If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

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

6262 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Aug 2013 at 4:50 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-08-21 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 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 01:14:48 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 03:42:20 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).
 
Displayed 50 of 262 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report