Listen to The LoLo Show
  1. If you don't have an account click the "login or signup" tab in the upper right & create one. To make things easy you can quickly create it using your facebook, twitter, or google login. Your real identity & your login credentials for those sites will remain private. Just be sure to choose an alias when you set it up. PS: Even if you haven't been to SFN in years, your old login will still work.

hey Jon, STFU with your anti-gun pussyhood.

Discussion in 'Howard Stern' started by Jeton, Jan 29, 2013.

  1. ricky

    ricky SFN Gold Supporter

    Revolvers and shot-guns are for men.

    Women and twinks need AR-15's.
    Subutexas likes this.
  2. Farticulator Full Member

    Holy shit.....I agree with Jeton on this matter.
    boeing46 and Jeton like this.
  3. Head Censor Full Member

    This admission reveals nothing more insightful or substantial than your own level of ignorance and your susceptibility to having your opinion swayed by whatever ridiculous, media driven stereotype exists at the moment. 50 years ago, you would have been the same person who believed that all blacks subsisted solely on watermelon and fried chicken, and that all mexicans wore sombreros and would plop down for a siesta at the same time every afternoon regardless of where they were or what they were doing.
  4. Monkeyjim123 Full Member

    It's funny, because most assault rifle owners probably believe this right now.
    BOXofROX likes this.
  5. Jeton Full Member

    shut up, this is a matter for Americans and not Israelis. ;)
  6. Anarchist86ed Full Member

    Let me ask you irrational gun haters a question, and try to answer maturely and avoid insults. I know it's asking a lot.

    Let's say hypothetically the US is invaded by... I dunno... aliens, or China... or midget television show reapers in wheelchairs. Let's say we lose our military and our nuclear response ability... every one of our national defenses are shit to fucked. Now we have to defend ourselves and possibly mount an organized resistance to repel invading forces. BUT WAIT... we don't have assault rifles. What are YOU going to do?

    Answer without acting like a dipshit and actually debate the issue.
  7. Monkeyjim123 Full Member

    If we're ever invaded by any group of people that can completely neutralize all of our national defenses, we're all fucked. You think you and your friends with some assault rifles will be able to take down an army of people that defeated our entire military?

    And by the way, I absolutely do not want all guns banned... that would be horrible decision. High capacity military-style assault weapons? Those I wouldn't mind banning. Throw in strict background checks, mandatory gun training and having to pass a gun test and that's all I would want done in terms of gun control.
  8. Head Censor Full Member

    Anyone with a shred of sense can believe this because you've made it abundantly clear that you're a sucker for ridiculous and cartoonish blanket mischaracterizations.
  9. Anarchist86ed Full Member

    You didn't read what I said. I said if we had to organize a resistance force to repel invaders what would you do because thanks to irrational control freaks we don't have what would be our best way of defending ourselves. I did not say if it were to happen we're fucked end of story.

    You are also not understanding the spirit of what I asked.
  10. Monkeyjim123 Full Member

    You're gonna have to walk me through it then. If invaders completely wiped out our entire military and then announced they were coming to kill me, what would I do? Repeatedly shit my pants. No amount of guns in the world could save me at that point.
  11. Anarchist86ed Full Member

    Why? You would just... give up and die. So that's what you would do.

    Thank you for answering.
    mochinist and Jeton like this.
  12. max_headroom Full Member

    Any entity that wipes out our entire military, national guard, and state and local law enforcement isn't going to be fazed by an AR15. Just saying...it's a silly argument for guns. Now if it's the zombie apocalypse, that could be a different story.....
    Brown Jenkin likes this.
  13. mrsluda85 Full Member

    They can store them in an arsenal until needed.
  14. UNCLE BUCK Full Member


    What about a far more realistic - we all HOPE unlikely - scenario involving the collapse of the eternally inflating dollar - and the subsequent fallout of an event like that.

    Currently the government feeds the "poor" by confiscating wealth - at gunpoint - from those who have it - (if you take issue with the wording, stop paying your taxes and wait - let us know what happens).

    When that plan is no longer possible - the "needy" will still be expecting the Nehi and Newports they are "entitled" to. It won't be pretty. If you will, picture the aftermath of the Rodney King verdict on a national scale - what then? You figure to hold them at bay by pretending to hold the last remaining menthol flavored tobacco recipe?
    Artie' Pancreas likes this.
  15. Head Censor Full Member

    But this ignores the fact that the people's right to associate together with firearms for necessary militaristic purposes is but one of many legitimate ways we are allowed to use firearms. These other legitimate uses require much more ready access to firearms than an armory located away from your home can provide.
    Jeton likes this.
  16. Head Censor Full Member

    Max, you're looking at this issue through the prism of things as they currently stand. The fact nevertheless remains that, while it's difficult today to imagine the scenario that might invite the American people to exercise their 2A rights en masse, we have no earthly idea what tomorrow may bring.

    Today, we can't even fathom a foreign military power having the strength to physically invade our homeland in any way shape or form. It yet remains prudent to have a well armed populace. Let's not forget that the specter of sequestration still looms as a possibility - and you know that if it comes to pass, Obama will hang the majority of that $1T loss around the necks of our servicemen and women (because Lord knows, maintaining our military isn't nearly as important a national priority as providing government subsidized housing to foreigners who come into this country illegally). The Marines have already announced an over 10% reduction if total force size which will commence even before the sequestration issue is settled. Obama believes we can offset a reduction in forces by increasing our military's mobility and technological capabilities. And in some ways this is true. But let's not forget that higher tech weapons and hardware are precisely the types of things that will become increasingly susceptible to the threat of coordinated cyber attack coupled with the deployment of the latest generation of EMP devices. There are those who believe that such an attack, if executed properly, could render much of our high tech military hardware useless. And before you dismiss this possibility out of hand, remember that there are thousands of very intelligent people in places like China and Russia who, as we speak, are working around the clock to make just such an attack a viable option. Of course, compromising the electrical grid of a foe severely enough might obviate the need to even send in troops of your own, given the chaos that could ensue just from the disruption of utility service. But if troops were put on the ground, the lack of a grid, and all that that implies, would hamper their effectiveness as well - and potentially enhance the ability of 100,000,000 well armed citizens to resist.

    That all being said, the still remote, yet somewhat more likely, scenario that would require a citizen uprising, would be in response to our own government overstepping its authority. The trend has certainly been moving in the direction of more centralized federal control - something the framers worked hard to protect against. Yet for all the ingenious checks and balances that they built into our Constitution, agents of the federal government, both elected and otherwise, have worked tirelessly to defeat them, across party lines I might add. The Patriot Act, Slaughterhouse, Kelo, and the rampant abuse of the Interstate Commerce Clause are all cases in point. The 2A represents the only of these checks and balances that truly rest in the hands of the people and we would be foolish to forfeit it fueled by a media induced wave of emotion.
    Jeton likes this.
  17. glass sandwich1 Full Member

    fag advocating guns, he probably uses them as dildos
  18. glass sandwich1 Full Member

  19. Jeton Full Member

    glasssandwich getting horny about guns....he should try real dildos first. :whistle:
  20. Anarchist86ed Full Member

    That... answers my question. Thank you. You don't understand.

    But you answered, so thank you.
  21. Anarchist86ed Full Member


    You also... do not understand.

    But that's the best answer I'll get so I'll take it.

    I will say the anti gun people have given me the exact responses I suspected. And for that I do mean it when I say thank you.
  22. Ken Bruce Full Member

    The debate right now is not about guns but assault weapons.They were banned for years and should be banned again. They are not for hunting and too often fall into a psycho's hands.
    I do believe owning firearms in your home is both a right and a privilege. Having said that it is perplexing that gun-related death rates in the US is so much higher than in similar countries. (democracies) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
    One possible idea would be to treat guns like cars, register each and every gun like an automobile, and license and insure each owner like we do drivers. That may make sane people more responsible but the country also needs to address the mental health issues that causes people to feel like ending their life's in a murderous rage.Then there is the issue of illegal guns which isn't going to be solved by telling people to S.T.F.U. Simplifying a complex issue by calling people names,and that is what we do on most issues,will get us nowhere fast.We need to calmly debate these kind of issues to come to a consensus if that is still possible in this country.
  23. Jeton Full Member

    there is no debate about Inalienable Rights, the very attempt is suspect. especially when someone uses terminology wholly divorced from the actual manufacture and procurement of real-world weaponry, terminology wholly invented from scratch by self-avowed enemies of that Inalienable Right. "assault weapon" is just such an invented term, serving only propaganda for the purpose of eroding a fundamental right.

    hell, i've seen politicians who are already on record as knowing better actually go ahead and call semi-automatic pistols "assault weapons"...meaning they only want civilians to have revolvers...which of course they'll move to ban later.

    taking away guns IS and ALWAYS HAS BEEN the aim of "gun control" advocates...that cat is out of thee bag. Sen. Feinstein has admitted that, Gov. Cuomo originally said in December that "confiscation is an option being considered" before he pretended he never said that, and the NYState legislature openly debated seizure and confiscation.

    even registration has proven itself a needed pretext for those who would confiscate, as proven here in NYC when Mayor Lindsay required registration that enabled Mayor Dinkins to Confiscate En Masse.

    FUCK YOU.

    FUCK JON LEIBERMAN
    FUCK "GUN CONTROL" TO HELL.

    how's that "Assault Weapons Ban" looking in Congress NOW, mmm? dead on arrival. ;)
    boeing46 and Head Censor like this.
  24. topaz420 Full Member

    I'm going back to Australia, where there were less gun murders last year than there were people struck by lightning. Enjoy your revolution, crazies! :showoff:
  25. boeing46 Full Member

    The 2nd will defend your right to say that.

Share This Page

Howard's Stuff