ilovefuzz.com

Oh I know Gjetost they're like the Blue Oyster Cult only they wear costumes, right?

And the gun ownership thing is pretty similar to the way you collect Seppuku pedals. That shit don't make sense to a lot of people either.

That's Kent.

Haven't you guys learned that all Norwegians Scandinavians are the same to us?

Fucking Scandinavistan.

I accidentally mix you guys up all the time on purpose.

I don't wanna hear shit about your 2nd amendment rights until you tell me which militia you belong to

gjetost

Guns for geitost!

deusexmaxima wrote:I don't wanna hear shit about your 2nd amendment rights until you tell me which militia you belong to

gjetost

In my limited experience the only people who really go on about 2nd amendment rights are militia people.

And some of those people are fucking terrifying.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,(<< VERY IMPORTANT COMMA) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed (SO THAT THE PEOPLE MAY PROTECT THEMSELVES FROM THAT NECESSARY MILITIA)."

Now does everybody understand that sentence? Since we HAVE to have a well regulated militia to keep our free state secure, we need to let all the rest of the people have free unrestricted access to guns, so that the militia can't be turned against them.

HighDeaf1080p wrote:
Now does everybody understand that sentence?

Nobody understands that sentence; hence all of the debate about what it actually means.

That first comma is probably rogue.

The first comma is "regular importance". Second comma is "EPIC importance". Haha.

Agree with it or not...that sentence is the reason regular Joe's can walk around with ASTONISHING firepower on their shoulder in the US. Repeal it or accept it, but don't try to pervert it to mean the GOVERNMENT (in all their benevolence) should get to decide who gets guns, and what guns they are allowed.

yeah. i'm kind of torn on how i feel about guns lately. mostly because my grrL hates them, is baffled by all these mass shootings lately..... and i start to fumble trying to explain why i think it's important for trustworthy citizens to have the right to own guns.

and yes, slippery slope, every law restricting access is a step towards banning completely..... but...... some stuff HAS to change no?

right, it essentially closes the parenthetical (not the right word but I'm in a meeting). What's lost in this definition is that the Constitution is a fluid document.

Pretty sure the constitution is NOT a fluid document, given how difficult they made it to change (on purpose). But, if people want to start trying to repeal sections of the bill of rights...by all means...give it their best shot.

Pretty sure there was never the intention that "if technology improves on guns, then its somehow suddenly ok for the government to be the only armed party in this exchange." It wasn't ok then, and it isn't ok now.

I just watch endless police brutality videos, and police shootings of unarmed people needing help, and I think, "Are these the people we want to be the ONLY ones with guns in our country?!"

Cuz lets be clear...gun bans doesn't mean doing away with guns...it means taking them away from the citizens by means of armed thuggery, and leaving them in the hands of the largest organized street gang in America.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9TFvh6Xps4[/youtube]