OFFICIAL POLITICAL CARTOONS/PIC FREAD.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

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.

[LMNO]

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]

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]

I don't think the 2nd Amendment said anything about 747s. 

YOU CAN PRY THAT PLANE FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS

[LMNO]

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]

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.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

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.

[LMNO]

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

[The Good Reverend Roger]

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.

[LMNO]

No.  Your safety is not a constitutional concern.

ABOLISH THE FDA!  
   \

[The Good Reverend Roger]

No.  Your safety is not a constitutional concern.

ABOLISH THE FDA!  
   \

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.

[Cain]

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]

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.

[LMNO]

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.