image stats
rating
2.47
votes
23
views
915
uploader
Anonymous
comments
19
date added
2008-02-05
category
None Yet
previous votes
Loading..
log in
Username:

Password


indent register
indent recover

Freedommmmmmmm....... yeahhhhhh RIGHT!............

1 star2 stars3 stars4 stars5 stars
Freedommmmmmmm....... yeahhhhhh RIGHT!............

Comments for: Freedommmmmmmm....... yeahhhhhh RIGHT!............
Hugh G. Rection Report This Comment
Date: February 05, 2008 10:32AM

Yeah...why does that couple who live in an upscale neighborhood need so many guns?
Are they drug dealers? Bank robbers? Cultists? I feel safer now that they're disarmed.
Mrkim Report This Comment
Date: February 05, 2008 11:57AM

Maybe because they live in an upscale neighborhood and have a right to protect themselves and what they own from those who would otherwise choose to simply steal it from them ? You anti-gun fuckers are a pretty pitiful bunch of fucks. Making the assumptive "leap of ant-faith" that anyone posessing multiple weapons much be drug dealers or cultists speaks volumes about your lack of understanding.

I suppose by the same logic used above all gun collectors, gun traders/sellers and hunters who likely own a variety of weapons for varied prey must also be affiliated with drug dealers or cults too huh ?

BTW, best of luck to you and your loved ones with the attitude you have if you ever are awakened at 3am to find some crack head or common burglar breaking into or much less, already inside your home. Maybe you can talk 'em outta killin you by lettin 'em rape your wife or kids instead of just defending yourself, those who mean something to you, much less your property by being pro-active about it all and just shootin the worthless fucker.

The only person who would be comforted by the image above is a criminal themselves since they then know what easy pickins these folks would be after their weapons are taken away.

Whatta fuckin leftist whiny choom eye rolling
smiley
zxz555 Report This Comment
Date: February 05, 2008 12:15PM

mrKim you make the same mistake all americans make on this issue. For the same reason Europeans do not understand the gun issue in the US you all fail to see a society that has existed far longer than your adolescent country has and without guns and without gun crime, aside from isolated and rare incidents.

If you were not all toting and selling arms then even the criminals would not have them. I see that in the US you need to have one because the other, more psychotic guy has one, but you could also be without them altogether.

As for hunters owning guns... well they are the worst, hiding in the bushes with telescopic infra-red sights wearing camo and killing an animal from 200 meters. If you want a license to hunt you should be stripped naked and told to go at it on equal terms with the poor beast you intend to kill. Fucking pussies hiding in the undergrowth. angry
smiley

I hope you all keep your guns locked up too, so that the burgler/rapist that breaks in, the one you are going to blow away, does not steal yours fro use in a crime. Because you know they will only break in and steal yours guns and rape your dog / wife when you are at work. grinning
smiley
Mrkim Report This Comment
Date: February 05, 2008 01:08PM

Sorry Z, but I strongly disagree with your views. For the reasons stated above as well as for a very simple tenet of our own constitution which allows our citizenry the right to bear arms.

This right wasn't granted for hunters or gun collectors, but so that no one in this "new" society would ever again be put under governmental control simply because they were unarmed against a government that was.

While it is true that if guns were eliminated within our society there would be fewer guns for the criminals TO steal and use against us, it would just as surely NOT stop crimes against persons or their property still and would only drive up the prices criminals pay for their illegally owned weapons comparatively.

Here NO convicted felons have the right to own a firearm, not even as a hunting weapon, but it damned sure dudn stop 'em from gettin 'em anyway!

The bottomline that really derails your stance to me is that even before firearms were invented people STILL robbed and killed one another and game was still killed for food.

Weapons themselves are neither evil nor dangerous. Only Humans hold that distinction winking
smiley

smoking
smiley
Anonymous Report This Comment
Date: February 05, 2008 01:37PM

The new world order has a plan to do just that! to tak our guns away from us. There are a few states that are asking people to turn in their guns for money. No one will get my guns!! FUCK THAT!! angry
smiley
woberto Report This Comment
Date: February 05, 2008 03:47PM

And so-on ans so-forth...

hot smiley
fossil_digger Report This Comment
Date: February 05, 2008 04:03PM

the day the government decides to revoke our constitutional right to bear arms is the day they get shot in the head. maybe that's not such a bad idea, at least then we can install leaders that are for the people rather than for big business, banks,insurance companies, and any other asshole group who choose to contribute to inflation in the name of loss prevention.
Anonymous Report This Comment
Date: February 05, 2008 11:43PM

question:if the government ever got so out of hand that the people decided to march on washington and take it (the country)back with their weapons,do you think the government and officials in charge(even knowing they're wrong)would hesitate to use any means possible leagal or illeagal to stay in power?i believe they'd even nuke their own to do so.sad state of a onece great country.
zxz555 Report This Comment
Date: February 06, 2008 01:15AM

Firstly MrKim, thanks for replying without being a reactionary idiot thumbs
down

One of the points pro-gunners are often not eager to discuss is this:

major point of contention is whether it protects against infringement of an individual right to personal firearms[5] or a collective State militia right.[6] Most circuit court precedences favor the "collective" interpretation, but the "individual" interpretations are supported by recent court cases such as United States v. Emerson and Parker v. District of Columbia. There is also a "modified collective" view that says the right is protected for individuals to bear arms based on their needs while serving in a militia.[7]


taken from here:

[en.wikipedia.org]

Was that not the point of the second amendment? That you have the right to raise hell against invasion or a government that dissolves your rights to the point where the US can no longer be recognised as the state it was intended to be?

Shooting at one-another willy-nilly was surely not the intention? Or does the US administration just need to spend more time & money on policing?
jgoins Report This Comment
Date: February 06, 2008 07:12AM

"Shooting at one-another willy-nilly was surely not the intention? Or does the US administration just need to spend more time & money on policing?"
---------

Shooting at one-another willy-nilly is not the reason the majority of people own firearms. The majority of people who own firearms are upstanding law abiding citizens who have never used them on another human and only would if there is no other choice. The criminals who use firearms against other people are a very small minority of people in this country and to paint all gun owners with the same brush does a grave injustice to everyone. Gun laws only restrict law abiding citizens and do nothing to stop crime.
Mrkim Report This Comment
Date: February 06, 2008 10:28AM

I understand that the 2nd amendment has been interpreted in both ways you mentioned Z and that such an interpretation is typically used to support whatever agenda one purports to side with in how people individually view it.

Idealogically we were granted the right to defend ourselves against aggressors by allowing the citizenry the right to keep and bear arms, though the absolute distinction as to whom such an aggressor might be was never specifically outlined within the constitution.

What I was taught in school was that such a right was granted for defense against foreign as well as domestic aggressions, meaning we had the right to defend both our country against foreign powers on our soil and against our own government should it ever go afoul of its intended purpose(s) and threaten the citizenry.

In my view, and it's just mine, a citizenry deprived of its ability to posess firearms stands naked and helpless against either type of foe and can easily find themselves prey to either just as well winking
smiley

smoking
smiley
Anonymous Report This Comment
Date: February 06, 2008 12:44PM

Damn!

Posted by: fossil_digger - I live here (IP Logged)
Date: February 05, 2008 03:03PM

"the day the government decides to revoke our constitutional right to bear arms is the day they get shot in the head. maybe that's not such a bad idea, at least then we can install leaders that are for the people rather than for big business, banks,insurance companies, and any other asshole group who choose to contribute to inflation in the name of loss prevention."

It's about time you speak up!...... are you pushing forward (talking shit) on purpose?


The funny thing about the Anti-Gunners is, if the government tried to take the peoples guns away, the Pro-gunners would fight against it, the Anti-Gunners would then praise the government for shooting the Pro-Gunners because they had Guns and deserved it.... get the "social correctivity" they thrive on?!

We have a conceal-carry law here and "the city" never allowed it, even though it became state law, they are fighting it, if they would allow city people to carry guns, like the law says, then, crime in the city would plummet, because, the bruthas would think twice before they did whatever they damn well pleased!

Just by the way, there have been times when the police broke down someones door, came storming in and were shot by the innocent people in that home that the cops got the wrong information about from their crack addicted scumbag, so that he could be patted on the head.... although I'm sorry to say them being found not guilty is an exception to the rule.

[www.theagitator.com]

[www.hightimes.com]

Did everyone know that the Federal Government has special training now for at least higher ups at police departments across the country, those higher ups will come back and say how great it was and now they're back in shape and all that crap, but, they won't discuss in detail what the training was all about..... Police State Tactics becoming the norm..... to help the people of course (with excuses), the people will demand that the government "help them", that's the biggest scam yet.... "don't force the people too much, have them beg for it because of the 'situation' they are put in"... kinda reminds of Ivan the Terrible.... speaking of..... "they" have almost a year to make some shit happen, hopefully I am wrong! Just remember, it doesn't matter who's in there, the laws are already passed..... why won't anyone ask any of the current Presidential Candidates about the Patriot Act or any of the other Anti-Freedom Laws that are in place and hard at work?

Here.....

[www.salon.com]
Anonymous Report This Comment
Date: February 06, 2008 01:35PM

I know, I know, if a couple people see these that haven't before then it's well worth it.

[www.youtube.com]

[www.youtube.com]

[www.youtube.com]

[www.youtube.com]


When people were saying, long, long ago, that lots of the stuff that's happening today was going to happen they were blown of and called... "crazies" or (fill in the blank), well, it's happening. What about those "9/11 Truthers" talking that crazy stuff, follow the trail and it's easy to see, ignore the trail if you fear the truth.

[www.news.com]

Think about it, if you were told, say, 20 years ago that laws that have been on the books since the 1800's were going to be erased... would you have believed it?

Would you have believed that NORAD (look them up) could have just ignored those plains throughout that morning. There were terrorist drills going on that very morning all over the place.... more coincidence, coincidence after coincidence, make a list.

What about the Patriot Act, if you were against it.... "two Democratic Senators, Tom Daschle of South Dakota and Patrick Leahy of Vermont."... you might be "helped" with your decision.

[en.wikipedia.org]

[www.youtube.com]

Now, look into govenment scientist that have committed "suicide"...... and on and on....

Freedom is a fairytale, tell the people they aren't free and they'll get pissed, tell them they are free and they'll stand up straight, say.... damn straight! and walk away smiling..... dumb.........dumb,dumb,dumb.
woberto Report This Comment
Date: February 08, 2008 06:40AM

[www.smh.com.au]
jgoins Report This Comment
Date: February 08, 2008 07:01AM

Paranoia is a fatal disease.
fossil_digger Report This Comment
Date: February 08, 2008 02:13PM

you don't seriously think i will watch any of those bullshit anti-gun fuckhead you stooge posted videos do you?

smiling
bouncing smiley whatta dipstick! smiling
bouncing smiley
jgoins Report This Comment
Date: February 09, 2008 08:08AM

In a country this size they could never remove all the guns. If you make it illegal for law abiding citizens to have guns then the criminals will be the only ones with access to them. We have something on the order of 1 policeman for every 10,000 people so we cannot expect the police to be able to protect us all the time. It is up to us to protect ourselves as much as possible. If guns were somehow magically removed from the world then people would use bows and arrows and knives to commit crimes and there would be no reduction of crime. Crime and murder has been around far longer than gun powder. Concentrating on one tool used in crimes is not the answer for fighting crime, it is just easier for the wimps than dealing with the causes of crime.
zxz555 Report This Comment
Date: February 09, 2008 11:26AM

jgoins, once again you are so wrong, if we get rid of guns then people will not start using bow & arrow and knives, they will use blow pipes and poison darts, which are considerably more cool than guns, or any of the other alternatives.

That is my primary reason for banning guns worldwide. I want to read about assassinations in the news by blowpipe. It just does not happen enough grinning
smiley
jgoins Report This Comment
Date: February 10, 2008 06:24AM

The point is banning guns will only change the instrument of crime to something else, it will not reduce crime.