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.

(Think Progress)   Pastor wanders around with an AR-15 across his back because he's upset that he can't wander around with a pistol openly carried on his hip   (thinkprogress.org) divider line 262
    More: Dumbass, assault rifles, long rifle, handguns  
•       •       •

6258 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Aug 2013 at 4:50 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-08-21 05:52:20 AM

taurusowner: And nothing about the open carry movement is trying to remove a property owners right to remove someone from their property if they desire. This is the basis of trespassing laws, which remain intact open carry or not. And this pastor did indeed politely leave the Wal-Mart property after being requested to do so, in compliance with private property rights and trespassing law.


In Indiana, an employer can't tell an employee not to keep a gun in their car on company property. The employer's decision on whether to allow guns on their property has been taken away and decided for them by the state. There are other laws like this around the country. And you hear it every time there is a shooting spree. After the Aurora movie theater massacre, it was quiet common to hear that the problem was the movie theater was a "gun-free zone."

Many gun right activists are also anti-private property activists that want to legislate against the right of people to choose whether or not to allow guns on their property.
 
2013-08-21 05:52:55 AM
Sorry, should have read "anti-private property rights."
 
2013-08-21 05:53:47 AM

demaL-demaL-yeH: taurusowner: Good for him. The bearing of arms is a Constitutional right. Might open carry upset some people? Yep. Well so did seeing an African American sitting at a table in a diner some time back. But they protested in the open and did things that some people might have thought outrageous. They did it to make it so their rights were recognized. And this citizen is doing the same. And yes, the two issues are similar. Citizens have a number of Rights protected by the Constitution. And one of them is peaceful protesting and demonstrating to ensure the rest of the rights remain recognized. The peaceful bearing of arms as an act of public education and demonstration is his right, and I for one am happy to see him exercise it.

So, should you pass your psychological examination, I'll see you bearing arms at drill?
/Oh, yeah. "bearing arms" is a direct reference to militia service.
//You want proof? Here's the farking debate on Amendment II.




You do know the word milita refered to any one old enough to pick up a musket and defend the town?

taurusowner: Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: Somacandra: I think even Wal-Mart draws the line at loaded and ready AR-15's being worn around the store just for kicks.

It's funny that the ardent defenders of the 2nd amendment want so badly to repeal private property rights that allow businesses the freedom to determine whether or not they allow guns on the property.

And by funny, I mean very, very sad.

Do private property rights allow you to torture and kill another person as long as it's on your property?
Do private property rights allow you to rob another of their property as long as it happens on your property?
Do private property rights allow you refuse publicly offered services to citizens of certain races, as long as it's on your property?

You should have the right to refuse to serve anyone you want. If your willing to lose business it's should be your call

 
2013-08-21 05:54:51 AM

thamike: Being a menacing asshole and getting booted from a Wal-mart has f*ck-all to do with civil liberties. The Bill of Rights is not an eject button you hit when you notice your brain is working too hard.


Yup. The 2nd amendment is a restriction on the government's actions, not private citizens.

The government has to let you protest on public land, as long as certain reasonable restrictions are met. Wal-Mart doesn't have to let you into a Wal-Mart to protest unfair labor practices.

Same with guns.
 
2013-08-21 06:00:36 AM
fc05.deviantart.net
 
2013-08-21 06:02:00 AM

Bigdogdaddy: [fc05.deviantart.net image 720x480]


Leave out the skittles, the guy might just shoot you for them.
 
2013-08-21 06:02:33 AM
He should also have an RPG on his back in case of a tank attack.
Also good for low flying helicopters.
 
2013-08-21 06:03:00 AM
Yet, while a legal regime that regulates handguns more strictly than assault rifles may seem counter-intuitive

Um... it doesn't  exist.  If you have an actual assault rife, with a full auto/burst fire selector, you have to carry paperwork up to your nipples around to own and transport it, and you certainly can't cart it around wherever you want.

Dude's carrying around a Bushmaster, they use cosmetic parts from assault rifles because they're cheap, but the rifles themselves are typical semi-auto rifles for the most part.

//It's not that odd that they'd eject you from a Wal-Mart for carrying a rifle around-- not because they care about you being armed, but because that's a product they sell and they don't usually want you bringing in stuff they sell beyond essential stuff like clothing.  Loss prevention.
 
2013-08-21 06:04:47 AM
Although Holcomb then agrees to leave the store, he refuses a request to stop videoing the engagement - at one point, his camera man claims the recording is for Holcomb's "safety."

He just wants to be featured on the "People of Wal Mart" website

http://www.peopleofwalmart.com/4907/guns-dont-kill-people/
http://www.peopleofwalmart.com/?s=gun
http://www.peopleofwalmart.com/46605/guns-up-lets-do-this/
 
2013-08-21 06:07:05 AM

taurusowner: You don't have to like the fact that bearing arms is a Constitutionally protected right. But that's the neat thing about rights and about the Constitution. They're most needed and most useful especially when people don't want others to have those rights. The Bill of Rights was written down just in case people in the future didn't like others doing certain things and tried to force them to stop. Bearing arms was one of those things. So it was listed just so that we in the future are fully aware that others have the right to bear arms, not only if we don't like it, but  especially if we don't like it.


There is a reason the ACLU will defend the KKK rights to free speech and yet does not at least for now consider the "right to arms" as a civil right.  Mostly because it is not an individual right... despite the Heller Scalia circle jerk that only came about in the 2000's.  Originalism brought to you by Koch Bros Industries..HAHA WE BOUGHT  YOUR GOVERNMENT.
 
2013-08-21 06:08:00 AM

thamike: demaL-demaL-yeH: Concealed carry is cowardice squared.
?


lewismarktwo: thamike: demaL-demaL-yeH: Concealed carry is cowardice squared.
?
(He's a troll, shhh don't tell anyone)


That statement was serious. I have yet to meet a concealed carry freak who wasn't a pants-pissing coward.
Here.
Are.
Some.
Cases.
In.
Point.
Motivated.
By.
Fear.
 
2013-08-21 06:10:15 AM

Oxygen_Thief: Mostly because it is not an individual right


so you're implying that the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th Amendment etc, protect collective rights?

So I only have a collective right to free expression and privacy?

lol, libs, not actually liberal. The evidence mounts like Everest.
 
2013-08-21 06:11:40 AM

taurusowner: bearing arms


Bearing arms is military service.
Look down at your left pocket.
See that acronym?
It stands for: Yes, My Retarded Ass Signed Up.

You're covered.
 
2013-08-21 06:13:10 AM

USP .45: Oxygen_Thief: Mostly because it is not an individual right

so you're implying that the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th Amendment etc, protect collective rights?

So I only have a collective right to free expression and privacy?

lol, libs, not actually liberal. The evidence mounts like Everest.


While im not going to run a constitutional law clinic here is at least part of what i am talking about.

United States v. Miller
 
2013-08-21 06:16:01 AM

Mid_mo_mad_man: You do know the word milita refered to any one old enough to pick up a musket and defend the town?


No, it farking didn't.
That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia,
 
2013-08-21 06:16:51 AM

Oxygen_Thief: While im not going to run a constitutional law clinic here is at least part of what i am talking about.

United States v. Miller


right, where the SCOTUS ruled that a firearm was not protected under the 2nd Amendment BECAUSE it was deemed unfit for military service. They did so erroneously (trench shotguns were in service in the military), but nevertheless, that's what they ruled.

It helps to actually read the ruling you dimwit.
 
2013-08-21 06:18:53 AM

Smoking GNU: thamike: vygramul: Eomer in Lord of the Rings, Dr. McCoy in the new Star Treks, the CIA agent in RED, the unfaithful Necromonger commander in Chronicles of Riddick, the protagonist in the Rock's rather bad movie Doom...

Dude...


[www.wired.com image 476x556]

Only ever shows the bottom half of his face, yet still shows more emotion than Kristen Stewart.


God so much this. Urban was handed the task of bringing depth to a historically stoic character using only the lower half of his face and knocked it out of the park. He IS Dredd as far as I'm concerned.
 
2013-08-21 06:20:27 AM

USP .45: Oxygen_Thief: While im not going to run a constitutional law clinic here is at least part of what i am talking about.

United States v. Miller

right, where the SCOTUS ruled that a firearm was not protected under the 2nd Amendment BECAUSE it was deemed unfit for military service. They did so erroneously (trench shotguns were in service in the military), but nevertheless, that's what they ruled.

It helps to actually read the ruling you dimwit.


resort to name calling yes yes....notice the part about a well regulated militia..we have a well regulated militia the National Guard...the National Guard is your state militia not jimbob in the boonies with his bushmaster.
 
2013-08-21 06:20:33 AM

yukichigai: Smoking GNU: thamike: vygramul: Eomer in Lord of the Rings, Dr. McCoy in the new Star Treks, the CIA agent in RED, the unfaithful Necromonger commander in Chronicles of Riddick, the protagonist in the Rock's rather bad movie Doom...

Dude...


[www.wired.com image 476x556]

Only ever shows the bottom half of his face, yet still shows more emotion than Kristen Stewart.

God so much this. Urban was handed the task of bringing depth to a historically stoic character using only the lower half of his face and knocked it out of the park. He IS Dredd as far as I'm concerned.


Yup. Awesome movie.
 
2013-08-21 06:22:09 AM

Oxygen_Thief: USP .45: Oxygen_Thief: While im not going to run a constitutional law clinic here is at least part of what i am talking about.

United States v. Miller

right, where the SCOTUS ruled that a firearm was not protected under the 2nd Amendment BECAUSE it was deemed unfit for military service. They did so erroneously (trench shotguns were in service in the military), but nevertheless, that's what they ruled.

It helps to actually read the ruling you dimwit.

resort to name calling yes yes....notice the part about a well regulated militia..we have a well regulated militia the National Guard...the National Guard is your state militia not jimbob in the boonies with his bushmaster.


yes yes, don't bother to defend your point about US v Miller because I just erased it, shift them goalpoasts kid, shift them.
 
2013-08-21 06:23:42 AM

USP .45: jimbob in the boonies with his bushmaster.


yeah it's Jim committing most of the gun crime in the country. It's Jim.

Do you have any concept of how brainwashed you are?
 
2013-08-21 06:25:42 AM

USP .45: USP .45: jimbob in the boonies with his bushmaster.

yeah it's Jim committing most of the gun crime in the country. It's Jim.

Do you have any concept of how brainwashed you are?


Sounds like someone touched a nerve there.
 
2013-08-21 06:25:56 AM
Religion sure does attract a lot of nuts.

/Not yo though. You're one of the good ones.
 
2013-08-21 06:28:22 AM

USP .45: USP .45: jimbob in the boonies with his bushmaster.

yeah it's Jim committing most of the gun crime in the country. It's Jim.

Do you have any concept of how brainwashed you are?


He's not the one with a gun-related Fark handle.
 
2013-08-21 06:29:09 AM

Oxygen_Thief: notice the part about a well regulated militia..we have a well regulated militia the National Guard


The National Guard is federalized, and was done so relatively recently. You're going to imply that the intent was to have federal troops insure that there would be no tyranny in the newly founded republic? L M A O.

In other words you're implying that 2A should basically be interpreted as, "the central government's military should be allowed to bear arms, no one else." hahahaha, oh wow.
 
2013-08-21 06:29:16 AM
Because it is kind of moot to be honest ala the National Guard. For seven decades various federal circuit courts with few exceptions agreed with me until the Heller decision.  Which did establish an individual right to a firearm.  It is still bad law because and im just throwing this out there it ain't 1776 anymore.  Heck remember Gen. Washington called out the militia to put down rebellions.  Any event if the second amendment was really about protecting the populace from tyranny in modern times your little pea shooter will not do much when those damn yanks call in the A-10's.  So your good with everyone having free unfettered access to AT-4's and why not a Bradley that is an arm in the broadest sense of the term.
 
2013-08-21 06:31:28 AM
Open carry porn.

Whatever you think of the issues here, you gotta admit that this guy was a master of de-escalation.
 
2013-08-21 06:31:40 AM

USP .45: Oxygen_Thief: notice the part about a well regulated militia..we have a well regulated militia the National Guard

The National Guard is federalized, and was done so relatively recently. You're going to imply that the intent was to have federal troops insure that there would be no tyranny in the newly founded republic? L M A O.

In other words you're implying that 2A should basically be interpreted as, "the central government's military should be allowed to bear arms, no one else." hahahaha, oh wow.


The National Guard is only federalized with the consent of the governor of the respective state.  That is why when I deployed I had orders from my state governor ordering me to federal service and then federal orders that sent me overseas.  Constitutionally National Guardsmen are considered militia troops.
 
2013-08-21 06:35:28 AM

Oxygen_Thief: USP .45: Oxygen_Thief: notice the part about a well regulated militia..we have a well regulated militia the National Guard

The National Guard is federalized, and was done so relatively recently. You're going to imply that the intent was to have federal troops insure that there would be no tyranny in the newly founded republic? L M A O.

In other words you're implying that 2A should basically be interpreted as, "the central government's military should be allowed to bear arms, no one else." hahahaha, oh wow.

The National Guard is only federalized with the consent of the governor of the respective state.  That is why when I deployed I had orders from my state governor ordering me to federal service and then federal orders that sent me overseas.  Constitutionally National Guardsmen are considered militia troops.


And in my state I'm considered unorganized militia by law simply because of my residency and age. Glad you agree that I can own an AR-15.
 
2013-08-21 06:37:07 AM

Oxygen_Thief: USP .45: Oxygen_Thief: notice the part about a well regulated militia..we have a well regulated militia the National Guard

The National Guard is federalized, and was done so relatively recently. You're going to imply that the intent was to have federal troops insure that there would be no tyranny in the newly founded republic? L M A O.

In other words you're implying that 2A should basically be interpreted as, "the central government's military should be allowed to bear arms, no one else." hahahaha, oh wow.

The National Guard is only federalized with the consent of the governor of the respective state.  That is why when I deployed I had orders from my state governor ordering me to federal service and then federal orders that sent me overseas.  Constitutionally National Guardsmen are considered militia troops.


You're trying to explain how the actual government and military work to someone who never served, and who doesn't understand the constitution.
 
2013-08-21 06:37:18 AM

USP .45: Oxygen_Thief: notice the part about a well regulated militia..we have a well regulated militia the National Guard

The National Guard is federalized, and was done so relatively recently. You're going to imply that the intent was to have federal troops insure that there would be no tyranny in the newly founded republic? L M A O.

In other words you're implying that 2A should basically be interpreted as, "the central government's military should be allowed to bear arms, no one else." hahahaha, oh wow.


Oh, are you one of those people who think the 2nd Amendment is in any way relevant when it comes to fighting tyranny in this day and age? That's cute.
 
2013-08-21 06:39:13 AM

USP .45: Oxygen_Thief: USP .45: Oxygen_Thief: notice the part about a well regulated militia..we have a well regulated militia the National Guard

The National Guard is federalized, and was done so relatively recently. You're going to imply that the intent was to have federal troops insure that there would be no tyranny in the newly founded republic? L M A O.

In other words you're implying that 2A should basically be interpreted as, "the central government's military should be allowed to bear arms, no one else." hahahaha, oh wow.

The National Guard is only federalized with the consent of the governor of the respective state.  That is why when I deployed I had orders from my state governor ordering me to federal service and then federal orders that sent me overseas.  Constitutionally National Guardsmen are considered militia troops.

And in my state I'm considered unorganized militia by law simply because of my residency and age. Glad you agree that I can own an AR-15.


not sure where you are getting that out of what I said?   National Guardsmen even take a different oath of service than regular army.  You are not a constitutional militia just because you decide to be.
 
2013-08-21 06:39:31 AM

LordJiro: Oh, are you one of those people who think the 2nd Amendment is in any way relevant when it comes to fighting tyranny in this day and age? That's cute.


What is relevant to fighting tyranny these days? No really, lets have you actually answer this one.

Oh, you're implying that tyranny can be negotiated with by lots of upvotes for a reddit post? Even cuter.
 
2013-08-21 06:40:02 AM

KeatingFive: Oxygen_Thief: USP .45: Oxygen_Thief: notice the part about a well regulated militia..we have a well regulated militia the National Guard

The National Guard is federalized, and was done so relatively recently. You're going to imply that the intent was to have federal troops insure that there would be no tyranny in the newly founded republic? L M A O.

In other words you're implying that 2A should basically be interpreted as, "the central government's military should be allowed to bear arms, no one else." hahahaha, oh wow.

The National Guard is only federalized with the consent of the governor of the respective state.  That is why when I deployed I had orders from my state governor ordering me to federal service and then federal orders that sent me overseas.  Constitutionally National Guardsmen are considered militia troops.

You're trying to explain how the actual government and military work to someone who never served, and who doesn't understand the constitution.


I did my good deed for the year!
 
2013-08-21 06:42:09 AM

Mid_mo_mad_man: demaL-demaL-yeH: taurusowner: Good for him. The bearing of arms is a Constitutional right. Might open carry upset some people? Yep. Well so did seeing an African American sitting at a table in a diner some time back. But they protested in the open and did things that some people might have thought outrageous. They did it to make it so their rights were recognized. And this citizen is doing the same. And yes, the two issues are similar. Citizens have a number of Rights protected by the Constitution. And one of them is peaceful protesting and demonstrating to ensure the rest of the rights remain recognized. The peaceful bearing of arms as an act of public education and demonstration is his right, and I for one am happy to see him exercise it.

So, should you pass your psychological examination, I'll see you bearing arms at drill?
/Oh, yeah. "bearing arms" is a direct reference to militia service.
//You want proof? Here's the farking debate on Amendment II.

You do know the word milita refered to any one old enough to pick up a musket and defend the town?


Well, that's just ignorant. Militias were organized local military units that were regulated by the state. Generally, if you were an able-bodied adult male, who usually also happened to be white, you were legally obliged to be a member, but it wasn't just some yahoos picking up guns and defending towns. They trained, weapons were usually provided by the state, and they had the usual military ranks.

My understanding is that the most historically correct interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is that it was created to protect state militias from encroachment (or abolition) by the federal government. The modern understanding of it only makes sense in the context of a living, evolving constitution. Of course, Conservatives like to pretend they don't play that game, but, of course, they do.
 
2013-08-21 06:42:47 AM

Oxygen_Thief: KeatingFive: Oxygen_Thief: USP .45: Oxygen_Thief: notice the part about a well regulated militia..we have a well regulated militia the National Guard

The National Guard is federalized, and was done so relatively recently. You're going to imply that the intent was to have federal troops insure that there would be no tyranny in the newly founded republic? L M A O.

In other words you're implying that 2A should basically be interpreted as, "the central government's military should be allowed to bear arms, no one else." hahahaha, oh wow.

The National Guard is only federalized with the consent of the governor of the respective state.  That is why when I deployed I had orders from my state governor ordering me to federal service and then federal orders that sent me overseas.  Constitutionally National Guardsmen are considered militia troops.

You're trying to explain how the actual government and military work to someone who never served, and who doesn't understand the constitution.

I did my good deed for the year!


I salute you, seriously. Trying to talk to people with severe mental problems makes me sleepy.
 
2013-08-21 06:42:47 AM
And that's one more troll for my Grey 1 listings.
 
2013-08-21 06:43:59 AM

USP .45: LordJiro: Oh, are you one of those people who think the 2nd Amendment is in any way relevant when it comes to fighting tyranny in this day and age? That's cute.

What is relevant to fighting tyranny these days? No really, lets have you actually answer this one.

Oh, you're implying that tyranny can be negotiated with by lots of upvotes for a reddit post? Even cuter.


Freedom of speech and the right to vote are far more important tools. If the U.S. Government ever went full tyrant, your little handgun collection would mean precisely dick when a drone can Hellfire your ass before you see it coming.
 
2013-08-21 06:45:42 AM

HindiDiscoMonster: wow... it's too early for this discussion... i read that as "tranny" at first... O.o


fighting tyranny, and fighting tranny; typical first topic of conversation from any tea party member.

/see sense of humor, amirite,amirite,amirite?
 
2013-08-21 06:46:31 AM
Oh look...somebody needs attention .
 
2013-08-21 06:48:03 AM

HindiDiscoMonster: Oxygen_Thief: USP .45: Oxygen_Thief: While im not going to run a constitutional law clinic here is at least part of what i am talking about.

United States v. Miller

right, where the SCOTUS ruled that a firearm was not protected under the 2nd Amendment BECAUSE it was deemed unfit for military service. They did so erroneously (trench shotguns were in service in the military), but nevertheless, that's what they ruled.

It helps to actually read the ruling you dimwit.

resort to name calling yes yes....notice the part about a well regulated militia..we have a well regulated militia the National Guard...the National Guard is your state militia not jimbob in the boonies with his bushmaster.

Actually, that is precisely the opposite of what is true.

Militia
National Guard

Don't bother saying "oh its wiki, that doesn't mean anything" because these two particular entries refer to actual founding documents, and government sources, not some basement dweller's interpretation. As an added bonus, the Militia link also indicates what it means in several other countries, not just the USA.

This is also an interesting read as it goes into the history of the 2nd ammendment and how it predates even the bill of rights (conceptually).

2nd


from your source

(a)The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section  313of title 42, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
 
2013-08-21 06:50:26 AM

LordJiro: Freedom of speech and the right to vote are far more important tools. If the U.S. Government ever went full tyrant, your little handgun collection would mean precisely dick when a drone can Hellfire your ass before you see it coming.


Right, I get that it gives you a gherkin boner that Obama can kill anyone he wants with a drone, and that you're a military fetishist when it's your guy in office, but I'd have to point out how a. ineffective contemporary governments are at suppressing a willing and able populace and b. expose the inconsistency in caring so so so so much about the fact that I have a handgun collection whilst also claiming that such a collection is worthless.
 
2013-08-21 06:51:12 AM

spunkymunky: nmrsnr: I think I saw that movie:

Just kidding. No one saw that movie.

* raises hand
I actually kind of liked it. It's based on a true story about a guy who gets out of prison and eventually finds himself some old timey religion and ends up starting an orphanage in Sudan or some such African hell hole while leading armed raids to liberate children held captive by whichever despot was kidnapping them and using them as soldiers.


Kony?
 
2013-08-21 06:52:08 AM

demaL-demaL-yeH: taurusowner: Good for him. The bearing of arms is a Constitutional right. Might open carry upset some people? Yep. Well so did seeing an African American sitting at a table in a diner some time back. But they protested in the open and did things that some people might have thought outrageous. They did it to make it so their rights were recognized. And this citizen is doing the same. And yes, the two issues are similar. Citizens have a number of Rights protected by the Constitution. And one of them is peaceful protesting and demonstrating to ensure the rest of the rights remain recognized. The peaceful bearing of arms as an act of public education and demonstration is his right, and I for one am happy to see him exercise it.

So, should you pass your psychological examination, I'll see you bearing arms at drill?
/Oh, yeah. "bearing arms" is a direct reference to militia service.
//You want proof? Here's the farking debate on Amendment II.


Funny you should say that bearing arms is a direct reference to militia service. From the 1776 PA constitution: "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power."

The majority of states have bearing arms for self defense built into their constitutions. Even if you won the argument that the 2nd amendment didn't protect individual carry, the state constitutions do.
 
2013-08-21 06:52:10 AM

Oxygen_Thief: from your source

(a)The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section  313of title 42, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.


Congress has been derelict in their duties since 1916. "Unorganized militia" is not only an oxymoron, it's dangerous to the security of this country.
 
2013-08-21 06:52:29 AM
Insecure mental midget.
 
2013-08-21 06:53:01 AM

taurusowner: Good for him. The bearing of arms is a Constitutional right. Might open carry upset some people? Yep. Well so did seeing an African American sitting at a table in a diner some time back. But they protested in the open and did things that some people might have thought outrageous. They did it to make it so their rights were recognized. And this citizen is doing the same. And yes, the two issues are similar. Citizens have a number of Rights protected by the Constitution. And one of them is peaceful protesting and demonstrating to ensure the rest of the rights remain recognized. The peaceful bearing of arms as an act of public education and demonstration is his right, and I for one am happy to see him exercise it.


James Huberty walks into a McDonalds restaurant.  Under one arm he is holding a white poodle.  Under the other arm he is carrying a 9 mm Uzi semi-automatic, a Winchester pump-action 12-gauge shotgun, and a 9 mm Browning HP pistol.......

There's a joke here somewhere but, for the life of me, I can't remember it.
 
2013-08-21 06:54:36 AM

demaL-demaL-yeH: Oxygen_Thief: from your source

(a)The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section  313of title 42, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

Congress has been derelict in their duties since 1916. "Unorganized militia" is not only an oxymoron, it's dangerous to the security of this country.


you ain't lyin
 
2013-08-21 06:56:14 AM

HindiDiscoMonster: LordJiro: USP .45: LordJiro: Oh, are you one of those people who think the 2nd Amendment is in any way relevant when it comes to fighting tyranny in this day and age? That's cute.

What is relevant to fighting tyranny these days? No really, lets have you actually answer this one.

Oh, you're implying that tyranny can be negotiated with by lots of upvotes for a reddit post? Even cuter.

Freedom of speech and the right to vote are far more important tools. If the U.S. Government ever went full tyrant, your little handgun collection would mean precisely dick when a drone can Hellfire your ass before you see it coming.

if a ruler kills all he rules, who is left to rule?


One of the stories from the Russian Revolution was that when the Reds showed up at a new town they were about to claim, the first thing they did even before posting a new list of rules was to string up the first man they saw on the street and leave the corpse there all day for people to stare at.  Then the next day the new rules would go up.  If the rules were broken, just repeat.  It was quite effective.  No need to kill everyone or even most people.
 
2013-08-21 06:56:51 AM

demaL-demaL-yeH: Unorganized militia" is not only an oxymoron, it's dangerous to the security of this country.


libs are radical nationalists all of a sudden, it only took a new president. lmao

what is "the security of this country?"

under Bush it was brown people thousands of miles away, under libs it's whitey next door.

Presented with both (under the circumstances), Bush actually seems more reasonable, which just goes to show how deranged you all have become.
 
Displayed 50 of 262 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report