If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(American Thinker)   The right to own a firearm was considered by the Framers of the Constitution in 1787 to be equal in importance to the right to speak freely, the right to peaceably assemble and the right to practice religion   (americanthinker.com) divider line 502
    More: Obvious, Framers of the Constitution, second amendment, due process clause, target shooting, Constitution of the United States, importance, U.S. Supreme Court, faiths  
•       •       •

1725 clicks; posted to Politics » on 03 Dec 2012 at 8:39 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



502 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-03 05:20:18 PM  

chuckufarlie: Fail in Human Form: chuckufarlie: That and I seriously doubt if you even have a clue what he was saying

Actually I had to read it and write a paper on it for a Lt. Col once ;-)

/Was an "independent study" class in college for ROTC
//The premise is, use what you have well and force the superior enemy to make the errors you need to win

As I said, Sun Tsu did not fight against tanks and airplanes. You are going to need a very big error.


Weapons change, war stays the same. We had to study Clausewitz, did staff walks on the Gettysburg battlefields, ect. Guess they wasted our time eh?
 
2012-12-03 05:21:33 PM  

chuckufarlie: redmid17: chuckufarlie: No, I would say that you are idiotic to say that it would work. There is one big difference between those wars in the past and what you are projecting and I bet you do not even see its importance.

Those wars were fought in foreign countries that we had no real interest in. We did not intend to stay there forever, we went in for a purpose. And at some point the American people no longer saw the importance of that purpose or why out sons should die in some foreign land.

If some group tries to start a war in the USA, you are never going to get to the point where the American people decide that the war is not important enough to continue fighting it. They are going to see that force as a threat to their way of life and will demand that the government pursue that group and wipe it out. They will demand that the military use every weapon short of nukes to wipe that group out.

You're assuming some group in the US is going to pick a fight with the US government and no popular support. That's not going to happen.

And what could possible happen that would give the group popular support?


Well turning on the civilian populace would be one way. You're asking a question you already know the possible answers to.
 
2012-12-03 05:34:30 PM  

Fail in Human Form: chuckufarlie: Fail in Human Form: chuckufarlie: That and I seriously doubt if you even have a clue what he was saying

Actually I had to read it and write a paper on it for a Lt. Col once ;-)

/Was an "independent study" class in college for ROTC
//The premise is, use what you have well and force the superior enemy to make the errors you need to win

As I said, Sun Tsu did not fight against tanks and airplanes. You are going to need a very big error.

Weapons change, war stays the same. We had to study Clausewitz, did staff walks on the Gettysburg battlefields, ect. Guess they wasted our time eh?


No, but you wasted their time if you believe that war stays the same.
 
2012-12-03 05:36:00 PM  

chuckufarlie: Fail in Human Form: chuckufarlie: Fail in Human Form: chuckufarlie: That and I seriously doubt if you even have a clue what he was saying

Actually I had to read it and write a paper on it for a Lt. Col once ;-)

/Was an "independent study" class in college for ROTC
//The premise is, use what you have well and force the superior enemy to make the errors you need to win

As I said, Sun Tsu did not fight against tanks and airplanes. You are going to need a very big error.

Weapons change, war stays the same. We had to study Clausewitz, did staff walks on the Gettysburg battlefields, ect. Guess they wasted our time eh?

No, but you wasted their time if you believe that war stays the same.


Tactics change (like combined arms in WWII that let Germany run amuck), but the underlying rules of war are constant.
 
2012-12-03 05:36:41 PM  

redmid17: chuckufarlie: redmid17: chuckufarlie: No, I would say that you are idiotic to say that it would work. There is one big difference between those wars in the past and what you are projecting and I bet you do not even see its importance.

Those wars were fought in foreign countries that we had no real interest in. We did not intend to stay there forever, we went in for a purpose. And at some point the American people no longer saw the importance of that purpose or why out sons should die in some foreign land.

If some group tries to start a war in the USA, you are never going to get to the point where the American people decide that the war is not important enough to continue fighting it. They are going to see that force as a threat to their way of life and will demand that the government pursue that group and wipe it out. They will demand that the military use every weapon short of nukes to wipe that group out.

You're assuming some group in the US is going to pick a fight with the US government and no popular support. That's not going to happen.

And what could possible happen that would give the group popular support?

Well turning on the civilian populace would be one way. You're asking a question you already know the possible answers to.


NO, I do not know the answer - What is going to happen that would make govt. turn on the civilian populace? You are being extremely vague with your responses.
 
2012-12-03 05:42:00 PM  

And one wonders why the gun crowd gets angry when the Freudian aspects of gun-nuttery are mentioned...
....
If you noticed the over sized magazine right away, you are way too into guns.


We've got big balls
We've got big balls
We've got big balls
Dirty big balls
He's got big balls
She's got big balls
(But we've got the biggest balls of them all)
 
2012-12-03 05:42:04 PM  
The right to own a firearm was considered by the Framers of the Constitution in 1787 to be equal in importance to the right to speak freely, the right to peaceably assemble and the right to practice religion

All three of which have reasonable restrictions to them.
 
2012-12-03 05:45:50 PM  

Garble: The right to own a firearm was considered by the Framers of the Constitution in 1787 to be equal in importance to the right to speak freely, the right to peaceably assemble and the right to practice religion

All three of which have reasonable restrictions to them.


The rub comes when you define what is reasonable. If you approach if from the aspect of "the people need to be able to defend themselves against a tyrannical government" you're going to have a very different definition of reasonable than a person who approaches it from the aspect of "it allows you to hunt and use firearms in self defense against criminals".
 
2012-12-03 05:46:05 PM  

chuckufarlie: redmid17: chuckufarlie: redmid17: chuckufarlie: No, I would say that you are idiotic to say that it would work. There is one big difference between those wars in the past and what you are projecting and I bet you do not even see its importance.

Those wars were fought in foreign countries that we had no real interest in. We did not intend to stay there forever, we went in for a purpose. And at some point the American people no longer saw the importance of that purpose or why out sons should die in some foreign land.

If some group tries to start a war in the USA, you are never going to get to the point where the American people decide that the war is not important enough to continue fighting it. They are going to see that force as a threat to their way of life and will demand that the government pursue that group and wipe it out. They will demand that the military use every weapon short of nukes to wipe that group out.

You're assuming some group in the US is going to pick a fight with the US government and no popular support. That's not going to happen.

And what could possible happen that would give the group popular support?

Well turning on the civilian populace would be one way. You're asking a question you already know the possible answers to.

NO, I do not know the answer - What is going to happen that would make govt. turn on the civilian populace? You are being extremely vague with your responses.


Because there is no hard and fast concrete answer. Anyone that says they have one is lying.
 
2012-12-03 05:48:59 PM  

Arkanaut: Yes, the Framers of the Constitution valued it so much in 1787 that they waited until 1791 to pass it.


What he said.
 
2012-12-03 05:51:23 PM  

Fail in Human Form: Garble: The right to own a firearm was considered by the Framers of the Constitution in 1787 to be equal in importance to the right to speak freely, the right to peaceably assemble and the right to practice religion

All three of which have reasonable restrictions to them.

The rub comes when you define what is reasonable. If you approach if from the aspect of "the people need to be able to defend themselves against a tyrannical government" you're going to have a very different definition of reasonable than a person who approaches it from the aspect of "it allows you to hunt and use firearms in self defense against criminals".


then you do not need automatic weapons or armor piercing rounds, do you!?
 
2012-12-03 05:52:05 PM  

chuckufarlie: Fail in Human Form: Garble: The right to own a firearm was considered by the Framers of the Constitution in 1787 to be equal in importance to the right to speak freely, the right to peaceably assemble and the right to practice religion

All three of which have reasonable restrictions to them.

The rub comes when you define what is reasonable. If you approach if from the aspect of "the people need to be able to defend themselves against a tyrannical government" you're going to have a very different definition of reasonable than a person who approaches it from the aspect of "it allows you to hunt and use firearms in self defense against criminals".

then you do not need automatic weapons or armor piercing rounds, do you!?


Yes to both, because I agree with the former and not the latter.
 
2012-12-03 05:52:27 PM  

chuckufarlie: way south: chuckufarlie: Fail in Human Form: chuckufarlie: You will not win that war. If some group took over the US government, they would most certainly be ruthless enough to ultimately track you down in your spider hole and kill you.

So certain are you about things you've spent all of 20 minutes thinking about.

What is the proper amount of time that one should spend before one realizes that hunting rifles and automatic rifles are a poor match for tanks, artillery, missiles, rockets and bombers?

Are you expecting to receive aid from some foreign govt. in this quest for freedom? If so, you could get your small arms from them as well.

It may be premature to decide you've lost a war that hasn't been declared yet and has no factions besides "us" VS "those who serve in the US military but are somehow not also us".

/I suspect that drones won't protect their pilots families from being murdered by an angry mob.
/hopefully the fear of another civil war will always help cooler heads prevail in Washington.

what is it that you are anticipating that is going to turn the majority of the population against the government?


I'm not anticipating anything beyond the usual social disasters that happen in other nations.
The last civil war in the US was about states rights, money, slavery, assorted ideological differences, and money. An economic collapse could cause a massive political, economic, or social divide. One party seizing too much power may act in despotic ways and try to wipe out the competition. Small spats over dwindling resources could evolve into regional fights between states.
Who knows what the next century will bring.

...and it doesn't take a majority to cause a mess. Just a few hundred thousand who are determined to do something.

/You're saying that infantry with small arms can't stop a modern force.
/History shows that You can do a lot with a few million armed people.
 
2012-12-03 05:53:26 PM  

redmid17: chuckufarlie: redmid17: chuckufarlie: redmid17: chuckufarlie: No, I would say that you are idiotic to say that it would work. There is one big difference between those wars in the past and what you are projecting and I bet you do not even see its importance.

Those wars were fought in foreign countries that we had no real interest in. We did not intend to stay there forever, we went in for a purpose. And at some point the American people no longer saw the importance of that purpose or why out sons should die in some foreign land.

If some group tries to start a war in the USA, you are never going to get to the point where the American people decide that the war is not important enough to continue fighting it. They are going to see that force as a threat to their way of life and will demand that the government pursue that group and wipe it out. They will demand that the military use every weapon short of nukes to wipe that group out.

You're assuming some group in the US is going to pick a fight with the US government and no popular support. That's not going to happen.

And what could possible happen that would give the group popular support?

Well turning on the civilian populace would be one way. You're asking a question you already know the possible answers to.

NO, I do not know the answer - What is going to happen that would make govt. turn on the civilian populace? You are being extremely vague with your responses.

Because there is no hard and fast concrete answer. Anyone that says they have one is lying.


So, you believe that you need to be armed to the teeth because somebody, somewhere and somehow is going to do something to cause the govt. to turn on the civilian populace. What size tin hat are you wearing?
 
2012-12-03 05:55:04 PM  

Fail in Human Form: chuckufarlie: Fail in Human Form: Garble: The right to own a firearm was considered by the Framers of the Constitution in 1787 to be equal in importance to the right to speak freely, the right to peaceably assemble and the right to practice religion

All three of which have reasonable restrictions to them.

The rub comes when you define what is reasonable. If you approach if from the aspect of "the people need to be able to defend themselves against a tyrannical government" you're going to have a very different definition of reasonable than a person who approaches it from the aspect of "it allows you to hunt and use firearms in self defense against criminals".

then you do not need automatic weapons or armor piercing rounds, do you!?

Yes to both, because I agree with the former and not the latter.


Why do you need automatic weapons to go hunting? Are ducks wearing bullet proof vests?
 
2012-12-03 05:55:29 PM  

chuckufarlie: redmid17: chuckufarlie: redmid17: chuckufarlie: redmid17: chuckufarlie: No, I would say that you are idiotic to say that it would work. There is one big difference between those wars in the past and what you are projecting and I bet you do not even see its importance.

Those wars were fought in foreign countries that we had no real interest in. We did not intend to stay there forever, we went in for a purpose. And at some point the American people no longer saw the importance of that purpose or why out sons should die in some foreign land.

If some group tries to start a war in the USA, you are never going to get to the point where the American people decide that the war is not important enough to continue fighting it. They are going to see that force as a threat to their way of life and will demand that the government pursue that group and wipe it out. They will demand that the military use every weapon short of nukes to wipe that group out.

You're assuming some group in the US is going to pick a fight with the US government and no popular support. That's not going to happen.

And what could possible happen that would give the group popular support?

Well turning on the civilian populace would be one way. You're asking a question you already know the possible answers to.

NO, I do not know the answer - What is going to happen that would make govt. turn on the civilian populace? You are being extremely vague with your responses.

Because there is no hard and fast concrete answer. Anyone that says they have one is lying.

So, you believe that you need to be armed to the teeth because somebody, somewhere and somehow is going to do something to cause the govt. to turn on the civilian populace. What size tin hat are you wearing?


Actually I didn't say anything of the sort. I do not need to be armed to the teeth at all, but I think people have the right to be.
 
2012-12-03 05:55:59 PM  

chuckufarlie: redmid17: chuckufarlie: redmid17: chuckufarlie: redmid17: chuckufarlie: No, I would say that you are idiotic to say that it would work. There is one big difference between those wars in the past and what you are projecting and I bet you do not even see its importance.

Those wars were fought in foreign countries that we had no real interest in. We did not intend to stay there forever, we went in for a purpose. And at some point the American people no longer saw the importance of that purpose or why out sons should die in some foreign land.

If some group tries to start a war in the USA, you are never going to get to the point where the American people decide that the war is not important enough to continue fighting it. They are going to see that force as a threat to their way of life and will demand that the government pursue that group and wipe it out. They will demand that the military use every weapon short of nukes to wipe that group out.

You're assuming some group in the US is going to pick a fight with the US government and no popular support. That's not going to happen.

And what could possible happen that would give the group popular support?

Well turning on the civilian populace would be one way. You're asking a question you already know the possible answers to.

NO, I do not know the answer - What is going to happen that would make govt. turn on the civilian populace? You are being extremely vague with your responses.

Because there is no hard and fast concrete answer. Anyone that says they have one is lying.

So, you believe that you need to be armed to the teeth because somebody, somewhere and somehow is going to do something to cause the govt. to turn on the civilian populace. What size tin hat are you wearing?


You seem to act like we all buy into the most extreme elements and think the "war" is coming tomorrow. I want to ensure these rights for future generations that may be faced with a situation that we cannot fathom today. Once your right to own weapons is removed, you'll never get it back.
 
2012-12-03 05:56:07 PM  

chuckufarlie: Fail in Human Form: chuckufarlie: Fail in Human Form: Garble: The right to own a firearm was considered by the Framers of the Constitution in 1787 to be equal in importance to the right to speak freely, the right to peaceably assemble and the right to practice religion

All three of which have reasonable restrictions to them.

The rub comes when you define what is reasonable. If you approach if from the aspect of "the people need to be able to defend themselves against a tyrannical government" you're going to have a very different definition of reasonable than a person who approaches it from the aspect of "it allows you to hunt and use firearms in self defense against criminals".

then you do not need automatic weapons or armor piercing rounds, do you!?

Yes to both, because I agree with the former and not the latter.

Why do you need automatic weapons to go hunting? Are ducks wearing bullet proof vests?


Reading comprehension is hard.
 
2012-12-03 05:56:11 PM  

way south: chuckufarlie: way south: chuckufarlie: Fail in Human Form: chuckufarlie: You will not win that war. If some group took over the US government, they would most certainly be ruthless enough to ultimately track you down in your spider hole and kill you.

So certain are you about things you've spent all of 20 minutes thinking about.

What is the proper amount of time that one should spend before one realizes that hunting rifles and automatic rifles are a poor match for tanks, artillery, missiles, rockets and bombers?

Are you expecting to receive aid from some foreign govt. in this quest for freedom? If so, you could get your small arms from them as well.

It may be premature to decide you've lost a war that hasn't been declared yet and has no factions besides "us" VS "those who serve in the US military but are somehow not also us".

/I suspect that drones won't protect their pilots families from being murdered by an angry mob.
/hopefully the fear of another civil war will always help cooler heads prevail in Washington.

what is it that you are anticipating that is going to turn the majority of the population against the government?

I'm not anticipating anything beyond the usual social disasters that happen in other nations.
The last civil war in the US was about states rights, money, slavery, assorted ideological differences, and money. An economic collapse could cause a massive political, economic, or social divide. One party seizing too much power may act in despotic ways and try to wipe out the competition. Small spats over dwindling resources could evolve into regional fights between states.
Who knows what the next century will bring.

...and it doesn't take a majority to cause a mess. Just a few hundred thousand who are determined to do something.

/You're saying that infantry with small arms can't stop a modern force.
/History shows that You can do a lot with a few million armed people.


I am going to cut this off right now. You are obviously delusional.
 
2012-12-03 05:57:12 PM  

chuckufarlie: Fail in Human Form: chuckufarlie: Fail in Human Form: Garble: The right to own a firearm was considered by the Framers of the Constitution in 1787 to be equal in importance to the right to speak freely, the right to peaceably assemble and the right to practice religion

All three of which have reasonable restrictions to them.

The rub comes when you define what is reasonable. If you approach if from the aspect of "the people need to be able to defend themselves against a tyrannical government" you're going to have a very different definition of reasonable than a person who approaches it from the aspect of "it allows you to hunt and use firearms in self defense against criminals".

then you do not need automatic weapons or armor piercing rounds, do you!?

Yes to both, because I agree with the former and not the latter.

Why do you need automatic weapons to go hunting? Are ducks wearing bullet proof vests?


You didn't read my post, I believe that the 2nd amendment is there to ensure the people have a means to defend themselves against a threat, be that threat foreign or domestic.
 
2012-12-03 05:57:33 PM  

redmid17: chuckufarlie: Fail in Human Form: chuckufarlie: Fail in Human Form: Garble: The right to own a firearm was considered by the Framers of the Constitution in 1787 to be equal in importance to the right to speak freely, the right to peaceably assemble and the right to practice religion

All three of which have reasonable restrictions to them.

The rub comes when you define what is reasonable. If you approach if from the aspect of "the people need to be able to defend themselves against a tyrannical government" you're going to have a very different definition of reasonable than a person who approaches it from the aspect of "it allows you to hunt and use firearms in self defense against criminals".

then you do not need automatic weapons or armor piercing rounds, do you!?

Yes to both, because I agree with the former and not the latter.

Why do you need automatic weapons to go hunting? Are ducks wearing bullet proof vests?

Reading comprehension is hard.


I asked if you needed automatic weapons and armor piercing rounds and you said yes. Which one of us cannot read?
 
2012-12-03 05:58:54 PM  

chuckufarlie: redmid17: chuckufarlie: Fail in Human Form: chuckufarlie: Fail in Human Form: Garble: The right to own a firearm was considered by the Framers of the Constitution in 1787 to be equal in importance to the right to speak freely, the right to peaceably assemble and the right to practice religion

All three of which have reasonable restrictions to them.

The rub comes when you define what is reasonable. If you approach if from the aspect of "the people need to be able to defend themselves against a tyrannical government" you're going to have a very different definition of reasonable than a person who approaches it from the aspect of "it allows you to hunt and use firearms in self defense against criminals".

then you do not need automatic weapons or armor piercing rounds, do you!?

Yes to both, because I agree with the former and not the latter.

Why do you need automatic weapons to go hunting? Are ducks wearing bullet proof vests?

Reading comprehension is hard.

I asked if you needed automatic weapons and armor piercing rounds and you said yes. Which one of us cannot read?


You obviously, because that was someone else, not me. He also said he needed automatic weapons and AP rounds because he believed in the former, which was a reference to the "people need to be able to defend themselves against a tyrannical government" not hunting.
 
2012-12-03 05:59:13 PM  

chuckufarlie: redmid17: chuckufarlie: Fail in Human Form: chuckufarlie: Fail in Human Form: Garble: The right to own a firearm was considered by the Framers of the Constitution in 1787 to be equal in importance to the right to speak freely, the right to peaceably assemble and the right to practice religion

All three of which have reasonable restrictions to them.

The rub comes when you define what is reasonable. If you approach if from the aspect of "the people need to be able to defend themselves against a tyrannical government" you're going to have a very different definition of reasonable than a person who approaches it from the aspect of "it allows you to hunt and use firearms in self defense against criminals".

then you do not need automatic weapons or armor piercing rounds, do you!?

Yes to both, because I agree with the former and not the latter.

Why do you need automatic weapons to go hunting? Are ducks wearing bullet proof vests?

Reading comprehension is hard.

I asked if you needed automatic weapons and armor piercing rounds and you said yes. Which one of us cannot read?


You're responding to the wrong person bro
 
2012-12-03 06:00:06 PM  

Fail in Human Form: chuckufarlie: Fail in Human Form: chuckufarlie: Fail in Human Form: Garble: The right to own a firearm was considered by the Framers of the Constitution in 1787 to be equal in importance to the right to speak freely, the right to peaceably assemble and the right to practice religion

All three of which have reasonable restrictions to them.

The rub comes when you define what is reasonable. If you approach if from the aspect of "the people need to be able to defend themselves against a tyrannical government" you're going to have a very different definition of reasonable than a person who approaches it from the aspect of "it allows you to hunt and use firearms in self defense against criminals".

then you do not need automatic weapons or armor piercing rounds, do you!?

Yes to both, because I agree with the former and not the latter.

Why do you need automatic weapons to go hunting? Are ducks wearing bullet proof vests?

You didn't read my post, I believe that the 2nd amendment is there to ensure the people have a means to defend themselves against a threat, be that threat foreign or domestic.


So, that means that you are going to need anti-aircraft rockets, anti-tank rockets and artillery. You are going to have a hard time getting the right to buy that sort of stuff.

Unless you want to obtain it illegally. OR do you not see a foreign threat as an army?
 
2012-12-03 06:01:50 PM  

redmid17: chuckufarlie: redmid17: chuckufarlie: Fail in Human Form: chuckufarlie: Fail in Human Form: Garble: The right to own a firearm was considered by the Framers of the Constitution in 1787 to be equal in importance to the right to speak freely, the right to peaceably assemble and the right to practice religion

All three of which have reasonable restrictions to them.

The rub comes when you define what is reasonable. If you approach if from the aspect of "the people need to be able to defend themselves against a tyrannical government" you're going to have a very different definition of reasonable than a person who approaches it from the aspect of "it allows you to hunt and use firearms in self defense against criminals".

then you do not need automatic weapons or armor piercing rounds, do you!?

Yes to both, because I agree with the former and not the latter.

Why do you need automatic weapons to go hunting? Are ducks wearing bullet proof vests?

Reading comprehension is hard.

I asked if you needed automatic weapons and armor piercing rounds and you said yes. Which one of us cannot read?

You obviously, because that was someone else, not me. He also said he needed automatic weapons and AP rounds because he believed in the former, which was a reference to the "people need to be able to defend themselves against a tyrannical government" not hunting.


Then you are back to needing weapons much larger than anything that you can obtain legally. Why is it that your ilk can never understand that?
 
2012-12-03 06:02:30 PM  

Fail in Human Form: chuckufarlie: redmid17: chuckufarlie: Fail in Human Form: chuckufarlie: Fail in Human Form: Garble: The right to own a firearm was considered by the Framers of the Constitution in 1787 to be equal in importance to the right to speak freely, the right to peaceably assemble and the right to practice religion

All three of which have reasonable restrictions to them.

The rub comes when you define what is reasonable. If you approach if from the aspect of "the people need to be able to defend themselves against a tyrannical government" you're going to have a very different definition of reasonable than a person who approaches it from the aspect of "it allows you to hunt and use firearms in self defense against criminals".

then you do not need automatic weapons or armor piercing rounds, do you!?

Yes to both, because I agree with the former and not the latter.

Why do you need automatic weapons to go hunting? Are ducks wearing bullet proof vests?

Reading comprehension is hard.

I asked if you needed automatic weapons and armor piercing rounds and you said yes. Which one of us cannot read?

You're responding to the wrong person bro


one nut job is just the same as any other.
 
2012-12-03 06:03:27 PM  

chuckufarlie: Fail in Human Form: chuckufarlie: Fail in Human Form: chuckufarlie: Fail in Human Form: Garble: The right to own a firearm was considered by the Framers of the Constitution in 1787 to be equal in importance to the right to speak freely, the right to peaceably assemble and the right to practice religion

All three of which have reasonable restrictions to them.

The rub comes when you define what is reasonable. If you approach if from the aspect of "the people need to be able to defend themselves against a tyrannical government" you're going to have a very different definition of reasonable than a person who approaches it from the aspect of "it allows you to hunt and use firearms in self defense against criminals".

then you do not need automatic weapons or armor piercing rounds, do you!?

Yes to both, because I agree with the former and not the latter.

Why do you need automatic weapons to go hunting? Are ducks wearing bullet proof vests?

You didn't read my post, I believe that the 2nd amendment is there to ensure the people have a means to defend themselves against a threat, be that threat foreign or domestic.

So, that means that you are going to need anti-aircraft rockets, anti-tank rockets and artillery. You are going to have a hard time getting the right to buy that sort of stuff.

Unless you want to obtain it illegally. OR do you not see a foreign threat as an army?


Well, small arms and ordnance are regulated differently BUT ordnance can be obtained legally (you might want to sit down for this). Things like 40mm grenades for a M203 can be purchased but are listed as "destructive devices" and are covered by the National Firearms Act. So, as long as you're willing to register them and pay a $200 each tax stamp on top of the cost of the rounds... buy as many as you want.
 
2012-12-03 06:07:28 PM  

chuckufarlie: redmid17: chuckufarlie: redmid17: chuckufarlie: Fail in Human Form: chuckufarlie: Fail in Human Form: Garble: The right to own a firearm was considered by the Framers of the Constitution in 1787 to be equal in importance to the right to speak freely, the right to peaceably assemble and the right to practice religion

All three of which have reasonable restrictions to them.

The rub comes when you define what is reasonable. If you approach if from the aspect of "the people need to be able to defend themselves against a tyrannical government" you're going to have a very different definition of reasonable than a person who approaches it from the aspect of "it allows you to hunt and use firearms in self defense against criminals".

then you do not need automatic weapons or armor piercing rounds, do you!?

Yes to both, because I agree with the former and not the latter.

Why do you need automatic weapons to go hunting? Are ducks wearing bullet proof vests?

Reading comprehension is hard.

I asked if you needed automatic weapons and armor piercing rounds and you said yes. Which one of us cannot read?

You obviously, because that was someone else, not me. He also said he needed automatic weapons and AP rounds because he believed in the former, which was a reference to the "people need to be able to defend themselves against a tyrannical government" not hunting.

Then you are back to needing weapons much larger than anything that you can obtain legally. Why is it that your ilk can never understand that?


Well no you can obtain a *lot* of the stuff you're talking about legally. You just have to jump through a bunch of hoops and pay some cash to do so. If the US was in open rebellion, I imagine that the whole "legally obtain" thing is going to go out of the window.
 
2012-12-03 06:12:43 PM  

chuckufarlie: Fail in Human Form: chuckufarlie: redmid17: chuckufarlie: Fail in Human Form: chuckufarlie: Fail in Human Form: Garble: The right to own a firearm was considered by the Framers of the Constitution in 1787 to be equal in importance to the right to speak freely, the right to peaceably assemble and the right to practice religion

All three of which have reasonable restrictions to them.

The rub comes when you define what is reasonable. If you approach if from the aspect of "the people need to be able to defend themselves against a tyrannical government" you're going to have a very different definition of reasonable than a person who approaches it from the aspect of "it allows you to hunt and use firearms in self defense against criminals".

then you do not need automatic weapons or armor piercing rounds, do you!?

Yes to both, because I agree with the former and not the latter.

Why do you need automatic weapons to go hunting? Are ducks wearing bullet proof vests?

Reading comprehension is hard.

I asked if you needed automatic weapons and armor piercing rounds and you said yes. Which one of us cannot read?

You're responding to the wrong person bro

one nut job is just the same as any other.


You might want to refrain from personal attacks. Just saying.
 
2012-12-03 06:14:23 PM  
Is chuckufarlie unaware that most common rifle caliber ammunition will penetrate low-level ballistic armour such as police vests?
 
2012-12-03 06:17:07 PM  

Dimensio: Is chuckufarlie unaware that most common rifle caliber ammunition will penetrate low-level ballistic armour such as police vests?


I was going to mention things like that or the 7.52x25 Tokarov (like the CZ-52 pistol) penetrating up to lvl III vests but he seems a little over his head already so I let it slide.
 
2012-12-03 06:17:55 PM  

chuckufarlie: I am going to cut this off right now. You are obviously delusional.


You asked for hypothetical situations, I gave you some.

Stay classy.
 
2012-12-03 06:20:26 PM  

Fail in Human Form: chuckufarlie: Fail in Human Form: chuckufarlie: Fail in Human Form: chuckufarlie: That and I seriously doubt if you even have a clue what he was saying

Actually I had to read it and write a paper on it for a Lt. Col once ;-)

/Was an "independent study" class in college for ROTC
//The premise is, use what you have well and force the superior enemy to make the errors you need to win

As I said, Sun Tsu did not fight against tanks and airplanes. You are going to need a very big error.

Weapons change, war stays the same. We had to study Clausewitz, did staff walks on the Gettysburg battlefields, ect. Guess they wasted our time eh?

No, but you wasted their time if you believe that war stays the same.

Tactics change (like combined arms in WWII that let Germany run amuck), but the underlying rules of war are constant.


I hate to break it to you, General, but you are full of shiat. Besides, you are not going to be dealing with the rules of war, you twit. You have going to be dealing with weapons systems that you cannot even begin to defend yourself against.

And the kicker is that you are too farking stupid to realize it.
 
2012-12-03 06:21:52 PM  

way south: chuckufarlie: I am going to cut this off right now. You are obviously delusional.

You asked for hypothetical situations, I gave you some.

Stay classy.


on that long list of things that you do not understand, add hypothetical situations.

Don't you have a militia meeting to go to?
 
2012-12-03 06:22:39 PM  

chuckufarlie: Fail in Human Form: chuckufarlie: Fail in Human Form: chuckufarlie: Fail in Human Form: chuckufarlie: That and I seriously doubt if you even have a clue what he was saying

Actually I had to read it and write a paper on it for a Lt. Col once ;-)

/Was an "independent study" class in college for ROTC
//The premise is, use what you have well and force the superior enemy to make the errors you need to win

As I said, Sun Tsu did not fight against tanks and airplanes. You are going to need a very big error.

Weapons change, war stays the same. We had to study Clausewitz, did staff walks on the Gettysburg battlefields, ect. Guess they wasted our time eh?

No, but you wasted their time if you believe that war stays the same.

Tactics change (like combined arms in WWII that let Germany run amuck), but the underlying rules of war are constant.

I hate to break it to you, General, but you are full of shiat. Besides, you are not going to be dealing with the rules of war, you twit. You have going to be dealing with weapons systems that you cannot even begin to defend yourself against.

And the kicker is that you are too farking stupid to realize it.


Wasn't a general but thanks for the promotion lol. I stand by what I said and you're confusing the "rules of war" with the "rules of engagement". Also, you shouldn't start name calling when you don't know what you're talking about. It makes you look childish.
 
2012-12-03 06:23:09 PM  

Dimensio: Is chuckufarlie unaware that most common rifle caliber ammunition will penetrate low-level ballistic armour such as police vests?


Did anybody tell you that I was not talking about low-level ballistic armour? DUH!
 
2012-12-03 06:25:53 PM  

Fail in Human Form: chuckufarlie: Fail in Human Form: chuckufarlie: Fail in Human Form: chuckufarlie: Fail in Human Form: chuckufarlie: That and I seriously doubt if you even have a clue what he was saying

Actually I had to read it and write a paper on it for a Lt. Col once ;-)

/Was an "independent study" class in college for ROTC
//The premise is, use what you have well and force the superior enemy to make the errors you need to win

As I said, Sun Tsu did not fight against tanks and airplanes. You are going to need a very big error.

Weapons change, war stays the same. We had to study Clausewitz, did staff walks on the Gettysburg battlefields, ect. Guess they wasted our time eh?

No, but you wasted their time if you believe that war stays the same.

Tactics change (like combined arms in WWII that let Germany run amuck), but the underlying rules of war are constant.

I hate to break it to you, General, but you are full of shiat. Besides, you are not going to be dealing with the rules of war, you twit. You have going to be dealing with weapons systems that you cannot even begin to defend yourself against.

And the kicker is that you are too farking stupid to realize it.

Wasn't a general but thanks for the promotion lol. I stand by what I said and you're confusing the "rules of war" with the "rules of engagement". Also, you shouldn't start name calling when you don't know what you're talking about. It makes you look childish.


the closest that you ever came to the military was when you were playing Call to Duty. I am not going to discuss this with you any longer. BTW, I did not call you a name, I pointed out that you are farking stupid.

But to be serious, that applies to all of you militia types, dooms day preppers and future zombie hunters. Just a bunch of people with your heads implanted so far up your asses that nothing sensible survives.
 
2012-12-03 06:26:23 PM  

dittybopper: Pincy: Fail in Human Form: I will never understand why my fellow liberals piss their pants at the thought of people owning or carrying weapons.

I'm a Liberal and I don't piss my pants at the thought of people owning guns.

Good.

But I also think it is perfectly reasonable to put restrictions on gun ownership

Aye, there's the rub. What would you consider reasonable? We already have some reasonable laws, and some unreasonable ones.

and to mock people who think they need to own a gun in case they have to overthrow the government someday.

What, like that has never happened before? Don't you read history at *ALL*?

See, one of the *NICE* things about widespread private ownership of guns is that it makes totalitarianism that much harder to implement.

You don't have to be able to win, you just have to make it expensive enough that they won't try.


The point is that liberals want the government to be able to win. Someone out there enjoys a better life than they do, and they want to make them pay for it with not just everything they own, but their lives and the lives of their loved ones.

/Voting is the best revenge, right libs?
//For people worried that "They're gonna put all you back in chains", you're awfully pro-government power
 
2012-12-03 06:27:27 PM  

chuckufarlie: Fail in Human Form: chuckufarlie: Fail in Human Form: chuckufarlie: Fail in Human Form: chuckufarlie: Fail in Human Form: chuckufarlie: That and I seriously doubt if you even have a clue what he was saying

Actually I had to read it and write a paper on it for a Lt. Col once ;-)

/Was an "independent study" class in college for ROTC
//The premise is, use what you have well and force the superior enemy to make the errors you need to win

As I said, Sun Tsu did not fight against tanks and airplanes. You are going to need a very big error.

Weapons change, war stays the same. We had to study Clausewitz, did staff walks on the Gettysburg battlefields, ect. Guess they wasted our time eh?

No, but you wasted their time if you believe that war stays the same.

Tactics change (like combined arms in WWII that let Germany run amuck), but the underlying rules of war are constant.

I hate to break it to you, General, but you are full of shiat. Besides, you are not going to be dealing with the rules of war, you twit. You have going to be dealing with weapons systems that you cannot even begin to defend yourself against.

And the kicker is that you are too farking stupid to realize it.

Wasn't a general but thanks for the promotion lol. I stand by what I said and you're confusing the "rules of war" with the "rules of engagement". Also, you shouldn't start name calling when you don't know what you're talking about. It makes you look childish.

the closest that you ever came to the military was when you were playing Call to Duty. I am not going to discuss this with you any longer. BTW, I did not call you a name, I pointed out that you are farking stupid.

But to be serious, that applies to all of you militia types, dooms day preppers and future zombie hunters. Just a bunch of people with your heads implanted so far up your asses that nothing sensible survives.


So by playing call of duty, one joins ROTC? shiat I've been enlisted a lot longer than I thought. Maybe the DoD will cover my student loans now.
 
2012-12-03 06:27:48 PM  

chuckufarlie: Fail in Human Form: chuckufarlie: Fail in Human Form: chuckufarlie: Fail in Human Form: chuckufarlie: Fail in Human Form: chuckufarlie: That and I seriously doubt if you even have a clue what he was saying

Actually I had to read it and write a paper on it for a Lt. Col once ;-)

/Was an "independent study" class in college for ROTC
//The premise is, use what you have well and force the superior enemy to make the errors you need to win

As I said, Sun Tsu did not fight against tanks and airplanes. You are going to need a very big error.

Weapons change, war stays the same. We had to study Clausewitz, did staff walks on the Gettysburg battlefields, ect. Guess they wasted our time eh?

No, but you wasted their time if you believe that war stays the same.

Tactics change (like combined arms in WWII that let Germany run amuck), but the underlying rules of war are constant.

I hate to break it to you, General, but you are full of shiat. Besides, you are not going to be dealing with the rules of war, you twit. You have going to be dealing with weapons systems that you cannot even begin to defend yourself against.

And the kicker is that you are too farking stupid to realize it.

Wasn't a general but thanks for the promotion lol. I stand by what I said and you're confusing the "rules of war" with the "rules of engagement". Also, you shouldn't start name calling when you don't know what you're talking about. It makes you look childish.

the closest that you ever came to the military was when you were playing Call to Duty. I am not going to discuss this with you any longer. BTW, I did not call you a name, I pointed out that you are farking stupid.

But to be serious, that applies to all of you militia types, dooms day preppers and future zombie hunters. Just a bunch of people with your heads implanted so far up your asses that nothing sensible survives.


Give me a sec, Iol and I'll post a pic of my commission certificate. I think I have it in a box in the closet... why will I post the pic...because I'm bored xD
 
2012-12-03 06:28:57 PM  

chuckufarlie: way south: chuckufarlie: I am going to cut this off right now. You are obviously delusional.

You asked for hypothetical situations, I gave you some.

Stay classy.

on that long list of things that you do not understand, add hypothetical situations.

Don't you have a militia meeting to go to?


Naw.
I'd rather stay here and see what random insult you throw next at the people trying to debate you.

/Also catching up on news from wars that shouldn't be happening.
/You know, because one side has tanks and the other doesn't.
 
2012-12-03 06:31:01 PM  

redmid17: chuckufarlie: redmid17: chuckufarlie: redmid17: chuckufarlie: Fail in Human Form: chuckufarlie: Fail in Human Form: Garble: The right to own a firearm was considered by the Framers of the Constitution in 1787 to be equal in importance to the right to speak freely, the right to peaceably assemble and the right to practice religion

All three of which have reasonable restrictions to them.

The rub comes when you define what is reasonable. If you approach if from the aspect of "the people need to be able to defend themselves against a tyrannical government" you're going to have a very different definition of reasonable than a person who approaches it from the aspect of "it allows you to hunt and use firearms in self defense against criminals".

then you do not need automatic weapons or armor piercing rounds, do you!?

Yes to both, because I agree with the former and not the latter.

Why do you need automatic weapons to go hunting? Are ducks wearing bullet proof vests?

Reading comprehension is hard.

I asked if you needed automatic weapons and armor piercing rounds and you said yes. Which one of us cannot read?

You obviously, because that was someone else, not me. He also said he needed automatic weapons and AP rounds because he believed in the former, which was a reference to the "people need to be able to defend themselves against a tyrannical government" not hunting.

Then you are back to needing weapons much larger than anything that you can obtain legally. Why is it that your ilk can never understand that?

Well no you can obtain a *lot* of the stuff you're talking about legally. You just have to jump through a bunch of hoops and pay some cash to do so. If the US was in open rebellion, I imagine that the whole "legally obtain" thing is going to go out of the window.


I am sure that there is some sort of militia meeting that you need to get to.

Up to a point, morons like you are entertaining. You and your buddies have moved past that. It is sad to see a bunch of emasculated monkeys who believe that they can restore their manhood with some mythical stand against the government. Maybe if you boys would just stop marrying your sisters, things might improve.

But anybody SOOOOOO stupid that he believes that there is armed conflict between the people of this country and the government is beyond help or hope. It is not going to happen, cooter, get over it.

And it if did, you and your buddies with your automatic weapons are going to get smoked by one Predator Drone that you never saw coming. The End.
 
2012-12-03 06:32:35 PM  

chuckufarlie: I am sure that there is some sort of militia meeting that you need to get to.

Up to a point, morons like you are entertaining. You and your buddies have moved past that. It is sad to see a bunch of emasculated monkeys who believe that they can restore their manhood with some mythical stand against the government. Maybe if you boys would just stop marrying your sisters, things might improve.

But anybody SOOOOOO stupid that he believes that there is armed conflict between the people of this country and the government is beyond help or hope. It is not going to happen, cooter, get over it.

And it if did, you and your buddies with your automatic weapons are going to get smoked by one Predator Drone that you never saw coming. The End.


Did I ever say I'd fight against the government? Did I ever say I was part of a militia? You're rambling and rambling on about shiat you clearly don't understand. It's quite amusing.
 
2012-12-03 06:34:12 PM  

beta_plus: dittybopper: Pincy: Fail in Human Form: I will never understand why my fellow liberals piss their pants at the thought of people owning or carrying weapons.

I'm a Liberal and I don't piss my pants at the thought of people owning guns.

Good.

But I also think it is perfectly reasonable to put restrictions on gun ownership

Aye, there's the rub. What would you consider reasonable? We already have some reasonable laws, and some unreasonable ones.

and to mock people who think they need to own a gun in case they have to overthrow the government someday.

What, like that has never happened before? Don't you read history at *ALL*?

See, one of the *NICE* things about widespread private ownership of guns is that it makes totalitarianism that much harder to implement.

You don't have to be able to win, you just have to make it expensive enough that they won't try.

The point is that liberals want the government to be able to win. Someone out there enjoys a better life than they do, and they want to make them pay for it with not just everything they own, but their lives and the lives of their loved ones.

/Voting is the best revenge, right libs?
//For people worried that "They're gonna put all you back in chains", you're awfully pro-government power


by and large, liberals have a much better life than the average conservative. We do not look at Honey Boo Boo and wish that we had that life. I have seen the way that gun toting conservatives live and I want nothing to do with it. And those gun toting conservatives are happy as long as they have a gun, a bottle of beer and a sister to make love to.

The status quo is good.
 
2012-12-03 06:40:26 PM  

chuckufarlie: Fail in Human Form: chuckufarlie: Fail in Human Form: chuckufarlie: Fail in Human Form: chuckufarlie: Fail in Human Form: chuckufarlie: That and I seriously doubt if you even have a clue what he was saying

Actually I had to read it and write a paper on it for a Lt. Col once ;-)

/Was an "independent study" class in college for ROTC
//The premise is, use what you have well and force the superior enemy to make the errors you need to win

As I said, Sun Tsu did not fight against tanks and airplanes. You are going to need a very big error.

Weapons change, war stays the same. We had to study Clausewitz, did staff walks on the Gettysburg battlefields, ect. Guess they wasted our time eh?

No, but you wasted their time if you believe that war stays the same.

Tactics change (like combined arms in WWII that let Germany run amuck), but the underlying rules of war are constant.

I hate to break it to you, General, but you are full of shiat. Besides, you are not going to be dealing with the rules of war, you twit. You have going to be dealing with weapons systems that you cannot even begin to defend yourself against.

And the kicker is that you are too farking stupid to realize it.

Wasn't a general but thanks for the promotion lol. I stand by what I said and you're confusing the "rules of war" with the "rules of engagement". Also, you shouldn't start name calling when you don't know what you're talking about. It makes you look childish.

the closest that you ever came to the military was when you were playing Call to Duty. I am not going to discuss this with you any longer. BTW, I did not call you a name, I pointed out that you are farking stupid.

But to be serious, that applies to all of you militia types, dooms day preppers and future zombie hunters. Just a bunch of people with your heads implanted so far up your asses that nothing sensible survives.


My grad cert is at home but I have my old cert from OBC that serves the same purpose. Anything else you'd like to question Mr. I don't know WTF I'm talking about i46.tinypic.com
 
2012-12-03 06:50:28 PM  

Fail in Human Form: chuckufarlie: Fail in Human Form: chuckufarlie: Fail in Human Form: chuckufarlie: Fail in Human Form: chuckufarlie: Fail in Human Form: chuckufarlie: That and I seriously doubt if you even have a clue what he was saying

Actually I had to read it and write a paper on it for a Lt. Col once ;-)

/Was an "independent study" class in college for ROTC
//The premise is, use what you have well and force the superior enemy to make the errors you need to win

As I said, Sun Tsu did not fight against tanks and airplanes. You are going to need a very big error.

Weapons change, war stays the same. We had to study Clausewitz, did staff walks on the Gettysburg battlefields, ect. Guess they wasted our time eh?

No, but you wasted their time if you believe that war stays the same.

Tactics change (like combined arms in WWII that let Germany run amuck), but the underlying rules of war are constant.

I hate to break it to you, General, but you are full of shiat. Besides, you are not going to be dealing with the rules of war, you twit. You have going to be dealing with weapons systems that you cannot even begin to defend yourself against.

And the kicker is that you are too farking stupid to realize it.

Wasn't a general but thanks for the promotion lol. I stand by what I said and you're confusing the "rules of war" with the "rules of engagement". Also, you shouldn't start name calling when you don't know what you're talking about. It makes you look childish.

the closest that you ever came to the military was when you were playing Call to Duty. I am not going to discuss this with you any longer. BTW, I did not call you a name, I pointed out that you are farking stupid.

But to be serious, that applies to all of you militia types, dooms day preppers and future zombie hunters. Just a bunch of people with your heads implanted so far up your asses that nothing sensible survives.

My grad cert is at home but I have my old cert from OBC that serves the same purpose. Anything ...


one more question for you. How stupid do you have to be to believe that people are going to accept something like that as real? I have a certificate somewhere that shows that I am the rightful emperor of Mars,but I cannot find it right now. Maybe I can create a new one with Photoshop.
 
2012-12-03 06:52:05 PM  

chuckufarlie: one more question for you. How stupid do you have to be to believe that people are going to accept something like that as real? I have a certificate somewhere that shows that I am the rightful emperor of Mars,but I cannot find it right now. Maybe I can create a new one with Photoshop.



Lol, whatever man. Still searching for Obama's birth certificate?
 
2012-12-03 06:52:07 PM  

Fail in Human Form: Princess Ryans Knickers: s2s2s2: Princess Ryans Knickers: Which part of 'well-regulated' do you not understand?

Which part of "the people" do you not understand?

Exactly. So if "the people" decide to limit your guns your response is what, now?

"Every immoral law must be disobeyed."


So you don't like the Constitution. Gotcha.
 
2012-12-03 06:53:27 PM  

redmid17: chuckufarlie: I am sure that there is some sort of militia meeting that you need to get to.

Up to a point, morons like you are entertaining. You and your buddies have moved past that. It is sad to see a bunch of emasculated monkeys who believe that they can restore their manhood with some mythical stand against the government. Maybe if you boys would just stop marrying your sisters, things might improve.

But anybody SOOOOOO stupid that he believes that there is armed conflict between the people of this country and the government is beyond help or hope. It is not going to happen, cooter, get over it.

And it if did, you and your buddies with your automatic weapons are going to get smoked by one Predator Drone that you never saw coming. The End.

Did I ever say I'd fight against the government? Did I ever say I was part of a militia? You're rambling and rambling on about shiat you clearly don't understand. It's quite amusing.


you fit the profile. Don't try to deny it at this point. Not that I give a care one way or the other but at least you could be honest about it. I do not understand your type, you are too cowardly to even admit what you are.
 
2012-12-03 06:55:47 PM  

Fail in Human Form: chuckufarlie: one more question for you. How stupid do you have to be to believe that people are going to accept something like that as real? I have a certificate somewhere that shows that I am the rightful emperor of Mars,but I cannot find it right now. Maybe I can create a new one with Photoshop.


Lol, whatever man. Still searching for Obama's birth certificate?


Now you are really confused. You are the one who fits the profile of a birther, not me. You are apparently stupider than I gave you credit for. Tell me. is it difficult to breathe if you close your mouth?
 
Displayed 50 of 502 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report