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