Last joke could be seen coming from orbit, but the rest is pure gold

No Mr T in Obamas cabinet?

When Dr. Skullet there finds the nation has gone to pot, I can guarantee you he won't have the tools to survive. And no one will cry.

huh. Looks like a direct rip from Conan O Brien's "In the year 2000...".

Man I miss those.

"all guns will be confiscated and..."

its funny(?) until it comes true. list of countries/states that have confiscated firearms:

1938 Germany
1996 Australia
2001 Canada
1991 New York
1999 California
2005 Louisiana
1997 Great Britain
1935 China
1964 Guatemala
1956 Cambodia
1970 Uganda
1929 USSR
1911 Turkey
Bermuda
Cuba
Greece
Ireland
Jamaica
Soviet Georgia
Kenya
South Africa

I can guarantee you that you can still buy guns in California. What the hell kind of list is that?

>> ^CaptainPlanet420:
When Dr. Skullet there finds the nation has gone to pot, I can guarantee you he won't have the tools to survive. And no one will cry.


The nation has already gone to pot jacko, or haven't you noticed?

I wish the nation would go to pot. Just look what it did for Amsterdam.

>> ^DumbFuckMcTrollamite:
When Dr. Skullet there finds the nation has gone to pot, I can guarantee you he won't have the tools to survive. And no one will cry.

Was that Ashton Kelso? Ya got a real thinktank there, f--kface.

In order of appearance.

California has some of the strictest gun laws, junior.
The nation will go to pot starting on January 20.
You don't even like America, so just leave, k? No one cares about Amsterdam.

OH NOES, MY GUNZ!1 It would be terrible if a US President subverted the Constitution, wouldn't it? At least we haven't experienced that in the past eight years.

If you weren't a troll, I'd ask for specific examples of how the nation will got to pot on January 20th.

I love America. It's just some of the douchebags here that bother me....like trolls and pedophiles and neo-conservative Republicans.

>> ^LimpdickVonGoatfucker:
In order of appearance.
California has some of the strictest gun laws, junior.
The nation will go to pot starting on January 20.
You don't even like America, so just leave, k? No one cares about Amsterdam.

Being Canadian, and the son of a father born and raised in Belfast, I'd like to just poke your eye out, im(innowaywhatsoever)stellar28. Your list is a load of crap. To quote Penn: "Wow, did you do that hard hitting research... in your ass?"

Firearms confiscated in the province of Ontario were done so due to the illegality of their possesion. Plenty of people still own firearms here, we're quite proud of our hunting traditions. And even a crazy bastard like myself (see avatar) could go out and buy guns whenever I'd like. Sure some of them are grandfathered to fall in laws, but they still go "bang, bang".

And if I have to point out that Ireland has seen some of its biggest outbreaks of peace in decades in recent years you need more help than I can muster.

>> ^imstellar28:
"all guns will be confiscated and..."
its funny(?) until it comes true. list of countries/states that have confiscated firearms

Republicans have nothing but fear in their arsenal. I'm beginning to feel sorry for them... okay, maybe for the fiscal conservatives.

I don't think people are buying guns because they are afraid of what Obama might do, they are afraid of possible unrest if something were to happen to Obama.

>> ^T-man:
I don't think people are buying guns because they are afraid of what Obama might do, they are afraid of possible unrest if something were to happen to Obama.


They are buying guns in case Obama makes purchasing new firearms illegal.

Raigen,

Canada:
"The handgun registration law of 1934 was the source used to identify
and confiscate (without compensation) over half of the registered handguns in 2001"

1. Hunting rifles are different than hand guns, which are different than assault rifles (assault rifles were confiscated in California).
2. Living in a country doesn't mean you know everything about it.
3. You should read up on history before your try to revise it in a public forum.

I posted that list so people don't feel safe thinking "it can't happen here" because it has happened in countries like ours, and in several states in our country in the last decade. I didn't just randomly select countries--in every country there guns were confiscated. This is not something to argue over, it happened in the last century. If people like you keep trying to re-write history, we are going to have another holocaust.

Gun confiscation is very real, and it has led to the deaths of almost 56,000,000 people in the last century. Anyone who tries to revise history is not going to believe a word out of my mouth anyways, but I would urge those interested to look into it for themselves. This forum is not the proper place for a dissertation on gun confiscation, but if you want to PM me, I can provide you sources for any of my claims.

I have a 92 page paper with 455 cited sources on this topic, but I guess being "Canadian" is enough to refute information on an internet forum.

Undoubtedly, with democratic control will come new legislation or at the least, attempts at new legislation regarding firearms, for good or bad depending on your point of view.

When Clinton became president, the same prophecies of doom were spouted off by the right, and the only change I saw was in the number of rounds a newly manufactured magazine could hold, and a background check for firearm purchases. Not quite Kristallnacht for gun owners, as the NRA would have gun owners believe.

Obama will want to build consensus in his first term so he can assure a second term, so nothing will happen in the first 4 years. With the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the economy, and cleaning up the mess bush left behind, Obama will not have time to confiscate guns or mandate abortions until at least his 9th year in the Whitehouse.

I don't care if Obama takes my assault rifles, as long as he leaves my surface-to-air missiles alone.

^Word

>> ^thinker247:
I don't care if Obama takes my assault rifles, as long as he leaves my surface-to-air missiles alone.


as if you actually had a firearm. if someone invades your country, or your government shifts its focus from protecting to murdering, if someone breaks into your house and tries to rape your wife or kid, what are you going to do, call 911? use a slingshot? kitchen knife? what if its your neighbor that needs help, where will you be, under your bed with the phone?

you're just a statistic waiting to happen. when you have a gun to your head while someone is raping your wife, i hope you are comforted that "only 1 in 1,000 experience violent crime".

if you can't defend yourself, your family, your neighbors, your community, or your country, you are useless.

>> ^imstellar28:
>> ^thinker247:
I don't care if Obama takes my assault rifles, as long as he leaves my surface-to-air missiles alone.

as if you actually had a firearm. if someone invades your country, or your government shifts its focus from protecting to murdering, if someone breaks into your house and tries to rape your wife or kid, what are you going to do, call 911? use a slingshot? kitchen knife? what if its your neighbor that needs help, where will you be, under your bed with the phone?
you're just a statistic waiting to happen. when you have a gun to your head while someone is raping your wife, i hope you are comforted that "only 1 in 1,000 experience violent crime".
if you can't defend yourself, your family, your neighbors, your community, or your country, you are useless.


His attempt at humor is funny, isn't it? He's prolly never even shot a gun, but he's got to pose and act like he knows something about something. Ya, he'll be crying like the rest when judgment day comes. Prolly won't care enough to laugh at that point though, it'll be so pathetic.

>> ^imstellar28:

you're just a statistic waiting to happen. when you have a gun to your head while someone is raping your wife, i hope you are comforted that "only 1 in 1,000 experience violent crime".


Well that won't be comforting, but knowing that we won't suffer eternally in hell for aborting the fruit of this unholy union is really gonna make us feel better, if we survive. Excuse me while I go into the kitchen for another glass of kool aid.....

>> ^imstellar28:
>> ^T-man:
I don't think people are buying guns because they are afraid of what Obama might do, they are afraid of possible unrest if something were to happen to Obama.

They are buying guns in case Obama makes purchasing new firearms illegal.


You have no reason to believe Obama would—or even could—make purchasing new firearms illegal. You need to get out of the bunker more often.

Let's not forget that Obama's election coincided with a economic crisis that hasn't been seen since the Great Depression. That adds to people's sense of fear.

>> ^CaptainPlanet420:
In order of appearance.
California has some of the strictest gun laws, junior.

If you've seen the way the assholes drive here, you'd know why we had to buckle down on our gun laws.

>> ^T-man:
>> ^imstellar28:
>> ^T-man:
I don't think people are buying guns because they are afraid of what Obama might do, they are afraid of possible unrest if something were to happen to Obama.

They are buying guns in case Obama makes purchasing new firearms illegal.

You have no reason to believe Obama would—or even could—make purchasing new firearms illegal. You need to get out of the bunker more often.


I defend basic human rights (the right to pursue the means with which to defend your life, and the lives of those you care about) , and you assume I am living in a bunker? What connects the neurons in your brain, silly putty?

See, when I assumed that thinker247 doesn't have a gun, it was a very good assumption because I know that the majority of those with a gun are not going to favor gun confiscation, nor will they make jokes (which aren't funny) about it. That is a valid application of induction...you assuming I live in a bunker is not: case in point, I don't live in a bunker. Your other conclusions are a failure to understand the world as it exists.

1. There is already legislation in the works which makes it illegal to purchase new assault rifles. If they can do it for assault rifles, what is stopping them from doing it with handguns? Nothing.
2. It is illegal to conceal and carry firearms in Chicago. Explain how that works with the 2nd amendment. It doesn't, its unconstitutional and nobody cares. Obama is a Chicago senator who has openly supported gun control. His policies are already law, and have already resulted in the deaths and rape of thousands of people.

>> ^rottenseed
If you've seen the way the assholes drive here, you'd know why we had to buckle down on our gun laws.


Thats not a funny joke either. Jokes like that are only funny when you don't really mean what you say. You are really okay with the increase in gun control, so its not funny.

Someone who shoots another person because of road rage is a psychopath, mentally ill, or both. The type of person who would randomly kill a stranger is not the type of person who cares about breaking a gun control law.

You need to enforce your murder laws, not ban inanimate objects.

In other news, the sand in the collective vagina of imstellar28 and Capt.Planet420 has now reach critical levels. If it's not removed soon...

They could become a ticking time bomb!!

as far as I am aware, "sand in the vagina" means you are acting like a pussy. you are the one who is afraid of guns, not me. I believe that means the anti-gun posters here are the ones with "sand in their vaginas"

>> ^Asmo:
In other news, the sand in the collective vagina of imstellar28 and Capt.Planet420 has now reach critical levels. If it's not removed soon...
They could become a ticking time bomb!!


Son, I'd say my heart bleeds for you, but I can't quite make our your picture. May want to think about retaking the Photochop classes.

I'd love to see that paper providing evidence of the deaths of 56,000,000 people.

Last I heard, a gun in the house was far more likely to kill a friend or family member than prevent a crime. I support the ownership of inanimate objects in general, but not when it makes stupid people so much deadlier.

And are you seriously trying to tell me that an assault rifle would be an appropriate weapon of choice to fight off an intruder? Perhaps if you saw the intruder approaching at 50 yards, but otherwise? I'd much rather have a revolver or shotgun.

To sum up my opinion: When accidental deaths by personal firearms is minimized, theft of legally purchased firearms is minimized, and crimes committed using legally purchased firearms is minimized, then I would be in favor of relaxing gun control laws. Until that point, making guns easier to obtain would do nothing but increase those three statistics, which is absurd.

^your personal opinion may be to have a revolver or shotgun, but your opinion is not an appropriate argument for a law. if i want to defend myself with spoon, shotgun, cantaloupe, assault rifle, or bazooka, i'd say thats my personal choice as much as yours is to defend yourself with a handgun.

you forget that people also target shoot for sport, you would be hard pressed to make a case for banning an assault rifle for those who use it as a hobby. maybe its not your kind of hobby, but people have a lot of wacky hobbies and thats part of what makes life interesting.

i'm gonna send the 92 page document i have, if you read it and are still anti-gun at the end, i'd be surprised. for one, the statistics you are quoting are false. for two (and this is not part of that document) remember that statistics are not a valid basis of law, human rights are.

I wish it wasn't true, but over 56,000,000 people have died as a result of gun confiscation in the last century. please see:

“Death by ‘Gun Control’: The Human Cost of Victim Disarmament, Aaron Zelman & Richard W. Stevens, 2001

amazon link:
http://www.amazon.com/Death-Gun-Control-Victim-Disarmament/dp/0964230461

you can also find it at your local library I'm sure.

>> ^MaxWilder:
I'd love to see that paper providing evidence of the deaths of 56,000,000 people.
Last I heard, a gun in the house was far more likely to kill a friend or family member than prevent a crime. I support the ownership of inanimate objects in general, but not when it makes stupid people so much deadlier.
And are you seriously trying to tell me that an assault rifle would be an appropriate weapon of choice to fight off an intruder? Perhaps if you saw the intruder approaching at 50 yards, but otherwise? I'd much rather have a revolver or shotgun.
To sum up my opinion: When accidental deaths by personal firearms is minimized, theft of legally purchased firearms is minimized, and crimes committed using legally purchased firearms is minimized, then I would be in favor of relaxing gun control laws. Until that point, making guns easier to obtain would do nothing but increase those three statistics, which is absurd.


Ya I'm sure lots of people who legally purchase firearms proceed to go out and commit a crime. Just admit you don't own a gun, have no experience with them, and will never have any in the future. Minimize this, minimize that = bogus logic.

>> ^imstellar28:
as far as I am aware, "sand in the vagina" means you are acting like a pussy. you are the one who is afraid of guns, not me. I believe that means the anti-gun posters here are the ones with "sand in their vaginas"


Ahh, the "I know you are but what am I" defense. Should have gone with the Chewbacca defense, it's much more effective and doesn't make you look quite so much like an enormous twat with sand in it... =)>> ^CaptainPlanet420:
>> ^Asmo:
In other news, the sand in the collective vagina of imstellar28 and Capt.Planet420 has now reach critical levels. If it's not removed soon...
They could become a ticking time bomb!!

Son, I'd say my heart bleeds for you, but I can't quite make our your picture. May want to think about retaking the Photochop classes.


Rofl, Now I've seen it all.. Avatar elitism.. X D

ps. Obama is still President Elect, you lost, congrats! =) No matter how much you guys bitch and moan about it, he's still the prez by legitimate popular acclaim. You're now a minority. And that ain't changing for 4 years at least. I'd say try not to be such sore losers but.. well, you're you... =)

>> ^imstellar28:
^your personal opinion may be to have a revolver or shotgun, but your opinion is not an appropriate argument for a law. if i want to defend myself with spoon, shotgun, cantaloupe, assault rifle, or bazooka, i'd say thats my personal choice as much as yours is to defend yourself with a handgun.

Seriously, a bazooka? This whole "fundamental principle trumps practicalities" approach is what puts most people off full blown libertarianism. Would you seriously expect to be allowed to carry a bazooka for self defense? You might well defend yourself successfully, but I wouldn't want my kids near you!

Funnily enough, one of the examples* you give of gun confiscation (the UK) illustrates this quite well. I have a feeling you have probably read up on the Dunblane massacre and know that the guns used were not legally owned, but that was not really the point. When the subject came up for debate no-one could really come up with a decent reason why anybody would want to own a handgun.

Concealed carrying of pretty much any offensive weapon is illegal in the UK, including knives, knuckle-dusters and of course guns. So handguns were never any good for personal protection. Guns could be kept in the home, but under very strict conditions. I have not researched this (sorry - I'm already spending too much time on this) but my Grandpa used to own target shooting rifles and the conditions for license included that they must be locked away at all times. If someone had broken into his home he would never have gone for the gun - unless they gave him 10 minutes notice to go unlock and load the guns. Basically, guns in the UK were used soley for sport and the need for sport shooters to have access to a type of gun not particularly well suited to sport shooting didn't seem too pressing.

Finally, to cap off my (far too long) post - This idea of gun control causing 56,000,000 deaths is ridiculous and meaningless. This is rather neatly illustrated by the fact that high gun-control countries like the UK have vastly lower murder rates than the US (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_rates). If gun control causes death, why are we dying so much less frequently than you guys? I find it hard to believe that Americans are twice as murderous as Brits. What seems likely is that gun control "causes" some deaths when undefended people are attacked, but saves many more by reducing (frequently deadly) gun attacks overall.

*For the record, I don't question your point in that post - that gun confiscation could happen and has happened in other countries.

^unclejimbo,

directly comparing murder rates country-to-country is not a valid comparison because of a convolution of variables and you should know that. the figures i quoted were not simple murders, if one included those, the numbers would be even higher. genocide is only possible under a differential of force. that occurs when one group disarms another group. i think you should read up on gun myths further before you jump to the conclusions held by "popular knowledge". if this is a subject you are interested in, (at least interested enough to read about while you are at work) i can point you to a lot of enlightening information.

"In 1911, Turkey established gun control. Subsequently, from 1915 to 1917, 1.5-million
Armenians, deprived of the means to defend themselves, were rounded up and killed.
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. Then, from 1929 to 1953, approximately 20-
millon dissidents were rounded up and killed.
In 1935, China established gun control. Subsequently, between 1948 and 1952, over 20-million
dissidents were rounded up and killed.
In 1956, Cambodia enshrined gun control. In just two years (1975-1977) over one million
"educated" people were rounded up and killed.
In 1964, Guatemala locked in gun control. From 1964 to 1981, over 100,000 Mayan Indians
were rounded up and killed as a result of their inability to defend themselves.
In 1970, Uganda got gun control. Over the next nine years over 300,000 Christians were rounded
up and killed."

It is not enough to say that gun control resulted in these deaths, this requires additional analysis which is found in that book. Gun confiscation rarely results in the direct, immediate death of its owner, rather it establishes a force differential which makes oppression, genocide, and murder possible.

You may not realize it, but one of the few things stopping someone from rounding you up and killing you is the fact that there are 150 million guns in this country. It does not mean that in the absence of guns genocide always occurs, but there has never been an instance of genocide where the victims had a means to defend themselves. If you take away the guns, and somewhere down the road something intense happens which causes a philosophical shift, you are ripe for genocide. Just look at WW2, the Japanese were rounded up into internment camps. How many Japanese lives do you think were spared because the US government did not have the physical power to kill them as a result of an armed populace? How about for arabs after 9-11?

It is extremely dangerous to trust your life with complete strangers, and that is what you do when give up your right to defend yourself.

>> ^imstellar28:
^unclejimbo,
It does not mean that in the absence of guns genocide always occurs, but there has never been an instance of genocide where the victims had a means to defend themselves. If you take away the guns, and somewhere down the road something intense happens which causes a philosophical shift, you are ripe for genocide. Just look at WW2, the Japanese were rounded up into internment camps. How many Japanese lives do you think were spared because the US government did not have the physical power to kill them as a result of an armed populace? How about for arabs after 9-11?


Sorry but a minority bearing arms does not protect it from a majority supported tyranny. Iraqi Kurds spring to mind. They were armed and even had a semi-organised guerrilla army but they were obliterated by Hussein’s ruthless deployment of military force including chemical weapons.

I’m just struggling to see the practical application of the right to bear arms. If the secret service come round your house to round you up what are you going to do, shoot them? Once you’ve shot them, more will turn up, then what? Unless you have an awful lot of sympathisers willing to die for you then you’re pretty much screwed. If you have enough people behind you there is no need for guns – rocks and Molotov cocktails (or even just placards) would do just fine.

I’m highly sceptical of your Japanese American internment example. I know of no show of force by the Japanese Americans who were rounded up, nor of any armed support from white Americans. I was under the impression that the whole episode was possible because of widespread racism against Asian Americans and that gun holders were no more likely to save their lives than they were to take them. Since I very much doubt gun ownership was allowed in the interment camps I fail to see how it protected the inhabitants once they were interred. All the government needed to do was “relocate” them out of sight and they could have “disappeared” plenty of Japanese Americans without anyone finding out for quite some time. That they didn’t was more down to the US government’s (misguided) motives differing from more menacing aims of other regimes of the time.

ps. Sorry for the thread hijack everyone

^Iraqi kurds is an example of a force differential. Chemicals weapons versus light arms fire. Same thing happens when you have light arms fire versus unarmed fists. Genocide cannot occur when both sides are equally armed.

if the CIA/secret service decides to round me up, what else are my options? Surrender and walk myself to the gas chamber? At least with a firearm I would have some sort of chance to fire back and flee the state/country, and they would be hesitant to round people up if at every house they were met with a barrage of gunfire.

the government could have killed Japanese-americans, but they were deterred in part by the threat an armed American populace who does not condone genocide. if the government is already okay with rounding people up into prisons based on race, is it really that unthinkable that the next step would be genocide? there are roughly 300,000 active troops, but there are almost 300,000,000 citizens holding 150,000,000 guns. that is a very powerful deterrent that is also rather transparent to most people.

There are at least two dozen examples of mass genocide in the last century with full, detailed historical accounts available. There are plenty of books on the subject, one of which is the one I sourced above. Please read it into yourself, you know what they say about history and those who do not learn from it.

when you become defenseless and depend only on the government for protection, you are essentially living your life on faith--and I don't believe in faith, I believe in facts. a gun will protect me, faith will not.

^imstellar

Am not against gun control but to claim an armed populace is a deterrent against government oppression is a really ridiculous idea, even more so when you factored in the genocides of Armenia, Soviet Union, China, Guatemala and Cambodia.

Why not mention the reverse situation where there was high gun saturation then to show what happened when there was an armed populace? Somalia, Rwanda, Afghanistan and so on?

Such pro-gun arguments always seem to come from the US where this issue has been blown out of proportion because of the NRA and the Republican Party because it applies to a certain political demographic.

This doesn't address the high occurrence of gun related crime in the US in general when compared to states that have varying levels of gun control laws but don't have such high crime rates such as Canada, Japan, Finland, Switzerland and other EU states.

>> ^imstellar28:
^Iraqi kurds is an example of a force differential. Chemicals weapons versus light arms fire. Same thing happens when you have light arms fire versus unarmed fists. Genocide cannot occur when both sides are equally armed.

Well I hope you've got some pretty huge guns then, because right now your force differential is looking pretty bad versus the mightiest army in the world.

if the CIA/secret service decides to round me up, what else are my options? Surrender and walk myself to the gas chamber? At least with a firearm I would have some sort of chance to fire back and flee the state/country, and they would be hesitant to round people up if at every house they were met with a barrage of gunfire

They might hesitate for about ten minutes whilst they wait for the flame tank to burn you out. How many people do you think would resist after the first 100 or so were slaughterd with their families. Causing hesitation isn't enough. The end result is the same.

the government could have killed Japanese-americans, but they were deterred in part by the threat an armed American populace who does not condone genocide. if the government is already okay with rounding people up into prisons based on race, is it really that unthinkable that the next step would be genocide? there are roughly 300,000 active troops, but there are almost 300,000,000 citizens holding 150,000,000 guns. that is a very powerful deterrent that is also rather transparent to most people.

The deterrent is perfectly transparent to me thank you very much. If I was China/Russia thinking of a US land grab I would definitely think twice against a 150,000,000 man war. My whole point is that in a domestic situation the people being oppressed are usually the minority so half of those guns are actually pointing AT you. Your notion that Americans would've risen up against their government if it commited a Japanese genocide is very honorable, but not realistic IMO. My original point was that many Americans didn't much care for "Japs" and would probably have swallowed whatever propaganda the government fed them about "spies" etc. Let's not forget that exactly what we're theorising about did happen in Germany and barely a handful of people did anything about it. It wasn't because they lacked guns, they lacked knowledge and those that had it lacked will. At the end of the day when most people are faced with a choice between their morals and their life they choose the latter.

There are at least two dozen examples of mass genocide in the last century with full, detailed historical accounts available. There are plenty of books on the subject, one of which is the one I sourced above. Please read it into yourself, you know what they say about history and those who do not learn from it.

I can't guarantee I will find time to read it, but if you post the name and author I'll see if I can find it this side of the pond.

when you become defenseless and depend only on the government for protection, you are essentially living your life on faith--and I don't believe in faith, I believe in facts. a gun will protect me, faith will not.

On the contrary; you are the one that has faith in your gun. Guns are offensive weapons, not defenses. You can have your shoot-out, but the best you can hope for is to kill a few bad guys before they get you.

*dead

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by geo321.