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 287
    More: Dumbass, assault rifles, long rifle, handguns  
•       •       •

6256 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»



287 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-08-20 11:38:12 PM
I think I saw that movie:

www.boorek.com

Just kidding. No one saw that movie.
 
2013-08-20 11:43:23 PM
If only there was a free-market solution to this problem.
 
2013-08-20 11:43:58 PM
Because Jesus was all about superior firepower.
 
2013-08-20 11:45:20 PM
You think that's weird? You should see what he does in his free time.

3.bp.blogspot.com

i373.photobucket.com
 
2013-08-21 12:03:34 AM
I'm sure Jesus would be proud

/render unto Caesar 20 rounds of .223
//amen
 
2013-08-21 12:14:21 AM
Messiah:  Your thirty pieces of silver will be repaid.. with thirty pieces of lead.

Rising Spring, 2013 in theaters everywhere.
 
2013-08-21 12:14:58 AM
Or 2014.  Fark knowing the date.
 
2013-08-21 12:15:10 AM
img.photobucket.com
 
2013-08-21 12:19:45 AM

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.
 
2013-08-21 12:28:56 AM

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.
 
2013-08-21 12:35:41 AM

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)
 
2013-08-21 12:38:27 AM

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
 
2013-08-21 12:39:09 AM

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.
 
2013-08-21 12:51:07 AM

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 a pity handy

 
2013-08-21 01:32:03 AM
If the Israelites had guns, the Siege of Jerusalem would have never happened.  You have to wonder what history would have looked like if Obama hadn't gone back in time and stolen them.
 
2013-08-21 01:37:21 AM
FTFA: his camera man claims the recording is for Holcomb's "safety."

He's armed and STILL scared.
 
2013-08-21 01:40:59 AM

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?
 
2013-08-21 01:43:15 AM

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
 
2013-08-21 01:54:27 AM
I think even Wal-Mart draws the line at loaded and ready AR-15's being worn around the store just for kicks.
 
2013-08-21 01:56:17 AM

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...
 
2013-08-21 02:40:33 AM
forbiddenplanet.co.uk

"Pffft! Rank amateur."
 
2013-08-21 03:09:02 AM
They say Jesus brought  Lazarus back from the dead....what the didn't tell you is that Jesus killed him in the first place.

Jesus: The all loving son of God stars in "Full Metal Jesus II: Lethal Discharge"

Fall 2014
 
2013-08-21 04:51:11 AM
He's not going to be Republican Jesus no matter how hard he tries.

m.static.newsvine.com
 
2013-08-21 04:51:31 AM
Just like a 2LT. lol
 
2013-08-21 04:54:03 AM
I'd be anxious that someone would think I shoplifted it. Hell, I don't even take a pocket comb with me to Walmart because those motherfarkers think anything you're carrying you've stolen.
 
2013-08-21 04:54:25 AM

nmrsnr: I think I saw that movie:

[www.boorek.com image 550x814]

Just kidding. No one saw that movie.


I saw something about that once.. and promptly forgot it existed until now.
 
2013-08-21 04:56:50 AM
As Jesus would have.
 
2013-08-21 04:59:47 AM
Also, did the article really require all that handwringing over the existence of handguns?
 
2013-08-21 05:02:30 AM

AverageAmericanGuy: I'd be anxious that someone would think I shoplifted it. Hell, I don't even take a pocket comb with me to Walmart because those motherfarkers think anything you're carrying you've stolen.


I bought a trash can at one, in about 2001.  The guys on the doors made me stop and show them the inside before I could leave.
 
2013-08-21 05:06:31 AM
And the Taliban parallels keep on a-comin'.
 
2013-08-21 05:08:51 AM

LordJiro: And the Taliban parallels keep on a-comin'.


The Taliban only wish they had a Walmart. They're out there with those scratchy burlap towels. They'd be so much less uptight if they had some Martha Stewart Living fluffy towels.
 
2013-08-21 05:10:47 AM

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.
 
2013-08-21 05:10:57 AM

Bucky Katt: FTFA: his camera man claims the recording is for Holcomb's "safety."

He's armed and STILL scared.


Your post deserves its very own obvious tag.
 
2013-08-21 05:18:07 AM
God I hate open carry farkwards.  They're AT LEAST as pathetically douchebag edgy as I was in my 80's spiky punk phase.  "What do you think you're looking at?  You got a problem?  Why does everyone gotta hassle me?  I'm so persecuted just because I want to walk around with 20 pounds of dangerous metal stuck through my clothing."  The difference being, I was a teenager and they all suck, and I grew out of it.
 
2013-08-21 05:18:09 AM

Bonanza Jellybean: Also, did the article really require all that handwringing over the existence of handguns?


It's background context for what this jackass is "protesting", and why/how it became that way.

Background information is good.
 
2013-08-21 05:28:32 AM

Bonanza Jellybean: Also, did the article really require all that handwringing over the existence of handguns?


Because there are a ton of people, a good deal of Fark included, that do wring their limp-wristed hands at the idea of people having guns.

Whiny mewling is a pro-sport, these days.
 
2013-08-21 05:30:20 AM

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.
 
2013-08-21 05:32:37 AM
Do paranoid right wing gunporn morons have their own "You're not helping" meme?  Because that would fit nicely here.
 
2013-08-21 05:33:03 AM

LowbrowDeluxe: God I hate open carry farkwards.  They're AT LEAST as pathetically douchebag edgy as I was in my 80's spiky punk phase.  "What do you think you're looking at?  You got a problem?  Why does everyone gotta hassle me?  I'm so persecuted just because I want to walk around with 20 pounds of dangerous metal stuck through my clothing."  The difference being, I was a teenager and they all suck, and I grew out of it.


It's a matter of personal preference. I'd rather be able to spot the armed douchebags from farther away.
Concealed carry is cowardice squared.

If you're walking around armed for no good reason, you're wrong.
And no, rescue fantasies, just-in-case, it's-muh-gord-given-constipational-right, being a wuss, it's dark out, no reason at all, and the other usual dreck do  not constitute good reason.
Examples of good reason: A specific threat against your person, you're taking the till to the bank, you're a cop on duty, you are a diamond courier, you're working your day job in an armored car, you are a bodyguard, you are a postal inspector, you're in a real combat zone, etc.

There are innocent bystanders all around you, Rambo. You are not Marshal Dillon, or John Wayne, Dirty Harry, or whatever Hollywood fantasy you believe you're living when you point your loaded pistol at the mirror.

Stop pissing your pants, pay attention to your surroundings, and don't walk around an armed douchebag.
 
2013-08-21 05:33:40 AM
"Pastor Terry Holcomb started posting videos of himself wandering into local businesses with an AR-15 Bushmaster rifle - the same weapon used to kill 20 children and six adults in the Newtown, Connecticut school shooting. "

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'
 
2013-08-21 05:33:56 AM
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.
 
2013-08-21 05:36:29 AM

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
 
2013-08-21 05:38:58 AM

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


?
 
2013-08-21 05:39:44 AM

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.
 
2013-08-21 05:40:32 AM

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

?


(He's a troll, shhh don't tell anyone)
 
2013-08-21 05:41:43 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.


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.
 
2013-08-21 05:42:29 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.


His motorcycle shows more emotion than Kristen Stewart.
 
2013-08-21 05:43:39 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.


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.
 
2013-08-21 05:45:48 AM
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.
 
2013-08-21 05:47:40 AM

taurusowner: 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.


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.
 
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 06:28:45 AM
I think there may be too much hate here on Fark to make this point, but here goes:

I believe he is trying to make a point that it is stupid that one can carry a rifle like that openly but cannot carry a pistol which has far less "ooooh scary gun" potential.

Now, with that said, I don't necessarily think this is the best way to go about it. Also, the fact that he is a pastor is irrelevent to the issue. Nobody has the right to say what his personal beliefs are, or what his faith tells him, nor is anyone qualified to say what is in his heart. Only he knows that.

/Flame on
 
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 06:41:37 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.


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
 
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 06:43:25 AM

LordJiro: 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.


wow... it's too early for this discussion... i read that as "tranny" at first... O.o
 
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 06:45:36 AM

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?
 
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 06:46:40 AM

USP .45: 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?


holy crap... i never put that together before... LOL
 
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.
 
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 07:00:07 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.


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.
 
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 07:03:51 AM

Persnickety: 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.


yeah but remember... we are Americans.... we have to do everything bigger and better, so he will just drone people and screw the collateral damage...
 
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 07:09:41 AM

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
 
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 07:11:51 AM

demaL-demaL-yeH: 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 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.
 
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 07:15:26 AM

PunGent: 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.


speaking of Netflix, they have a new show they are producing "House of Cards" which looks pretty interesting.
 
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 07:24:17 AM

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


well duh, it won't fit in the overhead compartment...
 
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 07:33:41 AM

Whiskey Pete: USP .45: 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.

fatrambo.jpg


rationalwiki.org
 
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 07:35:53 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. 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"
 
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 07:37:09 AM

Click Click D'oh: 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.


*whispers in your ear*.... psst, you know you just said that in the same thread you are also in, right?

:P
 
2013-08-21 07:37:47 AM

forcebender: 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.)


Detroit would like a word with you.
 
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 07:40:49 AM

heili skrimsli: 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.


Something the DMCA and NSA would like to "rectify"
 
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 07:43:09 AM

Oxygen_Thief: 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.


Look man, just pass the LSD and let's just relax... :P
 
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.
 
2013-08-21 07:46:54 AM

demaL-demaL-yeH: 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.


did you get a little mahogany writing that?
1> I never said I would take up arms.
2> wow, you are a geneology expert... I think my pinky just got hard.
3> unfortunatly, the service would not take me due to a condition i was born with (not my fault), but i did try anyway.
4> I am not a conspiracy theorist....

/have you heard that cattle mutilations are up?
 
2013-08-21 07:47:59 AM

forcebender: @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.


you also apparently have problems with humor, and using the quote button, but who is counting? :)
 
2013-08-21 07:48:03 AM

USP .45: 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?


Thats like asking one troop if they "won" the war in Korea.  "I parachuted in and killed Kim-jong ill all on my lonsome.  That pilot is just there for sure seriously.

That depends on how one describes "win" I lived it..I fought in it..I lived.caught some bad guys.honestly how do you even answer a question like that.
 
2013-08-21 07:49:02 AM

Click Click D'oh: 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.


I understand the protest is not directed specifically at Walmart.  But it's where he chose to make it.

Now if the issue were, say, the ethical treatment of animals, or access to the morning-after pill, and the protest was held at a Texas Walmart, I wonder what the reaction would be of the people who cheer this guy on for standing up for constitutional rights.

"Burn them! Burn the trespassing terrorists!" probably.
 
2013-08-21 07:49:02 AM

demaL-demaL-yeH: If you take up arms against the United States, do not doubt that I will take up arms against you.


your oath is to the Constitution, not the actual land mass or title.

If you're a new found leftist, then your oath is to the title, and land mass, with no regard for any fixed constitution.
 
2013-08-21 07:49:11 AM

HindiDiscoMonster: Oxygen_Thief: 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.

Look man, just pass the LSD and let's just relax... :P


LSD is before my time...im thinking bath salts
 
2013-08-21 07:52:33 AM

thamike: Do paranoid right wing gunporn morons have their own "You're not helping" meme?  Because that would fit nicely here.


lol that would require self-awareness and introspection

just lol
 
2013-08-21 07:54:40 AM

HindiDiscoMonster: speaking of Netflix, they have a new show they are producing "House of Cards" which looks pretty interesting.


Not sure if this is a joke I'm missing... But, they've already finished and released the first season of their new "House of Cards" remake long ago... And, yes, it's quite excellent! Definitely check it out if you haven't yet... I'm eagerly awaiting season 2...

/On topic, all I have to say is that if you're protesting the overly strict gun laws of Texas, well...
//No, I don't actually have any words for my feelings on that...
 
2013-08-21 07:55:17 AM

Cold_Sassy: 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.


I'm not bulletproof. I'm also not in a war zone.
I am aware of my surroundings.
I'm not walking around afraid.
If you're walking around armed absent good reason (see above), you are afraid.

I'm certain that I won't be able to wrap my mind around any "justification" you can proffer for being among unarmed people with lethal force as your first (and, so far only named) resort - you know, in order to "level" the playing field -, so don't bother.

/Don't wet pants chafe and give you rashes after a while?
 
2013-08-21 07:55:45 AM
I mean I sort of get it. He's a Texan and Texas law requires a certain amount of derping to stay a citizen. But a preacher walking around with an AR-15!?!?!  That's wtf even for Texas.

/ Who would Jesus shoot?
 
2013-08-21 07:57:29 AM

demaL-demaL-yeH: cranio-coccyx.


HindiDiscoMonster: unfortunatly, the service would not take me due to a condition i was born with (not my fault), but i did try anyway.


Already named it.
 
2013-08-21 07:57:37 AM

thamike: Do paranoid right wing gunporn morons have their own "You're not helping" meme?  Because that would fit nicely here.


in typical insurgenty red dawn fashion we live off the land so to speak and just use the Jon Stewart one.
 
2013-08-21 07:58:17 AM

thamike: Do paranoid right wing gunporn morons have their own "You're not helping" meme?


Yes they do. His name is Ted Nugent.
 
2013-08-21 08:00:28 AM

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


I am pretty sure that is what AR stands for.


/i keed
 
2013-08-21 08:04:18 AM
Hmm, is it legal? Then no big deal. There are more things to worry about in this world than a man who wants attention.
 
2013-08-21 08:05:53 AM
This sort of thing is the reason I haven't set food inside a Protestant church in . . . gosh, probably seven years.

With the exception of smaller, more progressive sects like Unitarians and Anglicans, Protestant churches in the US generally are nothing more than right-wing nutjob recruitment centers.
 
2013-08-21 08:10:12 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.


In, 554http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=U S&v ol=554&page=570"  the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment ... ...stated that "the right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose". They also clarified that many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession listed by the Court are consistent with the Second Amendment

What we ought to do is to clarify the second amendment removing peoples right to have guns outside a well regulated militia. This pastor is seemingly campaigning for the opposite.
 
2013-08-21 08:13:05 AM

USP .45: demaL-demaL-yeH: If you take up arms against the United States, do not doubt that I will take up arms against you.

your oath is to the Constitution, not the actual land mass or title.
If you're a new found leftist, then your oath is to the title, and land mass, with no regard for any fixed constitution.


Hmm. The Constitution. The one that specifies what constitutes treason? The one that says I am subject to civilian authority and my chain of command under the UCMJ?
The one which establishes the United States as a nation of laws?
That Constitution?
I'm obligated to defend that land mass, and the system of law, and the rule of law, and the government established by those laws, and the people subject to those laws.

We done settled that issue definitively in the early 1860s: Take up arms against the United States, and I will take up arms against you.

/And mine won't be German-made, either.
 
2013-08-21 08:14:06 AM
Jim_Callahan:
//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.

Yeah, they kicked him out because they thought he stole it, not because he was scaring everyone.
 
2013-08-21 08:19:42 AM
zach.craigsniffen.com

I actually favor open carry, but with the riders that a) you have to be trained b) a can of pepper spray must be integrated into your holster.
 
2013-08-21 08:20:32 AM
A preacher in Texas who has no idea what Jesus said about violence. I'm shocked, shocked I tell you. And yes his being a preacher should come ahead of any second amendment issues.
 
2013-08-21 08:24:26 AM
Everytime I see somebody "protest carrying" with a rifle slung behind the back like that, I have to kind of chuckle.

if you got blitz attacked from an angle (which wouldn't be that hard in a place like Walmart), even a moderately skilled attacker could take that gun an shove it up your ass in short order...

// gun owner CHL holder
// open handgun carry is legal in my state, but I'd prefer the world NOT know Imam carrying
 
2013-08-21 08:25:04 AM
I'd love to know the name of his well-regulated militia.
 
2013-08-21 08:28:13 AM

dforkus: I'd prefer the world NOT know Imam carrying


See, people?
Muslim clergy. Definitely has received death threats.
That is good reason to walk around armed.
 
2013-08-21 08:30:13 AM
If only there was a higher power this guy could rely on that would protect him.
 
2013-08-21 08:32:52 AM
You all mock this preacher but I don't. I'm sure in a few months we are going to have a follow up of him saving the day. Only question will be a Arab terrorist cell he takes down or a black street thug aka Zimmerman style.
 
2013-08-21 08:32:54 AM

stuhayes2010: If only there was a higher power this guy could rely on that would protect him.


You're saying he should upgrade to .45 ACP? Not a bad idea...
 
2013-08-21 08:33:07 AM
AR15? Pretty weak for a holy man.
i.imgur.com.

No, but really, besides it being tacky to bring into a supermarket, this is a non-issue.
/Texas liberal.
//Gotta love that bill of rights.
 
2013-08-21 08:35:03 AM
I'm getting a kick...
That guy used to work where I do.

Everyone says he was a nice guy.
 
2013-08-21 08:35:48 AM

demaL-demaL-yeH: Hmm. The Constitution.


yep that. no spin. that.
 
2013-08-21 08:39:07 AM
Does it mean anything that USP 45 and taurusowner are references to weapons.  I suppose tarusowner could be a deep emotional attachment to Fords but I'm pretty sure not.  I'm from Nebraska - out in the sandhills we always had a rifle handy for snakes and beasties that endangered the livestock.  It was a tool not an item of lust.  People who lust after their guns are worrisome.  If they need the manhood boost get a fast boat or a Porsche.
 
2013-08-21 08:39:56 AM

USP .45: demaL-demaL-yeH: If you take up arms against the United States, do not doubt that I will take up arms against you.

your oath is to the Constitution, not the actual land mass or title.

If you're a new found leftist, then your oath is to the title, and land mass, with no regard for any fixed constitution.


Fixed constitution?  The Constitution is not fixed.  There's a whole section of it devoted to the ways in which it can be changed, either via direct modification (Amendments), execution (Executive Branch enforcement, or lack thereof), or interpretation (Supreme Court rulings).  The Constitution is not, and should never be, a fixed document.  This is why I laugh at the second amendment folks who only refer to the original text of the second amendment and ignore the piles and piles of surrounding legal doctrine that is just as constitutionally valid.

And before you get into the whole Leftist/Liberal/pollywog name calling.  Yes, I self-identify as a liberal.  I am pro second amendment.  in fact, I personally believe that schools should be teaching a comprehensive gun safety program that includes the students firing a gun of some kind.  Abstinence-only education doesn't work for sex-ed, and it doesn't work for gun-ed either.
 
2013-08-21 08:41:41 AM
Came here to point this out. Thanks lewismarktwo."the same weapon used to kill 20 children and six adults in the Newtown, Connecticut school shooting."

Damn, I had thought that one would still be in police lock up. How did he get his hands on that?
 
2013-08-21 08:42:08 AM

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: I'd love to know the name of his well-regulated militia.


Well regulated meant it was in working order back when it was written.
 
2013-08-21 08:45:58 AM

Deep Contact: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: I'd love to know the name of his well-regulated militia.

Well regulated meant it was in working order back when it was written.


Yeah its working really well right now. Well oiled machine.
 
2013-08-21 08:50:40 AM

forcebender: 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.)


Tell that to Chicago folks.
 
2013-08-21 08:53:28 AM

demaL-demaL-yeH: LowbrowDeluxe: God I hate open carry farkwards.  They're AT LEAST as pathetically douchebag edgy as I was in my 80's spiky punk phase.  "What do you think you're looking at?  You got a problem?  Why does everyone gotta hassle me?  I'm so persecuted just because I want to walk around with 20 pounds of dangerous metal stuck through my clothing."  The difference being, I was a teenager and they all suck, and I grew out of it.

It's a matter of personal preference. I'd rather be able to spot the armed douchebags from farther away.
Concealed carry is cowardice squared.

If you're walking around armed for no good reason, you're wrong.
And no, rescue fantasies, just-in-case, it's-muh-gord-given-constipational-right, being a wuss, it's dark out, no reason at all, and the other usual dreck do  not constitute good reason.
Examples of good reason: A specific threat against your person, you're taking the till to the bank, you're a cop on duty, you are a diamond courier, you're working your day job in an armored car, you are a bodyguard, you are a postal inspector, you're in a real combat zone, etc.

There are innocent bystanders all around you, Rambo. You are not Marshal Dillon, or John Wayne, Dirty Harry, or whatever Hollywood fantasy you believe you're living when you point your loaded pistol at the mirror.

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



Kissd my entire ass.

/armed
//not scared
 
2013-08-21 08:55:53 AM
You never really need freedom of speech. Cops are your friend, so you really don't need 4th amendment protections.
 
2013-08-21 09:02:00 AM

HindiDiscoMonster: forcebender: 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.)

Detroit would like a word with you.


Also see:  Chicago, IL
 
2013-08-21 09:02:32 AM
Open Carry fanatics are at their hearts cowardly little shiats.

If you are so scared of life that you can't go to the store without openly packing a gun, then just don't leave your house.
 
2013-08-21 09:06:00 AM

Bucky Katt: FTFA: his camera man claims the recording is for Holcomb's "safety."

He's armed and STILL scared.


Of course.
 
2013-08-21 09:06:53 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.



Meh.

The guy who owns the laundromat I go to carries a gun openly in a holster on his hip, and I'm happy he does it. He's got a cash-based business. Sometimes sketchy people wander in from the street. It's a safer, better behaved place with him doing that.

But when I see a gaggle of white dudes open-carrying around a shopping district in some place like Waukesha County I immediately think 'look at me, I'm an attention whore'.

Like a flag decal I don't think simply carrying a gun around is going to get you into heaven anymore.
 
2013-08-21 09:08:10 AM
When you add wacko fundi to gun crazy, you get a person who's blood lust can't be satisfied, no matter how many dead bodies are laying in the street.
 
2013-08-21 09:13:35 AM
What this guy's doing is in Crytonomicon.

Okay, got that out of my system.  There are problems with this kind of protest.  Since the man isn't using actual words, it's impossible to know what he means by doing this.  Maybe he's just pointing out the inconsistency in the law by doing something ridiculous.  Or maybe he's a gun nut.  Or maybe he's a gun control nut.  No way to know unless he actually says something.

On the other hand, these days when you use actual words, there's a good chance you'll be shouted down by morons on some goofy *COUGH* web site or something.
 
2013-08-21 09:17:36 AM
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that a public display of a deadly weapon will likely turn off people who aren't already on your side.  In fact, I think most people who aren't in favour of open carry for handguns would react by saying perhaps open carry of semi automatic rifles isn't the best idea either.
 
2013-08-21 09:18:22 AM
These nutbars are going to get your pwecious gunz taken away, Real Americans(TM). Step on them now or bear the consequences. I won't be sorry when it happens and I'm going to point and laugh.

At least this retard managed to carry his fake military toy without accidentally pointing it at anyone. Small victories  in Derptoria will have to do,  I guess
 
2013-08-21 09:18:48 AM

abrannan: Fixed constitution?  The Constitution is not fixed.  There's a whole section of it devoted to the ways in which it can be changed, either via direct modification (Amendments), execution (Executive Branch enforcement, or lack thereof), or interpretation (Supreme Court rulings).  The Constitution is not, and should never be, a fixed document.  This is why I laugh at the second amendment folks who only refer to the original text of the second amendment and ignore the piles and piles of surrounding legal doctrine that is just as constitutionally valid.

And before you get into the whole Leftist/Liberal/pollywog name calling.  Yes, I self-identify as a liberal.  I am pro second amendment.  in fact, I personally believe that schools should be teaching a comprehensive gun safety program that includes the students firing a gun of some kind.  Abstinence-only education doesn't work for sex-ed, and it doesn't work for gun-ed either.


You know, when a society's relationship with firearms becomes so obsessive and dysfunctional that it feels it needs to arm and train its children in public schools . . . maybe it's time to apply that amendment process to the second amendment.
 
2013-08-21 09:21:35 AM

abrannan: Fixed constitution?  The Constitution is not fixed.


I simply meant a rule of law that doesn't change with emotional state or what you "think" it should be, and the enumerated inalienable rights that transcend any government.
 
2013-08-21 09:22:46 AM

The Name: You know, when a society's relationship with firearms becomes so obsessive and dysfunctional that it feels it needs to arm and train its children in public schools . . . maybe it's time to apply that amendment process to the second amendment.


Good luck with that.  There are far too many individuals in the US who seem to think that being able to own a gun will protect them from government tyranny or something.
 
2013-08-21 09:23:06 AM

USP .45: enumerated inalienable rights that transcend any government.


how so?
 
2013-08-21 09:24:47 AM

Mercutio74: The Name: You know, when a society's relationship with firearms becomes so obsessive and dysfunctional that it feels it needs to arm and train its children in public schools . . . maybe it's time to apply that amendment process to the second amendment.

Good luck with that.  There are far too many individuals in the US who seem to think that being able to own a gun will protect them from government tyranny or something.


Yeah, I know I'm beating my head against a wall.
 
2013-08-21 09:27:00 AM

The Name: Mercutio74: The Name: You know, when a society's relationship with firearms becomes so obsessive and dysfunctional that it feels it needs to arm and train its children in public schools . . . maybe it's time to apply that amendment process to the second amendment.

Good luck with that.  There are far too many individuals in the US who seem to think that being able to own a gun will protect them from government tyranny or something.

Yeah, I know I'm beating my head against a wall.


Well that would certainly explain your thought process.
 
2013-08-21 09:39:27 AM
I hope this isn't about to become some sort of widespread gun nut/bagger/second amendment solution AW trend.  I'm walking to the store last week just to grab cold drink and snack, and shuffling towards me comes this creepy dude with a rifle slung across his back. I can't know what his motivation is. Is he protesting? Is he looking for a comfy place to stage today's mass shooting? How does anyone know? All I know is that I felt really vulnerable right then.

Say you're taking your kids to a parade or back to school shopping and these places are suddenly awash in rifle-toting men? Is anyone seriously going to feel safer? Or are you going to be hoping not to run into the one crazy guy hoping to make the national news and finding it easier than he could ever have imagined since he's able to hide in plain sight?

I have one little gun at home that we keep for personal safety.  My in-laws used to own a game ranch. I'm not rabidly anti-gun. But IMHO, shiat's starting to go a little far at this point.
 
2013-08-21 09:39:39 AM

Ned Stark: Well that would certainly explain your thought process.


I think the problem is that Americans stop their thought process the minute the constitution is put in front of them.  Yes, it is the supreme legal authority of the country and for the purposes of lawmaking and legal interpretation should not be questioned.

But for the more general purpose of imagining the kind of society we want to be going forward, and thinking about how law should change as society changes, we have every right, indeed the duty, to look at the Constitution with a critical eye and ask ourselves "Does this provision/Amendment/whatever ultimately improve or harm the country?  Is it in line with our priorities and values?"  If the answer is that it harms us and goes against our values, then we have every right, as outlined in the Constitution itself, to change that law.  In light of the magnitude of gun violence in this country, I think the second amendment should receive that kind of scrutiny.

But no, we think that the Constitution was handed down from on high by Jesus Christ himself, and the sky will fall if one of the first ten amendments is changed.  Note that I'm not necessarily arguing that any particular amendment SHOULD be changed.  I'm just saying that it's not heresy or unpatriotic, and indeed can be very worthwhile, to have a conversation about changing them when not interpreting or making actual laws.
 
2013-08-21 09:40:39 AM

AverageAmericanGuy: I'd be anxious that someone would think I shoplifted it. Hell, I don't even take a pocket comb with me to Walmart because those motherfarkers think anything you're carrying you've stolen.


You sound black

/ducks
 
2013-08-21 09:43:20 AM

SpectroBoy: / Who would Jesus shoot?


Likely no one, but I don't have a guaranteed godhood waiting for me in the afterlife.
 
2013-08-21 09:57:25 AM
If only the other amendments were as fiercely defended as the second.
 
2013-08-21 09:59:11 AM

The Name: Ned Stark: Well that would certainly explain your thought process.

I think the problem is that Americans stop their thought process the minute the constitution is put in front of them.  Yes, it is the supreme legal authority of the country and for the purposes of lawmaking and legal interpretation should not be questioned.

But for the more general purpose of imagining the kind of society we want to be going forward, and thinking about how law should change as society changes, we have every right, indeed the duty, to look at the Constitution with a critical eye and ask ourselves "Does this provision/Amendment/whatever ultimately improve or harm the country?  Is it in line with our priorities and values?"  If the answer is that it harms us and goes against our values, then we have every right, as outlined in the Constitution itself, to change that law.  In light of the magnitude of gun violence in this country, I think the second amendment should receive that kind of scrutiny.

But no, we think that the Constitution was handed down from on high by Jesus Christ himself, and the sky will fall if one of the first ten amendments is changed.  Note that I'm not necessarily arguing that any particular amendment SHOULD be changed.  I'm just saying that it's not heresy or unpatriotic, and indeed can be very worthwhile, to have a conversation about changing them when not interpreting or making actual laws.


I'm pretty happy with the bill of rights. If I were rewriting the constitution its probably the only thing that would stay.

Well maybe no 10. Federalism is dead.

Or 3, because its silly.
 
2013-08-21 10:12:20 AM

LordJiro: And the Taliban parallels keep on a-comin'.


Well if the Taliban open-carried their bombs, instead of hiding them in a car or a backpack without obtaining the proper consealed weapon permits, this then wouldn't be such a problem!
 
2013-08-21 10:23:09 AM

PunGent: 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.


I don't really give a rat's ass about the article, so I'm going to comment on this.

Watch it. If you can handle a lot blood and gore (and I mean A LOT), it's fantastic. One of my favorite movies from last year, and I kick myself every time I watch it for not seeing it in theaters and giving it a ticket sale. It did poorly in theaters, mainly because everyone still had a bad taste in their mouths from Stallone's abortion of a Dredd movie (which is the reason I didn't go see it).

Hell it's the only movie I went out and bought on DVD, just to help them.

Much like how RDJ is Tony Stark and Jackman is Wolverine, Urban is Dredd.
 
2013-08-21 10:25:46 AM

demaL-demaL-yeH: 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.


Holy shiat, I just read that to my pet eagle and he started crying.
 
2013-08-21 10:28:38 AM
exboyracer

Does it mean anything that USP 45 and taurusowner are references to weapons. I suppose tarusowner could be a deep emotional attachment to Fords but I'm pretty sure not. I'm from Nebraska - out in the sandhills we always had a rifle handy for snakes and beasties that endangered the livestock. It was a tool not an item of lust. People who lust after their guns are worrisome. If they need the manhood boost get a fast boat or a Porsche.

A boat or a porsche might mess up their comb overs.
 
2013-08-21 10:29:57 AM

Ned Stark: I'm pretty happy with the bill of rights. If I were rewriting the constitution its probably the only thing that would stay.

Well maybe no 10. Federalism is dead.

Or 3, because its silly.


Believe it or not, there's a lawsuit in play out in the Las Vegas area right now where a family is suing their local police department for violating their Third Amendment rights.  The police wanted to use their house as a staging area to arrest a neighbor who was suspected of domestic violence.  The family refused, saying they didn't want to get involved.  The police stormed their house, arrested the family, and used the house anyway.

Link
 
2013-08-21 10:36:15 AM

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]


Haven't seen that one so I didn't list it. I've been meaning to. I take it you like it?
 
2013-08-21 10:37:35 AM

vygramul: 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]

Haven't seen that one so I didn't list it. I've been meaning to. I take it you like it?


Copying from my above post:

Watch it. If you can handle a lot blood and gore (and I mean A LOT), it's fantastic. One of my favorite movies from last year, and I kick myself every time I watch it for not seeing it in theaters and giving it a ticket sale. It did poorly in theaters, mainly because everyone still had a bad taste in their mouths from Stallone's abortion of a Dredd movie (which is the reason I didn't go see it).

Hell it's the only movie I went out and bought on DVD, just to help them.

Much like how RDJ is Tony Stark and Jackman is Wolverine, Urban is Dredd.
 
2013-08-21 10:41:02 AM

USP .45: abrannan: Fixed constitution?  The Constitution is not fixed.

I simply meant a rule of law that doesn't change with emotional state or what you "think" it should be, and the enumerated inalienable rights that transcend any government.


Tell that to Scalia.

Also, there are three rights given unto us by our creator: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
If, as has been argued, the authors of the Constitution were some sort of Profits who had magical powers, even the numbering of those 3 basic rights are important.
Life comes before Liberty, so Liberty is lesser in comparison to Life.

/not a gun-grabber
//owns about a dozen guns: rifles, shotguns and pistols in a gun safe
///would like tracking for guns. maybe a test of some sort before you buy one. stricter possession rules: no crazy people in the same house as a gun
////that would cut gun ownership down quite a bit, though
 
2013-08-21 10:44:24 AM

DArque Bishop: Ned Stark: I'm pretty happy with the bill of rights. If I were rewriting the constitution its probably the only thing that would stay.

Well maybe no 10. Federalism is dead.

Or 3, because its silly.

Believe it or not, there's a lawsuit in play out in the Las Vegas area right now where a family is suing their local police department for violating their Third Amendment rights.  The police wanted to use their house as a staging area to arrest a neighbor who was suspected of domestic violence.  The family refused, saying they didn't want to get involved.  The police stormed their house, arrested the family, and used the house anyway.

Link


Police aren't soldiers so I don't think it applies. That's just an unreasonable search and seizure.
 
2013-08-21 10:45:41 AM

Witty_Retort: owns about a dozen guns: rifles, shotguns and pistols in a gun safe


you mean you don't go about your daily life with a lethal weapon on your person? you some kinda pussy?
 
2013-08-21 11:02:34 AM

SpacePirate: AR15? Pretty weak for a holy man.
[i.imgur.com image 600x407].

No, but really, besides it being tacky to bring into a supermarket, this is a non-issue.
/Texas liberal.
//Gotta love that bill of rights.


Came here for Nicholas D. Wolfwood, leaving happy!
 
2013-08-21 11:05:16 AM

cretinbob: [img.photobucket.com image 573x443]

Not to be a nitpicker but my understanding is that Jesus wasn't white.  He was actually described as having "olive" skin.  I know that probably pisses some people off, but the bible said so.

Ned Stark: Police aren't soldiers so I don't think it applies.

How do you define who is a Soldiers?  To me it would be the guys that are paid by the government to use Helicopters, Tanks and Machine guns.   Sounds like the cops in my town.  In this case the cops wanted this guys house to place their sniper.  If you need a sniper to take someone out you might be a soldier.  Quacks like a Duck, and all that.
In fact I have also seen arguments that the NSA spying also constitutes a violation of the 3rd.  "Government agents within your home" they just happen to be electronic agents.
 
2013-08-21 11:30:24 AM

The Name: You know, when a society's relationship with firearms becomes so obsessive and dysfunctional that it feels it needs to arm and train its children in public schools . . . maybe it's time to apply that amendment process to the second amendment.


Way to miss my point.  We teach kids how to handle matches, at least the basics of what not to touch in a car. We teach swimming to prevent drowning.  We teach CPR.  But we don't teach kids not to put their finger inside the trigger guard.  Or to treat a gun as if it were loaded.  Or how to unload a gun.  How many times do we hear kids say "I didn't know it was loaded" or "I didn't mean to shoot"?
 
2013-08-21 11:32:06 AM
What, his dick wasn't big enough?
 
2013-08-21 11:44:07 AM

Jackson Herring: Witty_Retort: owns about a dozen guns: rifles, shotguns and pistols in a gun safe

you mean you don't go about your daily life with a lethal weapon on your person? you some kinda pussy?


I have to wonder how many children each of those fully automatic assault rifles has killed.

I'll estimate at least 20 children per gun, and I'm sure I'm guessing very low.

I'm almost positive that one of those automatic Glock sub-machine guns with the thing that goes up is probably killing a child as I type this response.
 
2013-08-21 11:59:31 AM

SisterMaryElephant: What, his dick wasn't big enough?


To strap to his back?  Sister, that's a lot of dick!
 
2013-08-21 12:05:13 PM

abrannan: How many times do we hear kids say "I didn't know it was loaded" or "I didn't mean to shoot"?


Seemingly every time some dumb fark leaves their loaded gun out for the kids to play with.
 
2013-08-21 12:17:22 PM

SpectroBoy: heili skrimsli: They also call an AR-15 an 'assault rifle' which it is not.

I am pretty sure that is what AR stands for.


/i keed


AR stands for "Armalite Rifle", the original company that made them before selling the rights to Colt.
 
2013-08-21 12:31:31 PM

RobSeace: HindiDiscoMonster: speaking of Netflix, they have a new show they are producing "House of Cards" which looks pretty interesting.

Not sure if this is a joke I'm missing... But, they've already finished and released the first season of their new "House of Cards" remake long ago... And, yes, it's quite excellent! Definitely check it out if you haven't yet... I'm eagerly awaiting season 2...

/On topic, all I have to say is that if you're protesting the overly strict gun laws of Texas, well...
//No, I don't actually have any words for my feelings on that...


actually, no I didn't know about it till recently when they started advertising it heavily. I think they are doing pretty good with their original programming.
 
2013-08-21 12:33:14 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: demaL-demaL-yeH: cranio-coccyx.

HindiDiscoMonster: unfortunatly, the service would not take me due to a condition i was born with (not my fault), but i did try anyway.

Already named it.


that's cute, but try not to be such a dick. I have not attacked you.
 
2013-08-21 12:36:08 PM

wildcardjack: [zach.craigsniffen.com image 720x540]

I actually favor open carry, but with the riders that a) you have to be trained b) a can of pepper spray must be integrated into your holster.


for a well seasoned militia no doubt...
 
2013-08-21 12:48:45 PM

Whiskey Pete: [i1162.photobucket.com image 684x454]


I can't imagine how you could possibly offend anyone more with that derptastic meme. Granted the people pictured are nuts, but what exactly do you think happened in the American Revolutionary war, or the Civil War where our freedom was being defended? Do you think we used harsh language on the enemy, and cowered when they said "boo"?

/The price of freedom is blood, the price of derp is loss of IQ points.
 
2013-08-21 01:02:09 PM

HindiDiscoMonster: I think they are doing pretty good with their original programming.


So far, "House of Cards" and "Arrested Development" are the only two I've really gotten into... And, neither can really be called "original", per se... (HoC is a remake of an old British show retuned for American politics instead of British politics, and of course AD is just continuing more seasons of a cancelled show from a regular channel...)

I tried to watch "Lilyhammer", but I just couldn't get into it at all...
 
2013-08-21 01:04:10 PM

RobSeace: HindiDiscoMonster: I think they are doing pretty good with their original programming.

So far, "House of Cards" and "Arrested Development" are the only two I've really gotten into... And, neither can really be called "original", per se... (HoC is a remake of an old British show retuned for American politics instead of British politics, and of course AD is just continuing more seasons of a cancelled show from a regular channel...)

I tried to watch "Lilyhammer", but I just couldn't get into it at all...


well, I suppose technically, everything is a rehash of something before it... Hollywood lost all original ideas decades ago. My wife and I also liked Hemlock Grove
 
2013-08-21 01:14:48 PM
Nicholas D. Wolfwood nods approvingly.
 
2013-08-21 01:24:41 PM

abrannan: USP .45: demaL-demaL-yeH: If you take up arms against the United States, do not doubt that I will take up arms against you.

your oath is to the Constitution, not the actual land mass or title.

If you're a new found leftist, then your oath is to the title, and land mass, with no regard for any fixed constitution.

Fixed constitution?  The Constitution is not fixed.  There's a whole section of it devoted to the ways in which it can be changed, either via direct modification (Amendments), execution (Executive Branch enforcement, or lack thereof), or interpretation (Supreme Court rulings).  The Constitution is not, and should never be, a fixed document.  This is why I laugh at the second amendment folks who only refer to the original text of the second amendment and ignore the piles and piles of surrounding legal doctrine that is just as constitutionally valid.

And before you get into the whole Leftist/Liberal/pollywog name calling.  Yes, I self-identify as a liberal.  I am pro second amendment.  in fact, I personally believe that schools should be teaching a comprehensive gun safety program that includes the students firing a gun of some kind.  Abstinence-only education doesn't work for sex-ed, and it doesn't work for gun-ed either.


The Constitution says nothing about judicial interpretation.
 
2013-08-21 01:29:49 PM
Well, at least his public protests puts both Christians and gun owners in a positive light for a change. I know both groups are proud of his example, someone they can point out to their kids and say, "That's a hero."
 
2013-08-21 01:30:50 PM

Cataholic: The Constitution says nothing about judicial interpretation.


Article III Section 2.
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;-to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;-to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;-to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;-to Controversies between two or more States;-between a State and Citizens of another State;-between Citizens of different States;-between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
 
2013-08-21 01:44:04 PM

jmr61: /armed
//not scared

and pissing pants

FTFO*
Oh, sure, I mean of course you aren't.

/*obviousicity (OB-vee-oss-SIS-sy-tee)
 
2013-08-21 01:45:38 PM

Cataholic: The Constitution says nothing about judicial interpretation.


Judicial review is a different story.
 
2013-08-21 02:02:45 PM

HindiDiscoMonster: that's cute, but try not to be such a dick. I have not attacked you.


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.


See that? That was a broadside fired at me, my family, and my ancestors.
 
2013-08-21 02:20:19 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: Cataholic: The Constitution says nothing about judicial interpretation.

Judicial review is a different story.


Ok, if you wish to play the semantics game, how does judicial interpretation (as opposed to judicial review) change the constitution.
 
2013-08-21 02:27:32 PM

HindiDiscoMonster: My wife and I also liked Hemlock Grove


Hmmm, somehow I missed hearing about this one at all before now... It does sound interesting, and I'll have to check it out sometime!
 
2013-08-21 02:39:02 PM

vrax: SisterMaryElephant: What, his dick wasn't big enough?

To strap to his back?  Sister, that's a lot of dick!


When I read this, it reminded me of a FARK posting a while back, asking us ladies what we'd do if we had a dick for a day.  The best answer included taking it out, waving it around, and proudly slapping it down on the counter (gently, of course).

I imagine this asshole's AR is his dildo, and he's waving it around because he'd be arrested if he waved his dick around.  I also imagine he's got a teeny tiny little penis he wouldn't want anyone to see and his wifey keeps his balls on the fireplace mantle.
 
2013-08-21 02:46:09 PM

SisterMaryElephant: I also imagine he's got a teeny tiny little penis


I'm sure you do.

It's always amusing how guns and cars make so many people immediately start to fantasize about the size of other peoples' junk.

/NTTAWWT
 
2013-08-21 03:19:28 PM
A store is private property - even Wallmart. If they can deny you service for not wearing a shirt or shoes can they also ban entry if you're carrying an assault weapon?

Or do the rights of gun-freaks automatically override the rights of business owners?
 
2013-08-21 03:27:02 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: HindiDiscoMonster: that's cute, but try not to be such a dick. I have not attacked you.

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.

See that? That was a broadside fired at me, my family, and my ancestors.


Cognative disonance is nothing to aspire to. You know for a fact I was not attacking you, your family, or your ancestry, but making a parallel to that argument, and the fact that it was hotly debated n the Continental Congress, and as such, was likely argued that it was treasonous to take up arms against the king.
 
2013-08-21 03:42:20 PM

Max Awesome: A store is private property - even Wallmart. If they can deny you service for not wearing a shirt or shoes can they also ban entry if you're carrying an assault weapon?

Or do the rights of gun-freaks automatically override the rights of business owners?


Nope. Since Mississippi 'updated' their open carry law, I've been making buck providing No Firearm signs around here for businesses.

/most shop owners are gun owners, they just know their clientele is a little derpy
//only problem I've ever had was with a uniformed Sheriff Deputy who was pissed because I did exactly what he told me to do
 
2013-08-21 03:49:47 PM

Max Awesome: A store is private property - even Wallmart. If they can deny you service for not wearing a shirt or shoes can they also ban entry if you're carrying an assault weapon?

Or do the rights of gun-freaks automatically override the rights of business owners?


Except we've already determined that businesses do not have the right to make absolutely any rules they want. A store cannot tell someone to leave because they are black. Property rights do not extend to trampling the civil liberties of others. Bearing arms is such a liberty.
 
2013-08-21 03:54:52 PM
As long as he is following the law and complies with any legal restrictions (such as private property owners posts of no firearms on property if that is legal in the area) then by all means haul that gun around. Seems like lot of extra work to me hauling one of those all over the place but I don't really see it as any different than a backpack or purse. At least I know he is armed as in wondering about the others. I see no real problem with it. If there were ever uniform laws about it and people were less omgskyfalling I'd be inclined to have an sidearm visible. Probably not a rifle though; just too heavy to haul around while shopping. Concealed carry is nice and all but I don't like the holsters and not being a really big person physically nothing really 'conceals' all that well on me.
 
2013-08-21 03:55:23 PM
For the first time in my life, I agree with and support a "pastor".

/ Don't hold your breath for it to happen again.
 
2013-08-21 03:57:01 PM

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



t1.gstatic.com
Niether  were AR-15 or Garands or Winchesters or Colts of any type
So you think we should only have Brown Bess and Kentucky Rifles because that is the only type of firearm the 'Founders' knew?
 
2013-08-21 04:29:12 PM

SisterMaryElephant: vrax: SisterMaryElephant: What, his dick wasn't big enough?

To strap to his back?  Sister, that's a lot of dick!

When I read this, it reminded me of a FARK posting a while back, asking us ladies what we'd do if we had a dick for a day.  The best answer included taking it out, waving it around, and proudly slapping it down on the counter (gently, of course).

I imagine this asshole's AR is his dildo, and he's waving it around because he'd be arrested if he waved his dick around.  I also imagine he's got a teeny tiny little penis he wouldn't want anyone to see and his wifey keeps his balls on the fireplace mantle.


Well, the guy needs something to wave around and if he waved his dick around, small caliber though it may be, it might go off and hit someone in the eye.  It's just an issue of safety.
 
2013-08-21 04:29:54 PM

HindiDiscoMonster: PunGent: 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.

speaking of Netflix, they have a new show they are producing "House of Cards" which looks pretty interesting.


House of Cards is outstanding.  And a rare case where the American remake is better than the Brit original...which wasn't bad to start with.
 
2013-08-21 04:31:27 PM

Oxygen_Thief: 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.


One war isn't statistically significant either way...look at several conflicts, at a minimum...and I'm assuming you didn't mean Vietnam.  Armor and air superiority didn't win us that one, did it?
 
2013-08-21 04:41:52 PM

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 know you aren't talking about Vietnam,

Here is a Cracked article talking about the Vietnamase Bad Ass Air Force, I think Cracked is approriate reading level but the article it's self has citiations http://www.cracked.com/article_20301_the-5-most-secretly-badass-countr ies.html">http://www.cracked.com/article_20301_the-5-most-secretly-ba dass-countr ies.html
 
2013-08-21 04:44:46 PM

heili skrimsli: 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.


Yes, it does, mostly.  And I suspect the Founding Fathers would approve of that.  Nuclear weapons for everyone though?  different kettle of fish.  Right out, imho.  Fifty cal. machine guns?  much smaller kettle, much more reasonable...much more debatable point.

And since the Fathers aren't around, up to us to hash it out.
 
2013-08-21 04:45:57 PM

scottydoesntknow: PunGent: 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.

I don't really give a rat's ass about the article, so I'm going to comment on this.

Watch it. If you can handle a lot blood and gore (and I mean A LOT), it's fantastic. One of my favorite movies from last year, and I kick myself every time I watch it for not seeing it in theaters and giving it a ticket sale. It did poorly in theaters, mainly because everyone still had a bad taste in their mouths from Stallone's abortion of a Dredd movie (which is the reason I didn't go see it).

Hell it's the only movie I went out and bought on DVD, just to help them.

Much like how RDJ is Tony Stark and Jackman is Wolverine, Urban is Dredd.


K, you guys have convinced me, it's on my Netflix list.   Might have to re-read my old Dredd books now...
 
2013-08-21 04:57:53 PM

spongeboob: 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


[t1.gstatic.com image 256x192]
Niether  were AR-15 or Garands or Winchesters or Colts of any type
So you think we should only have Brown Bess and Kentucky Rifles because that is the only type of firearm the 'Founders' knew?


Nope...I think you're missing my point.  If you've read my posts on Fark over the years, I think military-type rifles are the LAST type of weapons that should be banned, despite the admitted cost to society of their misuse in mass shootings.  Military service in the Reserves is why I bought my AR15.

At least until nation states, including ours, get out of the habit of solving things by throwing rifle-toting guys at them.
I figure that's a few hundred years away, however.

That DOESN'T mean nukes for everyone, though.
 
2013-08-21 05:04:29 PM

taurusowner: Max Awesome: A store is private property - even Wallmart. If they can deny you service for not wearing a shirt or shoes can they also ban entry if you're carrying an assault weapon?

Or do the rights of gun-freaks automatically override the rights of business owners?

Except we've already determined that businesses do not have the right to make absolutely any rules they want. A store cannot tell someone to leave because they are black. Property rights do not extend to trampling the civil liberties of others. Bearing arms is such a liberty.


I'd like to see a poll given to gun nuts, excuse me, I mean Supporters and Protectors of the Holy Sacred Blessed Church of Concealed Carry At All Times in All Places, on whether they would like to see stores be able to bar customers based on race, or Moozlimness, or any other criteria they choose (except of course the criterion of what kinds and how many different weapons a Real Murcan is carrying).
 
2013-08-21 07:52:26 PM

scottydoesntknow: PunGent: 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.

I don't really give a rat's ass about the article, so I'm going to comment on this.

Watch it. If you can handle a lot blood and gore (and I mean A LOT), it's fantastic. One of my favorite movies from last year, and I kick myself every time I watch it for not seeing it in theaters and giving it a ticket sale. It did poorly in theaters, mainly because everyone still had a bad taste in their mouths from Stallone's abortion of a Dredd movie (which is the reason I didn't go see it).

Hell it's the only movie I went out and bought on DVD, just to help them.

Much like how RDJ is Tony Stark and Jackman is Wolverine, Urban is Dredd.


Awesome film.
 
2013-08-21 08:38:12 PM

scottydoesntknow: PunGent: 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.

I don't really give a rat's ass about the article, so I'm going to comment on this.

Watch it. If you can handle a lot blood and gore (and I mean A LOT), it's fantastic. One of my favorite movies from last year, and I kick myself every time I watch it for not seeing it in theaters and giving it a ticket sale. It did poorly in theaters, mainly because everyone still had a bad taste in their mouths from Stallone's abortion of a Dredd movie (which is the reason I didn't go see it).

Hell it's the only movie I went out and bought on DVD, just to help them.

Much like how RDJ is Tony Stark and Jackman is Wolverine, Urban is Dredd.


You know what I like the most about it? It wasn't a typical "superhero" film with boring origin stories and iconic villains.  It was treated as just a workday in this particular guy's life.  That's why Urban was so great. He wasn't doing anything out of the ordinary.  He would just get a little annoyed at stuff that would scare the sh*t out of us.  The pacing was terrific.  It was like you just stepped in and- zang!

If you loved it as much as I did you MUST check out The Raid: Redemption.  It's in Indonesian with subtitles but the personalities of the characters, action, and pacing are  impossible to be distracted from.
 
2013-08-21 08:39:36 PM

PunGent: HindiDiscoMonster: PunGent: 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.

speaking of Netflix, they have a new show they are producing "House of Cards" which looks pretty interesting.

House of Cards is outstanding.  And a rare case where the American remake is better than the Brit original...which wasn't bad to start with.


I just binged out on Orange is the New Black.  Netflix is really starting to kick some ass.
 
2013-08-22 12:16:32 AM
I wonder if the US military has in fact drawn up detailed plans for what to do on the day a few thousand obese diabetics decide to select the most manly of weapons from their personal armories and take to the streets, huffing and puffing, in the name of FREEDOM.

'Sir, there's a squad of large gentleman taking up positions around the base. It looks like the ten of them are trying to surround us.'

'What are they doing now, private?'

'Well, one of them is lying on his backpack waving his arms and legs feebly, while another is pouring Gatorade over his face. A rather unhappy plus-size lady has just dropped off a hamper the size of a dumpster and most of the squad appear to be chowing down on a range of deep-fried foodstuffs. Oh, and another gentleman appears to be having an asthma attack and is trying to find his inhaler in one of the many pockets in his cargo pants.'

Terrifying. Obama must be up all night wondering how long he can keep getting away with it.
 
2013-08-22 12:28:24 AM

yukichigai: 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.


Sorry I missed this earlier but I wanted to respond

first I was a US service member and served in Iraq during the worst of itand well aware of the argument they are making

The thing is that in both Iraq and Afghanistan the insurgents had access to various types of high grade military hardware and tech.  Shape charges. mortars, RPG's, grenades, artillery rounds and heck my FOB even got hit with white phosphorous once.  The problem with what these guys are saying is they think it was because just some guys with guns it wasn't.  If you look at the Heller opinion and Scalia's later comments about the 2nd his reasoning implies any hand held weapon system has at least the potential to be protected under the amendment.  Justice Scalia says we have to wait for future court cases to make distinctions.  I think that is asinine and as I said before even the most rapid gun nuts tend to temper their arguments when confronted with the fact that Heller could, at least theoretically, allow the populace to stockpile the sort of weapons that would make any attempt to defend against the current military even remotely viable. A bunch of guys with assault rifles are just lambs for slaughter in this day and age so if the 2nd Amend. was about resisting tyranny then we would be forced to legalize the aforementioned weapons system.  And I would say the sane population thinks that is batshiat.  So not only is their understanding of tactics suspect it is a asinine and rather new legal construct with little basis in American legal doctrine.
 
2013-08-22 12:51:53 AM

abrannan: The Name: You know, when a society's relationship with firearms becomes so obsessive and dysfunctional that it feels it needs to arm and train its children in public schools . . . maybe it's time to apply that amendment process to the second amendment.

Way to miss my point.  We teach kids how to handle matches, at least the basics of what not to touch in a car. We teach swimming to prevent drowning.  We teach CPR.  But we don't teach kids not to put their finger inside the trigger guard.  Or to treat a gun as if it were loaded.  Or how to unload a gun.  How many times do we hear kids say "I didn't know it was loaded" or "I didn't mean to shoot"?


Thread's probably dead, but I'll reply anyway.

I understood your point completely.  I just don't think it's indicative of a healthy, peaceful society when gun-training becomes as necessary as CPR and swimming lessons.
 
2013-08-22 12:58:26 AM

The Name: abrannan: The Name: You know, when a society's relationship with firearms becomes so obsessive and dysfunctional that it feels it needs to arm and train its children in public schools . . . maybe it's time to apply that amendment process to the second amendment.

Way to miss my point.  We teach kids how to handle matches, at least the basics of what not to touch in a car. We teach swimming to prevent drowning.  We teach CPR.  But we don't teach kids not to put their finger inside the trigger guard.  Or to treat a gun as if it were loaded.  Or how to unload a gun.  How many times do we hear kids say "I didn't know it was loaded" or "I didn't mean to shoot"?

Thread's probably dead, but I'll reply anyway.

I understood your point completely.  I just don't think it's indicative of a healthy, peaceful society when gun-training becomes as necessary as CPR and swimming lessons.


Indeed. Living in a nation that does not live in perpetual fear of the Redcoats returning/negro invasions, it's nice not to have to consider firearm-related deaths as an important part of child-raising.
 
2013-08-22 02:07:48 AM
Yet, despite the unique danger presented to the public by handguns, the five conservatives on the Supreme Court gave them special protection under the Second Amendment.

Isn't that 2nd amendment a biatch and no it's not SPECIAL protection its protection and at least it's an actual amendment not like half the shiat the SC votes for to control your lives that they made up out of thin air. Keep listening for that door knock young 'uns its the government waiting for their 1000 bucks for healthcare from ya or it's your county taking your house and land because a business on your parcel would pay a lot of property taxes.
 
2013-08-22 05:16:53 AM

abiigdog: Keep listening for that door knock young 'uns


guh-hyuk!
 
2013-08-22 08:24:44 AM

redlegrick: SpectroBoy: heili skrimsli: They also call an AR-15 an 'assault rifle' which it is not.

I am pretty sure that is what AR stands for.


/i keed

AR stands for "Armalite Rifle", the original company that made them before selling the rights to Colt.


But AR-15s are made by many different companies, not just Armalite. I am pretty sure AR stands for Assault Rifle
 
2013-08-22 09:41:01 AM

SpectroBoy: redlegrick: SpectroBoy: heili skrimsli: They also call an AR-15 an 'assault rifle' which it is not.

I am pretty sure that is what AR stands for.


/i keed

AR stands for "Armalite Rifle", the original company that made them before selling the rights to Colt.

But AR-15s are made by many different companies, not just Armalite. I am pretty sure AR stands for Assault Rifle


I know you're joking, but some might not realize that...

http://www.urb andictionary.com/define.php?term=AR-15
 
2013-08-22 12:53:11 PM

HindiDiscoMonster: My wife and I also liked Hemlock Grove


Loved it. Watched it twice. Want more.

PunGent: Yes, it does, mostly. And I suspect the Founding Fathers would approve of that. Nuclear weapons for everyone though? different kettle of fish. Right out, imho. Fifty cal. machine guns? much smaller kettle, much more reasonable...much more debatable point.


Given their ideas regarding standing armies and citizen soldiers, it's actually quite supportable that the Founding Fathers intended the right to bear arms to mean that the citizens should be able to equip themselves with the most advanced weaponry an individual soldier would carry and operate as part of a regular army.

Things get a little less clear with ordnance, however, a case can still be made for them intending that to be included in the definition of 'arms' as well - they had just fought a very bloody war of independence in which the militia used a great number of privately owned cannons to their advantage.

Likening that to the First Amendment, it would be like saying that it's fine if people own their own computers and have high speed internet, but communications trunks should not be privately held and mass media definitely shouldn't be able to be owned by a single individual. That would be counter to how things actually are, but it is a similar position.
 
Displayed 287 of 287 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report