Login or register
Login or register
Stay logged in
Log in/Sign up using Facebook.
Log in/Sign up using Gmail/Google+.
CREATE A NEW ACCOUNT
Email is optional and is used for password recovery purposes.
Rank #64984 on Subscribers
Level 315 Comments: Wizard
Send mail to squadmissile
Invite squadmissile to be your friend
Last status update:
Date Signed Up:
Content Level Progress:
Level 213 Content: Comedic Genius → Level 214 Content: Comedic Genius
Comment Level Progress:
Level 315 Comments: Wizard → Level 316 Comments: Wizard
Times Content Favorited:
Total Comments Made:
What people say about squadmissile
latest user's comments
- Always though that this was the male version of the joke: …
The Gender Difference
Your version is the dirty version, therefore the more hilarious one. I was about to check to comments on whether or not it was posted yet.
- Oh **** it linked to their page! Please do not click that link…
- I'm shocked that this doesn't have a watermark because it soun…
Oh shit it linked to their page! Please do not click that link and give those faggots money and page views, the only thing that should be given to the makers of those lies is a napalm enema.
- I wonder who raped the nun.
- This is obviously ********, We haven't had a clear sky in york…
Midnight at New Year's
I go to University next door in Buxton and I can confirm this is true!
- I don't like to comment on these things because whatever Ameri…
So let's limit everyone's liberties as a solution for a different problem.
The problem here is that our culture does not value human life, parents let video games and TV do the parenting, the mentally disturbed do not get proper help, and the media sensationalizes these shootings.
Fire is often fought with fire. You do not always use water to put out fires.
you're fucking retarded. the rest of the developed world has strict gun ownership laws and as a result minimal homicide rates. the argument 'guns dont kill people, people do' is tired and obsolete. Access to weapons is the problem. inb4 "oh, well people get guns illegally", well then your country is fucked if its citizens are like that, cause the rest of the world has no interest in owning guns. tl;dr fuck america.
America=/= rest of the world.
The minimal homicide rates are NOT a result of strict gun ownership laws. They're a result of geography and culture. The culture here in the US is more violent. People will murder and kill regardless of what tool they use. They choose to use guns because it is the easier way.
>"oh, well people get guns illegally", well then your country is fucked if its citizens are like that, cause the rest of the world has no interest in owning guns
Again, our culture is different. Our entire history and culture revolves around our rights and our desire to protect them. You'll find that in the US we value freedom strongly and are more about the individual. As a result, we believe it is a basic civil right to be permitted to defend oneself against enemies be they criminals or tyrannic government. Europeans have spent most of their history under monarchical rule, so there isn't nearly as much of an emphasis on personal liberty and human rights.
Don't be so but-hurt.
but why did the tiny white woman need all that firepower?
But typically people own weapons for self defense, recreation, and protection against government-based tyranny. The Second Amendment sums this up nicely by stating that weapons are necessary for the maintenance of a free state.
but do civilians REALLY need automatic weapons and handguns? I seriously doubt that is what the founding fathers had in mind, especially when you look at the weapons that existed back then... Why isn't it enough to own one weapon that can be used for both hunting and self defense? And also, do you REALLY think, that if you lost the guns the government would steamroll the populace? Are you REALLY that afraid?
What the Founding Fathers had in mind has nothing to do with hunting and less to do with personal defense. The entire purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to give the citizens the ability to remove their government by force if absolutely needed.
Remember, the colonists owned the SAME (or similar) weapons the British military did (including cannons). If we want to obey the spirit of the 2nd Amendment, we should be permitted to own M16s and light machineguns as well. But we don't because we're reasonable people and understand the middle ground.
Every dictator disarmed the civilians before the horrors really started. It is really stupid to give the people with all of the power all of the weapons as well. Bad things happen. Nazi Germany Happens. Soviet Russia happens. Etc. It's never been a matter of fear, it's be about maintaining a final "safety" to our liberties.
And the Founding Fathers also believed black people were inferior to white people. Just because the founding fathers believed something to be accurate or a good idea doesn't make it so. Obviously, some of their ideas are outdated and no longer apply to modern society. No one would succeed at overthrowing the government, and there's no legitimate reason to.
But if the people want to remove their government, wouldn't the military help them do so? Aren't the troops a part of the people in America?
Do you honestly believe that the troops would follow the government's order to shoot their families, bomb their friends and burn their homes?
Why take the chance? Many of the German soldiers in WWII didn't know exactly what Hitler was up to, so went along with it believing they were fighting for their country. Armies in other countries have suppressed and killed their own people before. It just happened in Libya and Iran, and is going on now in Syria. Every dictator in history has done it. There's a huge precedent for this sort of thing happening. It's better to be safe than sorry.
In the Civil War Americans shot their own families, burned their own towns, killed their own friends. In the Draft Riots, Union troops shot on civilians.
It's essential that the government fear its people, and the people never fear the government. Guns are merely a failsafe.
It IS better to be safe than sorry. But that doesnt justify the loose laws.
Why do you need to be able to have a minigun? Surely if the people (most of the people, not just a small group) wanted to overthrow the government, simple hunting rifles would be enough in large numbers.
Why do you need to carry a gun in public? And why should you be allowed to have a loaded gun lying around? If you wanted to remove the government, surely it would be enough to have a gun safely locked in a cabinet, where it couldn't be taken by someone (a crazy family member etc).
Why do you not need a license to buy a gun? This would stop atleast some of the people that should not have a gun from having one.
I do not think all guns should be banned. But I do not see why the rules are like they are.
Miniguns are not illegal for the same reason why it's not illegal to have sex with a horse in some states: There's never been a reason to make a law about it. A minigun costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to buy and thousands to fire. Any person who buys one is not going to be committing crimes. Also, a minigun cannot be fired without being mounted. There's just been no reason to legislate miniguns.
>Gun in public
Short answer: Self defense. The weapons carried in public are almost exclusively handguns, which some Americans find necessary. A user posted here about an hour ago with a story in which he stopped three guys from mugging him because he was carrying a weapon.
This varies from state to state. All require some sort of registration of the weapon. they vary on restrictions. A background check is generally required. Higher degrees of gun ownership require permits (like a concealed carry permit)
I do think they could do a better job making sure mentally disturbed people do not obtain weapons, but I don't think that involves banning weapons.
When I said minigun I used it as an example of weapons that are not fit for personal use.
As you said earlier, the main point of the 2nd amendment is not self defence, but to protect civilians against the government. So is the 2nd amendment really meant for people to carry guns in public?
The person that stopped the three guys from mugging him with a gun, he menaged the situation well, but what if they didnt leave him alone? Would he shoot three guys just so he could keep his $20?
What if the robbers also had guns? He would be outnumbered 3 to 1. And since the robbers knew he could hurt them, they would be more likely to shoot the person they were mugging.
I believe many people avoid getting mugged by having a gun on them, but I also believe that if both sides carry weapons, the chance of a shooting is more than doubled.
Banning guns in the US would be a shit idea, there are simply too many guns out there and too many people that would not give up their beloved AR-15, their Colt or whatever they have, without violent resistance.
Anyways, going to bed, happy new year man.
And you can honestly say that if the american populace lost their guns, obama or whoever is in charge during this happening will either:
A: Start a genocide
B:Starting to build the forth reich?
It just seem so incredibly insecure...
Andrew Jackson round up and relocate thousands of Natives (Trail of Tears)
Abraham Lincoln Suspend Habeas Corpus and round up political dissenters.
Union soldiers shoot citizens during the Draft Riots
FDR round up Japanese-Americans and throw them in camps.
The recent signing of the NDAA
The Patriot Act with warrentless wiretapping.
(I'm sure there's more I've forgotten)
Human history is filled with incredibly horrible rulers doing incredibly horrible things to people (often their own). It is human nature to seize as much power as possible, and if we let people have that power they will take it all. Almost every president seems to have expanded the powers they've had since the beginning.
Also keep in mind that the people got Hitler into power because he had them convinced that he would help Germany and it's people. It wasn't until he had all of the power that he started the REAL plan. It would likely work the same way here.
Thomas Jefferson once said that "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
so basically you are saying that obama is going to pull a hitler?
Nope. He's about as likely as Bush or Clinton were.
The government IS seizing more control on a consistent basis. It still has a ways to go before it becomes intolerable, but at this rate we might get there.
Most likely, we will be able to fix any threats to our liberties through the existing system (we've done so for 250 years). But there's always a chance we will need to start another revolution.
Keep in mind the colonists protested British intrusions for decades before they finally resorted to armed rebellion.
The amount of pessimism here astounds me...
Do you honestly expect us to trust the government when they constantly lie to us? They don't want to remove just automatic guns they want to remove ALL guns.
What do you honestly believe would happen if all guns were banned? just curious.
What the fuck does her being white have to do with anything?
not a damn thing, but i still would like an answer to the question.
Try asking her.. oh wait 8-/
- split split split...
no for you
- Why don't nut jobs who want to go on a spree just go after the…
Westboro Figured Out
Show Comments (0)