Downside to C & R license

[Tungsten]

I once heard about a C&R raid that involved mall cops due to a general ATF strike. The poor homeowner had to suffer through an atrocious event- he was confiscated, his guns were arrested, his wife got shot and his dog was banged.

Dreadful I tell ya.

 

[Dave MP]

I once heard about a C&R raid that involved mall cops due to a general ATF strike. The poor homeowner had to suffer through an atrocious event- he was confiscated, his guns were arrested, his wife got shot and his dog was banged.

Dreadful I tell ya.

Then a country song was played backwards and everything went back to normal.

 

[Docster]

I can't believe how many people don't realize this is a joke.

This is not dry, understated British humour, which tends to whiz right over many people's heads. This is wildly exaggerated American style humor, in the tradition of the American Tale Tale. The idea is, the exaggeration is so extreme, no one could possibly have an excuse for not realizing that it's a joke.


One of the unwritten rules of the Tale Tale is, the teller never admits that he's joking. When the exaggeration is so extreme that only a lunkhead would believe the story, then the teller is exempt from the proscription against lieing. If there is any confusion, the teller just adds more layers of extreme absurdity, but never admits that he's telling a Tall Tale.

Reading over the original post, by the time he gets to the part about the raid team lining up to gang-bang the wife and daughter, the astute reader should begin to suspect his leg is being pulled. The part about pissing on the pillow and spray-painting "Kilroy was Here" should be a further tip-off to the critically analytical reader.

Those who point out that the photograph is not of ATF agents succeed in making themselves the butt of the joke.

Yep, what he said........pretty funny stuff for those of us who knew this for the joke it was. Sorry for the distress it caused to the others--but come on, really?

 

[defygravity]

The very top of the OP, in bold, says lol before the joke began.

I think that makes it fairly clear

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[iobidder]

There needs to be a "going over someone's head" icon

Pretty much called bs and quoted bs so no, nothing over anyones head. The story made up could have used a little more imagination.


Sent from my BlackBerry or iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Threeband]

It's not bs, sparky!

It's humor.

 

[I do not know]

I once heard about a C&R raid that involved mall cops due to a general ATF strike. The poor homeowner had to suffer through an atrocious event- he was confiscated, his guns were arrested, his wife got shot and his dog was banged.

Dreadful I tell ya.

Bwahahahaha! Too funny.

I'm telling yall, if you can afford it, 80% lowers...

 

[Hdgmedic]

Original


Theres no ATF in that pic, and that thread is wack, complete BS


Yep

Looks like training.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I777 using Tapatalk 2

 

[iobidder]

It's not bs, sparky!

It's humor.

No, humor is humorous, that was stupid, kinda like calling me Sparky.

 

[Fishguy]

Is it my imagination or is the dude 2nd to last carrying an M1 carbine?

 

[iobidder]

Nah, Shotgun

 

[krashmania]

Some people are very bitter in their inability to take a joke...

 

[iobidder]

Some people are very bitter in their inability to take a joke...

That sentence makes no sense. Replace in and use with

 

[Docster]

I dont care who they are. FBI,ATF,CIA, or my neighbors George and Ron; if anyone lines up to gang bang my wife I'm calling my lawyer.

Does this event permit the use of deadly force? I think I could take them, the one they wont find in my bound book is the Hotchkiss MK1 that I mounted to my roof for SHTF events like this. And zombies.

Pissing on a man's pillow is where i draw the line.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

Now THAT'S funny.....start shootin' when they piss on your pillow!

 

[krashmania]

Lol. I can't take a joke, and I'm upset that people point it out, so I'll go after minor grammatical errors.

 

[iobidder]

Lol. I can't take a joke, and I'm upset that people point it out, so I'll go after minor grammatical errors.

No, it is more like the guy I'm quoting is butthurt because I pointed out his horrible grammar. Only one of us is upset, and it isn't me. Anything else?


Sent from my BlackBerry or iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[DarthZed]

No, it is more like the guy I'm quoting is butthurt because I pointed out his horrible grammar. Only one of us is upset, and it isn't me. Anything else?


Sent from my BlackBerry or iPhone using Tapatalk

In what way is Krash's post in poor grammar? "In" can be used contextually in his sentence as well as "with", better in fact. " In" sounds more formal (a British person might use it in such a way), as if it were being used in a third person, or with passive voice. But it's not really poor grammar. Quite frankly, "with" sounds improper, since it implies an inclusiveness that seems contextually incorrect in his usage. If you want to split hairs, "due to" or "because of" might be better suited; but there is nothing really wrong with Krash's use of "in".

 

[defygravity]

In what way is Krash's post in poor grammar? "In" can be used contextually in his sentence as well as "with", better in fact. " In" sounds more formal (a British person might use it in such a way), as if it were being used in a third person, or with passive voice. But it's not really poor grammer. Quite frankly, "with" sounds improper, since it implies an inclusiveness that seems contextually incorrect in his usage. If you want to split hairs, "due to" or "because of" might be better suited; but there is nothing really wrong with Krash's use of "in".

Well said!

I'm glad there are still people who hold grammar in high regard.

I'm finding that it is quickly becoming a lost art in our society.


Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[krashmania]

In what way is Krash's post in poor grammar? "In" can be used contextually in his sentence as well as "with", better in fact. " In" sounds more formal (a British person might use it in such a way), as if it were being used in a third person, or with passive voice. But it's not really poor grammer. Quite frankly, "with" sounds improper, since it implies an inclusiveness that seems contextually incorrect in his usage. If you want to split hairs, "due to" or "because of" might be better suited; but there is nothing really wrong with Krash's use of "in".

Thank you good sir. I knew I was in the right, but internet trolls get upset if you use logic.

Sent from my VS910 4G using Tapatalk 2

 

[=GoMango=]

No, humor is humorous, that was stupid, kinda like calling me Sparky.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OnpkDWbeJs