun" doesn't mean you just hate guns with a fiery passion, it means you oppose the widespread availability of them. So it makes it hilariously-childish that they're essentially saying "he claims he HATES guns, but if you see right here he's clearly using one!!".
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2013 22:43
|
|
|
This meme is desperately fishing for hypocrisy when there is none.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2013 22:50
|
|
|
swiss_army_chainsaw posted:This meme is desperately fishing for hypocrisy when there is none. I think its pretty hypocritical to create a system that denies the tools of self-defense to your constituents while using your political clout to bypass those restrictions.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2013 22:58
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:I think its pretty hypocritical to create a system that denies the tools of self-defense to your constituents while using your political clout to bypass those restrictions. ...Thats not how gun laws work.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2013 23:10
|
|
|
oshuaj posted:I liked an Onion headline on facebook, and now my Limbaugh-fan uncle is having a very heated argument with me, except I haven't argued back really so I think he might have lost his mind? "Don't speak of what you don't understand," is one of their catch phrases, like "sheeple."
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2013 23:15
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:I think its pretty hypocritical to create a system that denies the tools of self-defense to your constituents while using your political clout to bypass those restrictions. Please explain what system is being proposed that would deny the tools of self-defence to his constituents, or where Senator Schumer used his political clout to bypass any gun restrictions.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2013 23:17
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:I remember someone used to have a heavily linked/sourced post about all the stupid poo poo Ron Paul has done, said or stands for. Does anyone have it handy? Behold, the Paul Bomb
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2013 23:17
|
|
|
Amused to Death posted:Best response to make his blood boil "Have you ever actually read the constitution, and I don't mean the 4th grade level of reading 10 amendments from it. I mean the actual constitution. Thing is terrible. It's vague as hell and doesn't address poo poo for the 21st century so we're left with endless 5-4 supreme court decisions. I mean you wouldn't even have a right to privacy if it wasn't for activist judges activating all over the constitution and deciding privacy is implied by way of like four different amendments that never mention privacy." What's significant with France's constitution?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2013 23:24
|
|
|
w00tmonger posted:...Thats not how gun laws work. You've never dealt with a "May Issue' state like California. vyelkin posted:Please explain what system is being proposed that would deny the tools of self-defence to his constituents, or where Senator Schumer used his political clout to bypass any gun restrictions. The New York system is a highly regressive system which makes it extremely difficult to legally possess a firearm in the home, a license for carry is nearly impossible to get without being wealthy or well connected. Schumer possesses the highest tier of carry licenses which is not afforded to the common man, in addition he surrounds himself with police escorts often - in short he has campaigned forcefully to abrogate the rights of the populace as a whole while using his position to exercise that right to the fullest. Feinstein is in a similar situation. LeJackal fucked around with this message at 23:35 on Jan 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2013 23:27
|
|
|
Zuhzuhzombie!! posted:What's significant with France's constitution? Nothing(or maybe everything! I've never read it), it's just saying France is better than the US is generally a good way to rile up conservatives.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2013 23:30
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:You've never dealt with a "May Issue' state like California. Are you arguing that Schumer has a license to carry that cannot be achieved by others? Did you stop to consider that he has a pretty good reason to have that concealed carry license where others do not? It seems to me that you are trying to make an argument, but aren't actually doing so. In my eyes, Schumer is proving that a citizen can be pro gun legislation and still own and carry a gun for protection. He is the living proof that gun legislation does not prevent those who wish to legally carry from doing so.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2013 00:09
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:in addition he surrounds himself with police escorts often Goddammit, I'm a private citizen not involved in government or public life in any way. Where's MY police escort!? Seriously?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2013 00:43
|
|
|
swiss_army_chainsaw posted:Goddammit, I'm a private citizen not involved in government or public life in any way. Where's MY police escort!? If you provide incriminating evidence for a big organized crime case, they'll even pay for your plastic surgery. WHERE'S MY FREE FACELIFT, OBAMA?!
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2013 00:46
|
|
|
swiss_army_chainsaw posted:Goddammit, I'm a private citizen not involved in government or public life in any way. Where's MY police escort!? Why don't I get to command an army and appoint judges?  RembrandtQEinstein posted:Apologies if this has already been posted (it probably has) This has made the rounds on my facebook twice today. I found a good response that gets no answer(at least yet). "Forgetting everything else, like the fact this never happened, how would one even respond to something that doesn't exist. There's no universal health plan. Is it a vague reference to the public option that never happened because Obama personally killed it to ensure we'd buy insurance instead from our glorious corporate overlords so they wouldn't launch an all out attack on health care reform since there was a chance people may have got health care without them making profit on human misery.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2013 00:50
|
|
|
swiss_army_chainsaw posted:Goddammit, I'm a private citizen not involved in government or public life in any way. Where's MY police escort!? Pretty much, a lot of gun people think that 'fair' means a big box of AK's left at every block or something because then we all get them. The concept of need or contexts or whatever is out the window. Obummer gets an entire military to command, where's my drone?!
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2013 00:58
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:You've never dealt with a "May Issue' state like California. I'm from california. Lots of people I know have guns. They sell them in WalMart and pawn shops. It's unbelievably easy to get a gun in california. It's not even that hard to get a CCW permit judging from all the cracker rear end redneck contractors I know who carry because those shifty mexican day laborers might steal their tools or something. If California is your idea of an oppressive anti-gun police state, you're insane.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2013 01:07
|
|
|
Pfft you just dont get it! Mumble mumble leftist rhetoric are guns! How hard is it to get a ccw in NYC? Having some hoops to jump through seems like a good idea to me maybe.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2013 01:17
|
|
|
Has anyone heard about the "Benghazi Survivors"? One person on my FB feed rants constantly about how the Benghazi survivors need to testify instead of that "lying rear end bitch" Clinton.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2013 01:22
|
|
|
katlington posted:How hard is it to get a ccw in NYC? Having some hoops to jump through seems like a good idea to me maybe. http://www.usacarry.com/new_york_concealed_carry_permit_information.html quote:A license may be granted to an applicant who is of good moral character, who is over 21 years of age, who has not been convicted of a serious offense, who states if and when he has ever been treated for mental illness, who is not subject to a protective court order and to whom no good cause exists for the denial of the license. The age requirement shall not apply to persons honorably discharged from the military. Also, the license fee is $10. This is the kind of communist gun-grabber hellscape the NRA is warning us about. NYC is Literally Stalin.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2013 01:30
|
|
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:I'm from california. Lots of people I know have guns. They sell them in WalMart and pawn shops. It's unbelievably easy to get a gun in california. It's not even that hard to get a CCW permit judging from all the cracker rear end redneck contractors I know who carry because those shifty mexican day laborers might steal their tools or something. If California is your idea of an oppressive anti-gun police state, you're insane. Born and raised in California, and I've never had a problem purchasing or owning a gun here. I have shotguns, handguns, rifles, and antiques. There are plenty of places to shoot them and at no point has any tried to take them away from me. I suspect they never will either. I've got no issue with an AWB or even handgun bans. I don't have a CCW and don't really ant one. I shoot mostly because I was born into that lifestyle and it never really left me. I can't discuss gun issues with my family without them going full retard. Basically most people that own guns have no loving clue what a gun law looks like, what they actually do, or how they could be effective in preventing crime and gun related violence. They "know" in their guts without ever having to read any legislation that their rights are being taken away. They disagree with gun laws for the same reason they disagree with Obama on everything. Because they've been told to by their propaganda puppet masters. As soon as you push back on any intellectual level, their opinions and arguments fall to pieces. They aren't rational, and they don't care that people will continue to die because of their "rights." They are man-children, and they have people on the radio and TV who tell them that the evil black president is going to steal their toys away and make them eat broccoli.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2013 01:33
|
|
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:http://www.usacarry.com/new_york_concealed_carry_permit_information.html You do realize that's a "may issue" state, right? That means that you can fulfill all of the requirements laid out and still be denied a permit purely at the state's discretion, and the only way the denial will be overturned is if it's found in court that the denial was "arbitrary and capricious". You can be denied if someone didn't think your reason was solid enough (including people saying on other forums that if you put anything other than "hunting" or "target shooting" as your reason, you'll be denied in certain counties), and the fact that you were denied once can be used against you should you apply again, which discourages people from applying in the first place. It's not as simple as you're painting it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2013 01:50
|
|
|
drat Schumer must be one powerful motherfucker to be able to get through all that red tape. Administered by some arcane-rear end bureaucratic priests in rayon robes with censors pissing out legalese incense or something else suitably grimdark.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2013 01:54
|
|
|
Sword of Chomsky posted:Basically most people that own guns have no loving clue what a gun law looks like, what they actually do, or how they could be effective in preventing crime and gun related violence. They "know" in their guts without ever having to read any legislation that their rights are being taken away. They disagree with gun laws for the same reason they disagree with Obama on everything. Because they've been told to by their propaganda puppet masters. It isn't even all right wingers either. I'm fb friends with this guy I did some work for who's leftist as gently caress, works as an immigration lawyer and pro amnesty activist and he went completely off the deep end when this gun issue exploded, just started posting crazy rear end poo poo straight from every right wing cesspool on the internet. There's something in the gun issue that's just straight brain poison.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2013 01:57
|
|
|
Kugyou no Tenshi posted:You do realize that's a "may issue" state, right? That means that you can fulfill all of the requirements laid out and still be denied a permit purely at the state's discretion, and the only way the denial will be overturned is if it's found in court that the denial was "arbitrary and capricious". You can be denied if someone didn't think your reason was solid enough (including people saying on other forums that if you put anything other than "hunting" or "target shooting" as your reason, you'll be denied in certain counties), and the fact that you were denied once can be used against you should you apply again, which discourages people from applying in the first place. It's not as simple as you're painting it. I fail to see an issue here. Do you think they should have to give them out to anyone who applies for them? doesn't they defeat the purpose of the application process in the first place? Taking the decision away from the state basically means that there is no discretion over who gets a CCW and who doesn't. So ultimately your complaint is that there is a application process at all. 800peepee51doodoo posted:It isn't even all right wingers either. I'm fb friends with this guy I did some work for who's leftist as gently caress, works as an immigration lawyer and pro amnesty activist and he went completely off the deep end when this gun issue exploded, just started posting crazy rear end poo poo straight from every right wing cesspool on the internet. There's something in the gun issue that's just straight brain poison. I agree, it is not limited to any political ideology, but confirmation bias makes it seem like a right wing only problem. My best friend who is an actual socialist is the same way. as soon as the gun issue reared its head he wouldn't shut up about gun grabbers and OBAMA!!! Heck Yes! Loam! fucked around with this message at 02:10 on Jan 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2013 01:59
|
|
|
Kugyou no Tenshi posted:You do realize that's a "may issue" state, right? That means that you can fulfill all of the requirements laid out and still be denied a permit purely at the state's discretion, and the only way the denial will be overturned is if it's found in court that the denial was "arbitrary and capricious". You can be denied if someone didn't think your reason was solid enough (including people saying on other forums that if you put anything other than "hunting" or "target shooting" as your reason, you'll be denied in certain counties), and the fact that you were denied once can be used against you should you apply again, which discourages people from applying in the first place. It's not as simple as you're painting it. I don't live in such a state so I have no idea how frequently it happens, but it's a legitimate concern. EDIT: Sword of Chomsky posted:I fail to see an issue here. Do you think they should have to give them out to anyone who applies for them? doesn't they defeat the purpose of the application process in the first place? Taking the decision away from the state basically means that there is no discretion over who gets a CCW and who doesn't. DarkHorse fucked around with this message at 02:08 on Jan 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2013 02:04
|
|
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:It isn't even all right wingers either. I'm fb friends with this guy I did some work for who's leftist as gently caress, works as an immigration lawyer and pro amnesty activist and he went completely off the deep end when this gun issue exploded, just started posting crazy rear end poo poo straight from every right wing cesspool on the internet. There's something in the gun issue that's just straight brain poison. An amnesty activist is probably someone predisposed to believe that citizens need the means to defend themselves from the government. I mean, they work with a group of people who "the government", at least in the form of the police and many local/state legislatures, are actually out to harass, assault, and murder.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2013 02:21
|
|
|
^^^yeah, pretty much his reasoning. Seems pretty dumb to me because there isn't any defense against the United States government but yeahKugyou no Tenshi posted:You do realize that's a "may issue" state, right? That means that you can fulfill all of the requirements laid out and still be denied a permit purely at the state's discretion, and the only way the denial will be overturned is if it's found in court that the denial was "arbitrary and capricious". You can be denied if someone didn't think your reason was solid enough (including people saying on other forums that if you put anything other than "hunting" or "target shooting" as your reason, you'll be denied in certain counties), and the fact that you were denied once can be used against you should you apply again, which discourages people from applying in the first place. It's not as simple as you're painting it. Yes, but how often does that happen? I tried googling around for ccw denial/issue stats and there doesn't appear to be any. Looking around on some forums makes it seem like it's not that hard to get a ccw permit in NY state, most people saying they filled out the paperwork, went to an interview and got the permit a few weeks later. The few anecdotes I've seen of denials were because the applicant had an arrest on file. There's also a whole lot of bellyaching on those forums about how there aren't that many denials because no one applies because they know they'll just get denied! Basically a whole lot of what you just said. Anyway, none of that means anything because there aren't any numbers to see if it really is a problem or not.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2013 02:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 01:54 |
|
|
Relying on untrained and unaccountable people to make judgment calls like this seems like a bad idea. Like forget about people being denied unfairly for a second, what about all the people who could be legally carrying who shouldn't be because the sheriff (their sister's husband's poker buddy) signed a form? Seems to me maybe a nation wide official policy on suitability checks is the best idea? Have trained professionals make the decision and stake their reputation on it like any other health worker.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2013 02:51
|
|