The Most Interesting Man In The World

The Most Interesting Man In The World Meme | It's a "Bill of Rights" not a "Bill of Needs" So your opinion that I don't need a gun is irrelevant | image tagged in memes,the most interesting man in the world | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
11,601 views, 159 upvotes, Made by OrionArion 2 weeks ago memesthe most interesting man in the world
The Most Interesting Man In The World memeRe-caption this meme
Add Meme
Post Comment
reply
14 ups
SDI GySgt Hartman | YOU, SIR MAKE TOO MUCH SENSE | image tagged in sdi gysgt hartman | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
reply
10 ups
Laughing Men In Suits Meme | YOU DON'T NEED A BILL OF RIGHTS | image tagged in memes,laughing men in suits | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
Upvoted
reply
9 ups, 1 reply
But Thats None Of My Business Meme | IF YOU APPROVE OF  ANY GUN LAW WHAT SO EVER YOU DO NOT SUPPORT THE CONSTITUTION LET ALONE THE 2ND AMENDMENT BUT THAT'S NONE OF MY BUSINESS | image tagged in memes,but thats none of my business,kermit the frog | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
reply
3 ups, 2 replies
The Most Interesting Man In The World Meme | MAYBE YOU SHOULD READ WHAT IT ACTUALLY SAYS WHILE YOU ARE AT IT, WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE 18TH AMENDMENT? | image tagged in memes,the most interesting man in the world | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
reply
4 ups
Almost forgot, The 18th Amendment? it was clearly an Uncostitional Amendment that still required the majority vote. BUT? REPEALED because they finally admitted it was unconstitutional and failing anyway..Which begs the question as to how they passed drug prohibition laws without an Amendment..POINT BEING? The U.S government began shitting on the Constitution before the ink was dry..
reply
2 ups
I pointed out that a person can not claim to support the Constitution if they support ANY law that clearly opposes it..That meme is clearly intended for gun grabbers. Well? again even so called 2nd Amendment supporters don't actually support it as written
reply
10 ups
Ironically, the initial authors of the constitution opposed the idea of a bill of rights, because they wanted the constitution to be an exhaustive list of what the government could do, and a list of what it can't do would assume that there is some grey area. Personally, I don't know whether or not excluding a bill of rights would have stopped America from getting to the point where it is now, but now that we're here I'm glad we do have one.
reply
8 ups, 2 replies
Contrary to what some people tend to believe, the purpose of the Second is not for hunting, or self defense, or target shooting. It is to ensure that the government is controlled by the people and not the other way around.

Still, I hear people saying that this doesn't apply to what people are calling "assault rifles" ( although I can't imagine any modern military using a sporting arm for battle). The Founders couldn't possibly be meaning to include the AR-15 because it didn't exist yet.

So does the First Amendment apply to TV and internet? Neither were around yet, but here we are watching the news, watching televangelists, and the freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion still apply. Isn't it the same thing?
reply
7 ups, 2 replies
Let us remember that the idea was to have a citizenry that was just as armed as the government in order to avoid the type of strongarming that happened in the European countries the founding fathers came from. It was a means to keep the government in check, or at least give the average person a fighting chance. You must also remember that humanism was still a big idea, and the notion that an individual person mattered was at the core.
reply
6 ups, 3 replies
Absolutely. Even though I love this president I am still very mistrustful of our government as a whole and have no reason to believe that they will do what is in my best interest voluntarily. In the words of Ronald Reagan...

"The scariest words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"
reply
2 ups
Are you even slightly aware of how much gun restriction legislation Reagan signed and supported since his Gov of Cali days all the way past his Pres tenure?
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
Rather ironic words, coming from the head of the government.
reply
2 ups
I agree. I remember when he said them. Even though I was a kid it still struck me how the president could say something like that.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Here's some more of Reagan fer ya.
reply
1 up, 2 replies
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Reagan did a lot of stuff while he was in office that I didn't understand at the time. I was a child at the time. While he did say some pretty profound things I don't worship him as you seem to believe.

Unlike the Obamadrones and Hillary lunatics who can't seem to get past the fact that neither of them will ever hold a public office again.
reply
0 ups, 2 replies
Of coursae you're not sure. The again, I'm not the one making a point, Reagan was.

Ron's dead, ya know.
Sad that you're still bent out of shape over 8 yrs of Obama, but no worries, you won't get over it, and that is so awesomely good to know.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Oh, I'm way over The Great Divider and am thrilled that he is finally gone to become a sad little footnote in history. Quite possibly the worst president ever, certainly the worst in modern times. Even better is the fact that the old hag isn't our president and never will be, a fact that many cannot seem to fathom.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Aww, poowr widdle muthikkklan thtill cwyin becauthe tha negro divided his flaggelating buttcheeks too wide?

Yeah, what is the fascination with you people and Hillarat? The DNC fixing nitwit lost, guy, TWICE. Get over it. Or do you need to post more fap memes for that to finally sink in?
The first election where the winning side is the one whining about the loser losing. Birds of a feather, eh?

Sad.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Gee,did you come up with that all by yourself or did you enlist the help of a toddler?
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Actually with my old ma that has her been waiting with her legs spread fer yer lil pecker since last month.
0 ups
Great! I ran the wheels off of that old gash once and I'll do it again!
reply
0 ups
course*
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
The idea was to have a well regulated militia made of armed citizens when needed to protect the state should the British Crown return to take back control of their colonies.

Funny how those that can't comprehend that can't comprehend history either. Coincidence?
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

I think they were probably concerned about that too. But by 1787 they were no longer subjects of King George so I have to assume that they were talking about their own people and their own government. Having armed citizens is a great way to ensure that their own government never started acting like the king.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
reply
1 up, 2 replies
Yes, I am well aware of how it reads. I am also very aware of the reasons for it. If you have never read the Declaration of Independence you really should. You will have a whole new appreciation of why we have certain rights.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
You should do that, read. Cuz all ya do is burp bullshit.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
What have I posted that was bullshit?
reply
0 ups
Everything you say is a lie.
reply
4 ups
reply
7 ups, 1 reply
The ultimate goal of Democrats is total gun confiscation. I have no reason at all to believe otherwise.
reply
2 ups
As all their legislation to do so proves. Idiot.
reply
[deleted]
3 ups
It's an inherent assumption of the Bill of Rights that rights are necessary. That's why the document exists.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
reply
1 up, 1 reply
That almost totally obscured by Mr Strangely Compelling Kikkoman Soy Sauce clocks this one past the A mark.
A++, super upvote for you!
reply
1 up
i.imgflip.com/2bfpkl.jpg (click to show)
reply
2 ups
reply
4 ups
Here's a fact. You're not part of a well-regulated militia.
reply
3 ups
Such is western society these days. It's all rights this and freedom that and bugger any negative consequence that they bring.
reply
0 ups
What Part Of "WELL REGULATED" Don't You Understand
reply
4 ups, 2 replies
reply
3 ups
That is true and a pertinent quote from the Holy Gospels, however, Christ is not saying that all swords should be in the hands of the government or police, and that no one has a right to own one. He himself said in MT 10:34, "Do not assume that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."
reply
3 ups
My "sword" I.e., weapon, is exactly where it belongs. Tucked safely into its holster on my side. The rest are locked away in a fireproof vault so my miniature people cannot access them. We are having family range day in a bit where we will be firing a few hundred rounds out of my "assault rifles" as you call them. You are welcome to join us if you like. You may learn something.
reply
[deleted]
0 ups, 1 reply
I have something to say - NONE OF YOU FEDORA TIPPING WANNABE INTELECTUAL PLEBS ARE FIT ENOUGH TO BE IN A WELL REGULATED MILITIA.

Thank you, and have a nice day.
reply
2 ups
"EchoKiller
I have something to say - NONE OF YOU FEDORA TIPPING WANNABE INTELECTUAL PLEBS ARE FIT ENOUGH TO BE IN A WELL REGULATED MILITIA.

Thank you, and have a nice day."

INTELLECTUAL*

Oh, the irony.
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
I'm sure this will upset a bunch of snowflakes..
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
reply
2 ups
reply
6 ups, 5 replies
I'm sure you're already a member of a well-regulated militia, like the National Guard.
No? Then your primitive misreading of the Second Amendment is irrelevant.
reply
14 ups, 3 replies
A well regulated militia means the people, idiot.
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
reply
7 ups, 1 reply
I can post random pictures, too.
reply
4 ups, 2 replies
reply
9 ups, 1 reply
reply
4 ups, 2 replies
reply
8 ups
I know exactly what you're saying. You posted a picture of what looks to be some dumb, fat redneck with a neck beard holding what is the consensus to be an "assault weapon." You think that by posting these pictures it shows that not all Americans deserve, or should, be owning these guns, therefore my assessment that the part of the 2nd amendment that states "a well regulated militia" doesn't mean EVERY AMERICAN. However, your idea that it means only military and police is still wrong, no matter how many photos of "dumb redneck imbeciles" you post, it doesn't make your assertion correct.
reply
2 ups
Sheesh
reply
1 up
Is it just me, or do those guys all look Yugoslavian? The lack of assault weapons supports this.
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
reply
8 ups, 3 replies
Another one who doesn't understand the 2nd amendment. Maybe someone who does understand it needs to teach a class. I'd volunteer, but I have a low tolerance for ignorance.
reply
3 ups
You can try to teach until your blue in the face. They are WILLFULLY ignorant. They do not suffer from simply not being exposed to contradictory ideas, they attempt to change the meaning of very words if they don't like the definition.
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
reply
7 ups, 1 reply
I'm not upset at all.

What I took from you meme was sarcasm. You quoted the 2nd amendment and then said that what I was saying was that it means it includes even the violent people in this country, which I was not saying this at all. If this isn't what you meant, my apologies.
reply
5 ups, 2 replies
Ok, now I feel like crap.

Yes, I used exaggerated versions of militias to make a point, so you are correct about the sarcasm.
The point was the slippery slope, one man's militia being another's terrorist or criminal mob.

Bear in mind, the Mafia originated as thugs utilized by lords to control local populations, ultimately turning on them in defense of their own people that they were being used to oppress. So essentially a militia fighting tyranny. By the time they started coming here, criminal activity had become their main activity, though still protective of their own people. Thus Italian immigrants facing harsh treatment here saw them as protectors (as well as a source of economic activity), which they initially were. Now they're just mobsters.

Ghetto posses may fancy themselves protectors against 'the man,' but they're far worse.

White supremacists, right wing militias, the Black Panthers, AIM, FALN, etc, likewise have seen themselves as militias in defense of their people in the face of tyranny, but to everyone else, they're just terrorists.

Murderers - mass or otherwise - always view themselves as the victim, no matter how heinous they are and despite the innocence of their victims.

Bear hunters just sounded funny, tho it loosely references hunting clubs and the NRA...

Hence the need for "well regulated," since what is a militia and what is their mission is rather subjective.

Sorry for my attitude earlier (tho you were kinda being snarky with some), was just trying to stay in character.
reply
5 ups, 1 reply
Eh... I'm not offended. But good points you made in your comment. Upvote for that.
reply
1 up
Thank you.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Don't "stay in character" please. You actually said something well thought out and inteligent. I honestly didn't think you were even capable of that. If you keep doing that, you could provoke thoughtful discussion (and gain a few peoples respect). Your usual stuff just pisses people off.
reply
0 ups
intelligent*

Nice condescending 'compliment' after the satire had to be spelled out in order for you to understand it. Sometimes they are WILLFULLY 'ignorant' BY DESIGN.
reply
2 ups
reply
3 ups, 3 replies
If Obama had a degree in anything, why won't he show it to everyone?
reply
2 ups
You've sustained brain injury all your life or only since 2008?
reply
4 ups
reply
1 up, 1 reply
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
BOOM! I present unto you the renowned Upvote for Patriots.
reply
0 ups
Foofy, Foofy, the humor in that comment zipped so far above your head you can smell China. It's called sarcasm, get it?
reply
9 ups, 2 replies
Actually, I am IN the military. E-5. Sworn to defend the Constitution.
The military is NOT a militia.
Now, the National Guard, technically, does qualify as a militia, as 'militia' is "a military force that is raised to supplement a regular army in an emergency," and that's from a look-up in Google.
But here's the problem with your arguement: it's not the right of the militia, it's the Right of the People. The reason being that the People can defend themselves from and even remove a tyranical government.
Now, I know we in the military have more effective weapons than what our civilians are allowed to use, but I doubt many of us are going to follow orders to slaughter civilians; which is why I believe we are allowed to disobey unlawful orders.
reply
3 ups
Bravo, my good sir. Well spoken. Possibly the best explanation I've ever encountered.
reply
2 ups
Kent State?
reply
8 ups, 1 reply
You are the one "misreading" the 2nd amendment
reply
2 ups, 3 replies
reply
3 ups, 2 replies
The founding government did not have a standing army, nor did they have the money to arm one. They were dependent on volunteers to supply their own weapons! The phrase 'well regulated militia' only enters into the argument if you have a group of armed volunteers to begin with. Therefore, the 2nd amendment was written to assure that all citizens could keep and bear arms!
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
The phrase 'a well regulated militia' ONLY enters the 2nd Amendement in THE opening four words.

ONLY.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Clearly, you are ignoring logic in order to feel safe in your beliefs! If you ever decide to open your mind to understanding both sides of an issue, you will discover that there are many point of view that you have never considered!
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Logic dictates that words mean things, despite the worst attempts of biased agendas.

BOTH sides? What BOTH sides?
You're operating on some myopic two dimensional plane retroffited for the overly simple minded, and you're calling for an open mind?
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
So, you do not accept that there is a viable opposing argument to YOUR point of view? That is the definition of a closed mind...the fact that there is an opposing point of view irritates you to the point of calling people names and reverting to disproved sound bites heard on admittedly biased media sources. Yes, I'm asking for an open mind, that the fact that others have opposing, but equally valid beliefs are just as compelling as yours!
reply
1 up
Kindly read what I said:

"Logic dictates that words mean things, despite the worst attempts of biased agendas.

BOTH sides? What BOTH sides?
You're operating on some myopic two dimensional plane retroffited for the overly simple minded, and you're calling for an open mind?"

And stop acting like a stupid idiot so you can avoid answering a simple question lest it explode your wee little one dimensional brain.
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
Exactly.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

We are the people. End of story.
reply
2 ups
reply
0 ups
Damn*
reply
2 ups
If it only applies to a well regulated (interpreted in your eyes as government approved) there would have been no need to Include it in the bill of rights? At the time, "well regulated" did not mean what it means today: a ton of government restrictions. At the time any citizen could be expected to serve in the military (i.e. conscription). "Well regulated" means well kept. The idea was that everyone was supposed to already be familiar with firearms if a war occured so that everyone wouldn't require time consuming training on how to use it while the war was already raging. The militia used to, by definition, theoretically include the entire populace.
If you feel that the second amendment is obsolte, you could argue that the second amendment can be appealed due to modern sensibilities. That is a legitimate argument (one I disagree with, but legitimate none the less).
However, defining any right as requiring government approval means that it is not a right. You are attempting to mis-interpret a right out of existence while being too lazy to do the work to get it repealed.
On top of that, you have audacity to accuse others of mis-interpreting it while you interpret it a way that makes no sense for it to even exist.
reply
1 up, 2 replies
A well-regulated militia means well-equipped. The people should be equipped and prepared to fight if necessary.
reply
1 up
They equipped themselves, which is why they were needed for ready conscription because the USA couldn't afford an army at ther time. Heck, we had to use mostly Mexican money because we can barely make our own.

A well-regulated militia means a well-regulated militia. Words mean things.
reply
[deleted]
0 ups, 1 reply
reply
0 ups
Glad we agree.
reply
4 ups
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
https://youtu.be/qB4u6IGXMMk

Watch this and then say that nobody wants to take them all away.
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
But you said that nobody wants to ban all guns and I proved you wrong. What about that, snowflake?
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
Finally, we agree on something. No matter how much they try by regulating ammunition or reloading supplies, no matter how many times they try to impose unconstitutional regulations that make it prohibitively expensive to own or buy a gun, no matter how many times they tell us that they don't want an all-out gun ban, we know that that is their endgame and will never allow it. So yes, you are correct that it will nevsr happen.
reply
3 ups, 3 replies
There are many who want to take them all away. Anyone who pretends it isn't being tried are either ignorant or they're part of the group that wants to take them all away and are just lying through their teeth.
reply
1 up
Being tried where?
reply
3 ups
Exactly.
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
reply
2 ups
Racists are stupid. This has nothing at all to do with race. Please try to stay on topic.
reply
2 ups, 3 replies
Do we need to quote Diane Feinstein Again

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, ‘Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in,’ I would have done it,"

Feb 5 1995 on 60 Minutes
reply
3 ups, 2 replies
reply
2 ups
Because she WANTED to. That was her intention. It doesn't matter if she could make it happen or not, she wanted it to happen. It actually means a lot because it makes everything that the democrats have said about not taking away all guns a lie.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
or would you prefer Justice John Paul Stevens in the March 27th New York Times OpEd

"But the demonstrators should seek more effective and more lasting reform. They should demand a repeal of the Second Amendment."

and she only admitted it 'couldn't happen then' You don't think that if the supposed 'Blue wave' happens in November such pushes won't be on the docket, if not part of their 2020 campaign?
reply
3 ups
reply
1 up
2018 - 1995 = 23

Proof positivomundorooni × ? !!!!!

Better hurry before Hillaweewee deletes it!
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
I posted a link to that video above...?

There are those here who still deny it even though the proof of intent is right there.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Proof of what intent?
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
Total gun confiscation. She said she didn't Have the votes, but if she could get them she would confiscate every gun in America. It's kinda scary.
reply
1 up
And only 23 years ago! Better bury your cache of guns deeper.
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
This is exactly what they want. To think otherwise is ludicrous.
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
Who's bullying little kids?

What the f-ck are you jabbering about?
reply
5 ups, 2 replies
reply
3 ups, 2 replies
I'm new here, but I'm starting to think there's some kind of political war on this site like everywhere else. And I can already see we're going to butt heads.

If you're talking about the teens of the school shootings that are being used as puppets to shove an agenda down our throats, then yes, I missed that argument.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Maybe look around first and learn before shining your robo head butt apparatus.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
Maybe you should mind your own f**king business.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
I just did. Moron.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
You're still talking...
0 ups
So you're not that stupid after all?
reply
4 ups
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
Wait...are you referring to David Hogg? So he's a little kid now? Okay, since he is a little kid his opinioms mean exactly shit so people should stop taking his babbling seriously.

Oh, he's not a little kid, you say? Then he's fair game. You can't have it both ways.
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
reply
1 up, 1 reply
I don't recall bullying him. I didn't say that he's stupid, or ugly, or worthless. I haven't picked on his weaknesses. I have done none of that. I have said things about his attempts at changing national policy and removing my rights.

Learn the difference.
reply
2 ups
"musicman88240
Wait...are you referring to David Hogg? So he's a little kid now? Okay, since he is a little kid his opinioms mean exactly shit so people should stop taking his babbling seriously.

Oh, he's not a little kid, you say? Then he's fair game. You can't have it both ways."

You can't have it both ways either.

Fair game? Grow a pair. Between your legs. And I mean GROW. Not buy at a gun show.
Flip Settings
The Most Interesting Man In The World memeRe-caption this meme

Created with the Imgflip Meme Generator

Show embed codes
IMAGE DESCRIPTION:
It's a "Bill of Rights" not a "Bill of Needs"; So your opinion that I don't need a gun is irrelevant
hotkeys: D = random, W = like, S = dislike, A = back