Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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.

(Daily Mail)   Jay Mohr calls for repeal of Second Amendment on Twitter. Tag is for Adam Baldwin's response   (dailymail.co.uk ) divider line
    More: Stupid, Jay Mohr, second amendment, Boston Marathon, 2nd amendment, Adam Baldwin, Twitter, Boston, Fox Sports Radio  
•       •       •

20406 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 17 Apr 2013 at 8:06 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2013-04-18 03:03:26 PM  

Tman144: StoPPeRmobile: The Name: Mr. Cat Poop: AdolfOliverPanties: I think it should be amended, updated for the times.  I would love to see private gun ownership ended, as I am virulently anti-gun,

I am anti-religion, but I don't want to see the first amendment changed to get rid of the "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"to stop other people from worshiping whatever make believe monster they want.

Because of course gun ownership and freedom of expression are equally important.  You can't have a democracy or freedom without both.

/This is what gun nuts actually believe.

Just for grins, name one civilization that disarmed the populace then brought democracy?

Japan, England, pretty much everyone but the U.S. What was your point?


Japan only became a democracy because to continue on it's tyrannical path it would have become a radioactive wasteland.  In other words, it was *IMPOSED* on them by outside forces (ie., the US).

Also, we regularly mock the UK as the "Nanny State" for stupid meddling in individual lives that would be blatantly unconstitutional in the US, and it wasn't always so.

In fact, our Second Amendment has solid roots in the rights of English subjects:  We didn't make it up out of whole-cloth in 1789.
 
2013-04-18 03:26:10 PM  

Mr. Cat Poop:  So if they spend all this effort to cement the Bill of Rights as untouchable to protect the second amendment, then it could have the unforeseen (to them) benefit of making them keep their mitts off the establishment clause in the future.



Ah, OK, I see where you're coming from now. You're saying that their staunch defense of the Constitution as they see it might come back to bite them on the ass later on. Thanks for clearing that up.

It's interesting to me how Americans seem to see the law as an integrated whole rather than an amalgam of rules for different issues*. Gotta go now, but have a good one.

/*Will check back later to see if I've profoundly missed your point
 
2013-04-18 05:13:50 PM  
Jay Mohr calls for repeal of Second Amendment on Twitter.


Yes if only the second amendment allowed us to pass background check and waiting periods for cook-wear this tragedy could have been averted.


FFS moonbats for once in your g.d. useless lives focus on the problem at hand, rather than leaching off the bodies of innocent and irrelevant people.
 
2013-04-18 05:46:44 PM  
I hate guns, but I wouldn't repeal the 2nd Amendment.

What I would ask is that we clarify it. It's an awful mess of an Amendment that seems to have been written by someone who was doing some heavy drugs a the time. The syntax is confusing and the point of it gets lost in the way it is phrased.

However, whatever happens, I just want the gun nuts to know that having all the rifles and shotguns in the world won't protect you if the federal government decides to go on the offensive against you. You're pretty stupid if you think holing up in your house with an arsenal will work against a nation that spends as much as we do on defense. We have tanks that will roll right over you and your house. We have satellites that can pinpoint you inside your house and point the missiles right at your front door. We have thousands of trained soldiers who WILL see you as the enemy if they are told to do so. We have weapons that will render your little gun-pile a puddle of slag. They have armor and vehicles that wouldn't be harmed AT ALL by anything you have in your little arsenal.

So if you think this whole survivalist thing is to protect you from the government, or to overthrow the government when they don't serve the people, you're living in a fantasy. There's no way an armed civilian militia will be able to revolt against the United States government in this day and age. The high-tech toys they have make your guns look like crappy slingshots, and your survival training look like cub scout meetings.
 
2013-04-18 08:26:05 PM  

Fade2black: AdolfOliverPanties: douchebag/hater: AdolfOliverPanties:

I hope Wayne LaPierre is killed with a gun.  Not soon; I hope he lives a normal lifespan.  But I hope that is the way his life ends; violently, with him shiatting himself in fear.

And yet you think of yourself as 'tolerant'.

Ain't that sumptin'?

Where did I claim to be tolerant, douchebag?

At least you admit it.

[i47.tinypic.com image 522x639]


Explosives, and bombs specifically, are already under very tight legal controls.  Guns are not.  Obviously, people blame the actors in both cases.  That pic is stupid.
 
2013-04-18 08:39:27 PM  

dittybopper: Tman144: StoPPeRmobile: The Name: Mr. Cat Poop: AdolfOliverPanties: I think it should be amended, updated for the times.  I would love to see private gun ownership ended, as I am virulently anti-gun,

I am anti-religion, but I don't want to see the first amendment changed to get rid of the "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"to stop other people from worshiping whatever make believe monster they want.

Because of course gun ownership and freedom of expression are equally important.  You can't have a democracy or freedom without both.

/This is what gun nuts actually believe.

Just for grins, name one civilization that disarmed the populace then brought democracy?

Japan, England, pretty much everyone but the U.S. What was your point?

Japan only became a democracy because to continue on it's tyrannical path it would have become a radioactive wasteland.  In other words, it was *IMPOSED* on them by outside forces (ie., the US).

Also, we regularly mock the UK as the "Nanny State" for stupid meddling in individual lives that would be blatantly unconstitutional in the US, and it wasn't always so.

In fact, our Second Amendment has solid roots in the rights of English subjects:  We didn't make it up out of whole-cloth in 1789.


Lol, bullshiat. The second amendment did not guarantee a personal right to bear arms until 2010.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chicago

Prior to the 14th amendment, if an individual state wanted to disarm its citizens there would have been NO argument from the Supreme Court. England has never had a personal, absolute, right to bear arms. The English bill of rights people like to cite simply transferred the power to take your guns away from the crown and gave it to parliament.

Nice try on moving the goalposts though.
 
2013-04-18 09:38:58 PM  

Tman144: Lol, bullshiat. The second amendment did not guarantee a personal right to bear arms until 2010.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chicago


It's interesting how gun grabbers believe that when the amendments refer to "the people" they mean individuals..that is, all the amendments except for the 2nd.
 
Displayed 7 of 407 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Newest | 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