Quote# 126448

I think the difference is a matter of degree. You say you're very pro 2nd Amendment, and yet you're willing to tolerate a candidate that pushes for an 'assault weapon' ban.

"We need to get the military style assault weapons off of our streets" is right next to "We need to exterminate the Jews" in my handbook of 'Absolutely unacceptable beliefs

Telconi, NationStates 24 Comments [4/19/2017 12:24:15 AM]
Fundie Index: 10

Username  (Login)
Comment  (Text formatting help) 

1 | bottom

Grey Rook

Interesting. So you consider "you shouldn't be allowed to own weapons designed to kill lots of people very quickly" to be morally equivalent to "let's kill lots of people very quickly"? I kinda want to see how you go about justifying that to yourself.

4/19/2017 12:48:39 AM

rubber chicken

How about "Keep the weapons, ban the Ammunition" ?

4/19/2017 1:29:48 AM

Then you have a very fucked up morality.

4/19/2017 2:04:45 AM

Hu's On First

Gun Lives Matter!

4/19/2017 2:15:03 AM

Nomen Nescio

it's hyperbole, but not beyond the level of hyperbole frequently seen in politics, IMO. both those beliefs ARE insanely wrong and bogus.

4/19/2017 4:06:42 AM


Oh? So trying to put a stop to the killings in our streets is nearly as bad as systematically wiping out a whole group of people? I think someone needs to rethink their moral code.

4/19/2017 4:12:33 AM


No, stupid, it's rather "We need to keep military style assault weapons on our streets" that is right next to "We need to exterminate the Jews". You need those military style assault weapons in order to kill all those Jews, ya know.

Either you value human life, whether Jewish or not, or you disregard the value of human life.

4/19/2017 4:29:14 AM


Gee guess who doesn't have to worry about even hand guns on the street

It' me

4/19/2017 4:39:50 AM

Mister Spak

We have to have military style assault weapons so the alt-right can mow down jews in the streets.

4/19/2017 4:44:36 AM

Shepard Solus

That's because you're an idiot.

4/19/2017 5:01:50 AM

The Angry Dybbuk

Unless someone is a soldier, a police officer with specialised duties, part of a 'well-ordered militia,' or an arms dealer or collector, there is no legitimate reason I can think of for that person to have an automatic weapon. People who hunt with assault rifles are generally scuzz and there is little else those are good for beyond killing a fuckload of people in a relatively short time.

Those who believe the Second Amendment exists to protect citizens from intrusive or authoritarian government should consider the following: (1) That forces armed through a national treasury, rather than with weapons bought by the limited resources of a small group, are going to have an absolutely ridiculous advantage in a straight-up shoot-out (which is part of why weaker forces rely more heavily on IEDs and sneakery than on blunt firepower); and (2) that government encroachment on individual rights is far more likely to take the form of privacy violations and other measures capable of destroying a person's future through creative paperwork.

If civilians should be able to legally own any kind of weapon their government has, then it's theoretically possible for, say, Google Analytics (which already has a shocking amount of power in part as a result of the information it collects) to build or buy weapons of absolutely any sort to arm the high security required at its facilities.

4/19/2017 5:17:14 AM


No wonder that the Trumptards on /pol/ went apeshit last weekend: and not just for the obvious reason.

Meanwhile, no school shootings in the UK's entire history up to 1996. No school shootings in the UK since 1996. No school shootings in Japan. Ever. Especially after WWII.

The "Purge" films must be fapping material to you, then. School shootings in the US since 1764.

Seems you have no problem with exterminating children.

4/19/2017 5:27:20 AM


Setting aside that lawmakers think "assault weapon" means "any gun with the 'scary bits' attached", and even being pro-gun, dude, what the hell?

Your handbook needs some serious revision. Genocide and gun restriction are not in the same league.

4/19/2017 5:57:11 AM

Doubting Thomas

So you're in favor of any unhinged Joe Blow with an itchy trigger finger and a desire to have his name go down in infamy getting hold of lots of assault weapons? Seriously, why does any civilian need an assault rifle like an AR-15 or AK-47? They're designed to kill lots of people very quickly and aren't used for hunting like the gun nuts claim they are. A bolt action 30.06 is a much better hunting rifle than an AR-15. And don't give me that "We need guns to protect us from gummint tyranny!" nonsense, because if the government really wanted to come after you they'd do it with tanks, drones, Apache gunships, and the 101st Airborne Division. You really think you with your puny AR-15 is going to stand up to all that?

4/19/2017 6:28:52 AM


In what way is society better if you know your neighbor is likely to blow you away some day when he is off his meds?

4/19/2017 6:52:50 AM


"handbook of 'Absolutely unacceptable beliefs"

Maybe instead of writing arbitrary (conflicting) beliefs in a book, try to develop some logic and use that to evaluate beliefs?

4/19/2017 8:34:12 AM



I think you forgot the link...

List of school shootings in the United States

4/19/2017 9:09:33 AM


Dear, Stupid Person;
* The 2nd Amendment was about setting up a WELL REGULATED MILITIA. We have them today....They're called The Armed Forces and Law Enforcement.
* The 2nd Amendment is more of a privilege when it comes to Joe/Jane Q. Citizen. Joe/Jane Q. Citizen do not need weaponry clearly meant for military or law enforcement. A simple handgun (for self-defense) or hunting rifle (for hunting & self-defense) is what a civilian should have....not what the Sandy Hook shooter had.
* And remember the words....WELL REGULATED....Even if there was a need for a civilian militia, they would have to be government-approved, well-trained and REGULATED!

Sandy Hook should've been out "Dunblane/Port Arthur" Moment....but that darn misinterpreted 2nd Amendment and NRA lobbying got in the way.

An assault-weapon ban may not prevent mass shootings but those mass shootings would be a lot less...."mass". Imagine Sandy hook happening with a simple handgun....Okay; A couple of people might get shot, maybe one or two might die but that noodly crazy dork would probably get tackled by a burly custodian and the gun wrestled from his hand....not the mass of dead children that really ensued.

Just admit it....You jerks are macho wimps who demand huge penis extensions so you can mow down all those "scary brown people" and live like an action movie hero because you have no life!

Also; What Doubting Thomas said. An assault rifle is no match against gazillions of buckaroos worth of military gear and legions of solders.

These dorks just can't accept that life isn't an action movie, the Old West will never comeback and that people of different colors, sexuality and religions are human.


Sadly; That Trump quote is from 2000, when his political pronouncements were a lot more moderate and he was probably buddies with the Clintons. I'll bet he thinks differently, now.

But your general point is still valid. He's still breaking his promises.

4/19/2017 9:29:37 AM

Pink Jackboots

You can have a musket. You can have 3 muskets. You can have all the muskets.

Handguns will still be legal. Learn gun kata.

You can have hunting rifles.

But Sniper rifles would fall under the ban.

Two scopes? why would you need that?

You can have this.

But not this.


4/19/2017 9:48:44 AM



Is it significant that this anagrams into 'Clone It'?

4/19/2017 10:08:53 AM

Demon Duck of Doom

Oh, poor baby, is the Big Bad Government gonna take your penis extensions?

4/19/2017 10:20:28 AM


Scared much you little wimp? Need a gun to go to your fatass restaurant today, right?

4/19/2017 5:45:00 PM


I would hope "we need to externinate anybody" is also on his list.

Gun nuts: "we need to protect ourselves from government tyrany"
Also gun nuts: yeah we need to spend more budget on the military"

4/19/2017 6:57:53 PM



Just goes to prove that Mitt Romney has only one pair of shoes. Because Donald Fart owns the sandal factory, with all his flip-flops.

4/21/2017 5:10:54 AM

1 | top: comments page