I can only confidently guarantee that the prostitute you end up making tender love to (lol) will shower longer than she usually does after your 5 shameful minutes of disappointing her
Tbqh I couldn't give a rodent's anus whether it's an assault rifle or not. The fucking thing is a semi-automatic rifle that can put 30 rounds down-range about as quick as you can pull the trigger and it's exceedingly efficacious at murdering defenceless schoolchildren. But muh "shall not be infringed" ffs.
Ah yes, a mere 30,000, excuse my hyperbole. No need to do anything then, carry on shooting each other at a rate that would disgrace the average third world shithole never mind the supposedly most advanced country in the world.
Direct you histeria against some other rights please. You should worry about the criminals that get away because they have public council or something and try to ban that.
Direct you histeria against some other rights please. You should worry about the criminals that get away because they have public council or something and try to ban that.
No man is an island. But hey, most American gun deaths aren't school shootings so it doesn't matter that they seem to have a school shooting about every other fucking week!
Well, the USA is a big country, and I've met a few Americans who seem OK, so I don't think it's inconsistent to empathise with some -- even the many -- and feel a little contemptuous of others -- hopefully a minority.
Ever stop to think what a horrible piece of writing that Second Amendment actually is? I don't just mean the scattershot approach to inserting commas, although that by itself is reprehensible considering what status the document is accorded. I mean the sheer failure to communicate intentions anything like clearly.
For instance, what's the business about "well-regulated militia" all about? Is there any reason the whole clause couldn't have been struck out and the Second simply read "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"? As far as I can see it would have made no practical difference, and it would have saved a whole lot of argument.
Some say that the Second implicitly safeguards the right of the people to maintain the means to rise in armed insurrection against some future tyrant. But if that's what was intended, why couldn't the best brains of the late 18th century come out and say so, clearly and unambiguously? It shouldn't have been as difficult as all that.
Then, what right to keep and bear arms is meant to be conferred (or at any rate, not taken away)? The right to walk the streets and into places of entertainment and work armed to the teeth? The Second doesn't manage to say that either one way or the other. But if that's not what the Second means, what does it mean? The right to keep a gun at home adequate to defend self and family and participate in a local militia for the common defence? It doesn't manage to say that either.
Seriously, it's a contemptibly shirked piece of work all round. And yet we're supposed to venerate the authors of this desperately unclear example of draftsmanship? Sorry, bit of a hobby horse of mine.
You spend an awful lot of time wringing your hands over the laws of a country you don't live in. Poor you, to have Americans owning guns and offending your sensibilities.
Have you read the rest of the constitution? There was a 2-for-1 sale on commas and semicolons in Philadelphia at the time. The Second Amendment actually seems like one of the clearer things in it since it isn't enumerating multiple rights in one run-on sentence.
Hey, I just wandered in here to comment on whether or not a particular weapon is an assault rifle and who fucking cares whether it is or isn't given the stupid amount of firepower it puts in the hands of a disaffected teenager. The rest was just responding to the MOAR GUNZ! reeeeeing that you mostly get when the subject comes up.
And it's a shame that the Constitution was written by a bunch of guys who couldn't run a scrod stall, but that doesn't make the Second Amendment objectively any better.
And it's a shame that the Constitution was written by a bunch of guys who couldn't run a scrod stall, but that doesn't make the Second Amendment objectively any better.
Bunch of dudes who couldn't run a scrod stall but apparently were able to overthrow the most powerful empire at the time and establish independence... Goddam pommy cunts need to shut the fuck up about American guns and how confusing the 2nd amendment is to your tea addled brains.
Bunch of idiots power-crazed into thinking they were men of consequence because the Brits didn't think it was worth spending any more time and money trying to hang onto a tuppenny-hapenny rebel colony, especially with the French pissing on the bonfire as well (not that you'd think so with how Americans miscall the French these days. Ungrateful bastards. But then after Britain had made the land and seas safe for them, they thought they were the victims of tyranny and oppression because they were meant to pay a few pennies tax on their tea, so ingratitude was kind of the core value of the new nation). Drunk with success, they thought themselves as good as their masters and able to draft a constitution for the ages on the back of a beer-mat, as though it hadn't taken centuries of trial and improvement to develop a civilised legal code, and they produced this godawful Second Amendment that was so badly written, punctuated and expressed that if a high school student showed it up in a citizenship class you'd scrawl a big red F on it and keep them after school. And all you can do is tell one of your hated former oppressors that he has no business having an opinion on your great country, and let us get back to shooting each other. Well, you'd better get the fuck on with it. A school shooting here, a gay nightclub massacre there, I'M SORRY I CAN'T HEAR YOU OVER THE SOUND OF HOW FREE I AM LA LA MOAR GUNZ USA USA USA! The fuck with you.
If you read gun forums, gun owners themselves use the term assault rifle and they love to write extended dissertations about the superb killing power of their weapons. The tune changes when talking to the general public, suddenly they are just harmless lumps of metal
Well indeed. Guns were made for killing people and they've been made increasingly efficient at that for about the last thousand years, but they're just for plinking paper targets with and guns don't jump up and kill people all by themselves!
Our founding fathers knew how quickly a government can become totalitarian, that’s why the second amendment comes second only to free speech, guns in the hands of the people are necessary to protect against this. Besides, AR-15s are often used for hunting! We can’t blame the tool for the violent actions of a single person.
Really? Then it's strange that the Second doesn't read "The ability to rise in armed revolt, being essential to the liberty of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
Guns don't kill people. People kill people. But people who want to kill people find guns a hellish effective force multiplier. That's what guns are for. That's also why school shootings occur many times a year in the US, but practically never in the UK - you need to go back about 20 years to find one. We also seem to have managed not to have a totalitarian government, for some reason.
The second amendment says “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” So why else would the founding fathers want us to have a militia, other than to resist an oppressive government and maintain our freedom?
The reason why America was able to revolt against the British and become a world power was because we had firearms. Just try revolting against a government when you’re not allowed weapons or free speech, look what happened with the Jews just less than 80 years ago!
Also, why are you trying to add ethos to your argument by citing a nonexistent quote? Total balderdash. I acknowledge that you tried to copy the second part of the second amendment, but you missed probably the most important part. To paraphrase, a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. What is a free state? One that is autonomous, one who’s rights are not being infringed upon.
The AR-15, despite what the media has been telling you, is not a weapon designed to murder. Do you honestly think that the reason why 10 million people in the U.S. bought it was because they wanted to shoot up schools? No! The reason why the AR-15 was the preferred weapon for the parkland shooter was because of its versatility and availability.
To your last point, “we have managed not to have a totalitarian government, for some reason” I have to again, refute. While a monarchy may not be totalitarian, there are innumerable examples of kingly infringements on people’s rights. I feel like I don’t have to mention the plethora of grievances that has been perpetrated by inbred monarchs over the centuries.
Our founding fathers knew how quickly a government can become totalitarian, that’s why the second amendment comes second only to free speech, guns in the hands of the people are necessary to protect against this.
34 comments
1 SnapshillBot 2018-03-02
I can only confidently guarantee that the prostitute you end up making tender love to (lol) will shower longer than she usually does after your 5 shameful minutes of disappointing her
Snapshots:
I am a bot. (Info / Contact)
1 TheRootinTootinPutin 2018-03-02
/u/packjaw
Thank God no one wants to take my guns
1 archdukef4gg0t2 2018-03-02
I'll pass.
1 toynbeeidea16 2018-03-02
I legit thought AR-15s were assualt rifles until a few weeks ago, but I'm no expert.
1 I_Dream_of_Outremer 2018-03-02
~Begin seriouspost~
There's no such thing as an "assault rifle" it's a just a term made up in the 90's used to scare liberals
~End seriouspost~
1 scatmunchies 2018-03-02
Akshully, it’s a select fire rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge (ie, smaller than a .303, etc).
Civilian versions of the AR-15 are semi-auto only, and thus are technically not assault rifles.
/pedantry
1 XovNielkArze 2018-03-02
It’s a military term actually.
1 toynbeeidea16 2018-03-02
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle
1 orangetato 2018-03-02
Plenty of drama here OP, nice work. Keep the quality content coming 😀
1 Gil-Gandel 2018-03-02
Tbqh I couldn't give a rodent's anus whether it's an assault rifle or not. The fucking thing is a semi-automatic rifle that can put 30 rounds down-range about as quick as you can pull the trigger and it's exceedingly efficacious at murdering defenceless schoolchildren. But muh "shall not be infringed" ffs.
1 LightUmbra 2018-03-02
Trucks too tbh
1 Gil-Gandel 2018-03-02
Ah yes, whatabout trucks. Literally millions of people get murdered every year by crazies with trucks. Fair point, well made, silly of me really.
1 LightUmbra 2018-03-02
>millions of people killed by crazies with guns
>30K gun deaths in the US most being suicides followed by gang violence
🤔🤔🤔
1 Gil-Gandel 2018-03-02
Ah yes, a mere 30,000, excuse my hyperbole. No need to do anything then, carry on shooting each other at a rate that would disgrace the average third world shithole never mind the supposedly most advanced country in the world.
1 LightUmbra 2018-03-02
Like 2/3 are suicides though. Without guns, they'd use a rope.
The other third is more easily solved by getting rid of poor people.
1 PlCKLERlCK 2018-03-02
You’re more likely to be struck by lighting or win the powerball that to be killed in a “mass shooting” with any gun let alone an AR.
https://www.quora.com/What-are-odds-of-getting-shot-by-mass-killer-compared-to-other-means-of-death
Direct you histeria against some other rights please. You should worry about the criminals that get away because they have public council or something and try to ban that.
1 PlCKLERlCK 2018-03-02
You’re more likely to be struck by lighting or win the powerball that to be killed in a “mass shooting” with any gun let alone an AR.
https://www.quora.com/What-are-odds-of-getting-shot-by-mass-killer-compared-to-other-means-of-death
Direct you histeria against some other rights please. You should worry about the criminals that get away because they have public council or something and try to ban that.
1 Gil-Gandel 2018-03-02
Cool, so it doesn't matter that you keep having school shootings over there. Got it.
Quickly! Look over there!
1 SithisTheDreadFather 2018-03-02
Nice troll. My jimmies are rustled.
1 Gil-Gandel 2018-03-02
Oh, if only I were trolling. "But the AR-15 isn't an assault rifle!" "But trucks!" "But suicides and gang violence!". It's depressing really.
1 SithisTheDreadFather 2018-03-02
Now if we could only get rid of that pesky 1st Amendment. Then we could eradicate Nazis forever. But muh "Congress shall make no law" ffs.
1 Gil-Gandel 2018-03-02
Quickly! Look over there!
1 DudeCat 2018-03-02
Keep yourself safe.
1 Gil-Gandel 2018-03-02
I'm already pretty safe what with living in a country that has far more people than guns, but it was a kind thought thank you.
1 DudeCat 2018-03-02
What are you getting depressed over what happens in the US then?
1 Gil-Gandel 2018-03-02
No man is an island. But hey, most American gun deaths aren't school shootings so it doesn't matter that they seem to have a school shooting about every other fucking week!
1 DudeCat 2018-03-02
Your fluctuations between contempt and empathy for Americans are amusing.
1 Gil-Gandel 2018-03-02
Well, the USA is a big country, and I've met a few Americans who seem OK, so I don't think it's inconsistent to empathise with some -- even the many -- and feel a little contemptuous of others -- hopefully a minority.
Ever stop to think what a horrible piece of writing that Second Amendment actually is? I don't just mean the scattershot approach to inserting commas, although that by itself is reprehensible considering what status the document is accorded. I mean the sheer failure to communicate intentions anything like clearly.
For instance, what's the business about "well-regulated militia" all about? Is there any reason the whole clause couldn't have been struck out and the Second simply read "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"? As far as I can see it would have made no practical difference, and it would have saved a whole lot of argument.
Some say that the Second implicitly safeguards the right of the people to maintain the means to rise in armed insurrection against some future tyrant. But if that's what was intended, why couldn't the best brains of the late 18th century come out and say so, clearly and unambiguously? It shouldn't have been as difficult as all that.
Then, what right to keep and bear arms is meant to be conferred (or at any rate, not taken away)? The right to walk the streets and into places of entertainment and work armed to the teeth? The Second doesn't manage to say that either one way or the other. But if that's not what the Second means, what does it mean? The right to keep a gun at home adequate to defend self and family and participate in a local militia for the common defence? It doesn't manage to say that either.
Seriously, it's a contemptibly shirked piece of work all round. And yet we're supposed to venerate the authors of this desperately unclear example of draftsmanship? Sorry, bit of a hobby horse of mine.
1 DudeCat 2018-03-02
You spend an awful lot of time wringing your hands over the laws of a country you don't live in. Poor you, to have Americans owning guns and offending your sensibilities.
Have you read the rest of the constitution? There was a 2-for-1 sale on commas and semicolons in Philadelphia at the time. The Second Amendment actually seems like one of the clearer things in it since it isn't enumerating multiple rights in one run-on sentence.
1 Gil-Gandel 2018-03-02
Hey, I just wandered in here to comment on whether or not a particular weapon is an assault rifle and who fucking cares whether it is or isn't given the stupid amount of firepower it puts in the hands of a disaffected teenager. The rest was just responding to the MOAR GUNZ! reeeeeing that you mostly get when the subject comes up.
And it's a shame that the Constitution was written by a bunch of guys who couldn't run a scrod stall, but that doesn't make the Second Amendment objectively any better.
1 keepittropical 2018-03-02
Bunch of dudes who couldn't run a scrod stall but apparently were able to overthrow the most powerful empire at the time and establish independence... Goddam pommy cunts need to shut the fuck up about American guns and how confusing the 2nd amendment is to your tea addled brains.
1 Gil-Gandel 2018-03-02
Bunch of idiots power-crazed into thinking they were men of consequence because the Brits didn't think it was worth spending any more time and money trying to hang onto a tuppenny-hapenny rebel colony, especially with the French pissing on the bonfire as well (not that you'd think so with how Americans miscall the French these days. Ungrateful bastards. But then after Britain had made the land and seas safe for them, they thought they were the victims of tyranny and oppression because they were meant to pay a few pennies tax on their tea, so ingratitude was kind of the core value of the new nation). Drunk with success, they thought themselves as good as their masters and able to draft a constitution for the ages on the back of a beer-mat, as though it hadn't taken centuries of trial and improvement to develop a civilised legal code, and they produced this godawful Second Amendment that was so badly written, punctuated and expressed that if a high school student showed it up in a citizenship class you'd scrawl a big red F on it and keep them after school. And all you can do is tell one of your hated former oppressors that he has no business having an opinion on your great country, and let us get back to shooting each other. Well, you'd better get the fuck on with it. A school shooting here, a gay nightclub massacre there, I'M SORRY I CAN'T HEAR YOU OVER THE SOUND OF HOW FREE I AM LA LA MOAR GUNZ USA USA USA! The fuck with you.
1 EarnestNoMeta 2018-03-02
an unregulated militia is just a street gang or terrorist cell, or a dram subreddit if you will
1 XovNielkArze 2018-03-02
If you read gun forums, gun owners themselves use the term assault rifle and they love to write extended dissertations about the superb killing power of their weapons. The tune changes when talking to the general public, suddenly they are just harmless lumps of metal
1 Gil-Gandel 2018-03-02
Well indeed. Guns were made for killing people and they've been made increasingly efficient at that for about the last thousand years, but they're just for plinking paper targets with and guns don't jump up and kill people all by themselves!
1 jigglyronin 2018-03-02
Our founding fathers knew how quickly a government can become totalitarian, that’s why the second amendment comes second only to free speech, guns in the hands of the people are necessary to protect against this. Besides, AR-15s are often used for hunting! We can’t blame the tool for the violent actions of a single person.
1 Gil-Gandel 2018-03-02
Really? Then it's strange that the Second doesn't read "The ability to rise in armed revolt, being essential to the liberty of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
Guns don't kill people. People kill people. But people who want to kill people find guns a hellish effective force multiplier. That's what guns are for. That's also why school shootings occur many times a year in the US, but practically never in the UK - you need to go back about 20 years to find one. We also seem to have managed not to have a totalitarian government, for some reason.
1 jigglyronin 2018-03-02
1 Gtyyler 2018-03-02
Since when did Stephan Molyneux get a sex change?
1 jigglyronin 2018-03-02
Our founding fathers knew how quickly a government can become totalitarian, that’s why the second amendment comes second only to free speech, guns in the hands of the people are necessary to protect against this.