Brewster Rockit by Tim Rickard for February 23, 2013

No big surprise there, guys.

This is something I feel the government never understands. If somebody wants to kill someone, they’ll beat them senseless with a stick if they have to.

Amen, Bruno!

I don’t drink. I see all the misery caused by alcoholism- abused spouses and children, innocents killed by drunk drivers, people losing their jobs because of alcoholism, children drinking the alcohol they sneak from adults who purchased it legally, etc.

So, following the logic of the gun control lefties, we need to crack down on alcohol problems, we need to track everyone who purchases alcohol, ban many people from purchasing it based on their being at risk of any problems, etc.

Funny thing how the hypocritical, dishonest, perverted lefties are always quick to stomp on our Constitutional rights when they don’t like those rights, but can turn right around and justify anything they like.

It’s really tiring to beat someone to death with a plowshare.Fatality comes much more quickly with a sword.

Hey, did ya hear the one about the plow that wouldn’t share? I didn’t think so….

@ Gary McSpookYou said: "Just so we’re clear on this, you are aware that the 2nd Amendment only covers possession of weapons for “well-regulated militias,” right? "

Before you “correct” someone, it might be a good idea to make sure you’re not absolutely wrong….as in your opinion being refuted by the Supreme Court, and historical evidence.

“Well regulated” refers to the idea that the militias should be in good working order (like a clock)…properly trained and equipped. The acknowledgement of the peoples’ right to arms is the actual (existing, not government granted) right enumerated in the amendment, and the “militia” part is an instruction to the states to take advantage of this in organizing their militias. This intent is more easily seen (by us, today) in the format of some of the suggested versions of the amendment offered at the time by some of the states (including New York). There, the phrasing is reversed and the individual right stated first.

This also implied that the individual right included access to the same type of arms “common” to an individual soldier, a test the courts have continued to use.

Guess they missed the point, too . . . ☻

I get the impression that Americans never agree about anything.

When plowshares are outlawed, only outlaws will have plowshares.

then comes the inevitable onset of nuclear tipped plowshares

OK, let’s do it this way…. scrap the second amendment completely, get rid of it altogether. Then, get rid of all firearms, nary a one left.Then, start all over.

“Google advocacy of total firearm confiscation, and you’ find a whole lot of Democrats on record preaching it”I did Google it. Instead I found a whole bunch of websites preaching to wingnuts: “The vile Communist anti-gun grabbers are coming!”An overwhelming majority of Americans support universal background checks, high capacity magazine limitations, and other sensible measures. Deranged tirades and fake statistics only help to solidify that support.

Still, it’s more difficult to kill someone with a plowshare than with a sword.

Those who beat their swords into plowshares shall plow for those who didn’t.