News:

By the power of lulz, I, while living, have conquered the internets.

Main Menu

OFFICIAL POLITICAL CARTOONS/PIC FREAD.

Started by The Good Reverend Roger, April 02, 2007, 07:05:29 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

The Good Reverend Roger

Quote from: Cainad on August 24, 2009, 02:57:59 PM
Quote from: Cain on August 24, 2009, 02:49:45 PM
While I have little problem with firearm ownership, I don't see what it has to do with 9/11.

Unless they are now allowing American citizens to buy SAMs.

This.

9/11 + gun control = :?

I think the argument is that if you allow people to carry guns on a plane, the hijackers would have been killed.

Mind you, there would have been about 500 holes in the plane, probably the pilots would have caught a few, and even if they didn't, most of the passengers would have been killed in the world's largest "Polish firing squad"...

...but there's probably a downside.
" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."
- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

"Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."
- TGRR, raising the bar at work.

LMNO

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 24, 2009, 07:58:42 PM
Quote from: LMNO on August 24, 2009, 02:08:25 PM
Tell that to the kid that shoots his brother with Dad's gun.

The failure of one dumbass to properly secure his firearms has no bearing on my right to own a firearm.  In short, my right to own a firearm trumps the little bastard's safety.

Sorry about that.

I'm not arguing the 2nd amendment; I'm arguing the statement, "Disarming innocent people does not protect innocent people."


I maintain that if an innocent person (a child) is not armed, they cannot accidentally shoot another innocent person (another child).




LMNO
-Pedant.


Cain

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 24, 2009, 08:00:55 PM
Quote from: Cainad on August 24, 2009, 02:57:59 PM
Quote from: Cain on August 24, 2009, 02:49:45 PM
While I have little problem with firearm ownership, I don't see what it has to do with 9/11.

Unless they are now allowing American citizens to buy SAMs.

This.

9/11 + gun control = :?

I think the argument is that if you allow people to carry guns on a plane, the hijackers would have been killed.

Mind you, there would have been about 500 holes in the plane, probably the pilots would have caught a few, and even if they didn't, most of the passengers would have been killed in the world's largest "Polish firing squad"...

...but there's probably a downside.

You see, I thought that may be the case, that someone was suggesting handguns on a plane could stop it being hijacked, without it being thought through.

I also thought that if you had 4 hijackers and the element of surprise, you could also probably kill enough people to keep the rest in submission, so long as no-one accidentally mentioned the whole "suicide mission" thing, since they could also presumably carry guns onto the plane.  As I recall, the passengers only fought back against the hijackers once they found out other hijacked planes had been crashed into the Pentagon and WTC, otherwise they thought they were in for a terrifying 48 hours, then commandos storming the plane and doing the dirty. 

Pariah

Play safe! Ski only in a clockwise direction! Let's all have fun together!

LMNO

Quote from: Cain on August 24, 2009, 08:25:07 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 24, 2009, 08:00:55 PM
Quote from: Cainad on August 24, 2009, 02:57:59 PM
Quote from: Cain on August 24, 2009, 02:49:45 PM
While I have little problem with firearm ownership, I don't see what it has to do with 9/11.

Unless they are now allowing American citizens to buy SAMs.

This.

9/11 + gun control = :?

I think the argument is that if you allow people to carry guns on a plane, the hijackers would have been killed.

Mind you, there would have been about 500 holes in the plane, probably the pilots would have caught a few, and even if they didn't, most of the passengers would have been killed in the world's largest "Polish firing squad"...

...but there's probably a downside.

You see, I thought that may be the case, that someone was suggesting handguns on a plane could stop it being hijacked, without it being thought through.

I also thought that if you had 4 hijackers and the element of surprise, you could also probably kill enough people to keep the rest in submission, so long as no-one accidentally mentioned the whole "suicide mission" thing, since they could also presumably carry guns onto the plane.  As I recall, the passengers only fought back against the hijackers once they found out other hijacked planes had been crashed into the Pentagon and WTC, otherwise they thought they were in for a terrifying 48 hours, then commandos storming the plane and doing the dirty. 

Could you also imagine pairing up the myriad "Air Rage" stories with "...and they had a gun..."?

The Good Reverend Roger

Quote from: LMNO on August 24, 2009, 08:06:19 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 24, 2009, 07:58:42 PM
Quote from: LMNO on August 24, 2009, 02:08:25 PM
Tell that to the kid that shoots his brother with Dad's gun.

The failure of one dumbass to properly secure his firearms has no bearing on my right to own a firearm.  In short, my right to own a firearm trumps the little bastard's safety.

Sorry about that.

I'm not arguing the 2nd amendment; I'm arguing the statement, "Disarming innocent people does not protect innocent people."


I maintain that if an innocent person (a child) is not armed, they cannot accidentally shoot another innocent person (another child).




LMNO
-Pedant.



Quite right.  The second amendment has nothing to do with safety or protection.

It has to do with killing tyrants.  Only this, and nothing more.
" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."
- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

"Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."
- TGRR, raising the bar at work.

The Good Reverend Roger

Quote from: LMNO on August 24, 2009, 08:34:14 PM
Quote from: Cain on August 24, 2009, 08:25:07 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 24, 2009, 08:00:55 PM
Quote from: Cainad on August 24, 2009, 02:57:59 PM
Quote from: Cain on August 24, 2009, 02:49:45 PM
While I have little problem with firearm ownership, I don't see what it has to do with 9/11.

Unless they are now allowing American citizens to buy SAMs.

This.

9/11 + gun control = :?

I think the argument is that if you allow people to carry guns on a plane, the hijackers would have been killed.

Mind you, there would have been about 500 holes in the plane, probably the pilots would have caught a few, and even if they didn't, most of the passengers would have been killed in the world's largest "Polish firing squad"...

...but there's probably a downside.

You see, I thought that may be the case, that someone was suggesting handguns on a plane could stop it being hijacked, without it being thought through.

I also thought that if you had 4 hijackers and the element of surprise, you could also probably kill enough people to keep the rest in submission, so long as no-one accidentally mentioned the whole "suicide mission" thing, since they could also presumably carry guns onto the plane.  As I recall, the passengers only fought back against the hijackers once they found out other hijacked planes had been crashed into the Pentagon and WTC, otherwise they thought they were in for a terrifying 48 hours, then commandos storming the plane and doing the dirty. 

Could you also imagine pairing up the myriad "Air Rage" stories with "...and they had a gun..."?

:)

Yes.

:)
" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."
- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

"Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."
- TGRR, raising the bar at work.

LMNO

Wait a second-- I thought the 2nd amendment was about defending us from the Zombie Apocalypse?

The Good Reverend Roger

Quote from: LMNO on August 24, 2009, 08:39:22 PM
Wait a second-- I thought the 2nd amendment was about defending us from the Zombie Apocalypse?

No.  Your safety is not a constitutional concern.

Also, we've had zombies for 64 years, and it hasn't hurt us a bit.
" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."
- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

"Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."
- TGRR, raising the bar at work.

LMNO


The Good Reverend Roger

Quote from: LMNO on August 24, 2009, 08:50:30 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 24, 2009, 08:48:34 PM

No.  Your safety is not a constitutional concern.



ABOLISH THE FDA!  
   \
:jihaad:

Why?  That's constitutionally permissable, via articles I & II.  And it has nothing to do with safety...it has to do with regulation of trade.
" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."
- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

"Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."
- TGRR, raising the bar at work.

Cain

Quote from: LMNO on August 24, 2009, 08:34:14 PM
Quote from: Cain on August 24, 2009, 08:25:07 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 24, 2009, 08:00:55 PM
Quote from: Cainad on August 24, 2009, 02:57:59 PM
Quote from: Cain on August 24, 2009, 02:49:45 PM
While I have little problem with firearm ownership, I don't see what it has to do with 9/11.

Unless they are now allowing American citizens to buy SAMs.

This.

9/11 + gun control = :?

I think the argument is that if you allow people to carry guns on a plane, the hijackers would have been killed.

Mind you, there would have been about 500 holes in the plane, probably the pilots would have caught a few, and even if they didn't, most of the passengers would have been killed in the world's largest "Polish firing squad"...

...but there's probably a downside.

You see, I thought that may be the case, that someone was suggesting handguns on a plane could stop it being hijacked, without it being thought through.

I also thought that if you had 4 hijackers and the element of surprise, you could also probably kill enough people to keep the rest in submission, so long as no-one accidentally mentioned the whole "suicide mission" thing, since they could also presumably carry guns onto the plane.  As I recall, the passengers only fought back against the hijackers once they found out other hijacked planes had been crashed into the Pentagon and WTC, otherwise they thought they were in for a terrifying 48 hours, then commandos storming the plane and doing the dirty. 

Could you also imagine pairing up the myriad "Air Rage" stories with "...and they had a gun..."?

Not only that, I also imagined pairing up "shooting suspected terrorists" with "after several drinks while travelling in first class".

Cain


Sister_Gothique

#1393
Quote from: LMNO on August 24, 2009, 02:08:25 PM
Tell that to the kid that shoots his brother with Dad's gun.
That's a problem in parenting, not firearms. Problem one being that they didn't keep the damn thing locked away. Problem two being they most likely didn't teach their child anything about it. Pretending it isn't there just leaves them ignorant and curious. Teaching them to respect and understand the purpose of the firearm would shed some light and the kid would likely be a bit better off. Of course, there are circumstances dealing with age, possible mental issues, etc where this method just wouldn't work(/yet) in which case we go right back to, "Why didn't the dumbfuck lock it away?!".


On a separate note: I just kind of ignore the 9/11 part....The initial message is true and amusing.
I'm the new "God's Will"...Soon it'll be, "Oh, I can't be held accountable for THAT, Sister Gothique made me do it!"

LMNO

Quote from: Sister_Gothique on August 25, 2009, 02:40:57 PM
Quote from: LMNO on August 24, 2009, 02:08:25 PM
Tell that to the kid that shoots his brother with Dad's gun.
That's a problem in parenting, not firearms. Problem one being that they didn't keep the damn thing locked away. Problem two being they most likely didn't teach their child anything about it. Pretending it isn't there just leaves them ignorant and curious. Teaching them to respect and understand the purpose of the firearm would shed some light and the kid would likely be a bit better off. Of course, there are circumstances dealing with age, possible mental issues, etc where this method just wouldn't work(/yet) in which case we go right back to, "Why didn't the dumbfuck lock it away?!".


On a separate note: I just kind of ignore the 9/11 part....The initial message is true and amusing.

Again, all I'm arguing is the statement, not the philosophy/rights of gun ownership.