Skip to content

I LOL'ed

61 comments


From comments on my Barack Hussein Obama post:

“…Never has there been an assault on the 2nd amendment to the US Constitution. I do ask everyone to read it before suggesting that owning a fully automatic 30 round clip weapon somehow is defending their family.”

I don’t care who ya are, that’s funny right there.

When the document was written, the primary self defense weapon was the flintlock musket. So yeah, I don’t think our founding fathers had the AR15 or Mikhail Kalashnikov’s masterpiece in mind.

Then again, I don’t think they had typewriters, word processors or the Internet in mind when they formulated the First Amendment.

Never has there been an assault on the 1st amendment to the US Constitution. I do ask that everyone read it before suggesting that owning a computer and internet access somehow is expressing their right to free speech.

See how utterly silly that sounds? It’s about principles, not the particular tool we use.

Also, I’d challenge you to find me some cases where a fully automatic weapon with a thirty round magazine was used in the commission of a crime. You won’t find many, if you find any at all.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Posted by on January 24, 2009 • Filed under: Uncategorized
← Older Comments
  • the pistolero

    <>I don’t believe in owning guns.But I will fight to the death for your right to do so.<>Just for grins, how’re you gon’ do that? With harshly worded letters? Those’ll only go so far, y’know.

  • the pistolero

    Just for grins, how’re you gon’ do that? With harshly worded letters? Those’ll only go so far, y’know.

  • Rogue Medic

    I do not own any guns. I do own copies of the Constitution.I think this is the most important document in the US, and the most important part of that is the Bill of Rights.Health care is not one of those rights, but gun bearing and gun owning are rights protected by the Second Amendment to that Constitution. The first 10 Amendments were required <>by the people<> in order to <>allow<> the government to have the limited power that the Constitution allotted to the federal government. The Supreme Court seems to have been more interested in justifying the biases of the different justices, than about protecting the rights of the citizens they serve.Some people say that these guns would be useless in a modern conflict, if we were to fight our own government, or a government from abroad. The Soviet Union was not overthrown by the Ronald Reagan or by the US. The USSR was overthrown by its own people. When fighting against one’s own government, being outgunned is not the tremendous obstacle that it seems. <>Being unarmed is a different story.<>

  • Anonymous

    1. Re: 30 rds: Against a military assault (foreign or domestic), you absolutely could need a 30 round rifle to defend your family.2. Re: Flintlock Musket… which happened to be the very best one-person firearm, military or otherwise, available. That’s the standard the 2A enshrined.3. The whole military/assault rifle complaint is goofy for any number of reasons, but I’d love to see the WWI and WWII kill numbers for the Springfields, Lee-Enfields, Mosin-Nagants and Mausers. I have a sneaking suspicion that the 5-10 round bolt-action rifle is the deadliest one-person gun in history.

  • Anonymous

    1. Re: 30 rds: Against a military assault (foreign or domestic), you absolutely could need a 30 round rifle to defend your family.2. Re: Flintlock Musket… which happened to be the very best one-person firearm, military or otherwise, available. That’s the standard the 2A enshrined.3. The whole military/assault rifle complaint is goofy for any number of reasons, but I’d love to see the WWI and WWII kill numbers for the Springfields, Lee-Enfields, Mosin-Nagants and Mausers. I have a sneaking suspicion that the 5-10 round bolt-action rifle is the deadliest one-person gun in history.

  • Rogue Medic

    Anonymous,<>2. Re: Flintlock Musket… which happened to be the very best one-person firearm, military or otherwise, available. That’s the standard the 2A enshrined.<>That is your opinion, but do you mean that they <>enshrined<> the <>very best one-person firearm, military or otherwise, available<> or that they <>enshrined<> the <>Flintlock Musket<> or something else?Of course, when it come to the Bill of Rights, <>need<> has nothing to do with it, or they should have come up with some sort of needs testing.

  • Rogue Medic

    has nothing to do with it, or they should have come up with some sort of needs testing.

  • Ted

    What always gets me about Second Amendment discussions is the way everybody concentrates on the “right to keep and bear arms” bit. Very little attention is ever paid to the part about a “well-regulated militia”. Seems like my local shooting range ought to offer some classes on basic tactics, set up some rallying points, and hold regular drills so that we’re ready when whoever invades, because let’s face it: the weapon is less important than the wielder.Could it be that the real patriots are the paintball nuts and the Society for Creative Anachronism?

  • Ted

    What always gets me about Second Amendment discussions is the way everybody concentrates on the “right to keep and bear arms” bit. Very little attention is ever paid to the part about a “well-regulated militia”. Seems like my local shooting range ought to offer some classes on basic tactics, set up some rallying points, and hold regular drills so that we’re ready when whoever invades, because let’s face it: the weapon is less important than the wielder.Could it be that the real patriots are the paintball nuts and the Society for Creative Anachronism?

  • Curt Sampson

    Well, I’m certainly in favour of some sort of weapons control, though I’m open to discussion as to where to draw the line.One thing I’m not clear on is why people get so upset by control over handguns and rifles and so on, but I see very little protest over the complete banning, amongst civilians, of other weapons. Should civilians be allowed to own hand grenades? M61 Vulcans? Missiles? Tactical nuclear weapons? I suspect we all draw the line somewhere, though I could be wrong.I’m not trying to be extreme here, but to gain some understanding. Give me your thoughts on this.

  • Curt Sampson

    Well, I’m certainly in favour of some sort of weapons control, though I’m open to discussion as to where to draw the line.One thing I’m not clear on is why people get so upset by control over handguns and rifles and so on, but I see very little protest over the complete banning, amongst civilians, of other weapons. Should civilians be allowed to own hand grenades? M61 Vulcans? Missiles? Tactical nuclear weapons? I suspect we all draw the line somewhere, though I could be wrong.I’m not trying to be extreme here, but to gain some understanding. Give me your thoughts on this.

← Older Comments
Vote for me! Click Here

Polarized sunglasses, Flashlights, and Hiking boots.