Author Topic: USA, srsly?? bra holsters??  (Read 11730 times)

Listen here, you come from a country full of incest, and it's disgusting.  Please forget off with that "we don't need to defend ourselves with guns because guns don't exist in the first place" junk.  It is in the USA constitution, a thing your country probably doesn't have.  The second amendment states that we have a right to a well armed militia to defend ourselves.  This dates back to when the British decided to attack us for not doing what they said.  It is also to, yes, defend ourselves if the government gets too out of control and starts doing what the British did.  Then we have a right to defend our rights.

I'm all for allowing carrying firearms but you're gonna have to slow down there and put the confederate flag down while you're at it

guns and videogames are unhealthy and you should stop drinking soda or else you are Riddler

I am moving to Argentina

Listen here, you come from a country full of incest, and it's disgusting.  Please forget off with that "we don't need to defend ourselves with guns because guns don't exist in the first place" junk.  It is in the USA constitution, a thing your country probably doesn't have.  The second amendment states that we have a right to a well armed militia to defend ourselves.  This dates back to when the British decided to attack us for not doing what they said.  It is also to, yes, defend ourselves if the government gets too out of control and starts doing what the British did.  Then we have a right to defend our rights.
Case in point:
Because a lot of people in America are afraid of tyranny from their government, not that they have experienced anything close to it or at risk from experiencing the tyranny they anticipate.

These people are paranoid to the point of averting their focus from the real threat and focus on what sensationalist media tells them.

Seems to protect some people, but in regards to the Constitution, it can be interpreted that all gun owners in the US must serve in the militia of their given state.  Should that state not have a militia, they can either allow guns or confiscate them from civilians.
Quote from: The Second Amendment
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The amendment states not "to repel tyranny", not "to keep future national forces under control", not "for the sole purpose of private ownership", but for the penultimate purpose of maintenance of militias for the ultimate purpose of security within states within the federal system.  At this time, the "US Military" was non-existent or not powerful enough to have as much power as the militia.  In this time, a militia was superior since states could better draw support from their local towns.  Now things have changed, and militias are obsolete or a weak justification of insurrection at this stage our nation is at, no matter how pure the ideals may seem.  You can very well drop the "it's to ward off tyranny" argument because you clearly don't know what your dear second amendment says.  Why would the federal government undermine its own power by allowing militias to cause dissension?

Here's a good read on the history of this debate.
« Last Edit: February 23, 2016, 04:28:24 AM by SWAT One »

Plus it needs to be roostered before fired.
Wow, I knew the dramatic gun rooster is often uses for, well, drama, but I didn't know people actually believed it

Wow, I knew the dramatic gun rooster is often uses for, well, drama, but I didn't know people actually believed it
um
to actually shoot a gun you need to rooster it so the bullet is in the chamber, i don't get why because people in movies rooster guns it's not actually something you do

Case in point:The amendment states not "to repel tyranny", not "to keep future national forces under control", not "for the sole purpose of private ownership", but for the penultimate purpose of maintenance of militias for the ultimate purpose of security within states within the federal system.  At this time, the "US Military" was non-existent or not powerful enough to have as much power as the militia.  In this time, a militia was superior since states could better draw support from their local towns.  Now things have changed, and militias are obsolete or a weak justification of insurrection at this stage our nation is at, no matter how pure the ideals may seem.  You can very well drop the "it's to ward off tyranny" argument because you clearly don't know what your dear second amendment says.  Why would the federal government undermine its own power by allowing militias to cause dissension?

Here's a good read on the history of this debate.

This is what i meant, a well regulated militia

Listen here, you come from a country full of incest, and it's disgusting.  Please forget off with that "we don't need to defend ourselves with guns because guns don't exist in the first place" junk.  It is in the USA constitution, a thing your country probably doesn't have.  The second amendment states that we have a right to a well armed militia to defend ourselves.  This dates back to when the British decided to attack us for not doing what they said.  It is also to, yes, defend ourselves if the government gets too out of control and starts doing what the British did.  Then we have a right to defend our rights.
this is honestly the most sincere cringeworthy thing i've seen on this forum. congratulations

ikr i laughed hard


i also krav

#1 is the most important-- get the gun pointing in a direction that's not at you all while closing distance on your attacker to gain better control over them, because chances are as you've implied they will start firing shots as or when you grab them

#2-3 vary, personally I like to drill an arm break somewhere before the disarm-- pretty much guarantees they'll loosen their grip so you don't have to risk struggling to get ahold of the gun and the crippling pain minimizes resistance
yay so i was mostly right


this is honestly the most sincere cringeworthy thing i've seen on this forum. congratulations
Yeah, the truth is cringeworthy isnt it?

[mg]http://puu.sh/niDPq/3d031817ba.png[/img]


[ig height=50]http://puu.sh/niDXb/0660e9886c.png[/img]


i like what 84% less electricity use implies

It is in the USA constitution
Our constitution states that the citizens have the obligation to take down the government in a total crCIA, which is what happened in December of 2001.

[im g]http://puu.sh/niDPq/3d031817ba.png[/img]


[im g height=50]http://puu.sh/niDXb/0660e9886c.png[/img]

[im g width=200]http://i2.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/006/948/epic_lulz.png[/img]

hey wait

Shouldn't these stats be the same in both charts? :o

This is what i meant, a well regulated militia
Something about this sounds like a damage control.  You just spoke so avidly about owning guns as a right and as a device for repelling tyranny.  Now you're being awfully contrary.

So by self-defense you're going to kill the agressor? Wouldn't that make you as unlawful as the criminal?
You're not really this dumb

Yes all the wonderful uses for owning guns, self defense, hunting, overthrowing your local government, protecting your country from invading communist scum, unloading your 9 on the welfare line, looting&shooting during a catastrophic human-race extinction event, shooting into the air for no reason at all, being cool, the list goes on.