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.

(The Raw Story)   Ted Nugent may know a lot of things - how to play the hell out of a guitar, how to hunt with any type of weapon, how to swing from a vine wearing a loincloth - but he apparently does not understand the meaning of the word "treason"   (rawstory.com) divider line 471
    More: Fail, weapons  
•       •       •

20457 clicks; posted to Main » on 23 Jan 2013 at 9:18 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-23 03:02:37 PM  

SpectroBoy: karnal: Welcome to the liberal mindset. Doesn't matter if you're a musician, author, sports figure or movie star or whatever....once you are tagged a 'conservative' anything you have ever done before sucks and you are an asshat.


No. Really. He is a mediocre guitar player at best.


Agreed. He's more of an entertainer than a good guitarist.
Really.
 
2013-01-23 03:20:54 PM  

HAMMERTOE: Farkage: And no, nuclear weapons are not "arms" by definition.

If handguns and rifles are "small arms", what are "large arms"?


Mortars, artillery, and the guns mounted on aircraft. IMO.
 
2013-01-23 03:26:53 PM  

Reverend Monkeypants: Agreed. He's more of an entertainer than a good guitarist.
Really.


I wouldn't go quite that far. While he's most definitely an egotist, age is probably catching up with him by now. Back when I saw him multiple times in the 1970's he was really damn good. Part of his show included being drug off the stage by two burly guys in white coats, all the while soloing on the guitar. The song Need You Bad from the album "Weekend Warriors" has some definite good chops to it.
 
2013-01-23 03:27:41 PM  

HAMMERTOE: Corvus: Your not patriots your farking traitors who just because things don't go your way in a democracy you think you should force you beliefs on others through force.

Just exactly WHO is trying to change things because "things aren't going their way" in this democracy? Through "force" (the power of government)?


I think HAMMERTOE was using 'force' as in "arming oneself with a bunch of weapons and trying to overthrow a democratically elected government in order to get what one wants".  How you could equate this to "a lawfully elected government passing some law" is beyond me.

We elect our leaders.  That doesn't mean you are always going to get your way.  You CANT...there are hundreds of millions of people in the U.S.A...none of us can get our way all of the time.  Just because you don't like what the government is doing doesn't mean it makes sense to overthrow it.  If you don't like the way things are going, get involved (politically) and try to convince others of what you think is right.  In the end though...be prepared to accept majority rule.

We already have a farking representative government.  If things were really so bad...we the people have the power to completely turn over 2 branches of government in 6 years NO GUNS REQUIRED.  It is amazing how much power the people of the United States have at the ballot box.
 
2013-01-23 03:29:23 PM  
fark it...That should have read "...I think Corvus was using 'force' as in ...."
 
2013-01-23 03:32:03 PM  

coeyagi: Thune: keylock71: Thune: And you think Obama knows what "shall not be infringed" means?

I don't know.... Do you know what "Well-Regulated" means?

And this is where the ignorance is because you just demonstrated that YOU don't know what "Well-Regulated" means.

Back when the Constitution was written the phrase "well-regulated" meant "in good order" or "well running".

They use to refer to clocks as "Well-regulated".

They didn't mean there were laws written by the federal government about how a clock should run.

The phrase "well-regulated" in the Constitution had NOTHING to do with written regulations by the federal or state government, as the person of today would take that phrase to mean.

And you walked into the trap.

So, if according to you, we can't use "well-regulated" because it's outdated compared to the common venacular of today, then you can't mean "militia" to mean whatever you think it means today because back then it meant something else.

Double-edged swords - how do they work?


I can see him scratching his head: "What just happened here?"
 
2013-01-23 03:34:02 PM  
He wins if Obama reacts.
 
2013-01-23 03:35:45 PM  

Sleeping Monkey: He promised to be dead or in jail by April if Obama won. Hopefully he's a kook of his word.


He has an out, then. All he has to say on April 1, 2013, is "April Fool!"

/Sort of like when Oral Roberts said way back when that a 40′-tall Jesus told him in a dream that He'd take Roberts home to Heaven if Roberts didn't raise $1 million by March 31 of that year. Many people sent checks written in the amount of "Zero Dollars and zero cents" to the "L.O.R.D. Foundation" (Let Oral Roberts Die).
 
2013-01-23 03:38:22 PM  

Farkbert: It is amazing how much power the people of the United States have at the ballot box.


Pleaze! Like George Carlin said, "If voting could really change anything, it would have been outlawed years ago. Your government is bought and paid for by the cigar-sucking pricks who make back-room deals on the golf course!"

And he was right. If we had any REAL power, Congresspeople would have term limits, our personal information wouldn't be a commodity, there would be no "Patriot Act", the TSA would be a bad memory by now, and the WBC would have been incarcerated for attempting to incite a riot. There's probably much more, but you get my drift.
 
2013-01-23 03:39:02 PM  

Farkage: Philip Francis Queeg: Farkage: Philip Francis Queeg: give me doughnuts: Philip Francis Queeg: give me doughnuts: Philip Francis Queeg: You might want to check on what the phrase "bear arms" meant at the time.

It meant you could own and use weapons that were equal to, or better than, those used by the most mordern army of the day.

Try again.

Why? I was right the first time.

No, I'm afraid you were not. The phrase "bear arms" referred to formal military service. If we want to go strictly by the common definitions of the time, the 2nd Amendment should be recognized as giving the right for everyone to join the military.

How do you reconcile that with the fact the founding fathers were completely against having a standing army?

They weren't completely against a standing Army. The US Constitution allows a standing army.

"Another source of power in government is a military force. But this, to be efficient, must be superior to any force that exists among the people, or which they can command; for otherwise this force would be annihilated, on the first exercise of acts of oppression. Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive."

-- Noah Webster - 1787

Now I guess you'll invent something that contradicts this, no?


I always did want my own thermonuclear w3eapon system.
 
2013-01-23 03:42:44 PM  
And don't think that I'm arguing the point of conservatives, necessarily. I think that Romney was honestly a "plant". There's no way they could have expected to win, having the unmitigated audacity to run a veritable poster-child for corporate greed for president. So, the question is: what did the Democrats promise the Republicans as a Mulligan?
 
2013-01-23 03:46:06 PM  

keylock71: The man is a coward, a hypocrite, and just an all-around douche bag.

I have no interest in anything he has to say about anything... His music sucks ass, as well.


images.wikia.com
 
2013-01-23 03:47:57 PM  

HAMMERTOE: Farkbert: It is amazing how much power the people of the United States have at the ballot box.

Pleaze! Like George Carlin said, "If voting could really change anything, it would have been outlawed years ago. Your government is bought and paid for by the cigar-sucking pricks who make back-room deals on the golf course!"


Fact:  The people of the USA could vote in a completely new house of representatives, senate, and president within 6 years.  Completely new people un-associated with today's 'government' or any 'cigar-sucking pricks'.  We *do* have that power.
 
2013-01-23 03:50:35 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: They weren't completely against a standing Army. The US Constitution allows a standing army.

"Another source of power in government is a military force. But this, to be efficient, must be superior to any force that exists among the people, or which they can command; for otherwise this force would be annihilated, on the first exercise of acts of oppression. Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive."

-- Noah Webster - 1787


Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this passage specifically state that the first step in oppression being disarmament? Forms of the word "oppress" appear in the passage no less than twice, in reference to the passage of laws and acts of government. It also specifically states that an armed populace is what forces the government to abide by the rule of law. No small distinction, that.
 
2013-01-23 03:54:17 PM  

Farkbert: Fact: The people of the USA could vote in a completely new house of representatives, senate, and president within 6 years. Completely new people un-associated with today's 'government' or any 'cigar-sucking pricks'. We *do* have that power.


While we have a two-party system, and any third party get immediately poo-pooed by both sides as "throwing your vote away"? Sure, we *do* have that power, but understand: the overwhelming majority of the candidates we are allowed to elect are paid for by somebody, whether it be corporations, unions, or special-interest groups. The very financial nature of politics assures this and leaves us at the mercy of the "cigar-chewing pricks" I earlier referenced.
 
2013-01-23 03:58:19 PM  
And, I'd love to see an election where the candidates aren't vetted by either of the two National Caucuses.

Never going to happen. Therefore, we will *never* have "new people un-associated with today's "government".
 
BHK
2013-01-23 04:09:57 PM  
Treason is committing blasphemy by questioning the legitimacy of the state which progressives so exalt.
 
2013-01-23 04:24:48 PM  

HAMMERTOE: Farkbert: Fact: The people of the USA could vote in a completely new house of representatives, senate, and president within 6 years. Completely new people un-associated with today's 'government' or any 'cigar-sucking pricks'. We *do* have that power.

While we have a two-party system, and any third party get immediately poo-pooed by both sides as "throwing your vote away"? Sure, we *do* have that power, but understand: the overwhelming majority of the candidates we are allowed to elect are paid for by somebody, whether it be corporations, unions, or special-interest groups. The very financial nature of politics assures this and leaves us at the mercy of the "cigar-chewing pricks" I earlier referenced.


Oh I get it...I never said it was easy.  But we do have this power.  I would strongly suggest that anyone who is so unhappy with our government that they are considering armed insurrection against it..might perhaps consider using some of the enormous power they already have instead....you know...without killing anyone....

Your defeatist attitude about what is and isn't possible is funny to me.  I wonder how many people think it would be impossible to elect new leaders, but somehow think it more likely that they could successfully execute an armed overthrow of the government.
 
2013-01-23 04:34:15 PM  
Puh-leaze.

The rich people have no problem "exalting" the State when it sends the poor people by the thousands to die in order to protect the rich peoples' investments and cash-flow.
 
2013-01-23 04:36:08 PM  

BronyMedic: Maybe he's just working his way up to his eventual suicide because Obama won.

[img1-cdn.newser.com image 240x160]

Time to nut up or shut up, Teddy Boy. Can't shiat your pants on this one.


If he keeps this up, it will be "suicide by cop."
 
2013-01-23 04:37:56 PM  

doczoidberg: Jebus Christmas. He's gone completely unhinged.

It would be hilarious if the government actually did move to take away Ted's guns. -- Not everyone's guns, just Ted's.


I think it's a given that if mental health checks become mandatory, Ted couldn't possibly pass.
 
2013-01-23 04:38:42 PM  
Question: Supposing the current proposed laws are passed as proposed. Under the current popular interpretation of the Second Amendment, suppose I am disqualified from owning a gun. Doesn't this make me immune from the draft, as I am also ineligible from participating in the "well-regulated militia"?

Maybe not a bad prospect after all.
 
2013-01-23 04:39:49 PM  

HAMMERTOE: Reverend Monkeypants: Agreed. He's more of an entertainer than a good guitarist.
Really.

I wouldn't go quite that far. While he's most definitely an egotist, age is probably catching up with him by now. Back when I saw him multiple times in the 1970's he was really damn good. Part of his show included being drug off the stage by two burly guys in white coats, all the while soloing on the guitar. The song Need You Bad from the album "Weekend Warriors" has some definite good chops to it.


Allllright I'll give you he's "good" but the kids in the local college bands kick his ass all the way.
 
2013-01-23 04:43:30 PM  
You must have some hella college bands where you're at. :)
 
2013-01-23 04:47:47 PM  

Nonrepeating Rotating Binary: Big mouth coward with a gun.


nobulljive.files.wordpress.com

You know what I really hate? What I really hate, is a pussy with a gun in his hand.
 
2013-01-23 05:11:50 PM  
Shut up, you pants-shiatting, draft-dodging, underage-girl-farking, lawbreaking, hypocritical Nutty Raving Asshole.
 
2013-01-23 05:27:46 PM  

GiantRex: Speaking to fans during an NBC-sponsored gun show, Nugent said that Obama "is attempting to re-implement the tyranny of King George that we escaped from in 1776," adding: "If you want another Concord bridge, I've got some buddies."

Acts committed by King George which led to the American revolution:

- Navigation Acts (blocked American trade with the French, Spanish, and Dutch)
- Molasses Act (tax for the purpose of making the British export cheaper than that from the French West Indies, "encouraging" colonists to buy British)
- Royal Proclamation of 1763 (restricted settlement west of the Appalachian Mountains)
- Sugar Act (enacted because of colonial evasion of the Molasses Act, also known as the American Revenues Act)
- Currency Act (regulated and restricted the paper money issued in the colonies for the purpose of preventing British creditors and merchants from being paid in depreciated colonial currency, resulted in a shortage of coin in the colonies and complicated the payment of debts)
- Quartering Acts (primary reason for the existence of the Third Amendment)
- Stamp Act of 1765 (required printed materials to be printed on special paper with an embossed revenue stamp, stamps had to be purchased with hard currency [see Currency Act], tax levied for the purpose of paying for the Seven Years' War)
- Declaratory Act (asserted that parliament's authority was the same in the colonies as it was in Britain and therefore could pass laws binding on the American colonies... despite the colonies having no representation in parliament)
- Townshend Acts (series of five laws enacted for the purpose of forcing the colonies to subsidize British occupation and law enforcement in the colonies)
- Tea Act (tax/racket enacted for the purpose of forcing colonists to buy off the surplus of tea from the British East India Company, resulted in the infamous Boston Tea Party)
- Quebec Act (extended Quebec's boundaries to the Ohio River, shutting out territorial claims of the 13 colonie ...


I actually had a guy I know comparing the Stamp Act of 1765 to businesseses having to pay a fine for not providing health insurance due to the Affordable Care Act. While your list is good and facts are wonderful, most of these people calling for revolution aren't living in the real world.
 
2013-01-23 05:49:14 PM  

david_gaithersburg: thurstonxhowell: david_gaithersburg: This person was also guilty of treason.

And this one....

[www.biography.com image 402x402]

And this one too...

[www.biography.com image 402x402]

Most people are aware of that. Here's the thing though: If they lost the war, they'd have been put to death.

Those who did not support their war likely would have supported that result. If Ted Nugent and his buddies take up arms against the US, that's what will happen to them and many in this thread would support it.

Thinking the American Revolution was necessary and proper in no way obligates me to believe that Ted Nugent's revolution is necessary and proper. Why you think it does is a mystery to me.

.
I have a silly hang up on an odd concept called freedom, and freedom from tyranny. Sorry, but I do not share your desire to be a mere subject to huge and out of control government.


Ah, so you're a conspiracy theorist who thinks Obama's only goal is to install a tyranny, enslave you and all your friends, and turn America into the New World Order. Remember to keep that tinfoil on 24/7, those transmission towers don't need to rest.
 
2013-01-23 05:57:10 PM  

hdhale: BronyMedic: Maybe he's just working his way up to his eventual suicide because Obama won.

[img1-cdn.newser.com image 240x160]

Time to nut up or shut up, Teddy Boy. Can't shiat your pants on this one.

If every Liberal Democrat who proclaimed in 2000 and again in 2004 that they were leaving the US if George W. Bush were elected had actually done so, there would have been no Barrack Obama presidency. If everyone on the Left who said/did something that could be considered disloyal to the US where executed, then we would have had to suffer Jane Fonda workout tapes.

Insurrections are done in support of a nation as well as in opposition to it. They start with people like Uncle Theodore here and the movement grows over time...or not.

I do not support insurrection at this point, I do however very much understand why people would feel that way.


Yeah, I always feel like declaring bloody revolution against leaders who help small businesses and the middle-class and poor, allow women to have control of their bodies, allow gays to be equal American citizens, try to get our troops out of pointless wars, actually take down our enemies, and strengthen our foreign ties.
 
2013-01-23 06:00:30 PM  

HAMMERTOE: oldfarthenry: Methinks this Wacko will be Janet Reno-ed soonishly.

This comment speaks volumes.

You see, it's not so much that the libs are "anti-gun"; it's that they are "anti-independence". They are all for guns, as long as those guns are handled by the government-approved, jack-booted "wacko" thugs they have deluded their selves that they have some marginal amount of control over, despite any and all history lessons to the contrary. '
"We live in a democracy!" is their universal cry, ignoring the fact that the Native Americans who were all but exterminated for their claim to a Democracy, lived in a "democracy" too. And ignoring that their "Democratic" government hides more from them than it reveals these days. How can you even remotely rationalize that you live in a "democracy" when you aren't even half-aware of the conditions of your existence? You are less than pawns in a game played by the rich and influential. Bodies to be thrown at their enemies in wars to protect their cash-flow and their monopoly on control. Just like the Judiciary frowns upon the subject of Jury Nullification because it lessens their absolute rule over the court, those who seek totalitarian rule by the other branches of government have got to lessen the influence of the average citizen through the ability to project force, because that's the role of government, when you distill it down to its bare essence. They always seek to ridicule, "We're not trying to totally disarm the 'gun nuts'!", implying that you've got to be crazy for suspecting that their final goal is totalitarian control. They're not stupid. And they know you're not stupid. So, their only possible resort is to question your sanity and hurl insults. They've got to get you angry so they can paint you as "out of control" and rationalize to their selves and anybody who will listen that you're better off being defenseless and at the mercy of the power-hungry. They ignore the tens of millions of responsible gun owners and focus ...


And now we have someone who thinks liberals were the only ones who genocided Native Americans. This thread is a smorgasbord of silly.
 
2013-01-23 06:08:03 PM  
What? No dumbass tag?
 
2013-01-23 06:27:28 PM  

Farkage: chuggernaught: Farkage: keylock71: Thune: And you think Obama knows what "shall not be infringed" means?

I don't know.... Do you know what "Well-Regulated" means?

Yes, it means "in its natural state". Look up the dictionary definitions from an 18th century dictionary and see for yourself how that phrase was used when the 2nd amendment was written.


So you are advocating that the only arms civilians may possess are black powder, muzzle loaded, flint lock muskets. If we are only using 18th century usage of phrases we cannot consider arms to include any modern weapon.

\Bonus: wheel locks could be in there too.
\\could make a case for Napoleonic cannons as well.

It applies to arms in current use. That includes the evil black ones. And no, nuclear weapons are not "arms" by definition.


Looking at my copy of the Constitution now. Sorry, I don't see "current use" in the amendment. Could be you're making it up. I am willing to review any citation you may have on the matter.

/also willing to review any thing you have saying I can't have a mobile tactical nuclear weapon based on your view of the 2nd amendment.
//atm it's like you're just making it up as you go
 
2013-01-23 06:30:30 PM  

Jake Havechek: karnal: Jake Havechek

karnal: Welcome to the liberal mindset. Doesn't matter if you're a musician, author, sports figure or movie star or whatever....once you are tagged a 'conservative' anything you have ever done before sucks and you are an asshat.

/closed-minded reactionaries and bigots

Say, let's talk about The Dixie Chicks, eh motherfarker?


The Dixie Chicks alienated most of their 'conservative' base when they started their Bush Hate speech...I don't recall anyone coming out and saying "oh yeah....and they can't sing either."


What they did was "hate speech"? Are you farked up in the head?



It's only hate speech when a liberal doesn't like the policy. Otherwise, its the highest form of patriotism.
 
2013-01-23 06:35:05 PM  
Of course he has 'buddies' - he's a goddamned draft-dodging instigating coward. He's the little biatch in the middle of the crowd, screaming at his 'buddies' not to take that shiat from those assholes, and to go over there and beat the hell out of whoever the little biatch is afraid. He's the classic rabble-rouser, the asshole that encourages the fight, and takes off & laughs up his sleeve while everyone else gets down to it.

Screw him.
 
2013-01-23 06:41:26 PM  

900RR: Hey submitard,

I'm glad you are an expert on Treason. Where were you when this biatch was engaging in it?

[i47.tinypic.com image 460x307]

Oh, when she did it, it was "free speech", right?


She never committed treason.

And no matter how many times you repeat the lie, it will never become true.
 
2013-01-23 06:41:30 PM  

rufus-t-firefly: Subby forgot "how to avoid the draft."


This is perhaps the one thing Ted has said/done that actually gets me angry... Look, I think Vietnam was a mistake, I think the draft was horrible, but I know people who served honorably when called to do so and were permanently disabled for their effort. So, fark you Ted Nugent, you pants-shiatting, anti-American coward POS.
 
2013-01-23 06:42:35 PM  

karnal: Craptastic

karnal: Welcome to the liberal mindset. Doesn't matter if you're a musician, author, sports figure or movie star or whatever....once you are tagged a 'conservative' anything you have ever done before sucks and you are an asshat.

/closed-minded reactionaries and bigots

I love it when retards try to tell me what's going on in my own mind so that they can "argue" against it.

Not even sure who you are....so not only have I not told you what is going on in your little pea-brain of a mind, I don't even care.


Hmmm, seems you DID tell him what goes on in his mind so you could argue against it instead of him.
 
2013-01-23 06:58:53 PM  

Alfonso the Great: That guy is the worst thing to ever come out of Michigan.


Kid Rock, Jennifer Granholm, and the UAW.
 
2013-01-23 07:13:09 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: karnal: Craptastic

karnal: Welcome to the liberal mindset. Doesn't matter if you're a musician, author, sports figure or movie star or whatever....once you are tagged a 'conservative' anything you have ever done before sucks and you are an asshat.

/closed-minded reactionaries and bigots

I love it when retards try to tell me what's going on in my own mind so that they can "argue" against it.

Not even sure who you are....so not only have I not told you what is going on in your little pea-brain of a mind, I don't even care.

Hmmm, seems you DID tell him what goes on in his mind so you could argue against it instead of him.


Also, he doesn't know who I am because I don't spend all day on Fark trying to get attention in some sad attempt to make up for daddy wishing that he'd wore a condom.
 
2013-01-23 07:44:40 PM  

chuggernaught: Farkage: chuggernaught: Farkage: keylock71: Thune: And you think Obama knows what "shall not be infringed" means?

I don't know.... Do you know what "Well-Regulated" means?

Yes, it means "in its natural state". Look up the dictionary definitions from an 18th century dictionary and see for yourself how that phrase was used when the 2nd amendment was written.


So you are advocating that the only arms civilians may possess are black powder, muzzle loaded, flint lock muskets. If we are only using 18th century usage of phrases we cannot consider arms to include any modern weapon.

\Bonus: wheel locks could be in there too.
\\could make a case for Napoleonic cannons as well.

It applies to arms in current use. That includes the evil black ones. And no, nuclear weapons are not "arms" by definition.

Looking at my copy of the Constitution now. Sorry, I don't see "current use" in the amendment. Could be you're making it up. I am willing to review any citation you may have on the matter.

/also willing to review any thing you have saying I can't have a mobile tactical nuclear weapon based on your view of the 2nd amendment.
//atm it's like you're just making it up as you go


Seriously, this isn't that hard... (The following are from Cornell's Law Website)

Timothy Cunningham's important 1771 legal dictionary defined "arms" as "any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another." 1 A New and Complete Law Dictionary (1771); see also N. Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language (1828) (reprinted 1989) (hereinafter Webster) (similar)

To Bear Arms:
At the time of the founding, as now, to "bear" meant to "carry." See Johnson 161; Webster; T. Sheridan, A Complete Dictionary of the English Language (1796); 2 Oxford English Dictionary 20 (2d ed. 1989) (hereinafter Oxford). When used with "arms," however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose-confrontation. In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998) , in the course of analyzing the meaning of "carries a firearm" in a federal criminal statute, Justice Ginsburg wrote that "[s]urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution's Second Amendment ... indicate[s]: 'wear, bear, or carry ... upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose ... of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.' " Id., at 143 (dissenting opinion) (quoting Black's Law Dictionary 214 (6th ed. 1998)). We think that Justice Ginsburg accurately captured the natural meaning of "bear arms." Although the phrase implies that the carrying of the weapon is for the purpose of "offensive or defensive action," it in no way connotes participation in a structured military organization.

And that takes the nuke out of the conversation.

Common use:
Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those "in common use at the time." 307 U. S., at 179.

Keep being a tool if you like, but I'm going to make dinner now.
 
2013-01-23 07:51:29 PM  
The irony of Ted is that "Hippies" that thought he was a good musician and made him famous, for a time, and rich forever are the people he hates the most. The people that provided him that money and the platform to complain are the ones he hates..... Way to go Ted. You are smarterer than the potato!
 
2013-01-23 07:54:39 PM  

vudukungfu: I'm going to guess he doesn't get a lot of Negros at his concerts.



I'm going to guess he doesn't get a lot of people younger than 50 at his concerts.
 
2013-01-23 08:21:25 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: And now we have someone who thinks liberals were the only ones who genocided Native Americans. This thread is a smorgasbord of silly.


Of course not. But their "hero and protector", (the government,) was directly responsible, both through action and policy
 
2013-01-23 08:24:53 PM  

Farkage: chuggernaught: Farkage: chuggernaught: Farkage: keylock71: Thune: And you think Obama knows what "shall not be infringed" means?

I don't know.... Do you know what "Well-Regulated" means?

Yes, it means "in its natural state". Look up the dictionary definitions from an 18th century dictionary and see for yourself how that phrase was used when the 2nd amendment was written.


So you are advocating that the only arms civilians may possess are black powder, muzzle loaded, flint lock muskets. If we are only using 18th century usage of phrases we cannot consider arms to include any modern weapon.

\Bonus: wheel locks could be in there too.
\\could make a case for Napoleonic cannons as well.

It applies to arms in current use. That includes the evil black ones. And no, nuclear weapons are not "arms" by definition.

Looking at my copy of the Constitution now. Sorry, I don't see "current use" in the amendment. Could be you're making it up. I am willing to review any citation you may have on the matter.

/also willing to review any thing you have saying I can't have a mobile tactical nuclear weapon based on your view of the 2nd amendment.
//atm it's like you're just making it up as you go

Seriously, this isn't that hard... (The following are from Cornell's Law Website)

Timothy Cunningham's important 1771 legal dictionary defined "arms" as "any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another." 1 A New and Complete Law Dictionary (1771); see also N. Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language (1828) (reprinted 1989) (hereinafter Webster) (similar)

To Bear Arms:
At the time of the founding, as now, to "bear" meant to "carry." See Johnson 161; Webster; T. Sheridan, A Complete Dictionary of the English Language (1796); 2 Oxford English Dictionary 20 (2d ed. 1989) (hereinafter Oxford). When used with "arms," however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose-confrontation ...



So "bear" and "arms" can be updated to fit fit modern usage, but regulated has to stay in the archaic form to fit your narrative. Got it.
 
2013-01-23 08:39:52 PM  

karnal: Welcome to the liberal mindset. Doesn't matter if you're a musician, author, sports figure or movie star or whatever....once you are tagged a 'conservative' anything you have ever done before sucks and you are an asshat.

/closed-minded reactionaries and bigots

image.shutterstock.com
 
2013-01-23 08:41:25 PM  

chuggernaught: Farkage: chuggernaught: Farkage: chuggernaught: Farkage: keylock71: Thune: And you think Obama knows what "shall not be infringed" means?

I don't know.... Do you know what "Well-Regulated" means?

Yes, it means "in its natural state". Look up the dictionary definitions from an 18th century dictionary and see for yourself how that phrase was used when the 2nd amendment was written.


So you are advocating that the only arms civilians may possess are black powder, muzzle loaded, flint lock muskets. If we are only using 18th century usage of phrases we cannot consider arms to include any modern weapon.

\Bonus: wheel locks could be in there too.
\\could make a case for Napoleonic cannons as well.

It applies to arms in current use. That includes the evil black ones. And no, nuclear weapons are not "arms" by definition.

Looking at my copy of the Constitution now. Sorry, I don't see "current use" in the amendment. Could be you're making it up. I am willing to review any citation you may have on the matter.

/also willing to review any thing you have saying I can't have a mobile tactical nuclear weapon based on your view of the 2nd amendment.
//atm it's like you're just making it up as you go

Seriously, this isn't that hard... (The following are from Cornell's Law Website)

Timothy Cunningham's important 1771 legal dictionary defined "arms" as "any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another." 1 A New and Complete Law Dictionary (1771); see also N. Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language (1828) (reprinted 1989) (hereinafter Webster) (similar)

To Bear Arms:
At the time of the founding, as now, to "bear" meant to "carry." See Johnson 161; Webster; T. Sheridan, A Complete Dictionary of the English Language (1796); 2 Oxford English Dictionary 20 (2d ed. 1989) (hereinafter Oxford). When used with "arms," however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose-confrontation ...


So "bear" and "arms" can be updated to fit fit modern usage, but regulated has to stay in the archaic form to fit your narrative. Got it.


Where are you getting that bear and arms were updated? Those are the traditional definitions.
 
2013-01-23 08:49:47 PM  

HAMMERTOE: Corvus: Your not patriots your farking traitors who just because things don't go your way in a democracy you think you should force you beliefs on others through force.

Just exactly WHO is trying to change things because "things aren't going their way" in this democracy? Through "force" (the power of government)?

And your choice of picture is hilariously ironic. You might as well just have typed "PICTUREOFCIVILIANWHOPROVEDTHATGUNSAREN'TEVENNECESSARYTOKILLTHOUSANDS. jpg" on your post.


No force is people using guns because they are against the will of the people and their representatives. That would be the right wingers who are talking about using guns because they lost the elections.

No one said guns are the only thing that kill people.
 
2013-01-23 08:52:18 PM  

HAMMERTOE: While we have a two-party system, and any third party get immediately poo-pooed by both sides as "throwing your vote away"? Sure, we *do* have that power, but understand: the overwhelming majority of the candidates we are allowed to elect are paid for by somebody, whether it be corporations, unions, or special-interest groups. The very financial nature of politics assures this and leaves us at the mercy of the "cigar-chewing pricks" I earlier referenced.


Oh really? Name me a person who would make a great third party candidate (could get about 50% of the vote) but could not win running in the GOP or Democrat party.

Name me that person.
 
2013-01-23 08:54:48 PM  

HAMMERTOE: And don't think that I'm arguing the point of conservatives, necessarily. I think that Romney was honestly a "plant". There's no way they could have expected to win, having the unmitigated audacity to run a veritable poster-child for corporate greed for president. So, the question is: what did the Democrats promise the Republicans as a Mulligan?


i.imgur.com
 
2013-01-23 09:01:51 PM  
Don't talk about it Ted, be about it, Or shut the fark up. We're tired of you talking about yourself like someone should give a shiat that a pants shiatting coward redneck is flapping his carck holster.
 
Displayed 50 of 471 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report