/ck/ - Food & Cooking

[progun_il !!8AVbT/7HjDp No.4232859]

i recently found out that mcdonald's mighty wings were not available nation wide and were only being tested in a few places, chicago being one of them
http://www.suntimes.com/business/142323-420/mcdonalds-tests-chickenings-in-chicago.html

so in honor of obama's state of the union address (semi-automatic assault shotgun related) i decided to try out mcdonald's take on the food of his people

[progun_il !!8AVbT/7HjDp No.4232863]

[Anonymous No.4232866]

Are you going to camwhore again? I want to see how big your gunt is. I like how the picture of obama is crumbled up. You showed him.

[progun_il !!8AVbT/7HjDp No.4232867]

quality is pretty good and the breading is very crispy and has some nice spice to it

[Anonymous No.4232875]

SO EDGY

OUCH I JUST CUT MYSELF ON THIS POST

[progun_il !!8AVbT/7HjDp No.4232876]

honey mustard was good

[tacocat No.4232879]

Should have used some Chik-fil-a sauces. They put 2 in your bag when you ask for them. I always take one home and pir it on things.

[Anonymous No.4232882]

>shot up picture of obama
reported to the fbi

[Anonymous No.4232884]

Either you got FUCKHUEG paul bunion hands or them shits are made from freshly hatched chicks. How big are they?

[progun_il !!8AVbT/7HjDp No.4232881]

ranch was good

[progun_il !!8AVbT/7HjDp No.4232885]

buffalo sauce was kinda meh but i don't usually like buffalo sauce anyway

[Anonymous No.4232890]

I'm a gun owner, an NRA Life member and a combat veteran - 11B3V. I've eaten the worst and best foods. This attention whore, progun is just about the worst person I could hope to encounter. Totally pathetic and a terrrible representation of the people who are below the poverty line and who attempt to identify themselves as typical gun owners.

[Anonymous No.4232888]

>>4232884
He is a fat fuck man.

[Anonymous No.4232892]

>browning auto 5

I like your style


>canned budweiser, mcdonalds, and an off-target shot

Oh shit nigger, wtf r u doin?

[progun_il !!8AVbT/7HjDp No.4232893]

>>4232884
they're regular sized wings
obama seems to like them

[Anonymous No.4232894]

>>4232884
Considering the size of the sauce packet I'd say they're pretty small

[progun_il !!8AVbT/7HjDp No.4232895]

then i had a big mac

[Anonymous No.4232898]

>>4232893
XD EPIC FOR THE WIN MAN

[progun_il !!8AVbT/7HjDp No.4232899]

smothered in bbq sauce

[Anonymous No.4232904]

>>4232893
god help me I lol'd

[progun_il !!8AVbT/7HjDp No.4232908]

>>4232890
i never claimed to be the typical anything. i'm a shooter, an NRA member and i like to eat.

<<yum

[Anonymous No.4232911]

So, how much did it cost for the box of wings?

[Anonymous No.4232912]

I hope you get droned, op

[Anonymous No.4232915]

>picking your own sauces
>not asking /ck/

THEY DESERVE A VOTE!

[Anonymous No.4232917]

Hope this comes to South Florida. Everything McDonalds has been making lately has been interesting, like that cheddar onion burger.

[Anonymous No.4232919]

well how's the chipotle bbq? and the sweet and sour? and how was the regular bbq?

you are failing pretty badly at this

[Anonymous No.4232926]

>>4232879
Taco cat purs on things. No surprise there.

[progun_il !!8AVbT/7HjDp No.4232941]

>>4232919
eh, i just told him to throw all the sauces in the bag.

who hasn't had mcd's sweet and sour sauce?

[tacocat No.4232947]

>>4232941
I have not.

[Anonymous No.4232951]

I found your brother progun. You're probably a mud baby

[Anonymous No.4232954]

>>4232859
What's wrong with your obama picture, it has a hole in it
Poor presentation, 3/10
Next time get a better picture with less scratches and tears
It would have been a 6/10 if not for that

[Anonymous No.4232958]

Cool that you're from chicago, cool crumpled Obama pic, cool gun. My roommate has something like pic related, but greenish. I don't know shit about guns but don't mind them when the right people have them.

[Anonymous No.4232960]

>>4232958
My friend has one like that too but they painted it blue and decked it out like my little pony

[Anonymous No.4232961]

I just found out about these today, they taste like fish sticks

[Anonymous No.4232962]

I fucking love you progun. YOu posted way more a few years ago though.

[Anonymous No.4232966]

>>4232960
>dolanutryintorusltemahjimmies.jpg

[Anonymous No.4232968]

>>4232961
Do you like the taste of fish sticks?

[Anonymous No.4232976]

>eating mcdonalds while drinking budweiser
oh god make it stop

[Anonymous No.4232977]

>>4232968
they're not bad

[Anonymous No.4232981]

>>4232976

DURRRRR I:M A BEER SNOB LOOK AT ME IM A FRESHMAN IN COLLEGE

Go back to Red It faggot

[Anonymous No.4232982]

>>4232976
American as fuck. Piss off, terrorist.

[Anonymous No.4232983]

>>4232981

I love it how your kind has to now speak in code. It must be SO frustrating when you can't indulge your tourette's.

[Anonymous No.4232987]

>>4232983
>>4232983

That doesn't make any sense. Please try your sentence again.

[Anonymous No.4232988]

>>4232987
Other people got it. Perhaps you're just stupid.

[Anonymous No.4232991]

>>4232988

No one else responded fsggot

[Anonymous No.4232993]

>>4232991

Which website did I come from again?

[Anonymous No.4232994]

>>4232988
i actually have no idea what you're on about either.

[Anonymous No.4232999]

>>4232977
Then you're a gay fish

*cue the groans

[Anonymous No.4233004]

>>4232988
I got it.

Budweiser does suck, but McDonalds can be fine on the occasion (sometimes you just want a big pile of grease, salt, and nostalgia).

[Anonymous No.4233006]

>>4232993

www.yourmom.com

You're like 12 dude get off this site

[Anonymous No.4233007]

>>4233006

Keep squirming.

[Anonymous No.4233010]

>>4233007

You're such a badass

[Anonymous No.4233014]

>>4233004
I actually feel the opposite. McDonalds is awful but I'll drink budweiser whenever it's cheap, which is most of the time.

>>4233010
You should just stop.

[Anonymous No.4233023]

>>4232999

[Wumplord No.4233025]

pic related

[Anonymous No.4233031]

Ey, what happened hkphooey and them?

[Anonymous No.4233061]

how is cheddar and onions on a hamburger interesting? that 's basic. maybe i'll start a restaurant chain , and i'll advertise hot dogs with pickle relish and it'll be a flipping sensation. an interesting sensation.

[Anonymous No.4233067]

>>4232908
You fucking asshat. I'm fucking hungry as fuck and all I have to eat in my whole apt is some stale tortilla chips and saltine crackers. I fucking WANT a big mac.

[Anonymous No.4233070]

>>4233025
tits or gtfo

[Anonymous No.4233078]

>>4233025

[SAGE No.4233095]

>>4232976
For an American style macrobrew Budweiser is a solid representation of the style. I'm not a fan of that type of beer but I will drink a little murrican' swill on occasion. Bud heavy is by far the best one.

Captcha:
Accordingly sagedyt

[Anonymous No.4233097]

>>4232890
thanks for your service, I'm sure someone like you understands what it means to own semiautomatic assault weapons.

[Anonymous No.4233103]

>i decided to try out mcdonald's take on the food of his people

[Anonymous No.4233112]

>>4233095
bleh.

I'm glad they came out with their "craft brew" (crown was it called?) because that's the only one I can stand.

[Anonymous No.4233117]

haha they probably rolled that shit out in poor-ass urban neighborhoods.

[Anonymous No.4233121]

I've heard good things about these except that they're overpriced.

[Anonymous No.4233132]

>>4233112
Ha, I drink bud all the time. Black crown tastes almost exactly the same.

[Anonymous No.4233137]

>>4233103
I'm pretty they don't serve batter fried chicken wings in Kenya.

[Anonymous No.4233262]

Didn't ProGun die?
I was hoping ProGun died.

[Anonymous No.4233759]

>>4232911
The article he linked says something like five for $3.

[Anonymous No.4233761]

>>4233262
Trips have feelings too.

[Anonymous No.4233935]

>>4233761
no they do not
trips are less than human
also in before progunt gets a visit from the secret service

[Anonymous No.4234009]

>>4232859
Nice A5

[Anonymous No.4234014]

>>4233262
He may not have died physically, but his spirit diet in its pale, fat, flabby, ugly, stupid cage a long time ago.

[Anonymous No.4234021]

>>4234014
I don't think he is ugly, even with his ridiculous political views.

[Anonymous No.4234036]

I'm pretty apathetic about the whole gun debate, but faggots like op make me hope we go full UK and ban everything just out of spite.

[Anonymous No.4234044]

>>4234036
Any time you'd like to try it, go ahead.

[Anonymous No.4234052]

>>4234044

Yes, that is what I said. But if you want to be an internet tough guy go ahead and post all the details from your violent paranoid right wing fantasy scenario that you think about while masturbating.

[Anonymous No.4234054]

>>4234052
I was going to respond to him, but you said it best lol.

[Anonymous No.4234055]

>>4234052
Liberals have caused exponentially more violence and deaths than conservatives ever have, my angry limp-wristed friend.

[Anonymous No.4234056]

>>4234021
You don't think Progun is ugly? Have you seen his picture? No wonder he jerks off with his bro and hasn't been laid since 9/11.

[Anonymous No.4234057]

>>4234055
>Liberals have caused exponentially more violence and deaths than conservatives ever have
lolwut

How about the censorship of the conservatives too?

[Anonymous No.4234061]

>>4234055
It is no surprise that the educated class tends to be left-leaning and the faux populist elite and ignorant peasant class tends to be right-leaning.

The right says, "colleges are brainwashing our kids!!!" without realizing most people who are highly educated can't help but see things more objectively and less and less through their narrow socio-political lenses dictated by their parents' favorite ruling party.

[Anonymous No.4234063]

>>4234055
>Antiviolence = American Liberal = Leftist = Socialist = National Socialist Workers Party = Nazis
>therefore, Anti violence = The Holocaust

This is what stupid people actually believe

Germans were encouraged to own guns under the Nazis.

[Anonymous No.4234072]

>>4232875
>>4232882
>>4232912
Why is this board more liberal than others?

[Anonymous No.4234075]

>>4233097
>semiautomatic assault weapons.
If you even did the most basic of firearm research you would know how contradictory semi-automatic and assault weapon is.

[Anonymous No.4234077]

>>4234057
look at all of the gang members in the US
ask them who they would vote for
>>4234061
going to college =/= educated
are economists not educated? they are right leaning 3:1
you are kidding yourself if you think college teaches people to think more objectively, it snuffs out critical thinking every step of the way.
you go there and learn the ideal of your professor, most of which are leftovers from the hippie generation that have never had a real job outside of academia.
If you actually viewed things objectively you would see that right wing ideals are logical and based on numbers, not what feeeeeeels like the right thing to do.
>>4234063
nobody is pro-violence, gun owners just accept the fact that the world is in fact a violent place and want to be prepared in case some of that violence ever ends up happening to them or their families.

[Anonymous No.4234080]

Probro, you need to get out of behind enemy lines.
Come down to Arizona. We sit on our porches with some cold beer and take pot shots at wetbacks and it's all perfectly legal.

[Anonymous No.4234081]

>>4234072
Emotionally immature women is my guess.

[Anonymous No.4234085]

>>4234077
>families

Nope. Hang out on /k/ for 10 minutes and read all the threads about wishing someone would break into their houses, and praising the Turner Diaries, and "voting from the rooftops" and shit like that, and try to tell me that US gun enthusiasts aren't a bunch of violence obsessed loners.

[Anonymous No.4234087]

>>4234075
>implying a high capacity clip doesn't provide more bullets

What's the point of this image?

[Anonymous No.4234089]

>>4234085
are you saying that the population of /k/, a board on a website infamous for people spouting retarded edgy shit to get a reaction, is an accurate representation of gun owners?

>implying that crazy LAPD guy was not militantly pro-gun control

who by the way is exactly the reason families should be armed, because he was on the loose for almost a week and the police had no idea where he was or where he was going.

[Anonymous No.4234091]

>>4234085
Every one of the recent mass shootings was perpetrated by liberals. Every last one.
And because liberals cannot control their violent emotions and tendencies, they think no one else can either. Hence, they want guns banned.
I'm obsessed alright, obsessed with protecting myself from you.

[Anonymous No.4234094]

>>4234081
as an emotionally immature woman I can attest that I DO NOT support a ban on automatic weapons. Faggot,vegan, liberal men are more likely the offenders.

[Anonymous No.4234097]

>>4234087
>What's the point of this image?
People who support "assault weapon" bans are full-blown retards. Foregrips, pistol grips, barrel shrouds an assault weapon does not make.

[Anonymous No.4234099]

>>4234094
I like you. Wanna cyber?

[Anonymous No.4234101]

>>4234089

Considering that essentially every other gun board on the internet is infested with actual white supremacist militias, I was being charitable.

>>4234091

Not even close. Is that what Rush Limbaugh taught you? Loughner was obsessed with Big Government being out to get him. Lanza came from a gun nut family obsessed with "protecting themselves", exactly the way you talk. Let's not forget about the thousands of people killed every year that aren't part of a famous mass shooting, killed by guns that were supposed to "protect" someone.

[Anonymous No.4234107]

>>4234097

Yes, people who understand basic concepts like "more bullets" and "fewer bullets" are clearly the retards here.

[Anonymous No.4234119]

>>4234101
I won't debate someone who is intellectually dishonest. Stay classy.

[Anonymous No.4234127]

>>4234101
75% of shootings are perpetrated by gang members on other gang members
the vast majority of those guns are illegally obtained

1.2% of deaths are gun related
less than 1% of them are committed with "assault" weapons

you are supportive of legislation that addresses something effecting almost one hundreth of a percent. I hope you feel silly.

just so you know, that "mass" shooting in CT only accounted for .4% of the deaths that DAY

in the UK guns were banned in 1996, gun violence has gone up by 40%, knife by 90%
In DC guns were banned, gun violence went up by 40%
Chicago had a ban which they lifted and saw a decrease by 37%
the county in Georgia that made it mandatory for all residents to own a firearm saw a whopping 60% decrease in crime across the board

there is not a single statistic that shows removing guns will curb violence or even gun crime, and a great many that show just the opposite.

weapons are a non issue, you are a victim of fear mongers, use your head instead of your feelings.

[Anonymous No.4234134]

>>4234127
>use your head instead of your feelings

I tried, but the NRA successfully lobbied against federal government research on gun violence because, you know, facts are so damm inconvenient and sheep dawg condition white don't tread on me soccer mom.

[Anonymous No.4234139]

>>4234107
Semi-automatic assault weapon. That is a contradiction of terms. Only retards use these words in a low attempt to demonize gun owners and the guns they buy.

Firearms like AR-15s do not use "high capacity clips." They are a) not high capacity and b) they don't use clips.

If you weren't a retard, you would know this. It just goes to show that the people wanting these Assault Weapon Bans are malicious or ignorant.

[Anonymous No.4234142]

>>4234134
I gave you facts, you want more tax dollars to be spent learning what we already know?
Since it doesn't look like the administration is doing this with an agenda in mind at all now does it?

their "fact finding" is really more like "lets dig around for as much stuff to scare the public into agreeing with us as we can while ignoring anything that hurts our stance"

stay ignorant pleb, I'm out.

[Anonymous No.4234150]

>>4234139

1. 30 is a larger number than 10. Even a small child can understand this, but shrill gun nuts apparently can't

2. The legislation refers to magazines. Obsessing over someone who accidentally called it a "clip" on the internet is the equivalent of ignoring the content of a whole paragraph because someone said "your" instead of "you're". This kind of nitpicking is why you people can't be taken seriously. Like when some gun lobbyist cried about his feelings that someone called the 5.56 a "high powered rifle" and that this hurtfully mischaracterized the exact kinetic energy of the projectiles that tore apart those small children. Yes, we really care that your video game autism was activated over a word in a newspaper article, so sorry about that.

[Anonymous No.4234156]

Look at all these buttmad gunfags trying to justify their psychotic hobby

[Anonymous No.4234157]

>>4234150
it shows an ignorance to the weapon used, if you do not properly understand the weapon, who do you think you are to suggest legislation about it?

[Anonymous No.4234159]

>>4234142

You gave me irrelevant facts about gun bans that were unsuccessful precisely because they did far too little. You're afraid of what more comprehensive data would show because it might conflict with your preconceived beliefs based on personal feelings rather than analysis.

[Anonymous No.4234161]

>>4234157

You didn't capitalize the first letter of your sentence, the rest of your post was ignored.

[Anonymous No.4234162]

>>4234156
who's mad? I have guns, the government will never take said guns, if they somehow manage to pass a law disallowing me from having them I will simply buy more off the books.

there is no need to justify something that is a right, I don't require you to justify yourself when ever you choose to say something retarded because it is your right to do so.

[Anonymous No.4234165]

>>4234161
>You didn't capitalize the first letter of your sentence, the rest of your post was ignored.
>avoiding the question
>>4234159
I am not afraid of more data at all, I am confident it will only strengthen my case, but I do not want such data being collected by people with a clear bias knowing they will cherry pick where ever they can.

it is up to you to show data that reducing the amount of guns also reduces crime. You can't do it, there is not a single study anywhere that suggests it because it simply does not happen.

Not here, not in England, not in any other country.

[Anonymous No.4234167]

>>4234162
You're not just mad; your butt is mad.

[Anonymous No.4234168]

>>4234165
>reduces crime

Intentionally misunderstanding the point of a law? And you're better than someone who casually said "clip" when they meant "magazine"? Who's being intellectually dishonest now?

[Anonymous No.4234171]

>>4234168
what do you want?
reduction of murder then, that doesn't happen either.

what exactly is your goal? What do you want to see a reduction of?

[Anonymous No.4234181]

>>4234150
>1. 30 is a larger number than 10. Even a small child can understand this, but shrill gun nuts apparently can't

Of course 30 his higher than 10 but you are operating on misinformation regarding firearms. You have demonstrated this with several errors. This is the fucking problem with people like you. 30 rounds is standard. 10 is low. 100 is high capacity.

Clip and magazine is a huge difference and when you talk about law and propose banning "clips" you totally miss magazines. It's worth pointing out... goes to show those who want these bans are ignorant or acting maliciously towards a constitutionally-protected right.

>2. The legislation refers to magazines.
In part, but the bill is geared towards cosmetic features. Feinstein's AWB is based off of how a gun looks. A gun has a collapsible stock? Assault weapon according to her. A gun has a pistol grip? Assault weapon. This is a wacky thing but the know-nothings will support it because, well, they know nothing. This bill doesn't address mechanics because that has already been addressed in previous laws.

It's a shifting of the goal post, really.

>Obsessing over someone who accidentally called it a "clip"
I'm not obsessing over it. I'm using your stupidity in regards to firearms terminology to prove my point that people who support AWBs are idiots.

>This kind of nitpicking is why you people can't be taken seriously
Hah. It's people like you who shouldn't be taken seriously. You know nothing of guns and yet you hold an opinion of banning features and magazine capacities.

>Like when some gun lobbyist cried about his feelings that someone called the 5.56 a "high powered rifle" and that this hurtfully mischaracterized the exact kinetic energy of the projectiles that tore apart those small children.

Well, he's right in saying 556 isn't high-powered. It's not. It has a high velocity but the round is pretty small.

[Anonymous No.4234182]

>/ck/ is filled with liberals
>U.S/Switzerland are the only 1st world countries with lenient gun laws.
>Australia/Norway/Finland/U.K/Japan have up the ass guns laws for no reason and still has gun crime
>People kill people and guns are used to kill people
>AWB will be pass and it limits and adds more bureaucracy than it should
>People shitting dead people while worshiping the Navy Seal mass killer
>Computers come from a direct result of war
>Mexico has tough restrictions on guns even though it has gun violence for the past 4 decades

/ck/ is one scary hole

[Anonymous No.4234183]

>>4234171

Gun control in the UK and Australia were highly effective at reducing gun related murders.

Knife crime still happens as demonstrated by the UK's current obsession with restricting knives, but innocent bystanders are much less likely to be struck by a flying knife, and mass rampages are rather difficult.

I have to leave for work, but the basic misunderstanding here is that you guys think that liberals think humans are inherently pacifist. Nothing could be further from the truth.

[Anonymous No.4234192]

>>4234085
if you think any board on 4chan is an accurate representation of any particular group (ponies excluded. those guys really are that weird) you should leave for your own good.

get out of the house. meet some people.

[Anonymous No.4234194]

>>4234183
>mass rampages are rather difficult.
you should be thankful people use guns for mass killings
guns are difficult to wield and not ideal for such things, they must be aimed, ammunition must be carried, and they are prone to jamming. Best of all the perpetrator has to actually be present in the area so they can be stopped, the reason people survive is BECAUSE the person chose to use a gun not despite it.

a bomb is much better, it can be made with a trip to the hardware store for a few dollars, planted anywhere and triggered from far away and it will instantly wipe out a room of people way faster than a gun ever could.

lets say if you live in some fantasy world where it actually is possible to restrict these guns from criminals (even though I have never known a criminal to obey a law) you will see mass killings with higher body counts because you will have bombers, not shooters.

hell, accidental fires kill more people than guns do, I guess we should ban matches.

[Anonymous No.4234200]

1: http://uscode.house.gov/download/p/10C13.txt

US Code Title 10 Chapter 13 states that all men from 17 through 45 years of age, and a few other optional qualifiers, are part of the US militia. Alright, that guarantees your right to bear arms.

2: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distrt_of_Columbia_v._Heller

Weapons in common use are covered by this. Self defense is permitted, as are autoloading pistols, AR-15s, AK pattern rifles, and other modern weapons. This does not restrict gun ownership to muzzle-loaded muskets.

3: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrev._District_of_Columbia

The police have no duty to protect the citizens, and certainly no duty to rescue the citizens from imminent harm.

One chapter of the US Code, and two court rulings that outline your rights and your needs for the ownership of guns, with no restrictions on magazine capacity, muzzle devices, or the appearance of the weapon; just no grenade launchers and similar weapons, please.

[Anonymous No.4234202]

>>4234200
Note that all the following numbers come from the Department of Justice I won't use independent research about the number of crimes prevented by firearms because the methodology used to create those statistics is the counting incidences based on self reporting by individuals in local media. The supposed 2 million instances of defense gun use per year vs the 6,000 to 8,000 homicides, defined in the US as murder, self defense, and accidental, is interesting but without hard data it is not a substantiated claim.

You ever wonder why the Democratic party essentially became progun?

Because the inclusion of guns in public life in the US has correlated to a decrease in violent crime rates not an increase. Concealed Carry permits started being "shall issue" rather than may "may issue" in the 90s, and rates of handgun ownership also increased from the 90s onward. After 1993 the crime rate has steadily decreased, even with two recessions, a decrease in the number of law enforcement officers per capita, and the expiration of useless gun control laws, specifically the Assault Weapon Ban, the rate of decrease has not altered to the point that our crime rates are as low as they were in late 50s. Though this correlation does not prove the ubiquitous presence guns in our society has a preventative effect on crime

[Anonymous No.4234203]

>>4234202
And you need to examine where the crimes are being committed and who is committing them. 75 percent of all murders occur in 1 percent of the counties. Often in small urban subsections of those counties, most with prior histories of gun control or gun control measures on the books. While rural areas of the US and Canada where firearms are more common actually have less murder per capita than rural areas of Western Europe. 50 percent of murder victims and 85 percent of murders were previously convicted of a felony, excluding felony misdemeanors. While this does not mean they were all career criminals or even involved in crime, a criminal background and criminal on criminal conflict in strongly associated with murder.

So frankly I can see no convincing argument for illeglization or regulation of firearms for the sake of public safety and frankly I have always valued the ability of the public to do as they please over their safety which feel is their personal responsibility.

Increased gun ownership being correlated with a drop in all crime since 1993 after 50 years of continuous increases in crime for 50 years prior leaves three possible assessments of the situation.

[Anonymous No.4234204]

>>4234203
1: The availability of guns has no effect on the crime rate.

2: The availability of guns results in a net decrease in the crime rate.

3: The availability of guns results in a net increase in the crime rate, but this increase is either too small to be statistically significant or it is small enough to be easily countermanded by other factors.

All three of these possible conclusions argue against gun control, as the expense of the measure will not be justified by the results of regulation or banning.

Here are some tenured Princeton Professors explaining it in more detail:

http://youtu.be/Yl2j8E90ZoM

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."

George Mason.

[Anonymous No.4234216]

>>4234200
>>4234202
>>4234203
>>4234204
Gave the libtards facts
libtards hate facts

[Anonymous No.4234220]

derps in this thread:

>if you supporting the banning or censorship of things, you are not "liberal"

>correlation=/=causation: there is almost no gun crime in UK, and strict gun laws. However, there was little gun crime when laws were lax. Similarly, high knife crime is not the result of strict gun laws. y'all spastics who think like this.

>if you think you need guns to protect yourself from state tyranny, why didn't you use them when:
>patriot act,
>end of habeus corpus,
>domestic drone laws,
>TSA body scanners,
>assassination orders?
>if you surrender your rights in return for safety, and only use your guns when posing for photographs of your dinner, you are better off saving your money and buying a bottle of ketchup

Americans use guns like toddlers use pacifiers. It comforts them and makes them feel safe, but in the face of real threat they make the people who own them impotent.

[Anonymous No.4234223]

>/ck/ is obsessed with discussing long, phallic metal objects

why am i not surprised

[Anonymous No.4234229]

>>4234220
>there is almost no gun crime in UK, and strict gun laws. However, there was little gun crime when laws were lax. Similarly, high knife crime is not the result of strict gun laws
It is from the lack of the public to defend themselves on the same level as the criminal element. You shy away from real facts and instead set up strawmen to take down. You should read :
>>4234200
>>4234202
>>4234203
>>4234204


>>4234223
Oh look ad hominem

[Anonymous No.4234231]

>>4234220
Not keeping us safe but actually owning a gun since its more of a hobby for me. I see no reason that the U.S should turn into the E.U or Mexico because of some college students saw a video about guns. It ridiculous that anybody would be for removal of said objects because of that.

[Anonymous No.4234232]

>>4234220
Another thing is that a lot of those polices you are decrying are made by obama or supported by him so the left isnt going to say no to them even though they railed against them while Bush was doing the light versions of what Obama is doing now. Even Carl Rove things Obama is doing a good job on the authoritarian front, he has even said so.

[Anonymous No.4234233]

>>4234202
>Democratic party essentially became progun
>progun is the democratic party
>mfw progun is obama

[Anonymous No.4234235]

>>4234220
>if you think you need guns to protect yourself from state tyranny, why didn't you use them when:
>patriot act,
>end of habeus corpus,
>domestic drone laws,
>TSA body scanners,
>assassination orders?

nobody responsible for that was within shooting range

[Anonymous No.4234237]

>>4234233
No, Obama is decidedly anti gun, if you looked at all at his history you would see that is the case and now that he is a second term pres we will start experiencing that. Only the truly naive think that Obama is anything but anti gun.

[Anonymous No.4234239]

>>4234237
I mean he has killed over 800 children in Iraq and Afganistan from drone attacks yet talks about the sandy hook shooting as though that was a huge loss for the world to have those children die.

[Anonymous No.4234241]

>>4234229
>It is from the lack of the public to defend themselves on the same level as the criminal element.

It's entirely NOT that. Knife crime is confined to specific groups, where everyone is armed. It is not a cross-demographic crime where young thugs are sticking up elderly, female or unarmed citizens. It is knife-on-knife crime in certain areas of certain cities.

If that is the only argument you have then you effectively demonstrate my later point, that gun ownership is a pacifier to make the cowardly feel brave whilst they remain inactive.

[Anonymous No.4234243]

>>4234235
So the idea that guns prevent tyranny is - by your own admission - flawed to the point of futility?

[Anonymous No.4234245]

>>4234241
Read the linked posts and try to understand them britbottle. I will always side with the citizenry to defend themselves over your feelings about anything.

[Anonymous No.4234249]

>>4234231
>actually owning a gun since its more of a hobby for me.
And this, my friends, is the sole legitimate reason for gun ownership.

As an ACTUAL liberal (not someone who parrots George Clooney) I believe that gun ownership is a freedom that should be enjoyed and policed, just like alcohol consumption, automobile licenses etc.

But to the people saying that you "HAVE" to own guns, to fend off tyrant governments? Please. You should have acted long ago.

[Anonymous No.4234251]

>>4234243
I didn't say that, america has just not reached the breaking point yet. A few fucked up policies here and there do not trigger revolt.
but say that nonsense NDAA causes military police to mobilize on american citizens, that is when you will see people fight back.

[Anonymous No.4234254]

>>4234245
i already read them. they don't address the point I made, and neither do you.

when you are held up to be clinging to dogma, it is easier to repeat what you already know than to confront an alternate perspective, I know. But if you can try to address the points, it would be a start.

[Anonymous No.4234258]

>>4234254
How didnt it address what you are saying? You are saying that the citizenry should be disarmed because felons commit crime. That is just retarded on every level and if you did read it you would have realized that "75 percent of all murders occur in 1 percent of the counties. Often in small urban subsections of those counties, most with prior histories of gun control or gun control measures on the books. While rural areas of the US and Canada where firearms are more common actually have less murder per capita than rural areas of Western Europe. 50 percent of murder victims and 85 percent of murders were previously convicted of a felony, excluding felony misdemeanors. While this does not mean they were all career criminals or even involved in crime, a criminal background and criminal on criminal conflict in strongly associated with murder," is literally what you were trying to get at by saying that knife crime is constrained to certain demographics. However we all know that that isnt the case 100% of the time and your response to that is "so what." I would say I responded adequately to your infantile points of I dont trust others with this ergo no one needs this.

[Anonymous No.4234259]

>>4234249
I would like to know what business it is of yours if someone owns a gun and uses it on their property (if they are zoned for it) or at a range?

I have a problem with criminals shooting people too, just like I have a problem with men that rape women, I am not going to try and legislate about responsible gun owners enjoying their rights or people having sex with each other consensual.

[Anonymous No.4234257]

>>4234251
so the people won't go out with their guns when they end right to trial?
Nor when they pass orders allowing termination of citizens?

But when the US military - armed to the teeth - is out on the streets, THAT is when you see people using their guns?

No, my friend. That is when you see the true colours of the cowards.

The gun discussion in the US is used to mask cowardice and apathy on one side, and tyranny and mission creep totalitarianism on the other.

[Anonymous No.4234262]

>>4232885
McD's buffalo sauce has always been shit.

[Anonymous No.4234263]

>>4234257
You realize that almost all this tyranny you are describing is being done en masse by the Obama administration and because it is a cult of personality with a lot of the country nothing will happen right? They have painted those to decry this as crazy right wingers so now nothing can stop this slow slide.

[Anonymous No.4234264]

>>4234257
>so the people won't go out with their guns when they end right to trial?
>Nor when they pass orders allowing termination of citizens?
those are documents, when you actually see the government acting then it is tyranny.

[Anonymous No.4234266]

>>4234259
>I would like to know what business it is of yours if someone owns a gun and uses it on their property (if they are zoned for it) or at a range?

Then why are you asking me? When I already said that the one legitimate use for guns in this age is as a hobby, used in private at home or a range.

[Anonymous No.4234270]

>>4234266
but you want to limit the type of guns people own obviously or you would not be having this conversation.

[Anonymous No.4234271]

God bless progun for ruffling pussy eurofags' and liberal doormats' dirty panties.
Long live progun.

[Anonymous No.4234277]

>>4234264
but they ARE used.
And when they are used, it is always "ok" because THAT person deserved it: Abdulrahman al-Aulaqi, Dorner etc.

You support the bills that make your own oppression justifiable under US law, because you think the test-case targets deserve to be oppressed.

[Anonymous No.4234279]

>>4234271
stop posting about yourself, namefag

[Anonymous No.4234281]

>>4234277
see
>>4234232
>>4234237
>>4234239
>>4234263
But I know you dont care about the fact that Obama is objectively worse than Bush from a civil rights position.

[Anonymous No.4234282]

>>4234262
holy shit, an on topic post

GTFO

[Anonymous No.4234283]

>>4234270
>but you want to limit the type of guns people own obviously or you would not be having this conversation.

what kind of fucked up paranoid logic is that?

"You wouldn't have an opinion different to mine unless you were trying to oppress me! SQWeeeeeeeee! SQWEEEEeeeeeeeee!"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsm_syndrome

[Anonymous No.4234288]

>>4234281
>But I know you dont care about the fact that Obama is objectively worse than Bush from a civil rights position.

See:
>>4234283
Your presidents have been a downward spiral since Eisenhower. Each one more corrupt, in the pocket, and wearing the jackboot than the one who went before.

The fact that you see everything as so binary shows how played your people have become.

[Anonymous No.4234289]

>>4234283
Because you dont understand what "Shall not be infringed" means. You clearly dont care about why that statement is included otherwise you wouldnt say " I already said that the one legitimate use for guns in this age is as a hobby, used in private at home or a range."
You dont want to learn about this or change your way of thinking. You want a soap box with which you can try to convince others that your points are valid.

[Anonymous No.4234291]

>>4234288

I would say it goes back to Lincoln, not Eisenhower. The real downward spiral has been deficit spending, and every president has engaged in that, democrat or republican, since Lincoln.

[Anonymous No.4234296]

>>4234288
If you cared to comprehend what I was saying it would be this. Obama has created a cult of personality, the policies he enacts are objectively more authoritarian than Bush Jr but people dont question it because of who is doing it. He has gotten the populace to trust him by screaming hope and change often enough that they look the other way when he murders a school full of children half way across the world. The US among the people who are uneducated or educated in a shit setting is suffering from a blight of statism.

[Anonymous No.4234297]

>>4234283
if you don't want to limit types of gun ownership then why are you having a conversation about limiting the types of guns people can own?

[Anonymous No.4234301]

>>4234297
Because he's a dipshit like the rest of them.

[Anonymous No.4234306]

Uneducated trash gun owners shooting people, often the kids of other uneducated trash gun owners, because they're afraid someone's gonna take their toys away from them.


darwinism in action. glorious to behold. the world is watching. and laughing.

[Anonymous No.4234313]

>>4234289
erm... the one legitimate use of guns IS that.

Civil war is, by definition, not legitimate.
Executing criminals is not legitimate.
Hunting for food falls under the "hobby" category that I defended. It is a hobby not way of life because it is not economically sustainable when food in USA is actually cheaper than the bullets required to hunt it.

This is what's fucked up though: you actually agree with what I am saying. But you are locked in such a binary debate that you think everyone is either with you or against you. In fact, 99% of people are part of the marginalised "grey area" somewhere in between.

Don't allow your own mind to be co-opted by the fanatics of either side, and you will discover that you have far more allies than you thought.

[Anonymous No.4234317]

>>4234313
God and the Constitution are my allies. I don't give a fuck if you are.

[Anonymous No.4234318]

>>4234297
you might be getting confused as to which posts are mine.

I am talking about justifications for gun ownership. I haven't differentiated once between types of firearm.

[Anonymous No.4234323]

>>4234306
>criminals and gang members shooting each other, often other criminals and gang members

is actually more like it

[Anonymous No.4234321]

>>4234317
That would have been a witty post if you had added some originality.

[Anonymous No.4234326]

>>4234323
Most often black also.
That poster is a racist asshole.

[Anonymous No.4234333]

>Americans holding their Constitution sacrosanct.

Hong Kong here, I see no problem with this.

[Anonymous No.4234335]

>>4234313
>Civil war is, by definition, not legitimate.
Factually untrue
>Executing criminals is not legitimate.
Self defense is always a good thing same with personal responsibility
>Hunting for food falls under the "hobby" category that I defended. It is a hobby not way of life because it is not economically sustainable when food in USA is actually cheaper than the bullets required to hunt it.
HAHAHAHA, You really have no idea what hunting is do you? There are many poorer areas of the US where people do hunt to sustain themselves and the cost of a bullet is less than a dollar which makes the deer you just took with one shot worth less than a dollar in terms of cost to take it down.

I dont agree with anything you have said and you have demonstrated your extreme ignorance on this matter very sufficiently.

[Anonymous No.4234350]

>>4234335
>Factually untrue
I don't think you know what the word legitimate means.

Executing criminals is far from legitimate. You're being silly now and undermining your beliefs. Again, you might not be entirely aware of what the word legitimate means. It does not mean "necessary" or even "justifiable". It means "by law". So executing criminals is not legit. In certain circumstances, self-defence by lethal force is legit, but there are grey areas that mean this often goes to a jury.

Similarly, I am not talking about eating well. Sure, you can bag a deer or boar in some areas, and obviously that one bullet will be way cheaper than even a single venison steak from the shop.

But extrapolate what you are saying. If everyone was hunting for food (not as hobby), then it is unsustainable, as I said. Also, a single processes-shit ready meal is still cheaper than a single bullet, even if the standard is much lower.

Similarly, if that is a justification for gun ownership, what is the justification for urban gun ownership, where there are no animals to hunt?

[Anonymous No.4234365]

>>4234350
Civil war is justified and used to be part of the methods that the US citizenry could use to curtail the Fed. Lincoln changed that. I dont think you know what history is.

Self defense is letigitmate and you are making it sound like self defense is murder which it isnt. I know its hard to understand but I prefer to have personal responsibility when it comes to it, this is because I dont carry a police officer in my pocket.

Your deer stuff is inane because a deer is incomparable to a tv dinner. You said no one hunts to sustain themselves and I said you were wrong, people do every day in rural areas because its cheaper and easier for them. In WI we would like it if everyone hunted because the deer population is too high to be sustained by nature and no one likes seeing animals starve.

The justification for urban gun ownership is the same for the rest of the people, prevention of tyranny and self defense, hunting is an added bonus but never forget it is to prevent tyranny.

[Anonymous No.4234366]

>>4234350

Don't argue with these people. Seriously. It just alienates them further from normal society.

We need to bring these folks back into the mainstream. They've been duped by propaganda and don't have the critical thinking skills to question their mindset. It's a mirror image of muslim extremism. The belief system is tautological and fallacious and the only way to break the feedback loop is to not engage them.

If they have enough time to think clearly, without external perturbation, they'll see the foolishness of their thinking.

[Anonymous No.4234367]

>>4234313
>food in USA is actually cheaper than the bullets required to hunt it

when's the last time you picked up 100lbs of venison for $0.24

[Anonymous No.4234373]

>>4234200
>>4234202
>>4234203
>>4234204
I know, they are facts which is hard to use emotional reasoning to get out of but please try to understand them.

[Anonymous No.4234381]

>>4234367
you seem to have deliberately ignored the part of the post where that particular economic fallacy was addressed specifically.

[Anonymous No.4234385]

>>4234373
Why do you keep linking those posts, when they can be answered with a simple "correlation =/= causation"?

Using cherry-picked statistics with no point of reference or context is as powerful an argument as saying "because it's written in the Koran".

[Anonymous No.4234405]

This thread manages to both suck and blow. Is this the case with every Progun thread?

Nice Browning OP. How old is it? UKbro, would love to own one of those.

Any idea if they're planning on bring those wings over the pond? I don't know how much appeal wings would have in the UK, we already have KFC for cheap fried chicken as well as a variety of local/knockoff joints (Ken's Fried Chicken, anyone?)

[Anonymous No.4234418]

>>4234405
>Is this the case with every Progun thread?
Just about. Isn't it great to watch the pussies wildly swinging their purses?

[Anonymous No.4234421]

>>4234350
I have the right, and the responsibility, to protect myself. In areas where there are more gun control there is actually more gun violence. Tazers are not as reliable as guns, and mace is also less effective than a gun and will only make a rapist angry so he WILL kill you after he rapes you, oh and a knight stick is useless if your adversary has a gun or a knife, knife is only good if you're already in close range and if he has a gun you're toast. A self defense gun is the best way to protect your life. The lack of them only keep the po-po on the dole.

Just asking... Do you honestly believe that the laws have helped anyone?

But to get back on topic... I hate McDonnalds. YES I DO!

[Anonymous No.4234430]

>>4234418
the proguns are the ones acting like whiny soccermoms itt

[Anonymous No.4234432]

>>4234418
>>4234421
>>4234430

Hang on, maybe everyone involved in this dispute is awful.

Honestly, I think both sides are acting a bit ridic. /ck/ is not the place to be discussing gun laws and politics, just like /k/ isn't the place to be discussing food. (In fact, this discussion is more /pol/ than /k/, /k/ needs less polthreads)

Discuss the shitty fast food.

[Anonymous No.4234447]

>this whole thread
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ba-6SVrq4&feature=youtu.be

[Anonymous No.4234457]

>>4234447
Now what does this remind me of?
>It puts the lotion on it's skin
That's it!

[Anonymous No.4234633]

>>4234385
Have you even read the posts? How are the statics cherry picked? They are straight from the CDC and FBI. If you even bothered to read the posts you would see there is a point of reference and that they are not cherry picked.

[Anonymous No.4234637]

>>4234633
statistics*

[Anonymous No.4234638]

>>4234633
Liberals don't do very well with hard facts. It tends to spoil their agenda.

[Anonymous No.4234664]

[Anonymous No.4234673]

So basically breaded bone-in wings with nugget sauce?

I'll stick to boneless nuggets, thanks.

[Anonymous No.4234678]

>>4234664
I like those sconces

[Anonymous No.4234680]

>>4234638
It's well known that facts have a strong neoliberal bias. Liberals hate dealing with the facts. They'd rather deal with their invisible sky magician and his zombie son, and their friend the poltergeist.

[/ck/ No.4234690]

Hey progun long time no see, hows it doin buddy?

[Anonymous No.4234715]

>>4234638

>it's funny because I'm saying the opposite of what is true!

[Anonymous No.4234720]

>this thread
>/ck/
>2013

[Anonymous No.4234777]

>>4234715
Its funny because you are wrong, the right gets all worked up over issues like abortion and moves away from logical thought processes yet the left does the same thing when it comes to guns.

[None !OPIATE9fy. No.4235084]

seems like mcds has a slam dunk with these wings

It's all going to come down to affordability vs all the really good wing places we already have

[Anonymous No.4235936]

>>4232893
baaaaHahahahahahaaaaaaaa

[Anonymous No.4236034]

>>4234715

I already decided guns are good, so facts would be irrelevant. Poo poo, pee pee, someone said clip when they meant magazine therefore children should be armed at all times.

[Anonymous No.4236048]

>>4234077
>you go there and learn the ideal of your professor
Not everyone takes Feminist Literature as a major you uneducated twat. lol you obviously have no idea what goes on in university.

[None !OPIATE9fy. No.4237779]

>>4232893
lol saved

[Anonymous No.4238535]

Have fun in federal pound me in the ass prison progun. Can't say you will be missed.

[Anonymous No.4238683]

how much were the wings

[progun_il !!8AVbT/7HjDp No.4238740]

>>4238683
$4.79 for 5.
they're pretty good but that's about the going rate for wings around here and there's better available so i probably won't be buying them again

[Anonymous No.4239173]

I know that Burger King in Puerto Rico has (or had, it's been a while since I've been) wings. It always threw off my relatives when they'd come to the states to visit and fast food places weren't quite the same.