I love guns.
Hunting weapons are protected by the 2nd amendment ("Bill of rights" not "Bill of things up for discussion to restrict") by pure luck.
Protection from oppressive or over reaching and misguided government. Protection from multiple and well armed criminals who won't respect any law regardless.
15 yo uses AR15 to save himself and sister
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBe48u6ERiI
Man uses AR15 to stop home invasion robbers who have an AR15 of their own
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e55_1234305715
Protection from oppressive or over reaching and misguided government. Protection from multiple and well armed criminals who won't respect any law regardless.
15 yo uses AR15 to save himself and sister
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBe48u6ERiI
Man uses AR15 to stop home invasion robbers who have an AR15 of their own
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e55_1234305715
- B4Ctom1's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Comments
Gun nuts always like to forget that part. A well regulated militia.. like.. you know.. THE ARMY.
make sure you stockpile your rocket launchers the government is coming for you
to take your freedom
(to own rocket launchers)
Arrested for collecting rain water.
http://thecount.com/2012/07/28/we-own-the-rain-man-jailed-for-collecting-rainwater-on-his-property/
Shut down a kids lemonade stand.
http://www.unitedliberty.org/articles/8459-lemonade-stand-shut-down-in-georgia
No helping your disabled parents.
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/07/27/12992128-city-closes-hot-dog-stand-teen-hoped-would-raise-money-for-disabled-parents?lite
No, politicians today are fucking morons.
That's right, the National Guard is not truly militia because as you pointed out they are employed by the government.
When they put in the second amendment they likely had two very specific scenarios in their head. Our own government going bad or some sort of Red Dawn type scenario.
From Wikipedia for those out of the loop with reality:
"The question of a collective rights versus an individual right was progressively resolved with the 2001 Fifth Circuit ruling in United States v. Emerson, in the 2008 Supreme Court ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, and in the 2010 Supreme Court ruling in McDonald v. Chicago. All of those rulings upheld the individual rights model when interpreting the Second Amendment. In Heller, the Supreme Court upheld the Second Amendment as protecting an individual right."
Not that wikipedia is this great bastion of knowledge, but its simple enough for this puerile need.
Let us take the "if we just outlawed guns everything would be fine" side of the story. I mean it worked with pot right? It even worked with bombs right? Pretend we live in Fantasy Land next to the Big Rock Candy Mountain. We ask Glenda the good witch to snap her fingers and instantly all the guns in the USA disappear.
Not just the guns that would be turned in by lawful gun owners like myself, but miraculously the stolen guns, illegally imported guns, home made guns, guns buried in back yards, hidden in walls, lost in attics across the land *poof* all gone. Everything would be fine? No more mass shootings?
I mean, because you just removed the ability of an entire country to protect itself from the criminal element, the very deterrence of most crimes. So even one mass shooting would be a slap of reality in the face of such disarmament.
Is that deterrence important? It was important enough James Holmes put on body armor from head to toe, including a bullet proof codpiece before walking into that theatre for fear that a single armed victim might put a quick end to his tally. He wasn't wearing it for the police. As proof, he took it all off and surrendered to the first police he encountered.
But I digress, back to this great magical gun ban. We just created a new prohibition. Before it was just pot and coke, you know, that thing empowering the cartels to commit such bloody Space Ghetto worthy photoart? Now instead of going to the corner gunstore to pick up a government regulated, background checked, mechanically neutered to semi-automatic fire only, wanna-be assault weapon, I will be able to get a cheaper cartel built and imported full auto funded by criminals, for criminals.
"Oh B4Ctom1, you are such a dolt, people cannot simply just build guns. It takes extensive equipment and knowledge to make any real gun.
Here is a great video of children, handicapped, blind, deaf, and elderly uneducated people making guns and ammunition:http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d7f_1310831018
Should private citizens be able to own assault rifles? Why the fuck should anyone, ever, own one? In the hope that it's the biggest gun when the baddies come? In most countries the citizenry is perfectly fine without having access to grenades and tanks and machine guns.
The way you equate owning an assault rifle with something like smoking pot is stupid. But you took a comic that *explicitly* acknowledged the usefulness of guns, then start on about how the government is going to take your freedomz by taking all your guns.
The guns we're talking about are being fashioned by the US in big factories by the thousands. They sell them and when they end up in the hands of drug cartels or others in "the criminal element" they laugh and count their money while stupid fucks like you protest their right to profit from it all.
http://www.activistpost.com/2012/04/chinese-troops-reportedly-amassing-near.html
"assault rifles have no point beyond murder? well, this one time someone shot "bad" people with assault rifles so FREEDOM FREEDOM TOOK MAH JERB"
At what point did I "refute the fact that dynamite was included"? You are out of order, and misinformed.
Dynamite is in a list of common murder weapons, because it IS, a COMMON MURDER WEAPON.
When he said "It just says common murder weapon" he meant, exactly what he fucking said, IT'S A FUCKING COMMON MURDER WEAPON.
I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH MORE CLEAR HE CAN BE ON THIS!
Oh I get it, you don't understand the nuance of language. Those two phrases above are not identical. It's one thing to say "It's a common murder weapon", and it's another to say "It just says it's a common murder weapon". .The second implies that I was reading too much into it.
I will wait for his explanation of what he meant. If it really is your contention that he was merely announcing that dynamite can be a murder weapon, then it would be a non sequitur given the fact that I never disputed that dynamite could be used to kill. That's why it was a tangent for him to go into a tutorial on cases where explosives killed people, when I never argued that point.
Unlike everything else on the list, dynamite is not available to anyone who wants it at a moments notice. It's already outlawed for everyone except a select few. It's like having a list that includes : baseball bat, steak knife, brick, piano wire, and Polonium. One of these is not like the others, yet it also has been used to murder in addition to it's legitimate applications. It's also already not legal, just like dynamite.
The secondary point is; the list of explosives surpass dynamite. If you can't make a loud noise without dynamite, you have no business playing with the ignition source.
See also: Nuance my ass, you can't read (and understand) beyond a pop-up book.
Still beating that tired warhorse of a straw man argument, huh? Once again, I never said, suggested, or implied that explosives can't be or haven't been used to kill people. Your devotion to that position is comical at this point. I'll tell you what: if you can cut-and-paste where I said that, then I guess I really am a retarded faggot, however, if you can't, then you will finally know what your mom has meant all these years when she's been telling you you're "special". I'm not sure if she's already knows you're a faggot, though.
This should be good.
>>So, am I to understand from your pic that you believe dynamite should be readily available to the average citizen?
Explosives. The pop-up book threw you for a loop here. They used the most recognizable form of it as a graphic representation. Dynamite is outdated, especially around where I live.
Readily available to the average citizen? You have no idea what makes things go bang. There is no hope for the details here, but everyday things even you have in your assisted living facility can make a lethal pop. See, you think the guy the made the picture doesn't know what he's doing. It is common. Not going to be, IS.Derp, DYMUHNYTE, Stop thinking dynamite.
>>And underneath the heading "Common Murder Weapons", one of the examples given is dynamite.
Please see my examples of case law I stated earlier. Not one of those was employing dynamite.
>>You started off by refuting the fact that dynamite was included in the "Common Murder Weapons" referred to in the pic, now you have strangely gone on a straw man tangent acting as if I was denying people have ever been killed by explosives. Odd.
You can't blame me for trying to read outside the pop-ups. The infograph is FUCKING COMMON MURDER WEAPONS. You argue the picture, your logic fails. PERIOD.
>>Well, when I mentioned dynamite, you replied with "It just says common murder weapons", clearly implying that dynamite did not qualify as a "common murder weapon". Or maybe I misunderstood --- so tell me, what did you mean by "It just says common murder weapons"?
facepalm.gif I meant it just says common murder weapons.
>>Oh I get it, you don't understand the nuance of language. Those two phrases above are not identical. It's one thing to say "It's a common murder weapon", and it's another to say "It just says it's a common murder weapon". .The second implies that I was reading too much into it.
>snipDERP DERP DERPsnip<. It's also already not legal, just like dynamite.
You can't use quotes AND italics when quoting my shit. I didn't boldface just. Potato. You're doing it wrong. Again... It only says, It just says, it explicitly says, it's all the same. See how I changed your quote and noted it. Do that. Less confusing and less biased. I also would not have accepted italics. Nuance your uncle touching you at Thanksgiving again.
>>Still beating that tired warhorse of a straw man argument, huh? Once again, I never said, suggested, or implied that explosives can't be or haven't been used to kill people. Your devotion to that position is comical at this point. I'll tell you what: if you can cut-and-paste where I said that, then I guess I really am a retarded faggot, however, if you can't, then you will finally know what your mom has meant all these years when she's been telling you you're "special". I'm not sure if she's already knows you're a faggot, though.
Who the fuck are you arguing? Murder? Common? The infograph? Everyday bombs kill people. What the fuck do you think IED stands for? I've cut and pasted where you said everything, and have clearly backed up every single exchange with logic. Let's see how well this works if you do this with all of my quotes.QUOTES! My's mom's feeling's is's hurt'sed, by the way.
.
My only point all along was that dynamite doesn't belong on that list because, unlike dynamite, everything else on it is readily available for any adult to possess. Then you inexplicably jumped in with your 'It just says common murder weapons" nonsense. "What??? You don't think explosives can be used to murder? Look up Timothy McVeigh! Look up Eric Rudolph!" Blah blah blah. The King of Non-Sequiturs. You see, it's not that the sentence "It just says common murder weapons" doesn't make grammatical sense, it's that it didn't logically follow what I said. I guess if you were ever going to understand that, you would have by now.
And, as far as you claiming the author was using dynamite as a broad generality to mean ALL explosives, well, nice try, but that isn't supported by the context. He was so specific he depicted two types of rifles instead of a generic firearm, listing their specific uses (hunting and protection, separately) and depicted both a chainsaw (tree cutter) and axe (log splitter) --- no broad all-encompassing umbrella there, either.....but I won't waste my time explaining context to you. Oh, and the dynamite's legitimate use is listed as "demolition", not "blowing shit up". I know this is where you say "Well, where I come from, we use homemade peroxide bombs for demolition". But that's beside the point. The author depicted dynamite because he meant dynamite, just like he depicted a chainsaw because he meant chainsaw, and not "anything that cuts wood". I wish I could believe a dim bulb is finally coming on in your head, but I know it isn't.
So, in summation, there is no proof explosives can be used to kill people.
Now, please cite me some more "case law" haha --- I do not think that means what you think it means, Vizzini.....
"And, as far as you claiming the author was using dynamite as a broad generality to mean ALL explosives, well, nice try, but that isn't supported by the context. He was so specific he depicted two types of rifles instead of a generic firearm, listing their specific uses (hunting and protection, separately) and depicted both a chainsaw (tree cutter) and axe (log splitter) --- no broad all-encompassing umbrella there, either.....but I won't waste my time explaining context to you."
But he also used a van while it was obviously meant to imply all motor vehicles. He also used a very generic looking poison bottle while there are a great many poisons used for murder and/or pest control. Both are examples of a " broad all-encompassing umbrella". The fact that dynamite isn't readily available to the common person while many other explosive devices are easily made at home makes it clear the dynamite was meant to signify explosives in general. He gets more specific with the two types of rifles because that is the whole point.of his poster. But even then those are still generalizations. Because the issue isn't about the legality of just AR-15's, it's about semi-automatic versions of assault rifles in general.
I explained every SINGLE fucking response to hold your hand and draw in fucking chalk and crayons explaining the entire fucking conversation.
How about you draw an explosive not using dynamite to depict an explosive. Derp, only the red 1986 Dodge Ram Conversion Van in the picture is the only automobile that can kill people.
What I've said multiple times is, explosives are in your house. To prove this, blow out the pilot light on your stove and/or furnace and sit quietly in your padded room until my point is made.
You don't understand case law? Have you had a chromosome count? I'm willing to put good money on a bet that it's an odd number.
The firearms are separated for good reason. Citing the legal reasons will further baffle your brain.
I've played your retarded game, and explained it all. If it fails to sink in, may Chtulu have mercy on your soul. Until you understand that the "greatest hits" of bomb makers had no access to dynamite you don't deserve to exchange the same air I breathe.
Fuck you very much.
You DO seem to be fully prepared to kill a lot of innocent people though...congrats!
It's frightening that people presume the US military and the National Guard will simply turn on the citizens if someone tells them to. I guess this is how wingnuts are so fearful about Obama signing away US soverignty or the Small Arms treaty or some shit. They assume the military is made up of programmable robots who will do horrible things if only told by El Jefe.
The Homeland Security Department expects to fly drones inside the borders of the United States for emergency response purposes, DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano said Wednesday in the wake of criticism that her department is not more involved in supervising the expanded use of domestic unmanned aircraft.
http://www.nextgov.com/defense/2012/07/homeland-security-experiment-rescue-drones-inside-united-states/57023/
facepalm.jpg
Good lord man, the derpcounter, it's OFF THE CHARTS!