Quantcast

Do You Agree With Jim Carrey Tweet About 'Assault Rifle'?

★~DoctorWhoGuru~★ 2013/02/06 11:18:29
Related Topics: Tweet, Rifle, Style, Assault
You!
Add Photos & Videos
Do You Agree With Jim Carrey Tweet About Assault Rifle

Read More: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/05/jim-carre...

Add a comment above

Top Opinion

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • vicki Adams Sloane 2013/03/26 02:27:55
    Yes
    vicki Adams Sloane
  • Dave 2013/02/19 00:04:40
    Yes
    Dave
    +1
    Yes - I do. The people buying guns in these cases like when Obama was elected are just scared little children, who are afraid of immigrants, their neighborhors, and even their OWN government! How much more scared can a person be? I suoppose they could be afraid of animals too, but they can't fight back.
  • Rith 2013/02/07 18:15:15
    No
    Rith
    I realized he was always a twit on screen, but he seems to be one in real life as well.
  • bob h. 2013/02/07 15:04:22
    Yes
    bob h.
    +3
    The Right is angry??? last year 31,000 people became seriously dead, but the Right is angry. Maybe the brilliant Right can spend another year arguing where the comma in the 2nd Amendment goes, while another 30,000 get shot to death. It's all about the comma.
  • phil.ol... bob h. 2013/02/18 15:38:39
    phil.olding.3
    Wow. You're including suicides and justifiable homicides in your total of people "shot to death".

    Here's a real number: Less than 9,000 murders last year.

    Here's another real number: Most of those were gang, drug, or domestic violence related. In fact, almost ALL of them were.

    So, why doesn't society fix their problem of suicides, drugs, gangs, and domestic violence? Because that would solve almost all of the problems that involve guns.

    Even better, why don't you realize that when society won't solve their problems, the only way to deal with the symptoms - bad guys with guns - is to shoot them?

    More guns, in the hands of good people, is the ONLY way to drop murder rates.

    We have to deal with the symptoms, because idiots like you won't let us deal with the causes.

    The causes of violence will still be there, because idiots like you refuse to acknowledge they are causes, and you just blame guns instead.
  • bob h. phil.ol... 2013/02/18 16:25:36
    bob h.
    +3
    People dropping like flies, but wait, lets deal with causes. How about domestic violence; 56% a mere 16,000 or so. Cause: someone got annoyed. OK problem solved; just erase that. Kids have accident playing, erase. See how easy, we're half-way there already.
  • phil.ol... bob h. 2013/02/18 16:34:40
    phil.olding.3
    "People dropping like flies" - and you only want to deal with the symptoms? AND you're not dealing with those right?

    How about you grow up, admit that you're wrong, then get educated?
  • phil.ol... bob h. 2013/02/18 17:00:49
    phil.olding.3
    +1
    Oh, like I said before - your numbers are wrong.

    16,000 people weren't murdered. Under 9,000 people were murdered. Most of those were gang or drug related - far more than half.
  • bob h. phil.ol... 2013/02/18 18:22:34
    bob h.
    +2
    No, they fell under "Domestic Squabbles". Others fell under "Accident"." Border Incidents" were a few more."Massacre" by deranged assailant. These don't count, because they're not what you're peddling today. Here's the question, how many intruders were shot by home owners?
  • phil.ol... bob h. 2013/02/18 20:22:11
    phil.olding.3
    Bob - the bill of rights exists. The 2nd amendment is in it. You have lost the argument.

    Shall not be infringed, Bob.

    That means I get to protect myself, regardless of how many people actually do.

    There is no bill of needs. There is a bill of rights.

    Grow up.
  • bob h. phil.ol... 2013/02/18 21:54:52
    bob h.
    +2
    IOW, you don't know.
  • roxie 2013/02/07 07:11:39
    Yes
    roxie
    +3
    Yes I do agree
  • phil.ol... roxie 2013/02/07 08:12:20
    phil.olding.3
    Then you're an idiot.
  • bob h. phil.ol... 2013/02/07 14:53:42
    bob h.
    +2
    The whole country is turning into a Polish firing squad, and you think guns are the cure.
  • phil.ol... bob h. 2013/02/08 02:32:49 (edited)
  • bob h. phil.ol... 2013/02/18 16:27:51
    bob h.
    +2
    It's very simple; add guns, deaths go up. Remove guns, deaths go down.
  • phil.ol... bob h. 2013/02/18 16:35:38
    phil.olding.3
    WRONG!

    Since 1992, more than 100,000,000 guns have been purchased! Murder has dropped by more than 50%! Violent crime has dropped by more than 40%!

    More guns does NOT mean more crime! You are WRONG!!!
  • bob h. phil.ol... 2013/02/18 18:23:42
    bob h.
    +1
    Murder, or gun deaths?
  • phil.ol... bob h. 2013/02/18 20:22:47
    phil.olding.3
    I'm sorry, you're going to blame the existence of guns for suicide and justifiable homicide?

    Grow up, Bob.
  • bob h. phil.ol... 2013/02/18 21:57:04
    bob h.
    +1
    Yes, gun deaths are ALWAYS caused by guns, ALL of them, such as the one you are fondling so happily.
  • cc 2013/02/07 05:17:39
    No
    cc
    +1
    Anyone who would make an asinine and nonsensical statement like that has very little left in thier body and sould worth protecting.
    LIBERTY!!
  • deidara.trueart 2013/02/07 02:48:34
  • phil.ol... deidara... 2013/02/07 04:01:21
    phil.olding.3
    WRONG.

    The long gun in the trunk was a 12 gauge Saiga shotgun. Watch the video where they pull the gun out of the trunk - it could have been an AK style mag release, because the mag was removed using the right hand, and the charging handle was on the RIGHT side of the gun, not the back, and not the left, where the AR-15 has its charging handle. Also, a VERY large round fell out, that was only half shiny - a 12 gauge shotgun shell.

    The gun in the trunk was NOT an AR-15. I am 100% sure of that. I'm about 95% sure that it was a 12 gauge Saiga shotgun - an AK-47 chambered for shotgun rounds, with a hunting style stock.

    The original media reports were dead wrong.

    The coroner's report to the media, after looking at all of the victims but before he looked at the shooter, said that ALL of the victims were shot using a .223 rifle.

    Everyone who is buying guns now is buying them because the sale on guns, that might actually be adequate for protecting yourself and your loved ones, is going to be banned if Obama's cronies get their way.

    ALL WEAPONS are, by the very DEFINITION of weapons, CAPABLE OF ASSAULT.

    The term "ASSAULT WEAPON" is a retarded, media-coined, mind control term, trying to make you think with feelings instead of facts!
  • deidara... phil.ol... 2013/02/07 04:21:29
  • laydeelapis 2013/02/07 01:38:14
    Yes
    laydeelapis
    +2
    I think it's a bit extreme but yeah, I don't see why the average person would need to have an assault rifle.
  • phil.ol... laydeel... 2013/02/07 04:02:14
    phil.olding.3
    A clear threat to the well-being of our children is not an overreaction.

    Armed security is providing SOME security for our children. No security is 100% secure, but having no security is RETARDED!

    The average person has the constitutionally protected right to have a rifle because, and I quote, their right is "NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE".

    There is no bill of NEEDS. One day, people may need assault weapons - and when that day comes, they are constitutionally protected!
  • laydeel... phil.ol... 2013/02/07 05:06:26
    laydeelapis
    +2
    Oh, get over it. It is not "necessary to the security of a free state". Plenty of countries have gun control (as do many states) and they function just fine. It's not a NECESSITY. And we're not talking about armed security. The argument is over civilians possessing assault rifles.
  • phil.ol... laydeel... 2013/02/07 05:12:24
    phil.olding.3
    There is no bill of needs! People have the constitutional right to protect themselves!

    The term "assault rifle" is retarded! Rifles that are not capable of assaulting people are not ARMS, as protected by the 2nd amendment!

    ALL guns that I know of are capable of assaulting people! All ARMS that are necessary to the security of a free state are constitutionally protected! That includes AR-15s and 30 round magazines!

    You can't take our constitutional rights!

    NO COMPROMISE on gun rights. NO COMPROMISE on the security of a free state!

    Now, instead of talking about retarded laws that won't help anyone except criminals, why don't you push for some laws that will actually save our kids?!

    We're talking about preventing violence! The ONLY way to reliably stop gun violence is to shoot the person that is being violent! That's not opinion - that's FACT!

    Instead of doing something that will prevent people from strolling through schools and murdering all of the kids that they want to, you're pushing for your retarded political agenda that won't do that!
  • bob h. phil.ol... 2013/02/07 15:10:58
    bob h.
    +1
    Some day, some RWNJ is going to quote the 2nd in it;s entirety. My life will be complete. Your convoluted reply explains exactly why "WELL REGULATED" is included.
  • phil.ol... bob h. 2013/02/08 02:33:36
    phil.olding.3
    Well-regulated militias are not well-infringed. Well-regulated means well-trained, well-disciplined, and WELL-ARMED!

    More importantly, the right of the militia to keep and bear arms... DOES NOT EXIST!

    The right of the people, to keep and bear arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!
  • bob h. phil.ol... 2013/02/18 16:31:27
    bob h.
    +1
    Let's assemble a militia of Ted Nugent types. There's an experiment I'd like to see?
  • phil.ol... bob h. 2013/02/18 16:36:44
    phil.olding.3
    Hey, smart guy - the militia is well-regulated (that's not well-infringed - that's well-trained, well-disciplined, and well-ARMED).

    Guess what? The militia has no constitutionally guaranteed rights.

    Guess what else? Ted Nugent would be far more competent, safe, and good for the country, than YOU, if we gave you both guns!
  • bob h. phil.ol... 2013/02/18 22:00:28
    bob h.
    +1
    Nope he's too busy walking around w/ a pantload avoiding the draft. Your hero.
  • thevampkid 2013/02/07 00:12:55
    Yes
    thevampkid
    +3
    Jim Carrey. Dat dude is a smart guy.
  • phil.ol... thevampkid 2013/02/07 04:02:22
    phil.olding.3
    Wrong.
  • thevampkid phil.ol... 2013/02/07 04:09:49
    thevampkid
    +2
    Prove I'm wrong.
  • phil.ol... thevampkid 2013/02/07 04:14:00
    phil.olding.3
    "Any1 who would run out to buy an assault rifle after the Newtown massacre has very little left of their body or soul worth protecting."

    That's retarded. Anyone who would run out after a Newtown massacre to buy a gun, probably realizes that idiots want to ban the sale of certain types of guns. Clearly, there's a reason that people want to buy those guns now, before the sale of them gets banned.

    Probably because they are for defending yourself, defending your family, defending your property, and defending, and I quote, "THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE".

    All weapons are, by definition, capable of assault. All arms, are, by definition, ASSAULT WEAPONS.

    If your hunting rifle can't kill people, then it's not protected by the 2nd amendment to the bill of rights as an ARM.

    You are WRONG. Jim carrey is an IDIOT.
  • thevampkid phil.ol... 2013/02/07 04:18:59
    thevampkid
    +3
    Notice how the second amendment starts with "A well regulated militia" You can have guns, just not one capable of certain things like automatic, or large clips.

    a man drowning needs more water

    a man in dept needs more credit cards

    a man victim of gun violence needs more guns.

    Totally makes sense.
  • phil.ol... thevampkid 2013/02/07 04:24:00 (edited)
    phil.olding.3
    Notice how the well-regulated militia has no constitutionally guaranteed rights?

    Notice how the people have the right to keep and bear arms, that shall not be infringed?

    Notice how the definition of a "well-regulated militia" is not a well-infringed militia, but, rather, a well-trained, well-disciplined, WELL-ARMED militia?

    Notice how the people have rights, and the militia doesn't?

    Notice how the people are supposed to from a group which is, and I quote, "NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE"?

    You are factually wrong.

    A victim of gun violence can only stop gun violence by KILLING THE PERSON THAT IS SHOOTING AT HIM. The only way you reliably kill someone with a gun, is another gun!

    A victim needs to not be a victim. A victim needs to not be defenseless, because idiots like you want to push your political agendas, instead of defending our kids.

    Idiots like you kill children on a daily basis. So, again, I ask, how does that feel?
  • thevampkid phil.ol... 2013/02/07 04:57:28
    thevampkid
    +2
    Your logic is understood. Well regulated means CONTROLLED AND TAKEN SERIOUSLY. I.E. LIMIT WHAT IS AVAILABLE AND DO BACKGROUND CHECKS. If you're a law abiding citizen, why are you against gun control. You can still have guns just not guns that aren't necessary, and get a background check. Unless of course you don't follow the law, and with a background check you will not be permitted a gun. But you're a law abiding citizen correct?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 10 Next » Last »

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/10/02 14:54:54

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals