Anonymous Report This Comment
Date: February 28, 2005 06:19PM

you've got that right...we're not stupid enough to give up our guns!

Anonymous Report This Comment
Date: February 28, 2005 07:45PM

19246 ask the aussies what happened to their guns?I saw pictures where their gov't was having the guns chopped into pieces,ever hear of a dictator allowing the people to own guns?I guess we Americans are barbaric,but weeeeeeze free.

Anonymous Report This Comment
Date: February 28, 2005 07:55PM

Sorry that we no how to defend our self's and you don't , but is your problem not our's so quit crying on the internet.

Anonymous Report This Comment
Date: February 28, 2005 08:00PM


columbine is such a nice school, with guns I mean.

who_cares Report This Comment
Date: February 28, 2005 08:42PM

I want one....

Anonymous Report This Comment
Date: March 01, 2005 12:15AM

We're free? Yeah. Right. Someone's dreaming...

duuuuuuuuuuuuuude Report This Comment
Date: March 01, 2005 12:30AM

sad, but true.
even sadder part is that everyone bases their right to own guns on the second ammendment. the second ammendment calls for a "the right to bear arms in the keeping of a WELL-REGULATED ". in case the inbred rednecks haven't noticed, the gun owners are not in any , and the guns are not well-regulated. if they want to own a gun, they should be forced to join the national guard so they really are part of "a well-regulated ".

just a young liberal's 2 cents.

Lost Report This Comment
Date: March 01, 2005 02:26AM

Hell I want Two

Anonymous Report This Comment
Date: March 01, 2005 05:12PM

all queer's are liberals duuuuuuuuuuuuuuude.you a queer duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuude?

Anonymous Report This Comment
Date: March 01, 2005 05:15PM

that duuuuuuuuuuuude's going to be a scholar one day.

chrza Report This Comment
Date: March 08, 2005 08:49AM

and obviously 225164 is not going to be a scholar any day. if all queer's are liberal (which is not valid in the first place), and duuuuuude is a liberal, that just makes him a liberal. Let's put it this way: if all rednecks are idiots, and you're an idiot, that just makes you an idiot...

and as for the original image, half of these "yanks" did not vote for a president that unilaterally chose to use force without the consent of congress OR the U.N., so don't characterize all of us as gun-toting war lovers.

pokiemon Report This Comment
Date: May 11, 2005 07:26AM

WTF, no more redneck comments? Thought you drunken assholes would have more to say. Guess Chrza just shot y'all down

strife Report This Comment
Date: May 11, 2005 10:56AM

duuuuuude has the second ammendment all wrong. What it really says is this:

"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."

It does not say only militia should have guns. It says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The "well regulated Militia" portion of it is simply giving the most logical rationale of the time for the right to keep and bear arms.

Just because that portion of it, the rationale given, is outdated, doesn't mean that it's suddenly no longer a right. There are several new explanations to keep and bear arms, not the least of which is to control the population of animals through hunting.

If we banned guns, seeing how many animals no longer have natural prey outside of humans, they would overpopulate, eat all of the farmer's crops while getting diseases that could spread to livestock. We couldn't eat the animals because we can't hunt them, couldn't eat the vegtables because they ate them all, and couldn't eat the livestock because they're diseased!

But if you're going to take our guns away, at least be man enough not to circumvent the Constitution and get an Ammendment passed to repeal or reword the 2nd Ammendment.

And by the way, I'm not a redneck. I'm college educated. I've never been drunk because that's an utter waste of braincells. I voted for Bush. Oh, and unlike you, I still gave respect to Bill Clinton even though I and half of the country never voted for him and he took the U.S. unilaterally (by the same definition of unilateral that's being used for the Iraq War, ignoring over 30 allies) to war in the Balkans without U.N. approval.

Oh, and I thought Bush did have the consent of congress to go to war in Iraq, dumbass, including people such as John Edwards and John Kerry. You might want to check the congressional record on that one, you retard. A president can't go to war without consent of congress (well, he can only for 90 days assuming congress isn't in session, but that's not the case here).

chrza Report This Comment
Date: July 15, 2005 07:43AM

allocated funds before consent, hence unilateral and without consent. . .

[www.prospect.org]

chrza Report This Comment
Date: July 15, 2005 07:58AM

p.s. props to pokiemon