I mean, if they don't like our Constitution and aren't willing to defend it...

I mean, if they don't like our Constitution and aren't willing to defend it... | WHY CAN'T WE TAKE ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF BANNING FIREARMS AND SHIP THEM TO A COUNTRY THAT ALREADY HAS? | image tagged in memes,put it somewhere else patrick,donald trump | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
10,699 views, 126 upvotes, Made by tetsuoswrath 25 months ago memesput it somewhere else patrickdonald trump
Put It Somewhere Else Patrick memeRe-caption this meme
Add Meme
Post Comment
reply
19 ups, 1 reply
Why is there a Second Amendment? needs an armed guard! Because the first one... Wahoo! | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
:)
reply
9 ups, 1 reply
MY MAN! SOCRATES GETS IT! | image tagged in picard you da man | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
LMAO!!! And awesome Zero wing reference pic dude! :{
reply
2 ups
So true as well!
reply
[deleted]
13 ups, 2 replies
X All The Y Meme | TAKE AWAY ALL THE GUNS | image tagged in memes,x all the y | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
reply
18 ups, 2 replies
X All The Y Meme | DEPORT ALL THE ILLEGALS! | image tagged in memes,x all the y | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
lol :{
reply
[deleted]
7 ups
F@$!#K STARBUCKS! I'M GOING TO DUNKIN DONUTS FROM NOW ON! | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
We're going to be the ones leaving!
reply
7 ups, 3 replies
reply
8 ups
reply
[deleted]
7 ups, 2 replies
First off, the Orlando killer did not use a fully auto weapon and second, it won't stop any of the killing. Someone could use two pump shotguns with buckshot and easily kill 5-10 people in seconds then use pistols to kill more until they ran out of bullets. It really amazes me how people like you lack the common sense to know if one weapon is removed another will take it's place whether it is a pressure cooker bomb, a car or a plane. Not only that, a ban will only stop citizens from getting them not criminals.
reply
4 ups, 3 replies
Um. I've read the proposals on Gun Control Law. If you're already a background checked person, there IS no restrictions. They wanna do stuff like limit round capacities (because you don't need a 45-round mag to kill a deer or quail), make it harder for nutbags to get their hands on them, and just employ common-sense policy that, uh, the REST of the Western World already has implemented.

That (wrong, paranoid) belief that "they wanna take our guns!" is OLD, frankly speaking; not to mention unsupported, and just as extremist as the liberals' agenda you neocons hate so much
reply
2 ups
[image deleted]
reply
[deleted]
2 ups, 1 reply
The Liberal assault in work is to ban military style semi-auto weapons. I'm not speaking of the current law. Obviously you didn't comprehend my point. It doesn't matter what is done with weapons it won't stop the killing. It's a people problem not a weapon problem.
reply
5 ups, 2 replies
Got any ideas how to stop the "people problem?" You DO know the Reagan Administration is responsible for massive cuts in mental health funding, which put 1,000s of mentally ill patients in the street. And almost NOTHING has been done to improve mental health programs and funding for them since.

You see, the Republican (non) logic is nonsense: they wanna fix a problem, without funding the solution to them. They wanna complain about what others do, but HAVE NO IDEAS THEMSELVES.

And THIS, along with several other reasons, is why the GOP is dying off. Like it or not, this country's shifting to a more progressive cultural climate. And that's leaving the true-blue, dyed-in-wool Republican behind. Nobody cares what they think anymore. And the majority of America hates them.

And it's THEIR FAULT. lol
reply
2 ups
@BlackATTACK;
Well said!
reply
[deleted]
1 up, 1 reply
First off, I'm not Republican, I'm an Independent which means I actually think about something before I make a decision. You're correct in saying America is a Liberal country and it will continue to do so because most people are whiney shits and want their way no matter what the cost and politicians are only concerned with votes and their position. All someone has to do is look at the country today as compared to 30 or 40 years ago and you can see just how bad it has gotten. Don't bring up racism and other garbage I'm speaking of the economy and public safety. The country was a better place when the rules were enforced and money wasn't the main goal of politicians. If you want to see America get back to where it was then you have to enforce the old rules. There are plenty of ideas but if a whiney Liberal doesn't like them then we have what you are posting. I do believe it's the governments fault for not taking care of it's citizens safety, health and economic security. The GOP is just as bad as the Liberals. Until people think for themselves and remove the two party system there will never be common ground in politics. It's a system bent on keeping people separated. Hence why there are only two parties.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
I didn't identify you as a Republican; I merely mentioned those responsible. I agree with you fully. Nobody follows the rules anymore; they just litigate their way, and throw a fit until they're the exception TO the rule.

But we agree more than you think. And I'm an Indy, too.
reply
[deleted]
0 ups, 1 reply
"the Republican (non) logic is nonsense: they wanna fix a problem, without funding the solution to them. They wanna complain about what others do, but HAVE NO IDEAS THEMSELVES". You did say this in your reply and asked me if I had any ideas on the problem. Someone could easily take it the same as I but it's irrelevant. You and I could throw ideas around just as easy a poop but the only thing that would come to fruition is we would have to take a shower. Personally I would like to see all semi-auto firearms banned so the liberals can finally see it won't matter and the killing will continue. Then we can get the law repealed and not have to listen to useless rhetoric. Liberals don't want to hear what needs to be done and will fight anything that will actually work. The removal of illegal immigrants and returning to the systematic processing of immigrants like it used to be. Not allowing immigrants in that are a security risk, not taking immigrants from hostile countries are a few. That's just the tip. I would like to see the world powers take over any country that is harming it's citizens and causing mass emigration then returning the country back to the citizens. That way the rest of the world doesn't have to accommodate them and they can stay home.
reply
2 ups
Agreed. I'm seriously 1000% done with this meme now. I just spent 10 mins of my life reading the latest angry comments from tetsuo and argument from Octavia.

I'll never get that time back.
reply
5 ups
Dude, you don't know what you're talking about. Sorry for being a douche in advance, but:

The 2nd Amendment is so that US citizens can defend against the government. It's literally the only reason we were barely invaded in our history.

You haven't thought this through, and are more than likely not thinking critically on gun control "laws". :{
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
First off,if someone was carrying a pistol,the bouncer could easily tackle the guy, with a semi auto AR-15 the bouncer cant do anything,therfore, only Buying Pistols to defend yourself should be legal,not a semi auto assault rifle...
reply
[deleted]
1 up, 1 reply
Ask Trayvon Martin what happens when you tackle someone with a pistol. Your comment is completely hypothetical and usually anyone who comes within eyesight is shot. It's much easier to manipulate a pistol than a rifle. Your point is ridiculous.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
yes, but if someone walked into a club with a pistol, instead of a semi auto rifle, wouldn't people have a better chance of getting the attacker down and surviving, since the FBI could have a better chance of fighting the shooter off...& plus, if citizens don't have any guns to protect themselves, that's gonna hurt their safety..
reply
[deleted]
2 ups, 1 reply
It would be easier for the shooter to get into the club with concealed pistols instead of a rifle in his arms. In either case the shooter would take out anyone at the entrance as he walked in whether bouncer or club goer. Think if you're in the club and someone had two 15 round semi pistols. That's 30 shots and they were randomly turning and shooting people around them as they ran. Would you try to jump the shooter? I someone jumped the shooter what's the odds that that person held BOTH of the shooters arms to keep them from being shot. Practically nill. The shooter could easily put a pistol behind his back and shoot someone who grabbed them. A bullet is a bullet no matter what it is shot from.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
yes, but what I'm saying is people should be allowed to have only a pistol, to defend themselves because if somebody walks up to u with a stolen gun u need to arm yourself...
reply
[deleted]
0 ups
Why? The Constitution specifically describes "Militia". Do you not understand this term and purpose? Obviously not. In any case like I said in my previous post. A bullet is a bullet no matter what it is shot from. The Liberal view of limiting gun type is like putting a bandaid on an amputation. It won't stop the bleeding.
reply
7 ups, 1 reply
Please stop talking about firearms and the 2nd amendment when you don't understand the terms involved in doing so. :{
reply
8 ups, 1 reply
Everyone is free to express their opinion :/
reply
7 ups, 2 replies
That's a useless comment as I never said they weren't. And because I would still be expressing mine. So...

But let me put it this way: would you want Bill Nye talking about science if he had NO credentials for it? :{
reply
7 ups, 1 reply
I wouldn't want a person talking about a subject that they didn't properly understand
reply
5 ups, 1 reply
Thank you. That's how I feel about the 2nd amendment issue. To me it's a non issue. I also think the rest of the world should stop unethically denying its citizens this basic right. :{
reply
7 ups, 4 replies
I think youre all f**ked. Why the f**k so gun hungry? You obviousy couldn't do f**k all for the recent tragedys in Sandy Hook, San Bernadino, Boston or Florida.
When the next tragedy hits, where the f**k you gonna be? We dont see it comming, we dont see it under our noses. Yeah I get you want to protect yourselves and your family...why not. Somebody come to my house causing shit, he gonna have a rude awakaning. But you guys are acting like its in you back f**king yard. Its in your "park" bein the US, but not your f**king front yard, John B Smith of 1st st. and Mayberry. Oklahoma, san Bernadino, doesnt f**kin matter, they wanted it, they got it. Meanwhile you were at home with your dick in your hand (figurativly), polishing your gun. I dont give a f**k, you guys have guns or not, just stop thinking that if you got em, youre gonna save the world.
reply
8 ups
Well said
reply
6 ups, 2 replies
That's all YOU dude. Stop projecting.

I'm saying if there was an invasion, not a mass shooting.

I was also pointing out that if people were allowed to defend themselves and carry, Trump mentions this, that the "mass shooters" can deal with MORE return fire than just a single on duty cop/guard.

No one was saying/implying that we could be Punisher-like vigilantes for whole cities.

That's all in YOUR head. On your side of this.

If every US citizen old enough to wield an AR-15(or equivalent rifle) and basic pistols, was trained to use the firearm by their parents(also trained by their parents) it would change the outcome of future "mass shootings".

I fight for the 2nd amendment and spread the word so that people know their rights. People seem to think the Bill of Rights is amendable, when they're natural rights and can't be taken away. For instance, you can't make an amendment that allowed **pe. That's a natural right. Same with the Bill of Rights.

And no, my weapons aren't extensions of my cock. I and most adults are not that petty.

"I dont give a f**k, you guys have guns or not, just stop thinking that if you got em, youre gonna save the world."

Dude, all I can say is you're not taking it as seriously as you should. :{
reply
8 ups, 2 replies
Holy f**k dude. First I didnt say extension of your cock, but if thats how you feel. You're talkin like you're ready for the next invasion. Hey, Red Dawn was just a movie. No country or idealism is ever gonna try n take over the US. Never gonna happen. But they will go bit by bit as they have. I disagree with the whole take away the guns thing, obviously thats not the problem. You want guns, have em. But dont start talking or acting like the fact you gotem coulda stopped shit. Yeah we have guns, we shoot em, shoot stuff and play games with them and thankfull we have them, but it's not our entire idealism, or what identifies us as a society.
6 ups
Dude, calm down, you sound like your vage is sandy and it's probably making you not think straight.

You referred to a gun as my dick in my hand. That's what extension of the p**is means. Do you understand now?

"You're talkin like you're ready for the next invasion. Hey, Red Dawn was just a movie. No country or idealism is ever gonna try n take over the US. Never gonna happen. But they will go bit by bit as they have."

*sighs

Being CAUTIOUS is not being paranoid.

I'm not saying I think there is an invasion coming soon. I'm saying that the reason people won't invade is BECAUSE of the 2nd amendment and peoples ability to purchase firearms as their armament of choice.

It's a right dude. I don't know what makes you so adverse to it, but you sound like you just eat up the media's bullshit.

"But dont start talking or acting like the fact you gotem coulda stopped shit."

It's been proven that it does dude. You're just ignoring facts. People who are armed shoot back at these people.

"Yeah we have guns, we shoot em, shoot stuff and play games with them and thankfull we have them, but it's not our entire idealism, or what identifies us as a society."

Again, that's all YOU, and you're PROJECTING. I never said or implied that, why you feel that is all on you.

But the 2nd Amendment is still more important than you're realizing at this point in your life. :{
[deleted]
2 ups
You did insinuate an "extension of his cock". If you're going to use a metaphor than at least understand the definition of "metaphor".
reply
4 ups, 2 replies
Sorry. The expression standing there with your dick in you hand was not a euphamism. Its an expression like sitting there with you thump up you ass or standing there with anblank stare. Just a colloquial term. Sorry for the misunderstanding. IE., there was nothing you coulda done.
5 ups
Gun owners can't stop every bad guy, but how many HAVE been stopped? Also, I don't know of too many bars or clubs that allow guns so how COULD any gun owner have stopped the shooting at the Orlando club if they're RESTRICTED from bring their gun to said club?

The 2nd Amendment is about defending ourselves from our own government, foreign invaders and personal safety, not trying to stop criminals. That's what law enforcement is for and unfortunately obama's policies have made it difficult to prevent these shootings from happening.
reply
[deleted]
3 ups, 1 reply
FYI, Sweden has 50% by population gun ownership and has one of the lowest gun related crime and fatality rates in the world since WWII BUT (now read this carefully and use your brain) the crime rate has risen DRAMATICALLY since they began taking in Muslim refugees. It seems Sweden has people with brains and understand what a firearm is for. Amazing how a country with that many weapons has little casualties. Could it be the people? Naaahhhhh, that's too logical.
reply
[deleted]
0 ups, 1 reply
Mote like 6% gun ownership, And VERY regulated. Do your research son.

"There would need to be a valid reason for ownership of more firearms. It is stipulated that all firearms are to be stored/kept in an approved gun safe. It is illegal for a civilian in Sweden to carry a firearm, unless for a specific, legal purpose;such as hunting or attending shooting ranges."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country
[deleted]
0 ups
http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/switzerland.asp 45.7 guns per 100 residents. I should have said number of guns per capita not ownership. Third in the world for number of guns.
reply
[deleted]
1 up
The U.S. was fine and guns were readily available including AK's, SKS and many versions of the M-16 in the 60's, 70's and 80's but there were no mass shootings. I used to walk in and out of my neighborhood with a shotgun on my shoulder to go hunting and no one bothered me. Now the cops would probably take me down. Take a moment to reflect on why things have changed. Is it because guns are readily available? Nope. They have been for many decades. The people have changed. They don't care about others anymore and the government is helping to cause the problem. Mass unemployment, low wages, two parents working while kids are home alone, greedy politicians and CEO's and now we have people coming to the country with no respect for the country they come to.
reply
7 ups, 1 reply
[image deleted]Just so you know...Bill said recently that GMOs are SAFE.
reply
5 ups, 1 reply
I only used him as an example. I don't actually endorse Nye.

And I don't doubt that Nye is spouting off more of the UN "scientific" rhetoric. Dude's a shill. :{
reply
4 ups, 2 replies
I just didn't want to miss an opportunity. Can't think of him in terms of "science guy" anymore.
reply
5 ups
He's our "science guy"!
reply
6 ups
lol I getcha man. He's more of a "government puppet" guy than a science guy. :{
reply
[deleted]
14 ups, 1 reply
reply
5 ups
An awesome gun by the way, no i don't own one :(
reply
15 ups, 4 replies
I've literally seen liberals posting that the founding fathers meant muskets.
-_-
reply
5 ups
Pickle gun? Who's the genius that invented a gun that shoots pickles??!!

(And ffs, I'm kidding!! Don't take this comment seriously!)
reply
10 ups, 2 replies
EXACTLY! The terms Arms in the 2nd amendment is for armament, not firearms.

And armament means military grade weapons and equipment. So the FF's wanted us to have whatever the military had so that we could stop tyranny ourselves.

Great point dude. :{
reply
5 ups, 1 reply
You're absolutely right. Unfortunately, your "armament" can't even match your local major city police force, not to mention National Guard. We couldn't stop tyranny, if they TOLD us on an every network news brief that we were now under the control of one.

And in a sense, we kinda already ARE. It's called a plutocracy. Those ass clowns in DC haven't repped the People in 40years plus.
reply
5 ups, 1 reply
"We couldn't stop tyranny, if they TOLD us on an every network news brief that we were now under the control of one. "

You don't honestly buy that, do you? A tank has an engine. A drone as well. Blue Ray Laser Rifle is fairly cheap to make.

You give up too easily if you really believe that.

Not to mention if you believe that ALL the men and women in the government would carry out those orders.

It would be instant civil war the moment "they" declared anything like what I'm getting at.

"And in a sense, we kinda already ARE. It's called a plutocracy. Those ass clowns in DC haven't repped the People in 40years plus."

That's only if we all give up. It only took 3% of the population the first revolution. There are enough AR-15 owners in America to constitute more than 3%.

I'm worried about it coming to that, but not worried that we could succeed. :{
reply
4 ups, 2 replies
I'm just a realist, I guess. I would welcome another revolution with open arms, to be honest. I get pegged (incorrectly) here as a liberal, but am actually an independent. I'm very pissed off with the current state of national leadership here; if you've done any research like me, you'd also be sick to your stomach with just how brazen and openly we're getting screwed over financially, politically, and environmentally. Hell, I'd even grab some BDUs and a weapon and join the fight.

But once they rolled out the precision bombing runs and the drones...on top of alllll the other various ways they shred other countries' armed organizations....we'd ALL be pushing up daisies in no time.
reply
2 ups, 2 replies
You'd "welcome a revolution with open arms"? Seriously? Np less than 5-10 years of shortages, poverty, mass death, breakdown of society, people dying from influenza, bombed infrastructure, non-potable water? You welcome that?
reply
4 ups
At this point, something needs to happen to change the direction of this country. Personally, I think a political revolution is about to happen, and if that fails?

It might get pretty ugly. Jussayin.
reply
1 up
Silly aren't they :-/
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
Realist is usually something someone calls themselves to pat themselves on the back.

I'm a "realist" in that I'm being realistic about the 2nd Amendment as a God given right that can't be removed or altered.

"if you've done any research like me..."

Have you read many of my comments?

"Hell, I'd even grab some BDUs and a weapon and join the fight. "

If there were another revolution, you probably would just wear what you own with an attempt to be able to blend in more than usual.

"But once they rolled out the precision bombing runs and the drones"

A drone can be taken down. A tank can be taken out. Body armor can be made at home.

"on top of alllll the other various ways they shred other countries' armed organizations....we'd ALL be pushing up daisies in no time."

Translation: you've given up before it's even started.

You might be dead in a first wave, but not most militia minded people.

And again, MOST, if not all the military and police would side with the citizens.

It's not like the shadow government can just expect people to follow the order.

That's why drones have cropped up in recent years. They are making drone vehicles to do the dirty work.

But, there are plenty of intelligent people out there who know or can think up ways to defeat tanks/drones/etc.

If you want to claim the title of realist, don't give up when defeat isn't a sure thing. :{
reply
5 ups, 1 reply
You completely missed the meaning of "research" bro. That wasn't a dig at you. Your blind rage to defend your meme probably was the cause. I was saying I KNOW how corrupt and evil the government is, as well as you do. Guess ya missed that. And I'm an Army vet. WTF are YOU? Don't troll me by calling me coward. You don't know a g-d thing about me.

We're done here.
reply
5 ups
Dude, you sure are bent out of shape and THINKING I was trolling you.

You were saying that there's nothing we could do at that does sound cowardly.

But I didn't say you were a coward, I said you gave up too easily.

I don't know much about you, but I know you got your pussy all bent out of shape and irate over YOUR misconception of what I was trying to say to you.

Next time, don't project your mental baggage on someone telling you to not give up.

And, most vets I know, don't feel the need to broadcast it or try and get brownie points for it.

You're a human, a citizen, and a sinner just like me, so STFU with your high and mighty talk.

But I guess "we're done here". lol :{
reply
6 ups, 1 reply
Thanks. It'd be nice if people who don't respect our constitution would take a cue from your meme.
reply
6 ups, 1 reply
The US would benefit GREATLY from their migration. The country they migrate too on the other hand... :{
reply
6 ups, 1 reply
Lol. Since most of the anti-2nd Amendment nuts are Islam apologists (because if you're going to be a nutcase, go all the way and be tolerant of an idealogy which is tolerant of NO ONE), it would be funny if they were forced to go to an Islamic nation and experience sharia and not having any rights firsthand.
reply
5 ups, 3 replies
ROFL! YES!!! That's a really good idea.

They need some sort of liberal exchange program.

The Islamic countries get our liberals, we get theirs.

If they even have any.

But we could just exchange our liberals for their women... :{
reply
6 ups
I like it! Save the women from Islam and get rid of our problem citizens...two birds with one stone!
reply
2 ups
reply
1 up
"Trade our liberals for their women..." lol!
reply
0 ups
Did you know that the puckle gun came with two barrels? A round one, for christian enemies. And a square one for muslims? The round projectiles did less damage to the bodies of christians, the square bullets were meant to ravage the bodies of the "godless" muslims!...
reply
[deleted]
5 ups, 2 replies
Never mass produced and at best fired 9 rounds per minute.
reply
5 ups, 1 reply
The point is that the technology had been around. Rifling in the barrel was not uncommon (and as anyone who knows a little about firearms, muskets do not have rifling). They just COULDN'T have meant muskets only.
reply
[deleted]
6 ups, 2 replies
Did they mean hand grenades, rocket launchers and stinger missiles too? All are personal use weapons. Where does it end? How about C4? Can we bear C4? I'm a citizen dammit. I want my C4.
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
Now you're just being stupid on purpose... None of those things was around then. The rifling was. The automatic firing gun was.
reply
[deleted]
5 ups, 3 replies
The "automatic firing" gun was clearly NOT around then. And if it was then it was the Pucker which shot 9 rounds a minute. So to say the founding fathers foresaw regular everyday people buying semiautomatic INSANELY powerful (by their standards) weapons with HUGE magazines is completely stupid. Why the hell are rocket launchers and stinger missiles stupid by your own standards? They had connons....those are basically the same thing except smaller.

I think YOU are being stupid on purpose.
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
replydeleteflagWunmor0 ups
That 9 shot gun was still a flintlock type,each shot had to be hand packed,fire the shot hoping that each wad fired.Then it had to cool and repack each cylinder again... A tedious and time consuming process.It's purpose wasn't meant for war as much as it was built for the purpose of killing non-Christians (equal to jihad,but that's ignored) and wasn't put into service because it didn't kill large numbers of non-believers fast enough.It was more efficient to attack with swords or capture,torture,enslave or execute those of a different religion.The more things change the more they stay the same.
There also wasn't the access to news of inventions or events that were happening if far away places or held secret by kings,to assume that our founding fathers knew about such a weapon,built long before they were born is a far fetched reach.The pictures are a of a reproduction built from religious records.
You are correct,there is no way that the founders could have even in their wildest dreams imagined jets faster than the speed of sound able to destroy a town by launching multiple missiles in a 3 second flyover... Hand held computers(cell phones) satellite surveillance ectect.There were religious people burning "witches" but could foresee biochemical or atomic warfare?
Unless you're a certified closet case,that believes that their personal AR-15 and 1000 rounds of ammo will bring the most powerful military in the world to it's knees,proves that logical,reasonable realistic thought eludes those types and no matter how much we try to explain our views they will refuse to understand anything beyond needing a gun to solve problems or create them.The 2nd amendment is more about the right to kill people more than it is about the type of weapons to do it with.The "Downvote fairy" has their feet on the ground and a good head on their shoulders.
Threads like this are a vexation to the reasonable person and documented testament of hate filled archaic ideology of a paranoid group that prefers dreams of violence against any person that disagrees with them or their agenda of genocide,as this meme clearly shows.
reply
[deleted]
2 ups, 1 reply
Thanks for the backup. Another reasonable person is uncommon here.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
;-)
reply
[deleted]
2 ups, 1 reply
Might like this: https://imgflip.com/i/1699lb
0 ups
I do,a very good example of common sense regulation.
reply
2 ups
You're right. I misstated that you were being stupid on purpose. You were making a strawman argument (although, when you consider what a strawman argument is...).
reply
4 ups
It didn't matter what weapon, the FF's knew that new weapons and warfare technology would advance over time. Just as it had BEFORE them.

People like you seem to love to assume these men were ignoramuses and simpletons.

These men wrote the 2nd amendment to make a population that could defend itself against its government if need be. Invasion, self defense, and hunting were all SELF EVIDENT.

Tim McVey didn't need anything but fertilizer and a truck to kill half a building full of people.

You're not thinking the issue through to completion dude.

Stop arguing a point when you don't get the argument in the first place. :{
reply
5 ups, 2 replies
YES. They had explosives back then.

And ARMS doesn't stand for firearms, it stands for armament.

Armament means military grade weapons and equipment.

Meaning, our FF's wanted us to be able to protect ourselves from our own military or a foreign military invasion.

Just because YOU and all the anti 2nd amendment types can't handle that, doesn't mean true citizens need to have a God given right stripped.

"If that was the firearms the founding fathers forsaw....then let's have this as the top end of our allowable firearms. 8 rounds per minute seems reasonable. (Plus the puckle gun was designed and intended for military use only so that kinda invalidates your meme, yes)"

If you don't like the 2nd amendment, which can't be infringed(broken/changed/amended), you need to leave the US.

You clearly don't understand or reciprocate the sacrifice made by millions of men and women for that right. :{
reply
7 ups, 3 replies
Someone questioning what level of weaponry is meant by "arms" doesn't mean they need to leave the US. But that is a valid question: what level of weaponry should Joe Citizen have access to? In some states you can own full-auto and higher (grenade launchers of sorts, flamethrowers, etc)
reply
5 ups, 1 reply
Oops, should have kept reading... HOWEVER, are you SERIOUSLY citing clickbait as a valid source of information?
reply
5 ups, 1 reply
No, I'm citing my knowledge of state gun laws as a valid source of information. I have studied this stuff. :)
reply
2 ups
"Proof of my claim:
http://www.viralnova.com/legal-stuff/"

Do you now deny saying that?
reply
3 ups
I'm sorry, but name one state that allows a citizen to own a "full-auto" or "grenade launcher" or "flamethrower". I think you're either mistaken or lying.
reply
4 ups, 2 replies
Yes it does.

People have given their lives for that right.

If you can't accept the 2nd amendment AS IS, you do need to vacate the country that has that rule.

Anyone who's against that right/rule/amendment is wasting their time, as it can't constitutionally/legally be altered/changed/amended/broken/restricted.

And questioning the 2nd amendment is as close to treason as a person can get without intentionally meaning to betray the country.

"But that is a valid question: what level of weaponry should Joe Citizen have access to? "

Asking that proves my point that people who can't/don't/won't understand the 2nd amendment don't/shouldn't talk about it.

The 2nd Amendment clearly states that ALL citizens can own ALL weapons.

Just because you've let the media warp your mind on what Arms means and what the 2nd amendment is for, doesn't mean that law abiding citizens should have their God given right questioned every day.

"In some states you can own full-auto and higher (grenade launchers of sorts, flamethrowers, etc)"

Really, what states? Give proof of your claim.

And my answer to your question of what the average citizen should be able to have is that a US citizen can own ANY weapon that they can personally afford.

Every citizen has the right to self defense even if they are deemed crazy by all the other citizens.

The 2nd amendment was written at a time when a person could lock the occupants of a church inside and burn it to the ground killing anywhere between just a few people up to a hundred or so. The FF's took EVERYTHING into account when they wrote the 2nd Amendment. Crazy people, tyranny, self defense, you name it.

And they had explosives and could extrapolate a large enough explosive to cause mass murder. So don't give me the nuke argument.

You're wrong for questioning the 2nd Amendment and you're being misled by the media. Stop being a blind sheep and think it through. :{
reply
5 ups, 2 replies
I'll begin by saying that I support the 2nd Amendment fully, and I am a gun owner myself. But I strongly disagree with your claim that anyone who questions what it means should leave the country. No matter where a person lives there are going to be laws that they disagree with or question. By your logic they couldn't live anywhere. Citizens of this country are allowed to disagree with things they don't like. They don't have to leave the country just for enjoying their 1st Amendment rights. And I would also disagree with your statement about how questioning the 2A is close to treason. I think I see what you're getting at, but I still disagree.

Proof of my claim:
http://www.viralnova.com/legal-stuff/

I've seen someone at Knob Creek shooting range in Kentucky using an actual flamethrower (on a TV show about the range). Many states like Louisiana, Nevada, Texas, and many many others allow citizens to buy and own full auto guns, provided they go through all the red tape. A guy who owns a shooting range in Las Vegas even owns his own tank (not that you can rent it of course).

I don't consider myself a sheep, even if you do. I'm not perfect, but I do my best to think things through critically and using my own brain, not just taking someone else's word for it.
reply
4 ups, 6 replies
"But I strongly disagree with your claim that anyone who questions what it means should leave the country. No matter where a person lives there are going to be laws that they disagree with or question."

The difference here is that the 2nd Amendment isn't a law it's a God given right.

The right to self defense by any means necessary.

And necessary is left up to the individual, not a consensus view.

If you disagree with Japan's laws in the wrong way, they deport you or try you for sedition.

Many other countries do this as well. And the US USED TO. Till about the 70's or so, once the UN really got its hooks into US.

"By your logic they couldn't live anywhere."

No, by my logic they couldn't live in the US. That's your logic there.

" Citizens of this country are allowed to disagree with things they don't like."

Correct. BUT, it's called treason or sedition when someone tries to undermine/dismantle the Constitution.

All government officials have to swear an oath to protect the Constitution.

It's not protecting it if they try and enable citizens to THINK they can alter the 2nd Amendment.

So normally, someone stating their opinions on laws and individual's rights would be exercising their free speech, but on the 2nd amendment and any that aren't to be infringed, it becomes a threat to the country's citizens.

That might seem dramatic to you, but that's how the country is supposed to treat the Bill of Rights. It's serious AF.

"They don't have to leave the country just for enjoying their 1st Amendment rights. "

If you're trying to affect the 2nd Amendment with your free speech then you are threatening the citizens of the US and their individual rights.

That becomes sedition and treason later on, but even just violating the rights of the citizens is unconstitutional and a threat to it.

I've already mentioned other countries DO deport people who speak out against their laws in such a way.

The US used to do this as well.

And it doesn't mean you don't have the right to question the 2nd amendment.

It means that if you talk about restrictions and limitations you are inciting opposition to the government.

"Proof of my claim: http://www.viralnova.com/legal-stuff/"

Proof? I have already stated we're not talking about LAwS, we're talking about RIGHTS.

Also, that article has a lot of misinfo. You should learn to use better discretion.

If that's your concept of proof, you lack common sense. :{
reply
3 ups
Hey, look... I'm not anti-gun. Quite the opposite (imgflip.com/i/15y2te).

But I can read the Constitution just as easily as anyone. Nowhere does it say the first 10 Amendments can't be altered/repealed.

While it is theoretically possible, I highly doubt the Article V requirements would ever be met. And my point still stands that Amending the Constitution automatically makes the Amendment Constitutional SIMPLY BY BEING IN THE CONSTITUTION! "Constitutional" How can you possibly not understand the word itself means BASED ON THE CONSTITUTION. Amendments are PART of the Constitution. I'm repeating myself, but apparently, I need to.
reply
[deleted]
5 ups, 2 replies
"GOD Given Right?"

BWWAAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA

Where and when did GOD give you the right to own a gun? I don't need to read after that nonsense statement.
2 ups
Exactly,an imaginary entity from an ancient fictional book(1 of many) is how a government should decide how best to create policy in the 21st century?
If that's carries any ounce of reason then it's our "god given" right to to be killed by a crazy person who's acquired a military grade weapon.Right?
Next step that always follows is "god spoke to me and said I must kill all the infidels of a different religion,gays,ethnics or innocent children in schools or the sinners in a movie theater"... All justified by god and the 2nd amendment?
4 ups
No one said God personally gave us the right dumbass.

Stop twisting people's words to make your flawed argument.

The FF's wrote that our rights(US citizens) are given to us by God, and not man.

That's how our country came to be. If you weren't so ignorant you'd get this and wouldn't have to have it spelled out for you so often.

And you should be more appreciative of the fact that they had the foresight to write that God gives us our rights and NOT man.

And if you don't believe in God, that's on you. But stop trying to make believers feel like they somehow negate their Iq's just because they believe in a higher power.

" I don't need to read after that nonsense statement."

Just more proof that you don't use a shred of reasoning and just rely on your emotional biases.

I hope you someday can figure out why this is so important. :{
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
Ummm... WRONG! Article V was part of the Constitution BEFORE any Amendment was added.

And Amending the Constitution makes it, by definition, CONSTITUTIONAL.
4 ups
"Ummm... WRONG! Article V was part of the Constitution BEFORE any Amendment was added."

But does that support your theory? No.

The Bill of Rights still is not able to be amended, the 11th onward can.

"And Amending the Constitution makes it, by definition, CONSTITUTIONAL"

But that refers to the amendments that can be altered, not the Bill of Rights.

So you're just not seeing what I'm trying to get across to you.

I agree that amendments AFTER the Bill of Rights can be affected by the amendment process, but the Bill of Rights constitutionally, can't be altered.

If you still don't get his, you just need to do more research. :{
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
Technically, the lawmakers COULD repeal ANY of the Constitution Amendments with a 2/3+ majority (look at Prohibition). The likelihood that there would EVER be a 2/3+ majority in favor of repealing the 2nd Amendment is SLIM, indeed.

And I agree with you on the "proof". Since when is clickbait considered a valid source?
4 ups
No, that's more misinfo.

The clause of "cannot be infringed" means that the 2nd Amendment is untouchable.

But to be fair, the whole Bill of Rights is untouchable.

The unconstitutional "laws" that are passed are also unconstitutionally enforced.

Don't let anyone tell you that the Bill of Rights, especially the 2nd Amendment can be altered.

They don't know wtf they're talking about. And are undermining your individual rights. :{
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
The "Bill of Rights" is what our Founding Fathers called the first ten Amendments, but technically, they are just that: AMENDMENTS. They were passed using Article V. They can be altered/repealed using Article V.

YOU need to do more research on CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.
4 ups
"The "Bill of Rights" is what our Founding Fathers called the first ten Amendments, but technically, they are just that: AMENDMENTS. They were passed using Article V. They can be altered/repealed using Article V.

YOU need to do more research on CONSTITUTIONAL LAW."

No, again, I'm sorry, but you're being misinformed on this issue. YOU need to do more research.

I am not arguing that the Bill of Rights are referred to as "amendments".

I'm stating that they aren't amendable.

Just the 11th onward are able to be amended.

The original articles had each right as "shall not be infringed" but that's only left out because they felt that it is "self evident", meaning goes without saying.

The Bill of Rights are "natural rights" the 11th onward are "legal rights".

So please don't try and tell me i need to research constitutional law when you aren't even going past a google search for your info.

The Bill of Rights is a set of individual rights that are given to us by a divine power and stated as such by the FF's.

"Amending" them would be treasonous/seditious. Not to again mention, unconstitutional.

Please do the research on this.

It sucks that you've been fooled into thinking your rights could be stripped. :{
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
I was partly right, partly wrong...

Article V of the constitution says it takes 2/3 of the congress to propose an amendment, then 3/4 to pass it, at which point it goes to the states, where 2/3 are required to ratify it before it becomes an actual part of the Constitution. Just because the Bill of Rights has never been altered by amendment doesn't mean it COULDN'T be. And the fact of Article V's restrictiveness would render anyone seriously proposing such an amendment to be committing political suicide. There simply would be NO WAY that such an amendment would succeed.

This is why the gun-control freaks have to use trickery and the Supreme Court to try to "define" what the 2nd Amendment "means" in order to undermine it's protection of the citizens' right.
4 ups
"Article V of the constitution says it takes 2/3 of the congress to propose an amendment, then 3/4 to pass it, at which point it goes to the states, where 2/3 are required to ratify it before it becomes an actual part of the Constitution. "

This doesn't apply to the Bill of Rights, it applies to the articles AFTER it.

AND, the 2nd amendment has a no infringement clause. That I already pointed out to you. Did you not understand what I said? Maybe reread my comments.

"Just because the Bill of Rights has never been altered by amendment doesn't mean it COULDN'T be."

No, the Bill of Rights can't be altered as they are rights, not normal "amendments". The Bill of Rights are called Amendments, but aren't the same as the amendments after the 10th.

Those amendments can be changed. But the Bill of Rights, are God given rights that can't be stripped or altered.

"And the fact of Article V's restrictiveness would render anyone seriously proposing such an amendment to be committing political suicide. There simply would be NO WAY that such an amendment would succeed."

That's how the media would justify it. But not accurate constitutionally.

They can't change the Bill of Rights because they have no power to. If they did change something, it would be instantly null and void and would have to be unconstitutionally enforced.

"This is why the gun-control freaks have to use trickery and the Supreme Court to try to "define" what the 2nd Amendment "means" in order to undermine it's protection of the citizens' right."

I get what you think you mean, but again, the media/corrupt government wants you to think of it like that. In THEIR terms.

The Bill of Rights, especially the 2nd amendment, can't be stripped or altered or restricted. And such "law" would be unconstitutional and people would have to break their oaths to enforce them. :{
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
"I've seen someone at Knob Creek shooting range in Kentucky using an actual flamethrower (on a TV show about the range). Many states like Louisiana, Nevada, Texas, and many many others allow citizens to buy and own full auto guns, provided they go through all the red tape. A guy who owns a shooting range in Las Vegas even owns his own tank (not that you can rent it of course).

I don't consider myself a sheep, even if you do. I'm not perfect, but I do my best to think things through critically and using my own brain, not just taking someone else's word for it."

Sorry, I ran out of space.

I'm going to hit on the last paragraph first.

"I don't consider myself a sheep, even if you do. I'm not perfect, but I do my best to think things through critically and using my own brain, not just taking someone else's word for it."

Yet the ViralNova article...

Can you see now why I would question YOUR logic on this?

"I've seen someone at Knob Creek shooting range in Kentucky using an actual flamethrower (on a TV show about the range). Many states like Louisiana, Nevada, Texas, and many many others allow citizens to buy and own full auto guns, provided they go through all the red tape. A guy who owns a shooting range in Las Vegas even owns his own tank (not that you can rent it of course)."

Even if those states allow these claims, IT'S STILL LEGAL.

YOU may not think a person has a "need" for a flamethrower/tank/select-fire rifle, but you might also think a person has no need for a Hummer or a "gas-guzzler" or a loud dirtbike etc.

The 2nd Amendment isn't about hunting. It's about self defense and the RIGHT to defend yourself against the GOVERNMENT.

To do that effectively, logically you need the same shit the government has to defend yourself.

And being a capitalist society, if you've got the money for it, you can own it.

People who don't like this need to find another place to live.

Like Canada, France, Britain, or Australia.

Y'all need to save up your money, and find a way out of the "crazy" US.

Cause America LOVES weapons. And you apparently don't if you think that you or anyone has the right to say what a person can have for self defense.

And have you ever heard of a blue ray rifle? Guns are about to be one-upped by beam weaponry dude. And we have a right to have that as well. :{
reply
7 ups, 1 reply
I never once said I oppose civilian ownership of select fire/full auto guns. I support it. If I had the money and lived in a state where I could buy one, I would.

Also, I wasn't saying that Internet article was my be-all-end-all argument. I was just providing it because you asked for proof. Anyone can do five minutes of research online and confirm that class 3 devices are legal in many states. And again, I support them being legal and available to law-abiding citizens.
3 ups
You said that article was "proof of my claim" dude.

And maybe lead with how you support the 2nd amendment next time? :{
reply
[deleted]
5 ups, 3 replies
reply
[deleted]
2 ups, 2 replies
You really are an ignorant person if you think ISIS supporters in the US need guns to be legal in order to get one. That meme borders on compete retardation.
reply
[deleted]
1 up
Hey asshat:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jun/23/cory-booker/sen-cory-booker-says-al-qaida-has-urged-followers-/
reply
[deleted]
3 ups, 2 replies
[deleted]
2 ups
Yes, because we have lax laws in other areas. We need federal, strictly enforced laws. How do you think those guns got to NY?

And you think I'm the idiot.

EESH. WE ARE DOOMED. The dumb like you multiply too fast.
[deleted]
2 ups
Retard. Cops just busted people in New York where guns are banned and with car load of illegal weapons. You're an idiot.
reply
5 ups, 1 reply
Isis would obvioulsy prefer for us NOT to be able to defend ourselves. Are you braindead?
reply
5 ups, 2 replies
You'd have to be if you are trying to compare the NRA to ISIS.

That's retarded.

One is a foreign radically religious terrorist group and the other is a domestic rights advocacy group.

It's like comparing LOTR to FNAF.

There's a few similarities, but so many differences that to compare them would make people question your sanity. :{
[deleted]
5 ups
No one is comparing them. They both support less gun control in the USA.

ISIS will soon call on US citizens that support them (Mulsim and non) to LEGALLY start stockpiling AR-15's, huge magazines, semi auto pistols, etc and ammo to prepare for an internal war. All legally. LEGALLY. That that sink in. These US CITIZENS will use their "god given right" (as you said before) to LEGALLY buy all the weapons they need to kill MORE and MORE Americans.

Are you two BRAINDEAD?
[deleted]
6 ups
reply
4 ups
"No one is comparing them. They both support less gun control in the USA.

ISIS will soon call on US citizens that support them (Mulsim and non) to LEGALLY start stockpiling AR-15's, huge magazines, semi auto pistols, etc and ammo to prepare for an internal war. All legally. LEGALLY. That that sink in. These US CITIZENS will use their "god given right" (as you said before) to LEGALLY buy all the weapons they need to kill MORE and MORE Americans.

Are you two BRAINDEAD?"

Are you that blinded by your apparent hatred of the constitution that you can't tell the meme you posted is COMPARING the NRA and ISIS? Really dude? Really?

ISIS supports less gun control in the USA? Proof? Cause you're talking out your ass so far.

"ISIS will soon call on US citizens that support them (Mulsim and non) to LEGALLY start stockpiling AR-15's, huge magazines, semi auto pistols, etc and ammo to prepare for an internal war. All legally. LEGALLY. That that sink in. These US CITIZENS will use their "god given right" (as you said before) to LEGALLY buy all the weapons they need to kill MORE and MORE Americans."

Then LOGICALLY, Americans shouldn't have their rights restricted. Ya dumb twat!

"Are you two BRAINDEAD?"

Nah I'm pretty sure you've absorbed every single mote of dead brain cells in the world at this point.

Oh, and US citizens can ALSO get all the ammo/weapons THEY need to defend themselves. DUH. :{
reply
[deleted]
6 ups, 2 replies
WHEN THE F**K DID GOD GIVE ANYONE THE RIGHT TO BUY GUNS?
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
I didn't realize you knew the plans of Isis...do we need to turn you in to homeland security?

Your entire stance on this issue is absolute ignorance. You keep complaining that Isis supporters can get guns because of the NRA...so banning guns is going to help keep us safe? Terrorists are going to find a way to GET GUNS ANYWAY. Hell, Hillary gives them to foreigners all the time. And by the way, who let Isis supporters into our nation. Oh yeah, the LIBERAL Obama.

Please go on with your misguided hate of Trump, who will stop MORE Isis symphathizers from entering the US.
reply
5 ups, 2 replies
By banning an entire religion?
reply
4 ups, 2 replies
We NEED to stop the flow of refugees into our country because we aren't able to properly check their background. Muslims have a different way of life that isn't compatible with our way of life and constitution. For example, sharia law. Many muslims are trying to override our constitution to incorporate sharia law in the US. If you want to come to the US, you should respect our constitution.

http://conservativetribune.com/muslims-attack-texas-mayor/

I know a chick in my city who converted to Islam, and got beaten up by her muslim boyfriend because she removed her hijab in public. I won't stand for this in the US. Women are treated as property and assaulted everyday under sharia law. If you want to experience Islam and sharia for yourself, get the f**k out of America, liberal scum.
reply
5 ups, 2 replies
"If you want to come to the US, you should respect our constitution."

You're right. People here should respect the Constitution, INCLUDING YOU. The First Amendment protects Freedom of Religion, no matter what the religion is. You seem to think that ALL Muslims are women hating, gay beating people; And I admit sone of them are. And those people shouldn't be allowed in the US. But many of them are tolerant people. It seems like you want to ban the peaceful ones too. It's like gun ownership; most of the gun owners are law abiding citizens, not all of them shoot up public places...

BTW, calling people rude names I see? Aren't you mature...
[deleted]
4 ups
I agree with renegade. The constitution is for CITIZENS not immigrants. You need to research Teddy Roosevelt's speech on immigration and naturalization.
4 ups
I knew you would go there, I NEVER said all muslims are bad people kid. You need to research what Islam actually is all about before you keep runnin' your mouth.

Nice try with the first amendment talk, but that doesn't mean we as a country HAVE to accept any immigrants. In fact, the president can choose who or who can't enter the country. The first amendment is for US citizens to have the right to peacefully practice the religion of their choosing.
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
(I'm replying here b/c it won't let me reply to rhe comment about you saying I'm trying to defend the entire Muslim population)

Human Rights are violated in almost all religions. The Christians are supposed to be anti-gay, the Buddhists run concentration camps in Bruma, and Muslims are supposed to follow the Sharia Law. No religion is perfect, there are extreamists in every single one of them. The only reason I defend PEACEFUL Muslims nowadays is b/c all you Conservatives to is pick on Islam. Go ahead, pick on another religion and I'll defend them just as much.
3 ups
I don't attack peaceful muslims dumbass. You can't compare ANY religion to Islam. Yes many Christians are anti-gay, but do they kill gays? No, because the bible says not to kill in the TEN COMMANDMENTS. It's worth noting that I am not Christian, just in case you were thinking I'm biased. The Quran says that gays need to be killed. Here's a link of a Muslim preacher speaking at a mosque in Orlando right before the attack, calling for gays to be executed out of "compassion". See many Christians saying that?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qBlwxqqAprQ

Watch that, if you have the guts to. You still haven't defended anything about the idealogy of Islam without deflecting. Of course no religion is perfect, but comparing Islam to other religions is apples to oranges. Pull your head out of the sand and do some research about Islam. Find anything comparable to sharia law in any other religion. Even in Indonesia, a country of mostly moderate muslims, 18% believe in honor killings. That equates to roughly 40 million people. An honor killing for example would mean that if a woman is **ped, she is guilty of a crime and should be put to death. One province follows sharia law, and a woman there was recently beaten for the "crime" of being seen in public with a man who wasn't her husband from a forced marriage. Here's the link if you don't believe me:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/crowd-cheers-woman-brutally-caned-7087489

Also, women in Indonesia who want to join the military are given the "two finger test". That's where a man sees if she's a virgin or not, I'm assuming you can infer how this test is performed.

All this happens in what's known as a peaceful and moderate muslim country, so imagine what happens in a true Islamic nation.

You just have no idea what you're talking about kid. I have friends who escaped from Islamic nations, and yet you imply that I'm a racist. I doubt you know anyone who is from an Islamic nation.
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
We've already been over this. If you want to be an ignorant Islam apologist, go right ahead. Islam is not a religion, it is a cult. It's an idealogy that is non-tolerant and oppressive of women, gays, other cultures, other religions and muslims themselves. Muslims themselves are the first and biggest victims of Islam.

Islam is different from EVERY other religion. The idealogy of Islam is at it's very nature against coexisting with other cultures/religions. The quran states to kill non-believers in the name of allah...no other religion has ANYTHING like that in their holy texts.

Muhammed was a rapist and pedophile who preached violence. How is someone like that fit to create a religion?
reply
6 ups, 1 reply
Since when did conservatives like you give a shit about gays and women?
5 ups
Oh, so you're going to skip over everything I said and reply with some typical liberal response. You have no idea what Islam does to women and gays. This has nothing to do with liberals or conservatives. This is about human rights being violated by Islam.
reply
4 ups
Okay, you're obviously just ignoring my answers.

For one thing I've already explained that the 2nd amendment isn't about guns, it's about military grade weapons and equipment. The arms in it stand for ARMAMENT. Look up that word.

I will state my point again for your deaf ears.

No one is saying God personally gave us the right.

Like, we're not saying God came down on his throne and said "Hey guys, I want you to have the right to own all weapons to defend yourself against the government"

I'm saying, that the FF's wrote that our Bill of Rights are our God given rights, meaning not given by men or governments. Meaning, they can't be stripped.

The Bill of Rights is constitutionally untouchable.

The PROBLEM is unconstitutional laws and oath breaking enforcement of those laws.

You need to get over your hate of "God" and the 2nd amendment if you're going to live in the US a country that has in its constitution that God gave us rights, most importantly of all, the right of self defense with any weapon the military uses. :{
reply
5 ups, 1 reply
reply
[deleted]
6 ups, 1 reply
If that was the firearms the founding fathers forsaw....then let's have this as the top end of our allowable firearms. 8 rounds per minute seems reasonable. (Plus the puckle gun was designed and intended for military use only so that kinda invalidates your meme, yes)
reply
5 ups
Wow you're ignorant. The puckle gun was created BEFORE the constitution was written, as stated in the meme. They knew it existed, not foresaw it. The meme infers they they FORESAW more advanced guns because of the puckle gun.

How is your point of the puckle gun being designed for military use relevant? The point is it existed, as was proof that guns could be more advanced than muskets. The meme is NOT invalidated.
reply
12 ups, 1 reply
reply
7 ups, 3 replies
Of course he doesn't. America and its values and system made him filthy rich. Well, made his Dad filthy rich and he reaped the rewards.
reply
7 ups, 2 replies
America made them rich? The same system was available to you. It's his fault that you didn't take advantage of it?
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
What makes you think I didn't?
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
Because you're b**ching about someone else's success? You're drunk on liberal hate speech.
reply
2 ups
I'm not b!itching about anyone's success. I love seeing American success stories.
reply
[deleted]
4 ups
The system that was available to trumps father and grandfather is not the same system that is available today.

If you want to revert to those days be prepared to have 90% highest tax brackets and 60% union jobs with much better wages for the working class.

Sounds good to me.
reply
7 ups, 1 reply
He took the money his dad gave him and multiplied it by 4.5K.
reply
5 ups, 2 replies
Yes he did. But he could have multiplied it by much more than that. Those pesky bankruptcies and bad decisions can definitely get in the way.
reply
5 ups, 1 reply
Spurs, I don't understand how a man with just as much moral deficiency as any Clinton would be passed off as a sensible choice to lead the free world. I don't get it. This dude is a fraud, pure and simple. He has ZERO idea what he's talking about and no clue what he's doing. None.

Trump is a great bull$#!t artist and conman. Period. I hate Clinton, too. But at least she HAS experience as a statesman. (And I REALLY don't like her)
reply
3 ups, 2 replies
I don't like either one of them.
reply
4 ups
Yeah, I'm seriously furious with "lesser than two evils" politics. America needs to raise a little hell, and force either change or confrontation with the corrupt powers-that-be. I've already engaged in several events/demonstrations myself. And it's dangerous. You don't realize it, until you actually do it. There's a CLEAR line drawn in the sand, once you become an activist.
reply
[deleted]
4 ups, 2 replies
Why do you choose to focus on only one of the two then? Because....
reply
4 ups
I think you're confused. The OP of the meme I responded to was about firearms and had Trump's face on it. Therefore I responded to it talking about Trump.
reply
[deleted]
0 ups
4 ups to 3 I win
reply
3 ups, 2 replies
And how many times did Edison fail in creating the light bulb? Over 1,000? Yet nobody trashes on him for his failures, only his successes. Seems to me Mr. Trump did a BIT better than that...
reply
5 ups, 2 replies
Edison stole his ideas from Tesla.
reply
[deleted]
4 ups, 1 reply
Nice deflection!
reply
3 ups
I'm not deflecting.
reply
2 ups
But not for the lightbulb... Nice strawman.
reply
1 up
That should be "...everybody celebrates his success." I'd started to say "nobody remembers his failures..." but obviously, that's not true. **shrugs** Oops.
reply
3 ups
Think about how many people win the lotto, then are broke within two years.
reply
11 ups, 2 replies
"From my cold dead hands!"
reply
9 ups
F**k yeah. :{
reply
5 ups, 1 reply
**in a robotic voice** Your proposal is acceptable.
reply
11 ups, 1 reply
:{
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
LOL... I was making a Men In Black reference, but love the Engrish (can't remember where it was that I saw "All your base are belong to us.")
reply
8 ups
It's from a SEGA game called "Zero Wing."
reply
[deleted]
8 ups, 1 reply
reply
5 ups, 1 reply
lol Sure. I'm glad you liked it. :{
reply
[deleted]
3 ups, 1 reply
Are you giving out free mustache rides?
reply
3 ups
:{
reply
9 ups, 5 replies
You want to carry assault assault weapons? I've got the solution for you!

http://www.marines.com/m
reply
12 ups, 3 replies
You don't know what an assault weapon is.
Prior to 1989, the term "assault weapon" did not exist in the lexicon of firearms. It is a political term, developed by anti-gun publicists to expand the category of "assault rifles."

The M4A1 is fully automatic. This means it fires multiple rounds each time the trigger is pulled. The M4A1 can fire up to 950 rounds per minute. It is an assault rifle (not available for sale to the public - only to foreign governments that make donations to the Democratic Party and The Clinton Foundation).

The AR-15, which is NOT an assault rifle, can fire between 45 and 60 rounds per minute depending on the skill of the operator. This rate of fire is comparable to other semi-automatic firearms, but pales in comparison to fully automatic assault rifles, some of which can fire more than 1,000 rounds per minute.

What some people call "assault weapons" function like every other normal firearm—they fire only one bullet each time the trigger is pressed. Unlike automatics (machine guns), they do not fire continuously as long as the trigger is held. ... Today in America, most handguns are semi-automatics, as are many long guns, including the best-selling rifle today, the AR-15. Some of these guns look like machine guns, but they do not function like machine guns.

What else functions like an AR-15? A double action revolver, a hunting rifle, a shotgun, most handguns manufactured today. The difference between a ranch gun or grandpa's shotgun?

PERCEPTION. Nothing more.

In 2004, the Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired. It was not renewed. The AWB had FAILED to have an impact on gun crime in the United States.A 2004 Department of Justice report concluded:
Should it be renewed, the ban's effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement. [Assault weapons] were rarely used in gun crimes even before the ban.

In reality, so-called assault weapons are commonly used by hunters and competitors. The truth about assault weapons is that there is no such thing. So-called assault weapons are semi-automatic firearms—the guns most commonly used by millions of law-abiding Americans. Banning firearms because of their cosmetic features is misguided.
reply
11 ups
reply
6 ups, 1 reply
AR-15 = battle rifle
reply
6 ups, 1 reply
M16 = battle rifle -- not available to civilians. Could we PLEASE end the ignorance?
reply
6 ups, 1 reply
assault rifle: rapid-fire, magazine-fed automatic rifle designed for infantry use
battle rifle: military service rifle that fires a full-power rifle cartridge
(The AR-15 and M16 are the same excluding the 3-round burst. The M16 came from the AR-15)
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
And the AR-15's inventor didn't intend it for civilians... IRRELEVANT!!!

imgflip.com/i/15y2te
reply
[deleted]
2 ups, 2 replies
Wrong again! You can't just hold down the trigger for it to fire. The ar15 was yes first made as a automatic rifle for military. Then colt made a civilian version that was semi auto. So yes the model you see today, it was built for civilian use.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
What do you mean "Wrong again!"? When have you ever proven me "wrong" before?

It's been real big on the news sites that the inventor's family is making the statement that he didn't intend the ar-15 for civilians. My point is about modern AR-15s, so that is irrelevant.

And are you saying my definition of "automatic" is wrong? It most certainly is NOT. The M16A1 continued to fire as long as the trigger was depressed. The M16A2 fires a 3-round burst. Both are correctly referred to as "automatic". That definition in my comment on the linked meme is a separate point, not referring to AR-15s, but pointing out how a lot of people keep incorrectly using the term "automatic" to refer to the modern AR-15, which is, of course, "semi-automatic" (also defined for clarification).

Considering your words (" The ar15 was yes first made as a automatic rifle for military. Then colt made a civilian version that was semi auto. So yes the model you see today, it was built for civilian use.") actually SUPPORT what I was saying...
reply
[deleted]
3 ups, 1 reply
reply
[deleted]
3 ups
Wait wrong meme, I'm screwed up :(
reply
3 ups
Sorry dude, but that's misleading.

The Ar-15 or M16 had SELECT fire. It wasn't only full auto.

The civilian model just changed the selection pin, restricting the full auto. All you have to do to a civilian AR is MODIFY that pin. And boom! Fully Auto rifle.

So it's really nitpicking the nomenclature here. :{
reply
3 ups
[image deleted]
reply
[deleted]
5 ups
My fingers are to big for little arrows!
reply
2 ups
Seems reasonable
reply
2 ups
OOH-RAH!!!

And regarding your use of the word "assault":

imgflip.com/i/15y2te
reply
5 ups
Any Marine will tell you that the citizens of the US have a right to carry any ARMAMENT as stated in the 2nd amendment.

Armament covers ALL weapons dude. If you don't like that, you need to find another country to go b**ch in. :{
reply
[deleted]
7 ups, 2 replies
Constitutions are just documents written by old rich white men who died over 200 years ago. You can change them, you know.
reply
6 ups
Exactly. It's been changed before and it WILL get changed again. That's what judicial activism is for.
reply
[deleted]
4 ups, 1 reply
Thanks ... I'll just turn in my law degree then ... dick.
reply
[deleted]
2 ups, 1 reply
I am a lawyer, I assure you. And Constitutions are not biblical documents designed to be treated like they are divinely inspired. They should evolve with society. Doctrines like "original intent" as have been adopted by the more conservative elements of your Supreme Court have been utilized to the detriment of constitutional evolution. Unfortunately, society develops, while original intent serves to stagnate the law until it no longer reflects the needs of society. Happy now? Now f**k off.
reply
6 ups, 1 reply
reply
5 ups, 1 reply
:{
reply
8 ups, 2 replies
:)
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
LMAO! That sounds like something I'D say.... Must be us Arizonans, on the same frequency.... Thumbs up!
reply
5 ups
It's the heat, I went out to the car parked under an awning in the shade all day, the thermometer was showing 124.
reply
5 ups
:{
reply
7 ups, 1 reply
reply
6 ups, 1 reply
Are you by chance a Hannibal Buress fan? :{
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
I wasn't sure who that was, so I looked him up. A comedian? Never heard of him.
reply
6 ups, 1 reply
I was watching his stand up the other day and he was talking about bringing back old timey speak like "the cut of his jib" and others.

He's funny, but he stealth advertises A LOT. But still funny most of the time. :{
reply
3 ups
I'll have to look him up and check it out. Monty Burns from the Simpson's talks like that, too, and I always enjoyed it.
reply
[deleted]
6 ups, 1 reply
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
That's YOUR view, not mine pal.

How you came to your "conclusion" is baffling.

I'm saying anyone who doesn't support the US constitution/Bill of Rights shouldn't be a citizen.

They deport/execute people for less in other countries. :{
reply
[deleted]
6 ups, 1 reply
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
Steven Colbert? That's your condescending meme? Backfire. :{
reply
[deleted]
5 ups, 1 reply
reply
3 ups
lol Backfire #2! :{
reply
[deleted]
4 ups, 1 reply
Trump is about to meet with the NRA to try and get them on board with taking gun rights away from people on a secret list that the President controls. He might be for the Second Amendment, but he could use some work on the Fifth.
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
Proof? Cause that sounds like bullshit. :{
reply
[deleted]
3 ups, 1 reply
Multiple primary sources within:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/can-donald-trump-move-the-nra-on-guns/487163/
reply
[deleted]
5 ups, 1 reply
Well, if you won't believe the words from his own mouth, there's not a lot I can do.
reply
3 ups
You mean his tweet? Cause that isn't concrete proof of what you're saying dude.

I'm still skeptical of Trump, but I don't see him, at this point, trying to do like the Left has done to get guns.

He was even saying how he wished the people in that club had their own guns to shoot back.

Granted, he did say "not all of them" but I can't make a judgement on that until he says specifically he wants to restrict CITIZEN'S rights.

I'm saying it's going to take more than a few vague tweets or interviews to convince me he has ulterior motives.

He's already rich, so why be corrupted further by the shadow government/Illuminati?

Side note: His aides do wear a triangle pin that had me thinking "Illuminati confirmed" a little. :{
reply
7 ups, 3 replies
Seriously, when I read some of the comments here... Imma go buy me some property on Mars.
reply
6 ups, 1 reply
reply
5 ups
Easily the response I most expected. :)
reply
[deleted]
5 ups, 1 reply
To bad you have no job.
reply
6 ups
xD You're a terrible psychic.
reply
5 ups, 1 reply
What bandwagon do you think I'm on? Also: interesting choice of meme, I wonder if that's part of the macho "they ain't taking my guns" mentality.
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
The meme was showing a guy who's strong enough to help you move, but nice projection dude.

The bandwagon you're on is the "conservatives are crazy" line of thought.

But please, deflect. :{
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
:D How heavy do you think my stuff is?!

If you read my meme carefully, you'll see I specified: "you imgflip conservatives." And I think it's funny that you're looking for nuance on a meme site (especially considering the blatant lack thereof in most of your own memes). Even I have accepted that ship has sailed here... But by all means be dismissive about my views. Also: I never said anything about crazy - who's projecting now? ;)

P.S.: You should start looking for a better way to try and be superior in conversations. The "deflect" line is becoming a little stale.
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
I answered you directly, my friend, even though you didn't even ask me anything. You just stated assumptions about me and then covered your own butt by 'predicting' I would deflect. Childish behaviour 101. If anyone is deflecting here, it's you. Again no content in your response whatsoever. Well done on finding a new way to try and sound superior though. If you don't want to address my comments, I'm not putting anymore of my time into this. Otherwise: please respond with content next time. I really shouldn't have to specify that.
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
"I answered you directly, my friend, even though you didn't even ask me anything. You just stated assumptions about me and then covered your own butt by 'predicting' I would deflect. Childish behaviour 101. If anyone is deflecting here, it's you. Again no content in your response whatsoever. Well done on finding a new way to try and sound superior though. If you don't want to address my comments, I'm not putting anymore of my time into this. Otherwise: please respond with content next time. I really shouldn't have to specify that."

Just more deflection and bullshit opinions.

Not putting any more time into what? Deflecting through paragraphs of your opinions?

You're the one trying to SOUND superior kid. "Childish behavior 101" lol

You're so cool and smart dude! I wish I was that mature!

So, when you're done bashing conservatives and trying to imply your pseudo-intellect, maybe try making a VALID point? :{
reply
3 ups, 2 replies
When did I give you the impression I wanted to make a point with my original meme? And when did I even bash conservatives, for that matter? I offended at least one (though unintentionally), I'll grant you that, but I don't bash - I never bash. At most I'm rude back at people who are rude to me (cfr. my first reply to your initial comment).

In any case, I think this has gone on long enough. Time to stop calling me "kid", it's utterly meaningless and dismissive, and - frankly - becoming a little ironic at this point.

If you do want to talk about it, I'm interested to hear more about that "conservatives are crazy" bandwagon. Do you still think I'm on it? Do you think you've disproved the apparent claim of this bandwagon during our interaction?

*sigh* Please reconsider the tone of your very first response to my original comment and that of this entire conversation: can you really blame me for saying I'm losing faith in humanity if this is the level at which not even the public discourse but just the public interactions between "(presumably) mostly conservative" and "primarily liberal" are taking place? Purely emotional reactions, not even trying to understand the other side's message beyond the literal. *sigh again* If this doesn't do it, I'm giving up. Then I don't have any other ideas to get you to stand still for a moment.
reply
3 ups
Don't bother with this asshat. There's so much shit coming outta his mouth, his asshole's probably insanely jealous by now.
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
"When did I give you the impression I wanted to make a point with my original meme? "

So you're a troll then?

"And when did I even bash conservatives, for that matter?"

lol Your first meme comment here, DUH.

" I offended at least one (though unintentionally), I'll grant you that, but I don't bash - I never bash. "

You think I'm stupid, don't you DaTux91ward?

"At most I'm rude back at people who are rude to me (cfr. my first reply to your initial comment)."

Then why are you so pissy towards me? You were being rude, IMO, to me with your initial comment, and I am just responding to them. DUH.

"In any case, I think this has gone on long enough."

Immediately followed by three paragraphs.

"Time to stop calling me "kid", it's utterly meaningless and dismissive, and - frankly - becoming a little ironic at this point."

I use kid, because you're immature and don't know what you're talking about. I'm also a fan of Star wars.

"If you do want to talk about it, I'm interested to hear more about that "conservatives are crazy" bandwagon. Do you still think I'm on it? Do you think you've disproved the apparent claim of this bandwagon during our interaction?"

You're not actually interested in anything other than trying to SOUND intelligent kid.

Yes, you are still on that bandwagon. And no, I didn't disprove my claim. But you keep proving it, IMO.

"*sigh* Please reconsider the tone of your very first response to my original comment and that of this entire conversation: can you really blame me for saying I'm losing faith in humanity if this is the level at which not even the public discourse but just the public interactions between "(presumably) mostly conservative" and "primarily liberal" are taking place?"

Seeing as your initial comment itself was rude, you sound like a jackass trying to appeal to people's morals and emotions.

"Purely emotional reactions, not even trying to understand the other side's message beyond the literal. *sigh again* If this doesn't do it, I'm giving up. Then I don't have any other ideas to get you to stand still for a moment."

And you still try so hard to SOUND smart. Yet so foolishly fail at it.

If you have anything relevant to say about my meme, do it, otherwise, STFU with your pseudo-intellect kid. :{
2 ups
Okay then. You're still acting like a bully only interested in 'winning' shouting contests with people you apparently see as threatening or questioning your way of thinking, so I'm done. Maybe if you re-read all this at some point in the future when you're in a more calm and open frame of mind, you won't just see a "retarded liberal" and a superior conservative but someone who made a joke involving a select group of conservatives and someone who got offended. I've tried to take us to a normal level of interaction once I noticed you weren't going to get out of defensive mode, but I think it's clear that I regrettably failed to do that. So goodbye, I hope you have a most enjoyable rest of the week.
reply
5 ups, 2 replies
Wow. This meme isn't even FUNNY. And now the comments are just.....

BORING. This meme can't disappear from the front page fast ENOUGH.

It's not even a GOOD meme.
reply
4 ups
Good point!
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
And yet, you kept coming back and commenting.

Logic much? :{
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
No, not that much at all, considering the high-volume of others' comment threads. I actually "took a step back" from this post and had an epiphany: This meme just isn't that good. a) It's not funny, b) It's not original (regurgitating Trumpisms is unimpressive) and c) It's just lame, considering the xenophobic paranoia dripping from it.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
Ok, it's clear: I'm dealing with a juvenile-minded goon. Which is perfect, because that's what a Trump fan IS. You're too easy. Way too easy. Easy to mock, easy to insult, and easy to embarrass. There's like a "Kick Me, I'm A Jackass" sign hanging on your back.

This meme's not good. I stand by that. And I've got better memes than you, all day. And isn't that what this meme site is about? It's called "imgflip", not "EGOtrip". Catch up, assclown.
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
Is it ironic that you'd call me a troll? Or just pathetic? (Considering you seem to be exhibiting ALL the signs of a classic internet troll.) And let me correct you, real quick: I'm not a liberal. I'm an Independent. There's too many left-wing policies I strongly disagree with.......Oh my GOD! I forgot...I'm talking to......YOU. An irrational, petulant man-child who's a wannabe internet bully. Hope your aim's better than your wit. Cause you won't last long in this life without it. Don't expect another reply. You're boring the HELL outta me. Get on with your miserable, bitter life.
reply
5 ups, 1 reply
good plan
reply
5 ups
Thanks. I support it. :{
reply
4 ups, 2 replies
reply
2 ups
Me too :)
reply
[deleted]
1 up
Pretend this meme is right behind you.
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
[image deleted]
reply
4 ups
Yeah but the constitution doesn't actually allow for standing armies.

The US only was able to do that because of "threat" of wars.

And no, the military isn't the "well regulated militia" it's the MILITARY.

The 2nd Amendment states that the right of the INDIVIDUAL to keep and bear arms(armament) shall not be infringed.

Thus, your opinion/argument is negated.

I love when anti 2nd amendment types think they said something pertinent. :{
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
https://www.facebook.com/OccupyDemocrats/videos/1159342167492169/
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
That is just the President pandering to an audience, not proof or an argument.

And again, Tim McVey didn't even need a gun and did more damage.

Obama is trying to restrict the 2nd Amendment, which is unconstitutional. That's the argument.

People who agree with restrictions are basically treasonous/seditious.

It is tyrannical to restrict the 2nd amendment for citizens. Trump is saying that instead of restricting the weapons, filter these people out at immigration better.

Also, if the FBI and the President know a person s a terrorist sympathizer/terror threat, they have the authority to arrest them/take them out.

He said they know who these people are but the problem is them getting a gun?

But the FBI knows who they are already.

Does the president think we're stupid or something?

I mean think about it. He's saying he can't prohibit them from buying guns, but he is allowed to incarcerate them if they're terrorists.

If he/the FBI knows they're ISIS/ISIL sympathizers, they can just "arrest" them.

Hey Obama, Guantanamo much? :{
reply
1 up, 1 reply
The point was common sense gun laws and arresting them just because they are potential terrorist will freak people out.
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
The point of what? The video or your comment?

You're not making your points very clear dude. You're being too vague.

Do you not see that Obama is saying they know these people are ISIS/ISIL sympathizers?

The president can order these people to be detained on that ground and not freak the population out.

And they've been doing it since Bush. That's why I mentioned Guantanamo Bay. :{
reply
[deleted]
1 up
Flip Settings
Put It Somewhere Else Patrick memeRe-caption this meme

Created with the Imgflip Meme Generator

Show embed codes
EXTRA IMAGES ADDED: 2
IMAGE DESCRIPTION:
WHY CAN'T WE TAKE ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF BANNING FIREARMS; AND SHIP THEM TO A COUNTRY THAT ALREADY HAS?
hotkeys: D = random, W = like, S = dislike, A = back