12
1.
Delight 4 year s ago
#46 this irritates me so bad. If someone ever does this bs to me I will just poke the bottom of their feet relentlessly. If they’re rude enough to invade your personal space like that, then I can do it right back. There’s no way in hell I would sit there with someone’s dirty a$$ feet right by my face just because it’s supposedly not polite to say anything.
0
3.
Three 4 year s ago
#96 that fish on the granny's hat speaks for itself.
0
4.
Treasure 4 year s ago
#23 yep and McDo is trying to make people who made this obvious abuse pay for what they steal. Especialy if the command was made by card...
1
5.
Stronger 4 year s ago
#40 Tefiti!
-2
6.
Groom 4 year s ago
#39 I am embarrassed as a proud citizen of the USA by all these gun fetishists acting like it's somehow cool to take family portraits with everyone holding firearms. It always amazes me how these idiots pretend the first words of the 2nd amendment don't exist.
"A WELL REGULATED MILITIA, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
"A WELL REGULATED MILITIA, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
4
7.
ZombieDarwin 4 year s ago
@Groom,
I'm embarrassed to have you as a fellow citizen. If you had read the Second Amendment correctly, you would notice that it says, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Notice it doesn't say anything about the militia's right to keep and bear arms. It reserves that right to the people.
And you might also want to research what "regulated" meant in the 1700's. Regulated back then did not mean that they were regulated by the government, but that they were in efficient fighting shape. They had to have tools (i.e. guns) that worked. The state had no control over the militia.
And while you're at it, you also might want to research what they meant by the word "militia". At that time, the militia consisted of any able-bodied male between the ages of 18 to 45. That's it. That's the entire definition. There's nothing else that was present. In order to be a militiaman, you had to be a male between the ages of 18 and 45 who was able-bodied.
Stop being an embarrassment to yourself. Educate yourself, man!
I'm embarrassed to have you as a fellow citizen. If you had read the Second Amendment correctly, you would notice that it says, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Notice it doesn't say anything about the militia's right to keep and bear arms. It reserves that right to the people.
And you might also want to research what "regulated" meant in the 1700's. Regulated back then did not mean that they were regulated by the government, but that they were in efficient fighting shape. They had to have tools (i.e. guns) that worked. The state had no control over the militia.
And while you're at it, you also might want to research what they meant by the word "militia". At that time, the militia consisted of any able-bodied male between the ages of 18 to 45. That's it. That's the entire definition. There's nothing else that was present. In order to be a militiaman, you had to be a male between the ages of 18 and 45 who was able-bodied.
Stop being an embarrassment to yourself. Educate yourself, man!
-7
8.
Gun 4 year s ago
@"ZombieDarwin":
It doesn't need an Amendment and not the precise explanation of terms.
The only thing needed is a sense for humanity and a glimpse on facts like "deaths by shootings" or "school-shooter problems", to understand that no private person (!) should have the guaranteed right to carry a gun.
If one want to, it should be heavily monitored and regulated, require a special course as well as theoretical and practical tests, resolving in a time-limited permission.
But hey, what do i know, i'm just from a country where people don't shoot each other, because there are little to no such weapons in private hands. And no, i'm not believing a weapon would help us in case our government would take actions against citicens, because, maybe you heared of it: "military". In case any armed conflict would occur, you and your weapons will be no relevant harm to trained and equipped troops.
But of course you can still believe in that John Rambo thing you're going to do in a worst-case scenario. It's just not gonna happen like this, but keep on believing!
It's up to you, US fellows, how you want to continue with your society! As long as you choose this surely outdated Amandement over the shooter-tragedys you see on a daily basis, just keep going and decimate yourselfes.
I'm fine with that, as well as most parts of the rest of the world.
It doesn't need an Amendment and not the precise explanation of terms.
The only thing needed is a sense for humanity and a glimpse on facts like "deaths by shootings" or "school-shooter problems", to understand that no private person (!) should have the guaranteed right to carry a gun.
If one want to, it should be heavily monitored and regulated, require a special course as well as theoretical and practical tests, resolving in a time-limited permission.
But hey, what do i know, i'm just from a country where people don't shoot each other, because there are little to no such weapons in private hands. And no, i'm not believing a weapon would help us in case our government would take actions against citicens, because, maybe you heared of it: "military". In case any armed conflict would occur, you and your weapons will be no relevant harm to trained and equipped troops.
But of course you can still believe in that John Rambo thing you're going to do in a worst-case scenario. It's just not gonna happen like this, but keep on believing!
It's up to you, US fellows, how you want to continue with your society! As long as you choose this surely outdated Amandement over the shooter-tragedys you see on a daily basis, just keep going and decimate yourselfes.
I'm fine with that, as well as most parts of the rest of the world.
6
9.
ZombieDarwin 4 year s ago
Hey, we're in agreement! We both agree that you don't know what you're talking about! That's amazing!
Why don't you talk to the Vietnamese about fighting trained and equipped troops? I don't recall John Rambo fighting for the Vietnamese, but hey, you know what you're talking about, right?
You should go appreciate being in that sh!thole country that you're in, and be glad that you aren't in America. Just like I'm glad that you're not in America, where we have outdated Amandements (sic) for private persons (!) (although I'm curious, is that different from public persons?). They would certainly be citicens (sic), I'm sure. At least, I heared (sic) that somewhere. It would be a tragedys (sic) to believe otherwise, yourselfes (sic) included.
Come back when you know what you're talking about.
Why don't you talk to the Vietnamese about fighting trained and equipped troops? I don't recall John Rambo fighting for the Vietnamese, but hey, you know what you're talking about, right?
You should go appreciate being in that sh!thole country that you're in, and be glad that you aren't in America. Just like I'm glad that you're not in America, where we have outdated Amandements (sic) for private persons (!) (although I'm curious, is that different from public persons?). They would certainly be citicens (sic), I'm sure. At least, I heared (sic) that somewhere. It would be a tragedys (sic) to believe otherwise, yourselfes (sic) included.
Come back when you know what you're talking about.
1
10.
Tourist 4 year s ago
I'm I the only one who is baffled by the square hamburger bun? #23
1
11.
Bride 4 year s ago
Tourist - That's not a square hamburger bun. That is the McRib sandwich which comes on French roll.
"the passport police" you say...
"A WELL REGULATED MILITIA, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
I'm embarrassed to have you as a fellow citizen. If you had read the Second Amendment correctly, you would notice that it says, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Notice it doesn't say anything about the militia's right to keep and bear arms. It reserves that right to the people.
And you might also want to research what "regulated" meant in the 1700's. Regulated back then did not mean that they were regulated by the government, but that they were in efficient fighting shape. They had to have tools (i.e. guns) that worked. The state had no control over the militia.
And while you're at it, you also might want to research what they meant by the word "militia". At that time, the militia consisted of any able-bodied male between the ages of 18 to 45. That's it. That's the entire definition. There's nothing else that was present. In order to be a militiaman, you had to be a male between the ages of 18 and 45 who was able-bodied.
Stop being an embarrassment to yourself. Educate yourself, man!
It doesn't need an Amendment and not the precise explanation of terms.
The only thing needed is a sense for humanity and a glimpse on facts like "deaths by shootings" or "school-shooter problems", to understand that no private person (!) should have the guaranteed right to carry a gun.
If one want to, it should be heavily monitored and regulated, require a special course as well as theoretical and practical tests, resolving in a time-limited permission.
But hey, what do i know, i'm just from a country where people don't shoot each other, because there are little to no such weapons in private hands. And no, i'm not believing a weapon would help us in case our government would take actions against citicens, because, maybe you heared of it: "military". In case any armed conflict would occur, you and your weapons will be no relevant harm to trained and equipped troops.
But of course you can still believe in that John Rambo thing you're going to do in a worst-case scenario. It's just not gonna happen like this, but keep on believing!
It's up to you, US fellows, how you want to continue with your society! As long as you choose this surely outdated Amandement over the shooter-tragedys you see on a daily basis, just keep going and decimate yourselfes.
I'm fine with that, as well as most parts of the rest of the world.
Why don't you talk to the Vietnamese about fighting trained and equipped troops? I don't recall John Rambo fighting for the Vietnamese, but hey, you know what you're talking about, right?
You should go appreciate being in that sh!thole country that you're in, and be glad that you aren't in America. Just like I'm glad that you're not in America, where we have outdated Amandements (sic) for private persons (!) (although I'm curious, is that different from public persons?). They would certainly be citicens (sic), I'm sure. At least, I heared (sic) that somewhere. It would be a tragedys (sic) to believe otherwise, yourselfes (sic) included.
Come back when you know what you're talking about.