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  
•       •       •

6262 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 06:59:13 AM  

USP .45: 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.


maybe an entire populace...a few gun nuts..heck even a lot of gun nuts..not so much.  Call when you have an armor battalion and air cover...otherwise your just an annoyance.
 
2013-08-21 06:59:57 AM  

Oxygen_Thief: USP .45: 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.

maybe an entire populace...a few gun nuts..heck even a lot of gun nuts..not so much.  Call when you have an armor battalion and air cover...otherwise your just an annoyance.


my spell checker is lame
 
2013-08-21 06:59:59 AM  

thamike: Being a menacing asshole


Defined by you, evidently, as anyone who displays a firearm in public.  That's more your problem than his.
 
2013-08-21 07:00:09 AM  

vygramul: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Bucky Katt: vygramul: MaudlinMutantMollusk: propasaurus: vygramul: SilentStrider: nmrsnr: I think I saw that movie:

[www.boorek.com image 550x814]

Just kidding. No one saw that movie.

I've never HEARD of that movie.

Really? It was in the theaters for two hours.

I heard it was in-focus, too.

And in color.

(holy crap, it was nominated for a Golden Globe for best song)

The media award equivalent of charity sex

I'm a little surprised that it's THAT obscure. I mean, Karl Urban was in it.

who? is he Keith's brother or something?

I was going to guess Sub's city slicker cousin

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...


Really?  dang...missed that COMPLETELY.  Huh.
 
2013-08-21 07:00:54 AM  

USP .45: 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.



This is what is known as desperation and projection... You farkers reek of it these days.
 
2013-08-21 07:01:05 AM  

USP .45: 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.


Wow, dude... Let's take several gigantic leaps about what LordJiro's political beliefs are, shall we?  I was willing to make the briefest of attempts to understand your arguments, but when someone simply makes a neutral, factual statement and you jump in with "OMGZZZ YOU LOVE OBAMA!!!"  Yeah, tell me about that brainwashing thing, or wise one...
 
2013-08-21 07:02:11 AM  

Oxygen_Thief: 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.


While I'm not saying this just to pour gas on the fire, why don't you ask some U.S. Servicemen how much superior firepower matters against IEDs and car bombs.

The theory is that guns would be used in guerrilla actions, not full frontal assaults. Theory, that is. I doubt Cletus and Clem and their beer guts would do so good at the sneakin' part.
 
2013-08-21 07:03:00 AM  

Oxygen_Thief: maybe an entire populace...a few gun nuts..heck even a lot of gun nuts..not so much.  Call when you have an armor battalion and air cover...otherwise your just an annoyance.


so you're implying that the taxi drivers / date farmers of Iraq, and the poppy farmers of Afghanistan are simultaneously both gun nuts and "just an annoyance" to US military will?

oh wow, you're a presidential adviser aren't you?
 
2013-08-21 07:04:02 AM  
If you go shopping in Huntsville, Texas, you're likely to run into a local preacher with an assault rifle slung across his back.

No. Statistically speaking, you aren't likely to meet him.

Article opens by freaking out about a preacher carrying a rifle to protest that he can't open carry a handgun,
Article then proceeds to warn about the "special dangers" posed by handguns in general, highlighting the fact that this preacher is carrying the massively safer alternative to a handgun.
I think the author is just upset that guns exist and wants to vent about it on his blog.

The thing is the handgun problem mostly exists in places with neither concealed or open carry. I doubt open carry will be what turns a concealed carry state into a river of blood.   It might not be the wisest tactical decision, and it might scare the soccer moms, but its unlikely to make the situation any better or worse.

/Ironically its the scare factor that anti-guns need to win their case.
/concealed carry negates that by keeping guns out of sight and mind.
 
2013-08-21 07:05:16 AM  

HindiDiscoMonster: 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.

Also from my source:

A militia /mɨˈlɪʃə/,[1] generally refers to an army or other fighting force that is composed of non-professional fighters; citizens of a nation or subjects of a state or government that can be called upon to enter a combat situation, as opposed to a professional force of regular soldiers or, historically, members of the fighting nobility.

*Note that it says specifically that they are typically just citizens, not professionals.

also

In the 2008 decision of the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, the de jure definition of "militia" as used in United States jurisprudence was discussed. The court's opinion made explicit, in its obiter dicta, that the term "militia", as used in colonial times in this originalist decision, included both the federally organized militia and the citizen-organized militias of the several States: "... the 'militia' in colonial America consisted of a subset of 'the people'-those who were male, able-bodied, and within a certain age range" ... Although the militia consists of all able-bodied men, the federally organized militia may consist of a subset of them".[65]

[65] *This is a link to the PDF*

Bold part is mine.  The point however is moot because Americans do not have the balls anymore to actually rise up and use their firearms to defend against the state/givt taking away rights one by one.... oooh look American Idol is on.


see if you read above I already recognized what Heller held to be the law.  If you scroll through I previously said it is bad law and goes against seven decades of Supreme Court precedence Further I said it was a Scalia circle jerk so your not going to convince me with Heller.  Besides United States Code trumps all save the Constitution so your other statement doesn't really mean anything to me.
 
2013-08-21 07:06:19 AM  

Oxygen_Thief: The National Guard is only federalized with the consent of the governor of the respective state.


How much choice did they really have?  Could a state say, "We don't see the point in maintaining a large 'national guard' to make up for the inadequate size of the US army.  We're going to keep our state militia small, and inside our state.  If the federal government wants a large army, let them build one themselves"?
 
2013-08-21 07:06:36 AM  

USP .45: 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.


Take up arms against the United States, and you will be on the wrong end of the M-16 or M-24 I'll bear in response to treason.

MarkEC: 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.


That big bold stuff? Militia service.

Amendment II refers separately to a right to keep arms. Bearing arms is military service. Individual carry is determined by the several States. Having a firearm in your home (keeping) is not the same as walking around douchebag, er, armed in public.
 
2013-08-21 07:07:19 AM  
My brace of small copper coins.

Yes, he has a right to carry his rifle. Yes, it is stupid that carrying a rifle is OK, but a handgun is prohibited. All that said, this was a dick move. It was further endickified by his refusal to immediately depart when asked to do so by agents of the property owner. Your right to carry a firearm does not obviate the rights of property owners.

I sympathize with the stated aims of the "open carry" movement, but their actions seem to me to be less educational and more attention-whore. Groups of people roaming around with guns creates needless concern among the general populace and unnecessary disturbances for law enforcement. Individuals work better than groups to demonstrate the facts of legal- and safe- firearms ownership (IMO).

When I carry a firearm, I keep it concealed, to avoid frightening the natives. I'm not interested in creating additional drama for the shops I frequent or needless excitement for the local police. I'm only interested in being prepared in the unlikely event some of the sketchy characters who infest this part of the Shallow South decide to take advantage of the crippled guy who makes regular cash purchases.
 
2013-08-21 07:08:11 AM  

USP .45: Oxygen_Thief: maybe an entire populace...a few gun nuts..heck even a lot of gun nuts..not so much.  Call when you have an armor battalion and air cover...otherwise your just an annoyance.

so you're implying that the taxi drivers / date farmers of Iraq, and the poppy farmers of Afghanistan are simultaneously both gun nuts and "just an annoyance" to US military will?

oh wow, you're a presidential adviser aren't you?


Finally, I was waiting for this argument..see they have RPG's PKC C-4 and the like heck some of the IED's we discoverd where five 155mm Howitzer rounds rigged to blow together buried in the road.  So again your cool with any citizen because of the second amendment having access to these munitions?  Heller implies that my friend.
 
2013-08-21 07:08:25 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.


Really?  skipped that flick...guess I should Netflix it.
 
2013-08-21 07:09:31 AM  

LeoffDaGrate: Wow, dude... Let's take several gigantic leaps about what LordJiro's political beliefs are, shall we?


So basically, dude bro, you're saying that I should sponsor him for a month of TF if he can demonstrate that he voted for McCain or Romney, and you'll sponsor me if I did the same? I'll take that wager.

Why wouldn't you accept this challenge, you said it was "several gigantic leaps?"
 
2013-08-21 07:10:13 AM  

flondrix: Oxygen_Thief: The National Guard is only federalized with the consent of the governor of the respective state.

How much choice did they really have?  Could a state say, "We don't see the point in maintaining a large 'national guard' to make up for the inadequate size of the US army.  We're going to keep our state militia small, and inside our state.  If the federal government wants a large army, let them build one themselves"?


In my honest opinion not much but that is the Constitution for you.  A governor could refuse but just imagine the political fallout from that assuming he is the only Gov that held out..war is just lethal politics at the end of it.
 
2013-08-21 07:11:24 AM  
This guy is a dumbsh*t but that article was even dumber.
 
2013-08-21 07:14:21 AM  

HindiDiscoMonster: Oxygen_Thief: see if you read above I already recognized what Heller held to be the law. If you scroll through I previously said it is bad law and goes against seven decades of Supreme Court precedence Further I said it was a Scalia circle jerk so your not going to convince me with Heller. Besides United States Code trumps all save the Constitution so your other statement doesn't really mean anything to me.

I never made reference to the supremes specifically, though they always did hold a good tune. I was making historical references as to what it always meant and making the point that somehow, in this century, things are sooooo dramatically different, that they have decided to redefine that as well.

/meet the new boss, same as the old boss...
//the more things change, the more they stay the same
///etc...
////in other words, history does not change... only the names do.
//slashies


and that I agree with
 
2013-08-21 07:18:05 AM  

Wenchmaster: I sympathize with the stated aims of the "open carry" movement, but their actions seem to me to be less educational and more attention-whore. Groups of people roaming around with guns creates needless concern among the general populace and unnecessary disturbances for law enforcement. Individuals work better than groups to demonstrate the facts of legal- and safe- firearms ownership (IMO).


*dingdingding*
 
2013-08-21 07:18:11 AM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Take up arms against the United States, and you will be on the wrong end of the M-16 or M-24 I'll bear in response to treason.


So basically if I were to corrupt what the "United States" was supposed to be about, you'd still want to blindly kill anyone that was opposed to it simply because it was called "United States?"

another crazed nationalist lib out of the woodwork!
 
2013-08-21 07:20:35 AM  

Whiskey Pete: Oh. I get it now. You're stupid AND crazy. Carry on.


it's all total fact. total. fact.
 
2013-08-21 07:22:28 AM  

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?

The fact is Americans have a number of rights. Some of them were specifically spelled out in the Constitution. And part of a State being a member of the Unites States is the concept that the Bill of Rights is applied equally to those States as it is federally. The law says "you can do lots of things, but you can't do things that infringe on the Constitutional rights of others". The whole "your right to swing your fist ends at my nose" idea.

So private property rights do indeed cover a lot of things and give the owner of said property the right to enforce their will on that property.......until that will conflicts with someone else's Constitutional rights. Then it becomes a violation of civil liberties.

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.


Are handguns banned in the halls of Congress?  Why can't I carry a concealed .45 there?  So what, Walmart can't ban carrying guns into its stores, but Congress can?  Only in the halls of Congress can my civil liberties be restricted?

Why can't I carry a bazooka onto an airplane, is all I want to know.
 
2013-08-21 07:23:19 AM  

Wenchmaster: I sympathize with the stated aims of the "open carry" movement, but their actions seem to me to be less educational and more attention-whore. Groups of people roaming around with guns creates needless concern among the general populace and unnecessary disturbances for law enforcement. Individuals work better than groups to demonstrate the facts of legal- and safe- firearms ownership (IMO).


Agreed, mostly, but I think there are ways for groups to publicly demonstrate responsible open-carry.  Most of the people in stories like this are doing no such thing, and only end up reinforcing stereotypes.
 
2013-08-21 07:25:44 AM  
So when a liberal protests something stupid, he is a hero. When a conservative protests something vitally important in our Constitution, he is a dumbass?
 
2013-08-21 07:26:45 AM  

Kibbler: Why can't I carry a bazooka onto an airplane, is all I want to know.


because you'd be retarded, which is why air marshals (these are the federal guys that you'd suck off for free) don't either.

No really, I promise that no air marshal is carrying a bazooka or anything remotely similar on an airliner.
 
2013-08-21 07:27:30 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.


Dammit. All out of popcorn.
 
2013-08-21 07:27:33 AM  

Oxygen_Thief: 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.


Sigh...here we go again.

First, you seem to know very little about asymmetrical warfare.  You don't have to shoot down the A10 with a 'peashooter', or a SAM for that matter...all you have to do is shoot the sentries around the airfield, then shoot the fuel trucks.  And maybe the pilots.  Then those A10s aren't going anywhere.  Or, even easier, shoot the unarmed food trucks trying to deliver to the base.  You don't have to get anywhere near the airfield.  Can't really grow crops on a runway...about three months later, your A10 problem is gone.

Second, as to why not everyone should own an AT4 or a Bradley...those things weren't around at the time of signing the Constitution.  Neither was weaponized anthrax, or nuclear weapons.  We have no idea how the Founders would have ruled on those things...and they're dead, so we can't ask them.  It's up to us now.

Imho, it's OK to put reasonable restrictions on rights, without doing away with them completely.
 
2013-08-21 07:28:31 AM  

Whiskey Pete: USP .45: Whiskey Pete: Oh. I get it now. You're stupid AND crazy. Carry on.

it's all total fact. total. fact.

Of course it is, honey.


Obama can kill no one with a drone, and insurgents with small arms have been no problem in Iraq and Afghanistan. You got it bro. You got it.
 
2013-08-21 07:29:14 AM  
demaL-demaL-yeH:

...Concealed carry is cowardice squared.

Stop pissing your pants, pay attention to your surroundings, and don't walk around an armed douchebag.


Stop being so stupid.  Not everybody is the iron man/he-man that you are.  Are you bullet-proof?

If you're a 5'4" 120# woman, I call it leveling the playing field.
 
2013-08-21 07:30:48 AM  

USP .45: LeoffDaGrate: Wow, dude... Let's take several gigantic leaps about what LordJiro's political beliefs are, shall we?

So basically, dude bro, you're saying that I should sponsor him for a month of TF if he can demonstrate that he voted for McCain or Romney, and you'll sponsor me if I did the same? I'll take that wager.

Why wouldn't you accept this challenge, you said it was "several gigantic leaps?"


More leaps.  At least they're not as big this time.

Trying to see where I told you you should sponsor him or anything even close to the sort.  *looks* nope, don't see it.  Simply saying that his statement had no politics in it, and you inserted a boatload to make you sound even more cool.
 
2013-08-21 07:31:39 AM  

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.


Not to mention being able to wear a .45 on your belt when you go inside to pick up your kid from daycare. Why should the staff have any problem with that? I mean, as long as you leave your "I AM A TERRORIST" T-shirt at home. . . .
 
2013-08-21 07:32:00 AM  
I'm alright with somebody that displays the fact that he has a gun, I can then decide if I should stick around or not. When somebody carries a hidden gun, that is suspicious, and the people around him don't know what they are up to.
 
2013-08-21 07:32:21 AM  

Oxygen_Thief: HindiDiscoMonster: 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.

Also from my source:

A militia /mɨˈlɪʃə/,[1] generally refers to an army or other fighting force that is composed of non-professional fighters; citizens of a nation or subjects of a state or government that can be called upon to enter a combat situation, as opposed to a professional force of regular soldiers or, historically, members of the fighting nobility.

*Note that it says specifically that they are typically just citizens, not professionals.

also

In the 2008 decision of the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, the de jure definition of "militia" as used in United States jurisprudence was discussed. The court's opinion made explicit, in its obiter dicta, that the term "militia", as used in colonial times in this originalist decision, included both the federally organized militia and the citizen-organized militias of the several States: "... the 'militia' in colonial America consisted of a subset of 'the people'-those who were male, able-bodied, and within a certain age range" ... Although the militia consists of all able-bodied men, the federally organized militia may consist of a subset of them".[65]

[65] *This is a link to the PDF*

Bold part is mine.  The point however is moot because Americans do not have the balls anymore to actually rise up and use their firearms to defend against the state/givt taking away rights one by one.... oooh look American Idol is on.

see if you read above I already recognized what Heller held to be the law.  If you scroll through I previously said it is bad law and goes against seven decades of Supreme Court precedence Further I said it was a Scalia circle jerk so your not going to convince me with Heller.  Besides United States Code trumps all save the Constitution so your other statement doesn't really mean anything to me.


That's ok, there's a yellow fringe around the flag which means we're under maritime law and thus renders both of your arguments to be in gross disregard to the caretaking of the law which is to be duly observed by all free men of a like mind.

(Can I has my sekrit bank account now?)
 
2013-08-21 07:32:22 AM  

USP .45: Kibbler: Why can't I carry a bazooka onto an airplane, is all I want to know.

because you'd be retarded


Would you like to guess how often that phrase enters normal people's minds when we hear about a "preacher" making a "protest" at Walmart, of all places, because he can strap a rifle across his back, or he can carry a pistol openly if he has a permit, but he can't carry a concealed pistol into friggin' Walmart?


(Hint:  somewhere between 100% and 100% of the time.)

Now.  Why can Congress restrict my civil liberties but Walmart can't?  Is "because you'd be retarded" the only argument?
 
2013-08-21 07:32:30 AM  

PunGent: Oxygen_Thief: 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.

Sigh...here we go again.

First, you seem to know very little about asymmetrical warfare.  You don't have to shoot down the A10 with a 'peashooter', or a SAM for that matter...all you have to do is shoot the sentries around the airfield, then shoot the fuel trucks.  And maybe the pilots.  Then those A10s aren't going anywhere.  Or, even easier, shoot the unarmed food trucks trying to deliver to the base.  You don't have to get anywhere near the airfield.  Can't really grow crops on a runway...about three months later, your A10 problem is gone.

Second, as to why not everyone should own an AT4 or a Bradley...those things weren't around at the time of signing the Constitution.  Neither was weaponized anthrax, or nuclear weapons.  We have no idea how the Founders would have ruled on those things...and they're dead, so we can't ask them.  It's up to us now.

Imho, it's OK to put reasonable restrictions on rights, without doing away with them completely.


except i already fought in an asymmetrical war..I know shocking... don't remember lots of pilots getting shot in their bunks or mass amounts of sentries for that matter.  Besides me thinks QRF be on you quick fast and in a hurry.
 
2013-08-21 07:34:26 AM  

spunkymunky: Oxygen_Thief: HindiDiscoMonster: 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.

Also from my source:

A militia /mɨˈlɪʃə/,[1] generally refers to an army or other fighting force that is composed of non-professional fighters; citizens of a nation or subjects of a state or government that can be called upon to enter a combat situation, as opposed to a professional force of regular soldiers or, historically, members of the fighting nobility.

*Note that it says specifically that they are typically just citizens, not professionals.

also

In the 2008 decision of the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, the de jure definition of "militia" as used in United States jurisprudence was discussed. The court's opinion made explicit, in its obiter dicta, that the term "militia", as used in colonial times in this originalist decision, included both the federally organized militia and the citizen-organized militias of the several States: "... the 'militia' in colonial America consisted of a subset of 'the people'-those who were male, able-bodied, and within a certain age range" ... Although the militia consists of all able-bodied men, the federally organized militia may consist of a subset of them".[65]

[65] *This is a link to the PDF*

Bold part is mine.  The point however is moot because Americans do not have the balls anymore to actually rise up and use their firearms to defend against the state/givt taking away rights one by one.... oooh look American Idol is on.

see if you read above I already recognized what Heller held to be the law.  If you scroll through I previously said it is bad law and goes against seven decades of Supreme Court ...


you didn't do the magic words correctly you have to be spunky:: of the family munkey a natural person to claim that money.
 
2013-08-21 07:34:36 AM  
How quaint, all the silly Farkers have come out of the woodwork again to try to pretend there's such a thing as a "collective right"  Lol.

That's okay, it makes it easy to figure out who the idiots are.
 
2013-08-21 07:36:04 AM  
i41.tinypic.com
God has mercy. I don't.
 
2013-08-21 07:36:31 AM  
I don't have a problem with people carrying guns, I have a problem with people who think their town is so dangerous and so crime ridden they need to (no, it really isn't, you're just paranoid and self-righteous.)
 
2013-08-21 07:38:32 AM  

Kibbler: USP .45: Kibbler: Why can't I carry a bazooka onto an airplane, is all I want to know.

because you'd be retarded

Would you like to guess how often that phrase enters normal people's minds when we hear about a "preacher" making a "protest" at Walmart, of all places, because he can strap a rifle across his back, or he can carry a pistol openly if he has a permit, but he can't carry a concealed pistol into friggin' Walmart?


(Hint:  somewhere between 100% and 100% of the time.)

Now.  Why can Congress restrict my civil liberties but Walmart can't?  Is "because you'd be retarded" the only argument?





Private propriety rights. Despite what some people you can deny some to enter
 
2013-08-21 07:38:49 AM  

lewismarktwo: Damn, I had thought that one would still be in police lock up. How did he get his hands on that?

/fark your appeal to emotion 'think progress'


They also call an AR-15 an 'assault rifle' which it is not.

USP .45: They did so erroneously (trench shotguns were in service in the military), but nevertheless, that's what they ruled.


Because Miller was dead and nobody showed up from his side to present any evidence, which meant SCOTUS couldn't consider that. They had only the government's case to hear, which made it kind of a default ruling. Wrong, but the government won that by default.

PunGent: Second, as to why not everyone should own an AT4 or a Bradley...those things weren't around at the time of signing the Constitution. Neither was weaponized anthrax, or nuclear weapons. We have no idea how the Founders would have ruled on those things...and they're dead, so we can't ask them. It's up to us now.


Neither were computers, or the Internet, but we're pretty farking sure the First Amendment applies to those.
 
2013-08-21 07:39:54 AM  

Kibbler: Would you like to guess how often that phrase enters normal people's minds when we hear about a "preacher" making a "protest" at Walmart, of all places, because he can strap a rifle across his back, or he can carry a pistol openly if he has a permit, but he can't carry a concealed pistol into friggin' Walmart?


(Hint:  somewhere between 100% and 100% of the time.)

Now.  Why can Congress restrict my civil liberties but Walmart can't?  Is "because you'd be retarded" the only argument?


The protest isn't against wal-mart, that's just where he happened to be for this new story.  Even the article admits (which is amazing for ThinkProgress) that he's protesting Texas firearms law under which it is perfectly legal for any person to carry around a loaded rifle openly, but completely illegal for any person, even with a handgun permit, to carry around a pistol openly.  Texas is one of only about half a dozen states where it is still illegal to openly carry a handgun.
 
2013-08-21 07:41:18 AM  

Mid_mo_mad_man: Kibbler: USP .45: Kibbler: Why can't I carry a bazooka onto an airplane, is all I want to know.

because you'd be retarded

Would you like to guess how often that phrase enters normal people's minds when we hear about a "preacher" making a "protest" at Walmart, of all places, because he can strap a rifle across his back, or he can carry a pistol openly if he has a permit, but he can't carry a concealed pistol into friggin' Walmart?


(Hint:  somewhere between 100% and 100% of the time.)

Now.  Why can Congress restrict my civil liberties but Walmart can't?  Is "because you'd be retarded" the only argument?

Private propriety rights. Despite what some people you can deny someone the right to enter

 
2013-08-21 07:41:34 AM  

Oxygen_Thief: except i already fought in an asymmetrical war..I know shocking... don't remember lots of pilots getting shot in their bunks or mass amounts of sentries for that matter.


did you win?
 
2013-08-21 07:41:46 AM  

HindiDiscoMonster: Oxygen_Thief: except i already fought in an asymmetrical war..I know shocking... don't remember lots of pilots getting shot in their bunks or mass amounts of sentries for that matter. Besides me thinks QRF be on you quick fast and in a hurry.

what was the name of that war we were in that we didn't win and the enemy had no air support to speak of? I think it started with a V.... oh nevermind... that was a "police action"


I get your point but things do not work like they did then.  Certainly you agree with that, but if your goal is to scare politicians and one day rise up against the Gov you will have a bad day I promise you this is not the 1960's my man.  And my war was freedom or something so there.
 
2013-08-21 07:41:50 AM  

HindiDiscoMonster: Take up arms against the United States British Empire, and you will be on the wrong end of the M-16 or M-24 musket I'll bear in response to treason.

I'll bet that's exactly the same argument the continental congress had too.


Fark. Off.
Can you name your ancestors, both maternal and paternal, who fought on the American side of the Revolution? I can. Did your male ancestors from that time forward all serve, right on down to your uncles, and did you bury your father's remains within spitting distance of the Pentagon? Did all of your brothers and male cousins, and you, personally, stick your right paw up in the air and put your own life on the line for the Constitution of the United States of America? Because all of these things are true of me and mine.
Bearing arms?
Been there.
Done that.
Got the farking fruit salad.

Take your unqualified opinion, engrave it on sheet aluminum, fold it until it's all corners, remembering to make relief cuts to ease folding, and stick it next to your seditious cranio-coccyx.

If you take up arms against the United States, do not doubt that I will take up arms against you.
 
2013-08-21 07:42:45 AM  
Thus, the weapon that is most likely to be used in a gun murder is also the hardest weapon to regulate under this Supreme Court.

Yeah... GOOD!  Its for a damned good reason...

/see how they hold out hope that they can crack down on handguns with a few more presidential nominations to the supreme court?
//bastards...
 
2013-08-21 07:43:31 AM  
@HindiDiscoMonster  I also have a problem with people using one small sample point to extrapolate that their argument covers all samples.

Detroit is one city out of ~20,000;  it's population is roughly 0.2% of the US population.
 
2013-08-21 07:43:49 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.


Try gettin a  life. Moran.
 
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