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.

(Slate)   Hey, look: a $369 modification that lets your AR-15 fire 900 rounds a minute. You know, for hunting   (slate.com) divider line 582
    More: Interesting, assault weapons ban, semi-automatic rifle, National Firearms Act, trigger fingers  
•       •       •

16480 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 Jan 2013 at 11:17 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-09 01:02:26 AM
imthefonze
The idea of shooting someone is an awful one.

Exactly... I'm all for gun rights, but if someone is the kind of person who looks forward to shooting people, or feels tempted or lured to do so merely because they have a gun, I'll be the first person to say that they should not be allowed anywhere near a gun. That's some psychopathic shiat and one of the most disturbing examples of psychological projection that I've ever read here.

Im glad the sound of a bolt being thrown scared em off.

I'm glad you were armed. Thank you, Second Amendment.
 
2013-01-09 01:03:30 AM

demaL-demaL-yeH: Fark It: /how many crimes have slidefire-style stocks been used in again?

You mean other than against common sense and taste?
It's a new invention. Give it time.


It's not new, though.
 
2013-01-09 01:03:34 AM

GungFu: Meh, wake me up when we see these mentioned in the news and a new high score has been set for US mass killing


Fill a super soaker with gas and you can make an adhoc one of those pretty darned quickly
 
2013-01-09 01:04:41 AM
simkatu: Not so many feral hogs, but lots of varmints in those states you mentioned. An AR-15 is not at all the worst choice for such game. Although again, the 2nd is not there primarily to secure our hunting rights.
 
2013-01-09 01:04:54 AM
What happened to one shot, one kill?
 
2013-01-09 01:05:59 AM

Oh yeah! I'm sure that's what all 100,000 of the fat ass 55 year old slobs standing in line for 4 hours last week at Cabelas were planning on doing with their AR-15s when they got them. I'm sure they were deeply concerned about the feral hog population in Georgia and how those hogs were threatening their very livelihoods in Kansas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, and Texas. I'm sure all of them already booked their flights to Georgia to hunt down this horrible hog menace that can be stopped by no other means than by a bunch of fat assed slobs from out-of-state wearing camo pretending they are John Rambo while hunting from their hoverounds.

Get real.

The solution to feral hogs doesn't need a bunch of overweight overaged insane retards with 100 round magazines in Kansas.


Hyperbole much? I never said that this was the only reason people buy AR-15s, just that there ARE legitimate uses of them in the animal control/sporting world, which you (and many igorant in the media) have claimed is false. For the record, hogs are a HUGE problem throughout the southeast US, including Texas and Oklahoma, not just Georgia.
 
2013-01-09 01:06:09 AM

Lenny_da_Hog: fusillade762: Lenny_da_Hog: fusillade762: t3knomanser: Similarly, requiring firearm owners to carry insurance would create a social net system.

I'm fond of this idea. You have to have insurance to drive a car, why not for owning a gun?

Because they are very different in their uses, the computed risk of simply owning a gun and incurring liability without criminal action is absurdly low (and no carrier will ever insure liability from illegal activity), and you don't have a constitutional right to own an automobile.

15,000 or so accidental shootings (with about 600 fatalities) per year is "absurdly low"?

The cost of administration for the payments, legal consulting, marketing, and normal insurance claims investigation/payment -- the normal costs of running an insurance program -- would be more than the actual cost of the liability when spread across 270,000,000 firearms.


They could also educate people on the 4-basic rules of gun safety. How many accidents would that prevent? And how serious is society about funding that education, given the extreme danger of guns? Apparently the 1-hour lecture is not worth a few thousand lives.
 
2013-01-09 01:07:05 AM

mrexcess: imthefonze
The idea of shooting someone is an awful one.

Exactly... I'm all for gun rights, but if someone is the kind of person who looks forward to shooting people, or feels tempted or lured to do so merely because they have a gun, I'll be the first person to say that they should not be allowed anywhere near a gun. That's some psychopathic shiat and one of the most disturbing examples of psychological projection that I've ever read here.

Im glad the sound of a bolt being thrown scared em off.

I'm glad you were armed. Thank you, Second Amendment.


I am too, and im happier i got to go back to bed. I let the cops know what happened, gave them a description, and went back to sleep.
 
2013-01-09 01:09:39 AM

Satan's Dumptruck Driver: Lenny_da_Hog: fusillade762: Lenny_da_Hog: fusillade762: t3knomanser: Similarly, requiring firearm owners to carry insurance would create a social net system.

I'm fond of this idea. You have to have insurance to drive a car, why not for owning a gun?

Because they are very different in their uses, the computed risk of simply owning a gun and incurring liability without criminal action is absurdly low (and no carrier will ever insure liability from illegal activity), and you don't have a constitutional right to own an automobile.

15,000 or so accidental shootings (with about 600 fatalities) per year is "absurdly low"?

The cost of administration for the payments, legal consulting, marketing, and normal insurance claims investigation/payment -- the normal costs of running an insurance program -- would be more than the actual cost of the liability when spread across 270,000,000 firearms.

They could also educate people on the 4-basic rules of gun safety. How many accidents would that prevent? And how serious is society about funding that education, given the extreme danger of guns? Apparently the 1-hour lecture is not worth a few thousand lives.


Hell, i dont even know hpw many hours of gun safety were drilled into me by my papa. But im glad they were (papas a retired cop). To date have never had an accidental discharge or other accident with a firearm and have never shot someone.
 
2013-01-09 01:11:46 AM
Guns have pretty much replaced Jesus and Mister Rogers here in America. I just want the right to gun down once of yours if one of mine gets fragged because somebody had a bad day.
 
2013-01-09 01:13:16 AM

Coelacanth: Guns have pretty much replaced Jesus and Mister Rogers here in America. I just want the right to gun down once of yours if one of mine gets fragged because somebody had a bad day.


I dont even understand what you just wrote. Try again?
 
2013-01-09 01:15:26 AM
imthefonze
I am too, and im happier i got to go back to bed. I let the cops know what happened, gave them a description, and went back to sleep.

Yep... the best ending. *high-five*

/and on that note... until tomorrow, ladies and gents
 
2013-01-09 01:16:54 AM
What I don't understand is, had Adam Lanza just decided to run over a bunch of kids at the crosswalk, there'd be no talks of banning cars. Guns are killing machines in irresponsible hands, and cars are killing machines in irresponsible hands. The logic that we must remove all guns, or even some guns, escapes me. People own different guns because, well, for the same reason I have a minivan and a sedan in my driveway.

/I cannot understand why this is difficult for some to comprehend
 
2013-01-09 01:19:22 AM

imthefonze: I wanna move out of cali.


As do I. It's just getting too damn expensive to afford even my anything-but-luxurious current standard of living.

/And the gun laws blow goats.
 
2013-01-09 01:19:49 AM

fluffytuff: What I don't understand is, had Adam Lanza just decided to run over a bunch of kids at the crosswalk, there'd be no talks of banning cars. Guns are killing machines in irresponsible hands, and cars are killing machines in irresponsible hands. The logic that we must remove all guns, or even some guns, escapes me. People own different guns because, well, for the same reason I have a minivan and a sedan in my driveway.

/I cannot understand why this is difficult for some to comprehend


IMO it's because the guy who did it killed himself. We can't lash out at him, so we blame the gun.
 
2013-01-09 01:19:52 AM
I like how the headline specifically says "COMPLETELY LEGAL", yet it's in the "Crime" section...

No bias, though, just straight reporting of the facts.

/Op-Ed belongs in the Op-Ed section...

Too bad for Slate that you can't find a 900 round magazine, otherwise this might mean something. At 900 rounds per minute, that's a mag in 2 seconds. You can't hit anything when it's that fast and hand-held, no matter how much you want it to "matter" after about 5 rounds, he'd be shooting into the ceiling.
 
2013-01-09 01:20:00 AM

fluffytuff: What I don't understand is, had Adam Lanza just decided to run over a bunch of kids at the crosswalk, there'd be no talks of banning cars. Guns are killing machines in irresponsible hands, and cars are killing machines in irresponsible hands. The logic that we must remove all guns, or even some guns, escapes me. People own different guns because, well, for the same reason I have a minivan and a sedan in my driveway.

/I cannot understand why this is difficult for some to comprehend


Because cars have other legitimate purposes besides killing things?
 
2013-01-09 01:20:06 AM

mrexcess: imthefonze
I am too, and im happier i got to go back to bed. I let the cops know what happened, gave them a description, and went back to sleep.

Yep... the best ending. *high-five*

/and on that note... until tomorrow, ladies and gents


G`night, sir!
 
2013-01-09 01:22:48 AM

Three Crooked Squirrels: Dancin_In_Anson: FlashHarry: FTFY

You know, I'm curious about something here. There seem to be a few of you who have deemed themselves penis experts and I can only assume that you are one of them seeing as you have made such a post. Since you are such an aficionado of the penis and the sizes of them when it comes to the types of firearms that one might or might not own, how exactly do you determine what the firearm/penis size is? I mean does an average dick qualify for a .22 single shot rifle or maybe a Derringer handgun and a bigger wang get you a Red Rider BB gun while a smaller dangle score you a larger caliber weapon? Or does there some other criteria that you use not based on size vs caliber but size vs rate of fire? How many penises did you study to arrive at your determination? Did you consider them while flaccid or turgid? Was this done in person or were lots of pictures enough for you?  If in person did you hold them or was a good long look enough? One of the guys I work with is in the market for a new handgun. Perhaps he could send you a picture of his cock and you could tell him what would work best for him. Let me know eh?



Bushmaster seems to think a gun substitutes for a cock.


Your name is 'Bushmaster' now? I agree, I don't get your guys' obsession with Dickinson. Are you not getting enough, or something? You people can't go three posts without it popping up, so to speak.
 
2013-01-09 01:24:15 AM
OMG 900 ROUND A MINUTE!!

Hurr Durr FPSRussia!!!

Slidefire stocks are novelty. Cheap peices of composite crap.

Most AR's are built for semi auto fire and firing at a false auto rate is a great way to lose a non-auto spec hammer, bolt or a firing pin.
 
2013-01-09 01:26:14 AM

Because cars have other legitimate purposes besides killing things?


Does a Ferrari? A race car? An SUV where a minivan would work perfectly well? The whole argument of "why do you need xxx" is flawed because we don't need half the crap that we have. We could get by perfectly well in a log cabin with dirt roads and a volkeswagon beetle. Guns, even assault weapons, have other legitimate uses other than killing things. An AR-15 can be used as a recreational device (target shooting), just like that is basically the only purpose of a car like a ferrari.
 
2013-01-09 01:26:22 AM

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Because cars have other legitimate purposes besides killing things?


So do guns.
 
2013-01-09 01:27:43 AM

BravadoGT: fusillade762: Lenny_da_Hog: fusillade762: t3knomanser: Similarly, requiring firearm owners to carry insurance would create a social net system.

I'm fond of this idea. You have to have insurance to drive a car, why not for owning a gun?

Because they are very different in their uses, the computed risk of simply owning a gun and incurring liability without criminal action is absurdly low (and no carrier will ever insure liability from illegal activity), and you don't have a constitutional right to own an automobile.

15,000 or so accidental shootings (with about 600 fatalities) per year is "absurdly low"?

Compared to 300 million guns in private hands--yeah, I'd agree with that.


Is that 15k per year? If so, then yes, that's absurdly low. At least compared to the 10,800,000 auto accidents (with about 35,900 fatalities) per year (numbers are for 2009). Drunk drivers kill someone roughly every 48 minutes.
 
2013-01-09 01:29:29 AM

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: fluffytuff: What I don't understand is, had Adam Lanza just decided to run over a bunch of kids at the crosswalk, there'd be no talks of banning cars. Guns are killing machines in irresponsible hands, and cars are killing machines in irresponsible hands. The logic that we must remove all guns, or even some guns, escapes me. People own different guns because, well, for the same reason I have a minivan and a sedan in my driveway.

/I cannot understand why this is difficult for some to comprehend

Because cars have other legitimate purposes besides killing things?


That loud noise? That was his point going over your head. You don't hang sheetrock with a stick welder.
 
2013-01-09 01:29:51 AM
In each and every gun lover's mind is the scenario where exactly 900 government goons (the military are always suddenly liberal in these fantasies) come up the street to get them and with this attachment they're miraculously able to perfectly gun down each of them in one magnificent, manly burst.

If the attachment fired 1,100 a minute, that's how many they imagine.
 
2013-01-09 01:30:51 AM

GoldSpider: You realize the M4 is not legally available to civilians, of course.


Right, but Colt does manufacture some civilian legal carbines that are part of the AR15/M4/M16 family under the MT6xxx and LE6xxx series.  There are a number of accessories that are compatible with both civilian and military variants, as well as large market specifically for civilian models.

If I had an AR15 version of that poster, I would have used it.  But that's all I had.  It is still valid in that there are a crapton of accessories for the AR15, and in that way, it is still like Barbie for men.
 
2013-01-09 01:31:19 AM

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Interesting that the more "blue" a state gets, and the longer a state stays "blue", the lower the average income, property values, industry, educations levels, etc... get. Almost like a state develops a high standard of living, which then attracts a certain segment of society that happens to vote democratic, which then institutes policies that lower the states standard of living. See: California, Michigan, New Jersey, and soon to be the PacNW and New England in 15-20 years.


Wait, California has low property values and industry? Oh, you mean the red parts of the state? Yeah, I guess the red areas drag down the blue.
 
2013-01-09 01:31:37 AM

Princess Ryans Knickers: Pro-gun people are like creationists:

"I don't know anything and I have no experience, but based on some crap I heard once on TV and some youtube videos I didn't watch the whole way through here's Jesus riding a dinosaur a bunch of things that won't stop crime but would me feel good because I'm very ignorant and truly believe I'll be Rambo"


See, turning the statement around just makes you look stupid. Guns owners DO know about their guns, not from something they saw online heard on the radio, but because they actually own the guns, maintain the guns, and take them out shooting.

Try again...
 
2013-01-09 01:31:42 AM

mrexcess: Thrag
The article was totally worth reading just for this line:
"the AR-15 is kind of the gun-dweeb's version of Linux"

AR-15:Linux as ???:Mac.

PS-90, because of the form factor and lack of third party accessories? AK-47 because "it just works"? Hmm.


H&K PSG-1 or Walther WA2000 because they're so over priced?
 
2013-01-09 01:33:42 AM
You guys know that the BATFE determined that a 14" shoestring is a "machine gun", right?

Same setup/effect as this stupid gimmick.

BATFE Ruling letter on shoestring machinegun
 
2013-01-09 01:35:52 AM

t3knomanser: I don't understand the reasoning that something must be useful in order to be ownable


That's fine, because that isn't the logic of gun-banning.

The logic of gun-banning goes like this: Does society gain more in safety/health/whatever by getting rid of X than it does by granting the freedom to have X? If so, get rid of X.

In that regard, it does matter how useful X is.

This is the basis of pretty much every law and regulation we have (which doesn't mean I always agree with the lawmakers that we are better off with a law, but rather that THEY have looked at it and decided we are).
 
2013-01-09 01:35:52 AM

You Must Construct Additional Pylons.: Hurr Durr FPSRussia!!!



BTW, if you want to see some great educational shooting videos, I highly recommend Hickok45:

https://www.youtube.com/user/hickok45
 
2013-01-09 01:36:07 AM

doglover: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Because cars have other legitimate purposes besides killing things?

So do guns.


Not in the context of the 2nd amendment.
 
2013-01-09 01:36:54 AM

Surpheon: BravadoGT: Because they are very different in their uses, the computed risk of simply owning a gun and incurring liability without criminal action is absurdly low (and no carrier will ever insure liability from illegal activity), and you don't have a constitutional right to own an automobile.

15,000 or so accidental shootings (with about 600 fatalities) per year is "absurdly low"?

Compared to 300 million guns in private hands--yeah, I'd agree with that.

There are over 250 million cars privately registered in the US. Based on current trend lines, deaths by guns will surpass deaths from automobile accidents in the US by 2015. Homicide by gun is not in the top 15 yet, but it's getting closer (mostly because the other causes are actually being actively addressed and are dropping) - 11,500 gun homicides a year. It takes about 16,500 to crack the top 15. Add in accidental shooting and suicides and it's what most rational folks would consider a leading cause of death.

There will be more massacres of school kids in the US by NRA trained crazies shooting up schools and now the press is going to report every one; it sells. You need better arguments than your personal maths if you want to convince anyone other than fellow gun enthusiasts.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_03.pdf
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_03.pdf


So in other words, despite the hand wringing and wailing, guns aren't even in the top 15? Hell, to hear you talk, gun homicides are 10 times more than all others combined.

Thanks for clearing that up, I couldn't figure out why people weren't dropping like flies all over town. Turns out that people are just making this up as they go along. Makes more sense now.
 
2013-01-09 01:36:57 AM

Scorpitron is reduced to a thin red paste: In each and every gun lover's grabber's mind is the scenario where there are exactly 900 government goons (the military are always suddenly liberal in these fantasies) come up the street to get them and with this attachment they're miraculously able to perfectly gun down each of them in one magnificent, manly burst.

Gun owners actually know how guns work.



FTFY
 
2013-01-09 01:39:03 AM

Bareefer Obonghit: Dancin_In_Anson: FlashHarry: FTFY

You know, I'm curious about something here. There seem to be a few of you who have deemed themselves penis experts and I can only assume that you are one of them seeing as you have made such a post. Since you are such an aficionado of the penis and the sizes of them when it comes to the types of firearms that one might or might not own, how exactly do you determine what the firearm/penis size is? I mean does an average dick qualify for a .22 single shot rifle or maybe a Derringer handgun and a bigger wang get you a Red Rider BB gun while a smaller dangle score you a larger caliber weapon? Or does there some other criteria that you use not based on size vs caliber but size vs rate of fire? How many penises did you study to arrive at your determination? Did you consider them while flaccid or turgid? Was this done in person or were lots of pictures enough for you?  If in person did you hold them or was a good long look enough? One of the guys I work with is in the market for a new handgun. Perhaps he could send you a picture of his cock and you could tell him what would work best for him. Let me know eh?

Here we have lucked out and been granted a glimpse into the mind of the ever-petulant internet gun jockey. When presented with a clearly juvenile but ultimately harmless jab at the "stereotypical gun owner"'s penis size he does not ignore. He does not resort to internet tough guy speak (initially at least). He immediately jumps into a diatribe about cocks in an attempt - in his mind - to 1) showcase the perceived obsession with male genitalia that gun control advocates display and 2) hopes to belittle the offending party by implying that they have a predilection to penis, hoping this will be taken as a slight to their manhood. What the internet gun jockey fails to realize is that in his own post he has mentioned penis far more than the initial offender ever did and at the same time he has sunk to a level of debate equivalent to, "No you're gay!" In short, the internet gun jockey has not only embarrassed himself to anyone other than those who would react upon hearing his speech in a manner not unlike, "You tell um Skeeter!" but also has not succeeded in enlarging the size of his microphallus. And the sad March of the Derp continues with us only able to be witnesses.


So, in other words, you have no idea where your obsession with the hot cauk comes from, either?
 
2013-01-09 01:39:09 AM

base935: You guys know that the BATFE determined that a 14" shoestring is a "machine gun", right?

Same setup/effect as this stupid gimmick.

BATFE Ruling letter on shoestring machinegun


I thought there was some clause like that. Thanks for sharing, cause I sure as hell didn't care enough to Google it. This thread has been so full of lulz and stupid that I honestly didn't want to spoil it with details.
 
2013-01-09 01:39:35 AM

davidphogan: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Interesting that the more "blue" a state gets, and the longer a state stays "blue", the lower the average income, property values, industry, educations levels, etc... get. Almost like a state develops a high standard of living, which then attracts a certain segment of society that happens to vote democratic, which then institutes policies that lower the states standard of living. See: California, Michigan, New Jersey, and soon to be the PacNW and New England in 15-20 years.

Wait, California has low property values and industry? Oh, you mean the red parts of the state? Yeah, I guess the red areas drag down the blue.


Interesting that the more "blue" a state gets, and the longer a state stays "blue", the lower the average income, property values, industry, educations levels, etc... get.

Now low, but lower. As in, a downward trend. Eventually it will be low, if the trend continues.
 
2013-01-09 01:39:41 AM

simkatu: juvandy: No real hunters use AR-15s for hunting game. Only dumbass fat asses that can barely make it 50 yards from their cars without a Hoveround pretend they are useful for hunting. If you weigh 300 lbs and can run the 40 yard dash in 10 minutes, then the AR-15 is your weapon.

They're excellent for taking down a whole herd of feral hogs though, so I don't think they're quite as useless as you make out.

Oh yeah! I'm sure that's what all 100,000 of the fat ass 55 year old slobs standing in line for 4 hours last week at Cabelas were planning on doing with their AR-15s when they got them. I'm sure they were deeply concerned about the feral hog population in Georgia and how those hogs were threatening their very livelihoods in Kansas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, and Texas. I'm sure all of them already booked their flights to Georgia to hunt down this horrible hog menace that can be stopped by no other means than by a bunch of fat assed slobs from out-of-state wearing camo pretending they are John Rambo while hunting from their hoverounds.

Get real.

The solution to feral hogs doesn't need a bunch of overweight overaged insane retards with 100 round magazines in Kansas.


My five buddy's and I are all slim to average and went hunting hogs last month because of property destruction.

Three carried AR's incase of a rush, which one did.

Most were taken out at range with my .30-06

The AR is a great little suppression weapon when it works.
 
2013-01-09 01:39:59 AM

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: doglover: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Because cars have other legitimate purposes besides killing things?

So do guns.

Not in the context of the 2nd amendment.


"shall not be infringed"

What's not clear?
 
2013-01-09 01:40:06 AM

doglover: Scorpitron is reduced to a thin red paste: In each and every gun lover's grabber's mind is the scenario where there are exactly 900 government goons (the military are always suddenly liberal in these fantasies) come up the street to get them and with this attachment they're miraculously able to perfectly gun down each of them in one magnificent, manly burst.

Gun owners actually know how guns work.


FTFY


You got me there, tough guy.
 
2013-01-09 01:40:48 AM

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Interesting that the more "blue" a state gets, and the longer a state stays "blue", the lower the average income, property values, industry, educations levels, etc... get.


That could have nothing to do with traditionally blue states being located in cold climates that have significantly lost population since the invention of air conditioning, or anything like that, could it? Because NYC is pretty farking blue, yet it's not a cheap place to live and has some of highest wages in the country.
 
2013-01-09 01:43:47 AM

Scorpitron is reduced to a thin red paste: In each and every gun lover's mind is the scenario where exactly 900 government goons (the military are always suddenly liberal in these fantasies) come up the street to get them and with this attachment they're miraculously able to perfectly gun down each of them in one magnificent, manly burst.

If the attachment fired 1,100 a minute, that's how many they imagine.


Can you point me in the direction of a weapon capable of firing 900-1100 RPM and the magazine that goes with it? I'm interested in purchasing one.
 
2013-01-09 01:44:10 AM

doglover: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: doglover: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Because cars have other legitimate purposes besides killing things?

So do guns.

Not in the context of the 2nd amendment.

"shall not be infringed"

What's not clear?

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed


What's a militia, again? A target shooting club, or a hunting party?
 
2013-01-09 01:45:14 AM

The_Sponge: You Must Construct Additional Pylons.: Hurr Durr FPSRussia!!!


BTW, if you want to see some great educational shooting videos, I highly recommend Hickok45:

https://www.youtube.com/user/hickok45


I know ALL about Hickok.

Because my dad lurvs him.
 
2013-01-09 01:47:08 AM

doglover: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: doglover: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Because cars have other legitimate purposes besides killing things?

So do guns.

Not in the context of the 2nd amendment.

"shall not be infringed"

What's not clear?


I believe its that second word that gets blurred somehow. Also by people who now are yelling that the constitution is outdated and should be gotten rid of. I think i just want my own island where people cant bug me. Ill just boat to work
 
2013-01-09 01:48:04 AM

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: doglover: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: doglover: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Because cars have other legitimate purposes besides killing things?

So do guns.

Not in the context of the 2nd amendment.

"shall not be infringed"

What's not clear?

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

What's a militia, again? A target shooting club, or a hunting party?


According to SCOTUS it's an individual right.

So your brain can stop trying to process that paragraph.
 
2013-01-09 01:49:17 AM

imthefonze: doglover: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: doglover: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Because cars have other legitimate purposes besides killing things?

So do guns.

Not in the context of the 2nd amendment.

"shall not be infringed"

What's not clear?

I believe its that second word that gets blurred somehow. Also by people who now are yelling that the constitution is outdated and should be gotten rid of. I think i just want my own island where people cant bug me. Ill just boat to work


shiate that means i have to be rich. Which im not. Well balls to that plan i suppose.
 
2013-01-09 01:49:36 AM
"Bump" firing has been around since my grandfather's time. So let's suddenly panic about it now, since violent crime has been dropping so dramatically for decades. Ready....panic!!!!
 
2013-01-09 01:49:58 AM

You Must Construct Additional Pylons.: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: doglover: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: doglover: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Because cars have other legitimate purposes besides killing things?

So do guns.

Not in the context of the 2nd amendment.

"shall not be infringed"

What's not clear?

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

What's a militia, again? A target shooting club, or a hunting party?

According to SCOTUS it's an individual right.

So your brain can stop trying to process that paragraph.


Dude, I'm not trying to take away your guns. But the argument that "cars kill people, but we don't ban cars!" is pretty silly.
 
Displayed 50 of 582 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report