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.

(Townhall)   Hey derps, the purpose of the second amendment was not to fight the British, but to fight our own elected government. Just ask Alexander Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison. Or more recently Hubert H. Humphrey   (townhall.com) divider line 527
    More: Obvious, Alexander Hamilton, British, second amendment, right of self-defense, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson  
•       •       •

2578 clicks; posted to Politics » on 02 Jan 2013 at 5:13 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



527 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
 
2013-01-02 02:18:16 PM
I'd like to see the whole constitution defended with the same zealotry and passion that the 2nd Amendment generates.
 
2013-01-02 02:18:23 PM
 
2013-01-02 02:23:28 PM
Well, then you and your rag-tag group of freedom fighters band together and get after it. Please tweet us all something inspirational right before the first drone strike
 
2013-01-02 02:23:55 PM
I thought it was to fight the common cold...no? How about the Amish?


...the Vikings?
 
2013-01-02 02:26:09 PM
And yet treason is defined in the constitution as levying war against the US. That isn't an amendment, that's part of the original document.
 
2013-01-02 02:28:34 PM
I'm pretty sure a Bushmaster would be largely ineffective against a M1 tank

/just sayin...
 
2013-01-02 02:29:57 PM
Thomas Jefferson: "What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance?"

Every other industrialized nation on the entire planet?
 
2013-01-02 02:32:38 PM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: I'm pretty sure a Bushmaster would be largely ineffective against a M1 tank

/just sayin...


Insert misleading and poorly informed argument about Gorilla Warfare in a Third World country and breaking foreign will to fight in rebuttal. (Magical Psychic powers tell me Iraq, Vietnam or Afghanistan will be mentioned. What they forget to menion is two out of three have working local Governments, and the third has a population that never learned to fight once the US stopped fighting for it.)

FTFA: Walter E. WilliamsDr. Williams serves on the faculty of George Mason University as John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics and is the author of 'Race and Economics: How Much Can Be Blamed on Discrimination?' and 'Up from the Projects: An Autobiography.'

This man seems in no way a questionable source of information to base my opinions upon.
 
2013-01-02 02:33:00 PM
Or the members of the Whiskey Rebellion.  You know, the one that was stopped by an army lead by George Washington.
 
2013-01-02 02:36:28 PM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: I'm pretty sure a Bushmaster would be largely ineffective against a M1 tank

/just sayin...


Ha! So you think. But, they have TWO --count 'em-- two Bushmasters and a stack of man cards.

What's the military got besides gays and womenfolk?
 
2013-01-02 02:36:36 PM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: I'm pretty sure a Bushmaster would be largely ineffective against a M1 tank

/just sayin...


Who needs a tank when you can just have a robot obliterate that pesky little resistance movement from 30,000 feet?
 
2013-01-02 02:39:03 PM

BronyMedic: Gorilla Warfare


Guerrilla Warfare, now post a pony pic.
 
2013-01-02 02:41:34 PM
Seriously, I generally support the second amendment, but this "overthrow the tyrants in government" angle is not the best argument.  When said tyrannical government literally can wipe you out from the stratosphere with hellfire missles, without you even being aware of the threat before you are vaporized into a grease spot, whether or not you have a 30 round clip isn't going to make a whole lot of difference.
 
2013-01-02 02:44:39 PM

Because People in power are Stupid: BronyMedic: Gorilla Warfare

Guerrilla Warfare, now post a pony pic.


Don't be a pedant.  Gorilla warfare is awesome.

2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-01-02 02:44:53 PM

gilgigamesh: MaudlinMutantMollusk: I'm pretty sure a Bushmaster would be largely ineffective against a M1 tank

/just sayin...

Who needs a tank when you can just have a robot obliterate that pesky little resistance movement from 30,000 feet?


Well, that hardly seems sporting now, doesn't it?  I'm sure we could take them out without wasting the jet fuel needed to put a drone in the air and have a little fun doing it.
 
2013-01-02 02:47:09 PM

gilgigamesh: Seriously, I generally support the second amendment, but this "overthrow the tyrants in government" angle is not the best argument.  When said tyrannical government literally can wipe you out from the stratosphere with hellfire missles, without you even being aware of the threat before you are vaporized into a grease spot, whether or not you have a 30 round clip isn't going to make a whole lot of difference.


I agree that is pretty much not the best argument, but in a situation where there were perhaps some armed resistance to a government that had become too tyrannical in the eyes of a large enough section of the population that an insurrection is actually viable, one wonders if the military would engage in a strategy of obliterating infrastructure such as roads, bridges, power plants, etc. and risk collateral damage of killing unarmed civilians.  I doubt you would see that sort of "scorched earth" strategy.  Then you have to assume that there is a consensus within the military from top to bottom and that there aren't significant numbers of sympathizers who might break rank in significant numbers and take some equipment with them.  Lesser armed and equipped combatants can inflict some pretty significant damage against a vastly superior force that is fighting with restraint.
 
2013-01-02 02:49:24 PM

Vodka Zombie: Well, that hardly seems sporting now, doesn't it?  I'm sure we could take them out without wasting the jet fuel needed to put a drone in the air and have a little fun doing it.


No no no.  Classic supervillain mistake.  Just use the drones and be done with it.  Quick, clean, no room for mistakes and sends a clear message to others who would oppose you.

I'll bet you also stop to tell the hero about your plan before frying his face off with the turbo laser, don't you?
 
2013-01-02 02:52:23 PM

gilgigamesh: Vodka Zombie: Well, that hardly seems sporting now, doesn't it?  I'm sure we could take them out without wasting the jet fuel needed to put a drone in the air and have a little fun doing it.

No no no.  Classic supervillain mistake.  Just use the drones and be done with it.  Quick, clean, no room for mistakes and sends a clear message to others who would oppose you.

I'll bet you also stop to tell the hero about your plan before frying his face off with the turbo laser, don't you?


Next you'll be telling me not to tie them up with that cheap rope in my razor blade factory.  It's really a great place to keep prisoners, ya know.  Razor blades are scary.
 
2013-01-02 02:53:27 PM

Vodka Zombie: gilgigamesh: MaudlinMutantMollusk: I'm pretty sure a Bushmaster would be largely ineffective against a M1 tank

/just sayin...

Who needs a tank when you can just have a robot obliterate that pesky little resistance movement from 30,000 feet?

Well, that hardly seems sporting now, doesn't it?  I'm sure we could take them out without wasting the jet fuel needed to put a drone in the air and have a little fun doing it.


I think the M1 runs on jet fuel, too, so it's a tradeoff

/the drone probably gets a lot better mileage
 
2013-01-02 02:56:18 PM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: I'm pretty sure a Bushmaster would be largely ineffective against a M1 tank

/just sayin...


Pffft!  Tell that to my Panzer outside of Neo-Tokyo who got his ass beaten by a Spearman.
 
2013-01-02 02:58:37 PM
Well we are leaving Afghanistan in 2014, why? The reason is we cannot, even with all of our technology defeat an determined people. In order to win you must treat the people as the Nazis treated the Jews and even with that the Nazis were destined to lose. I am sure that the US army will not kill US citizens in mass. If you studied army tactics you will find that occupying a country, even your own is extremely costly in terms of life and money. Also, it is very easy to hide in your own country, a rebel looks just like anyone else. If war comes to the US it will be extremely costly in terms of money and lives. Also, just how many US troops will be willing to shoot their fellow citizens? If only five percent of the troops refuse the military becomes a paper tiger. War has happened here before and the cost was horrendous, 600,000 soldiers killed 4 millions injured and countless civilian misery. If the war does come I will be on the front lines, probably an early causality but so be it. As Jefferson said "The tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of patriots".
 
2013-01-02 03:01:33 PM

Because People in power are Stupid: Ask the Whiskey Rebellion.


Done in two.
 
2013-01-02 03:05:27 PM
Nabb1: gilgigamesh: Seriously, I generally support the second amendment, but this "overthrow the tyrants in government" angle is not the best argument. When said tyrannical government literally can wipe you out from the stratosphere with hellfire missles, without you even being aware of the threat before you are vaporized into a grease spot, whether or not you have a 30 round clip isn't going to make a whole lot of difference.

I agree that is pretty much not the best argument, but in a situation where there were perhaps some armed resistance to a government that had become too tyrannical in the eyes of a large enough section of the population that an insurrection is actually viable, one wonders if the military would engage in a strategy of obliterating infrastructure such as roads, bridges, power plants, etc. and risk collateral damage of killing unarmed civilians. I doubt you would see that sort of "scorched earth" strategy. Then you have to assume that there is a consensus within the military from top to bottom and that there aren't significant numbers of sympathizers who might break rank in significant numbers and take some equipment with them. Lesser armed and equipped combatants can inflict some pretty significant damage against a vastly superior force that is fighting with restraint.

I was proceeding from the assumption that if we are rolling tanks into break up resistance, we are well past concerns over collateral damage. In an all out revolution to oust a tyrant who simply doesn't give a shiat anymore, like in Syria, I don't think arms restrictions would matter one way or the other.

I suppose it is a far more likely scenario that you would have isolated pockets of resistance as a starting point, like Waco except not a failure. In that case, the government would probably take incremental steps to break up resistance in order to avoid the risk of generating sympathy or even inflaming others to take up arms.

I still don't think that is particularly likely, which is why I don't like the argument. It feels far fetched.

Anyway we already know what a gun grab looks like: it happened in Katrina. And the reason for the gun grab wasn't Malevolent Tyranny. Instead it was his potato-counting brother, Insipid Bureaucracy.
 
2013-01-02 03:06:39 PM
Wait, I thought the 2nd Amendment was clearly outlined by a bell-ringing Paul Revere as he warned the British, and such as?
 
2013-01-02 03:07:23 PM

maxalt: Well we are leaving Afghanistan in 2014, why? The reason is we cannot, even with all of our technology defeat an determined people. In order to win you must treat the people as the Nazis treated the Jews and even with that the Nazis were destined to lose. I am sure that the US army will not kill US citizens in mass. If you studied army tactics you will find that occupying a country, even your own is extremely costly in terms of life and money. Also, it is very easy to hide in your own country, a rebel looks just like anyone else. If war comes to the US it will be extremely costly in terms of money and lives. Also, just how many US troops will be willing to shoot their fellow citizens? If only five percent of the troops refuse the military becomes a paper tiger. War has happened here before and the cost was horrendous, 600,000 soldiers killed 4 millions injured and countless civilian misery. If the war does come I will be on the front lines, probably an early causality but so be it. As Jefferson said "The tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of patriots".


"We need these things to shoot American soldiers and police officers."
 
2013-01-02 03:10:48 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: maxalt: Well we are leaving Afghanistan in 2014, why? The reason is we cannot, even with all of our technology defeat an determined people. In order to win you must treat the people as the Nazis treated the Jews and even with that the Nazis were destined to lose. I am sure that the US army will not kill US citizens in mass. If you studied army tactics you will find that occupying a country, even your own is extremely costly in terms of life and money. Also, it is very easy to hide in your own country, a rebel looks just like anyone else. If war comes to the US it will be extremely costly in terms of money and lives. Also, just how many US troops will be willing to shoot their fellow citizens? If only five percent of the troops refuse the military becomes a paper tiger. War has happened here before and the cost was horrendous, 600,000 soldiers killed 4 millions injured and countless civilian misery. If the war does come I will be on the front lines, probably an early causality but so be it. As Jefferson said "The tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of patriots".

"We need these things to shoot American soldiers and police officers."


He's apparently so excited about it he'll be on the front lines regardless of the actual reasons for shooting them.  It could be Team Edward vs Team Beiber, so long as he gets to unload into some uniforms.
 
2013-01-02 03:16:16 PM

James!: He's apparently so excited about it he'll be on the front lines regardless of the actual reasons for shooting them. It could be Team Edward vs Team Beiber, so long as he gets to unload into some uniforms.


Every time I hear that Jefferson quote from anyone other than a history professor, I know I am dealing with a "special" individual.

By the way, the rebels lost in 1865.
 
2013-01-02 03:21:28 PM

gilgigamesh: Anyway we already know what a gun grab looks like: it happened in Katrina. And the reason for the gun grab wasn't Malevolent Tyranny. Instead it was his potato-counting brother, Insipid Bureaucracy.


I never even considered owning a gun before that.  I bought one right after.

Oh, and one other thing - I often wonder if another aspect of the Second Amendment was that it was supposed deter anyone from attempting an armed overthrow of the democratic government knowing that the citizenry was armed and probably not too keen on the idea.  It may not necessarily be the citizens protecting themselves from the government, but being the last line of defense against a military-coup.  Obviously, that is even more far-fetched in this day and age, but look at how many times France turned over their government violently after their revolution.
 
2013-01-02 03:30:12 PM

maxalt: Well we are leaving Afghanistan in 2014, why? The reason is we cannot, even with all of our technology defeat an determined people. In order to win you must treat the people as the Nazis treated the Jews and even with that the Nazis were destined to lose. I am sure that the US army will not kill US citizens in mass. If you studied army tactics you will find that occupying a country, even your own is extremely costly in terms of life and money. Also, it is very easy to hide in your own country, a rebel looks just like anyone else. If war comes to the US it will be extremely costly in terms of money and lives. Also, just how many US troops will be willing to shoot their fellow citizens? If only five percent of the troops refuse the military becomes a paper tiger. War has happened here before and the cost was horrendous, 600,000 soldiers killed 4 millions injured and countless civilian misery. If the war does come I will be on the front lines, probably an early causality but so be it. As Jefferson said "The tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of patriots".


i.imgur.com
 
2013-01-02 03:37:10 PM

maxalt: Well we are leaving Afghanistan in 2014, why? The reason is we cannot, even with all of our technology defeat an determined people. In order to win you must treat the people as the Nazis treated the Jews and even with that the Nazis were destined to lose. I am sure that the US army will not kill US citizens in mass. If you studied army tactics you will find that occupying a country, even your own is extremely costly in terms of life and money. Also, it is very easy to hide in your own country, a rebel looks just like anyone else. If war comes to the US it will be extremely costly in terms of money and lives. Also, just how many US troops will be willing to shoot their fellow citizens? If only five percent of the troops refuse the military becomes a paper tiger. War has happened here before and the cost was horrendous, 600,000 soldiers killed 4 millions injured and countless civilian misery. If the war does come I will be on the front lines, probably an early causality but so be it. As Jefferson said "The tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of patriots".


"Occupying a Country"? You mean defending the United States against a rebel faction of it's own people? Yeah, it's a little different when you have a group of Teahadists in this day and age who are willing to line up and shoot anyone not white and Christian. And all it would take would be for that faction to support something ostensibly heinous (i.e. racism/slavery or wanting to form their own "constitution"), and you'd not see very many military men dropping their arms. Again, your argument is that "all our technology cannot defeat a determined people", however history has shown that is not the case. Vietnam was a military victory - all objectives were achieved when it was turned over to the South Vietnamese. It was the South's Government, corrupt and unwilling to fight, and having lost the legitimacy of it's ENTIRE people, that lost the Vietnam war. Vietnam also showed that new technology, like precision bombing, was not enough. Iraq and Afghanistan, somehow in violation of this argument, have relatively stable Governments for post-war countries. Guerilla warfare only works if you have an enemy unwilling to adapt to those tactics, either ethically or physically. It's why it failed so miserably against the Nazi Regime's occupations. The Nazis had no problem with collateral damage, the main tactic that kind of warfare tries to force the other side to inflict. A village was only a number.

The fact you're mentally masturbating over starting a civil war, which would cost the lives of MILLIONS of Americans in this day and age, and doing so in a celebratory fashion while the Constitution of the United States is still in power sickens me.
 
2013-01-02 03:37:11 PM
Remember the last time there was full scale armed rebellion in the USA?  How'd that turn out?
 
2013-01-02 03:43:00 PM

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Remember the last time there was full scale armed rebellion in the USA?  How'd that turn out?


Conservative Estimates are around 618,000 Combat Dead, although the number is generally agreed to reach around 700,000 total. These exceed the combined fatalities of every war since then - including World War II and Vietnam. The population of the reunified United States, in 1866, was 39.6 Million People. 1.7% of the US population before the Civil War was killed in the conflict, and that's just the Military Casualties of war, not civilians. In addition, the South and North were both left economically and socially devistated by the aftermath - major cities were leveled and burned, railways and roads destroyed, and ports lay in ruins.

But yeah. let's set around and circle jerk about Civil War II. It'll be like Call of Duty, or something.
 
2013-01-02 03:57:04 PM
There have been people who've ridiculed the protections afforded by the Second Amendment, asking what chance would citizens have against the military might of the U.S. government.

Whether they could or couldn't (they couldn't) is irrelevant, because they won't.  All talk.

Military might isn't always the deciding factor. Our 1776 War of Independence was against the mightiest nation on the face of the earth -- Great Britain.

Great Britain was pretty tied up in the latter half of that century, and the 13 colonies weren't exactly top priority.  The timing was perfect (for us).  If Britain was even slightly less encumbered by events outside of America, the Revolution would have been pretty easily squashed.  Independence was inevitable, but luck and global politics/warfare have more to do with it happening then than many Americans like to believe.

Sill, maybe your right, tough guy.  So, when do we rise up and take our country back?  Aren't we being ruled by a tyrant right now?  That's what websites like yours keep telling people.

What the f*ck are y'all waiting for?
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-01-02 03:58:55 PM
No, it was to prevent their own government from being replaced by tyrant, or so that patriots could re-establish it if it were overthrown.

It was not so that a minority of angry red-necks could overthrow the constitutional Republic and establish a tyranny.
 
2013-01-02 04:01:23 PM

vpb: No, it was to prevent their own government from being replaced by tyrant, or so that patriots could re-establish it if it were overthrown.

It was not so that a minority of angry red-necks could overthrow the constitutional Republic and establish a tyranny.


They were well-aware of that fact.  The Whiskey Rebellion was put down before the Second Amendment was ratified.
 
2013-01-02 04:03:11 PM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: I'm pretty sure a Bushmaster would be largely ineffective against a M1 tank

/just sayin...


Just ask the Taliban.
 
2013-01-02 04:11:49 PM

Peter von Nostrand: Well, then you and your rag-tag group of freedom fighters band together and get after it. Please tweet us all something inspirational right before the first drone strike


dtdstudios.com
 
2013-01-02 04:13:39 PM

BronyMedic: maxalt: Well we are leaving Afghanistan in 2014, why? The reason is we cannot, even with all of our technology defeat an determined people. In order to win you must treat the people as the Nazis treated the Jews and even with that the Nazis were destined to lose. I am sure that the US army will not kill US citizens in mass. If you studied army tactics you will find that occupying a country, even your own is extremely costly in terms of life and money. Also, it is very easy to hide in your own country, a rebel looks just like anyone else. If war comes to the US it will be extremely costly in terms of money and lives. Also, just how many US troops will be willing to shoot their fellow citizens? If only five percent of the troops refuse the military becomes a paper tiger. War has happened here before and the cost was horrendous, 600,000 soldiers killed 4 millions injured and countless civilian misery. If the war does come I will be on the front lines, probably an early causality but so be it. As Jefferson said "The tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of patriots".

"Occupying a Country"? You mean defending the United States against a rebel faction of it's own people? Yeah, it's a little different when you have a group of Teahadists in this day and age who are willing to line up and shoot anyone not white and Christian. And all it would take would be for that faction to support something ostensibly heinous (i.e. racism/slavery or wanting to form their own "constitution"), and you'd not see very many military men dropping their arms. Again, your argument is that "all our technology cannot defeat a determined people", however history has shown that is not the case. Vietnam was a military victory - all objectives were achieved when it was turned over to the South Vietnamese. It was the South's Government, corrupt and unwilling to fight, and having lost the legitimacy of it's ENTIRE people, that lost the Vietnam war. Vietnam also showed that new technology, like ...

Wow where to begin, your addition of sexual comments shows maturity. I don't view people upon religious  beliefs and race as obviously you do. And no Vietnam was not a victory, the "SOUTH VIETNAM" troops were in fact infiltrated to the extent that no US or Vietnam troop movements were ever secret therefore we were at a strategic disadvantage from the get go. Furthermore I do not want a civil war but I would like a peaceful separation form the US. In that I am not alone by a long shot, look at the amount of people who view civil separation as a viable outcome. As to your lack of knowledge of the Vietnam war I was alive and aware back then. I live right next door to Little Saigon here in Garden Grove Ca.I  work and live with Vietnamese and I can tell you that the government had not lost the ENTIRE people, just enough to lose the war.
 
2013-01-02 04:14:14 PM
i.imgur.com

GOD I can't wait till I can shoot someone
 
2013-01-02 04:14:32 PM
Smaller magazines are not tyranny.
 
2013-01-02 04:15:35 PM
My boner will never be completely satiated until I can gun down one of those "zombies" trying to make off with my iPhone
 
2013-01-02 04:16:09 PM
The problem with a civil war here is we likely would be invaded. A civil war here would be a world war. Weaker countries that try to get into the mix for payback would be virtually annihilated by their neighbors.. A strong country would be able to walk in practically unopposed. A civil war here is also unlikely to be separated by geographical lines. It'd be more of a melee across much of the country, especially in heterogeneous locations such as NY, LA, LV, etc. Multiply the Arab Spring 100 times and one may have an idea of what that situation could bring.

We should be teaching our children about safety very early on. We should be helping the mentally ill. But this whole reactionary gun-grabbing mentality is not good for the country. Disarming the public will not happen in our lifetime without a war. It's as simple as that.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-01-02 04:17:46 PM

Nabb1: vpb: No, it was to prevent their own government from being replaced by tyrant, or so that patriots could re-establish it if it were overthrown.

It was not so that a minority of angry red-necks could overthrow the constitutional Republic and establish a tyranny.

They were well-aware of that fact.  The Whiskey Rebellion was put down before the Second Amendment was ratified.


Well, obviously the people who wrote it were aware of what they meant.  The militias that were called up to fight against the rebels on the side of the government were the ones the second amendment refers to, not the rebels.  The NRA and other gun groups have it ass-backwards.

The very people who supposedly approved of rebellions against the government were the ones who called up the militia to put down the farmers who claimed that they were fighting "tyranny".  By which they meant a tax they didn't like.  Not very different from the NRA derpsters who think tyranny means "Obama-care", or "Sekrit muslin" or whatever other crazy conspiracy theories there are out there.
 
2013-01-02 04:18:04 PM

Nabb1: gilgigamesh: Anyway we already know what a gun grab looks like: it happened in Katrina. And the reason for the gun grab wasn't Malevolent Tyranny. Instead it was his potato-counting brother, Insipid Bureaucracy.

I never even considered owning a gun before that. I bought one right after.


after seeing what happened during katrina i went out and bought a dam
 
2013-01-02 04:18:51 PM

maxalt: Furthermore I do not want a civil war but I would like a peaceful separation form the US


Who is stopping you?  You can move away any time you like.
 
2013-01-02 04:23:23 PM

James!: maxalt: Furthermore I do not want a civil war but I would like a peaceful separation form the US

Who is stopping you?  You can move away any time you like.


This should be good.
 
2013-01-02 04:28:16 PM

vpb: The militias that were called up to fight against the rebels on the side of the government were the ones the second amendment refers to, not the rebels.


The Second Amendment merely recognizes the right of "the People" to keep and bear arms.  It doesn't recognize that right based on ideology.  I think those who wrote the Amendment were well aware that, like the Whiskey Rebellion, those sorts of things often work themselves out.
 
2013-01-02 04:28:51 PM
So the 2nd Amendment is explicitly about treason? Good to know.
 
2013-01-02 04:30:25 PM

DamnYankees: So the 2nd Amendment is explicitly about treason? Good to know.


No more than the First is explicitly about sedition.  Or that the Fifth is expressly about covering up a crime.  Although, that's precisely what those dirt bags Miranda and Escobedo were doing.
 
2013-01-02 04:31:32 PM

Nabb1: DamnYankees: So the 2nd Amendment is explicitly about treason? Good to know.

No more than the First is explicitly about sedition.  Or that the Fifth is expressly about covering up a crime.  Although, that's precisely what those dirt bags Miranda and Escobedo were doing.


According to this headline, the purpose of the second amendment is taking up arms against the government. So are you saying you don't agree with the headline?
 
Displayed 50 of 527 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