LordJiro: And the Taliban parallels keep on a-comin'.
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.
Witty_Retort: owns about a dozen guns: rifles, shotguns and pistols in a gun safe
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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]
Bonanza Jellybean: Also, did the article really require all that handwringing over the existence of handguns?
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 sexI'm a little surprised that it's THAT obscure. I mean, Karl Urban was in it.who? is he Keith's brother or something?
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
If you like these links, you'll love
More Farking, less working
Sign up for the Fark NotNewsletter!
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2018 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Feb 25 2018 17:47:26
Runtime: 0.489 sec (488 ms)