Piers "Aloe" Morgan. . E Pier: Marga Li' Eh I The End amendment ‘Nae devised with in mind. not high- powered handguns at raryti. Fact. Expanse dumt Hath air. Bi
x
Click to expand

Piers "Aloe" Morgan

E Pier: Marga Li' Eh
I The End amendment ‘Nae devised with in mind. not high-
powered handguns at raryti. Fact.
Expanse
dumt Hath air. Bit
tti: It was devised 4 Home Eh able 2
at same type at used try these tram whem they might
need
Expand
I Flare Morgan ..'spirts. r' Jorgan an
if ika Where exactly dues it say that in the - must
have waded It?
Expand
carat Hath "! p' tth Th
right next to the ward '"
F ' t in Reply " t Favorite
...
  • Recommend tagsx
+1808
Views: 65281
Favorited: 105
Submitted: 12/05/2012
Share On Facebook
Add to favorites submit to reddit

Comments(490):

[ 490 comments ]
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#135 - halfdemon (12/05/2012) [-]
the real problem is that the constitution doesnt really account for assholes. lots and lots of assholes.
User avatar #235 to #135 - slowyourtroll (12/05/2012) [-]
just like peirs morgan
#141 to #135 - aviatrix (12/05/2012) [-]
God that's brilliant.  I might quote that at some point.
God that's brilliant. I might quote that at some point.
User avatar #19 - dirtybadger (12/05/2012) [-]
just putting it out so no english people look stupid, NO ONE in england likes him that's why he is never on TV here, but he is on some american shows from what i've heard? so he's not our responsibility
User avatar #32 to #19 - sketchE ONLINE (12/05/2012) [-]
i think penn (penn and teller) was invited onto his show once to talk about his book "God No". morgan then spent most of the interview insulting him about being atheist
#6 - newall (12/05/2012) [-]
just putting it out there:

piers morgan is a douche, no-one likes him, that's why he's barely on TV in england anymore. he's essentially a waste of a human and is famous for no discernible reason.

most scientists agree than 98% of everything that comes out of piers morgan's mouth should be ignored, the remaining 2% is anything he's said that's so retarded it's worth remembering just to remind everyone how ******* stupid he is.
0
#10 to #6 - doctorlean **User deleted account** Comment deleted by Abandoned [-]
User avatar #60 to #6 - pottie (12/05/2012) [-]
here here ole chap!!
#22 to #6 - jedplum (12/05/2012) [-]
the one reason he is famous is because he was the editor of the daily mirror when it was tied up with the phone hacking allegations about paul mccartney and heather mills. this in turn lead to the more recent News Internation "Murdochgate".

Basically, he's famous for being a cunt
#44 - ireallylikepotatoe ONLINE (12/05/2012) [-]
We're sorry for him.
#250 - Keavy (12/05/2012) [-]
I despise Piers Morgan. He's a talentless immoral twat and his rise to 'celebrity' is as baffling as it is infuriating. He used to work for a few British papers where he allowed phone-hacking of anyone involved in news stories (ie, the parents of a murdered child) and was eventually fired when it was found he'd staged pictures for a fake story in order to get more attention. As his punishment, he... became a judge on Britain's Got Talent and later America's Got Talent, got his own talk show in America and a different one in the UK, and he won Celebrity Apprentice.

Justin Bieber might make bad music and Stephanie Meyer wrote some trash, but Piers Morgan is one of the few celebrities these days who's a genuinely despicable scumbag.
User avatar #439 to #250 - RisenLichen ONLINE (12/06/2012) [-]
On a side note, Stephanie Meyer wrote another book and i heard it was a lot better than her twilight saga. The Host i think its called.
#252 to #250 - wallsbad (12/05/2012) [-]
You worded that beautifully. I also 			*******		 despise him, as a celebrity, and a human being.
You worded that beautifully. I also ******* despise him, as a celebrity, and a human being.
#226 - jbur (12/05/2012) [-]
ohhhhhhh
#301 - killyojoy (12/05/2012) [-]
Gun laws there to stop criminals from getting guns because criminals follow laws.   
Gif unrelated.
Gun laws there to stop criminals from getting guns because criminals follow laws.
Gif unrelated.
User avatar #11 - tehfrogg (12/05/2012) [-]
Lol even though she used text lingo, I'm pretty sure her statement was grammatically correct...
#251 - wallsbad (12/05/2012) [-]
>mfw when the authors of the constitution were like, " **** , you know, we gotta make this flexible, for the future and **** , because, times are gonna change." And then they did, and they ******* apply to no matter what type of weapon.
#410 to #251 - stripeygreenhat (12/05/2012) [-]
Yes, because everyone should get to own nuclear war heads in their basement.
User avatar #309 to #251 - cullenatorguy (12/05/2012) [-]
Because I need my minigun to defend myself.
#366 to #309 - Rascal (12/05/2012) [-]
Where's the line between what you need and don't need? And what's wrong with purchasing guns out of "want" rather than "need"? Maybe I want a single shot 20 mm anti-material rifle because it would be fun to shoot, just like you don't need a sports car but it'd be fun to drive.
User avatar #370 to #366 - cullenatorguy (12/05/2012) [-]
But if I'm getting robbed, I need my minigun to defend myself. Who's to say what I want and what I need?
User avatar #371 to #370 - cullenatorguy (12/05/2012) [-]
/sarcasm/
User avatar #508 to #309 - wallsbad (12/06/2012) [-]
There's 6 miniguns legal for purchase in the United States. If you can afford one, you are constitutionally protected to protect yourself with it. Granted, it would be very hard to carry around, so a nice guard tower at your house would make due.
User avatar #193 - kievaughnb (12/05/2012) [-]
I have the same birthday as Piers

I feel dirty now
#46 - DweebyTwonkyHead (12/05/2012) [-]
Poor Americans having to suffer this twat!

Your Scottish cousin.
User avatar #89 to #46 - fallenpatriot (12/05/2012) [-]
What are the gun laws like there in Scotland?
User avatar #126 to #89 - sevensixtwo (12/05/2012) [-]
Insane. Nazi-germany grade gun laws.
#132 to #89 - sirthomasburr (12/05/2012) [-]
I'm in England, but they're the same in Scotland too: really really strict. Seriously, you need a locked weapons cabinet on one side of the house, a locked ammunition cabinet on the other side of the house, there's a sea of checks and we can only use them in specific areas. Kinda sucks.
User avatar #256 - JuliusC (12/05/2012) [-]
Bitch your from England, what do you care?
User avatar #12 - neonblackkitty (12/05/2012) [-]
A WELL REGULATED MILITIA, BEING NECESSARY to the SECURITY of a FREE STATE, AND the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE to KEEP and BEAR ARMS, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

I mean.. every word is important... the 2nd was not written with muskets in mind... it was written with freedom in mind. My AR-15 is a ******* god given symbol of that freedom.
0
#13 to #12 - doctorlean **User deleted account** Comment deleted by Abandoned [-]
#85 to #12 - Rascal (12/05/2012) [-]
But I thought america was a free state? Oh better get your guns then.
User avatar #90 to #12 - Crusader (12/05/2012) [-]
It can be interpreted as only militia's should have them
or
A militia is a good reason to have them.
User avatar #106 to #90 - neonblackkitty (12/05/2012) [-]
look into Supreme court "Heller" decision - the 2nd is an INDIVIDUAL right
#95 to #90 - rockduhhouse (12/05/2012) [-]
The second half of that says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." I don't think it meant only militia.
User avatar #171 to #95 - Chuckaholic (12/05/2012) [-]
>Implying the right to bear arms is about guns and not the right to be in possession of a bear's arms.
0
#351 to #12 - killakahn has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #23 to #12 - Onemanretardpack (12/05/2012) [-]
It brings me great shame that any group of citizens would not be able to uproot any government that does not work for the will of the people and not infringe on individual liberties and states rights, as stated in our CONSTITUTION.
User avatar #14 to #12 - profarnsworth (12/05/2012) [-]
I want to start a ******* militia now!
+7
#18 to #14 - doctorlean **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #20 to #18 - natedizzie (12/05/2012) [-]
IGotThatReference.jpg
0
#93 to #20 - doctorlean **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #27 to #12 - durkadurka (12/05/2012) [-]
Exactly right. Our founders foresaw a need for us to be able to repeat what they did to the crown. How else are we supposed to get rid of a government that seeks to remove our rights?

Every law-abiding citizen should own a weapon, even if it just sits in a gun locker and is never used.
#304 to #12 - Rascal (12/05/2012) [-]
Your country was built upon slavery, genocide and the removal of others' human rights; yet you spout this ******** about freedom.
#363 to #304 - Rascal (12/05/2012) [-]
^history of every nation. prick.
#516 to #363 - Rascal (12/07/2012) [-]
But we don't spout the word "freedom" into every ******* sentence we say. In other words: you're being hypocrites, we're not, because we know we're not innocent.

Is it too hard to get through to your thick skull? Is it all the "freedom" blocking it?
User avatar #422 to #363 - awesomenessdefined (12/05/2012) [-]
Not Canada. or Pakistan.
User avatar #485 to #422 - retardedboss ONLINE (12/06/2012) [-]
haha, Pakistan, that's a good one. Do you even know how Pakistan was formed and all the riots and killing it lead to? ******* Gandhi was killed because he supported the partition. So maybe no genocide or slavery, but most certainly not a shining example.
User avatar #489 to #485 - awesomenessdefined (12/06/2012) [-]
Pakistan did it with politics. The riots and killing were Indians that killed Pakistanis and Gandhi was killed years after Pakistan and India separated. And compared to the US, it really is a shining example.
User avatar #492 to #489 - retardedboss ONLINE (12/06/2012) [-]
There was killing on both sides. And yeah Gandhi was killed (albeit by a Hindu extremist) after, but it was ultimately because of Pakistan. M point is that no secession is pretty. Canada never seceded from anything (as far as i know, which admittedly isn't much about Canada), and Pakistan's founding was as bloody as Americas.
User avatar #498 to #492 - awesomenessdefined (12/06/2012) [-]
Oh, c'mon. How do you believe that? Pakistanis didn't have the power to attack anyone, there was one city in all of Pakistan with more than 100,000 people in 1947. And Gandhi wasn't killed because of Pakistan, he was killed because he tried to help Pakistan. It would be like saying that Hitler was killed because of the Nazis.
But the thing about Pakistan's founding was that we didn't need a war. We didn't attack anyone, we just tried to leave and people attacked us. It may have been bloody, but it was our blood.
User avatar #506 to #498 - retardedboss ONLINE (12/06/2012) [-]
I can see now that you are using "we" so I think it's safe to assume you're Pakistani. I don't mean to offend you, but saying that the blood is only on India is simply not true. But this is a touchy subject especially with someone from either side of the topic. It's like trying to talk to an Israeli about how Palestine has some valid points.
User avatar #368 to #12 - uncalledforgiraffe (12/05/2012) [-]
Militia. When I think of that word I think of a group of civilians fighting off an invading country, not one guy shooting another in the street because he felt threatened or wanted his wallet. You by yourself is no militia. When they wrote that amendment they had the idea of war in mind.
User avatar #408 to #368 - toxicdisorder (12/05/2012) [-]
I enjoy your profile picture.
User avatar #458 to #368 - breakfastlunch (12/06/2012) [-]
The National Guard is the "militia" in modern America. The world has changed, and the words to describe it have changed, but the National Guard has removed the need for a militia.
User avatar #509 to #458 - neonblackkitty (12/06/2012) [-]
The national guard wasn't even conceived until like 170 years AFTER the constitution bro
User avatar #513 to #509 - breakfastlunch (12/06/2012) [-]
If you read my comment, I was saying that today's militia is the National Guard, not that the militia back then was the National Guard. Your comment only serves to emphasize my point.
User avatar #515 to #513 - neonblackkitty (12/07/2012) [-]
it does not. The purpose of Militia is COMPLETELY different than the purpose of the National Guard
User avatar #517 to #368 - neonblackkitty (12/08/2012) [-]
I don't consider myself "A militia"

I am, however, a part of the Militia. And being a Former Marine with 6 years of active combat duty, who regularly trains with various agencies nationwide... I consider myself an active part of that Militia.
#21 to #12 - intrepidy (12/05/2012) [-]
I'm fairly sure the USA and the constitution were both man made. Same with the AR-15. So its your ******* mankind given symbol.
User avatar #28 to #21 - durkadurka (12/05/2012) [-]
The rights in the Constitution's Bill of Rights are God-given or Natural rights. In other words, they are rights inherent with being a human being. No person or government grants them.
User avatar #108 to #28 - neonblackkitty (12/05/2012) [-]
you are correct. (god, creator, whatever) However I MEANT to say "My AR-15 is a symbol of my god given freedom" not the way I ended up typing... I was rushing my response
User avatar #228 to #108 - durkadurka (12/05/2012) [-]
I fully understand. I was merely responding to the other guy's insistence that the government gives us our rights.
User avatar #54 to #28 - facedodge (12/05/2012) [-]
If man can grant rights, man can take them away. Our rights are must be undeniable.
#67 to #28 - intrepidy (12/05/2012) [-]
Well see that is quite a lot of rubbish, God can't give something that man created. There are no "rights" inherent to a human being except the rights we as a species have given ourselves and it took a bloody long time to come up with it. Don't dilute our achievements.

And yes, a government does grant them. God didn't say "thou shall have guns and the right to say what you want" You can't waltz into another country with an AR-15 and it isn't a right to own a gun anywhere but America in a state constitution. (A state is a man made creation)
User avatar #104 to #67 - neonblackkitty (12/05/2012) [-]
in the constitution it states we have certain rights given by our creator. Now I no christian... but neither were our founders. What they meant was whatever created us, evolution, god, whatever - we have rights that no man can give or take away... that's what I meant by that.
User avatar #227 to #67 - durkadurka (12/05/2012) [-]
I don't think you understand the concept of a basic human right. The rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness for example, are things that every person has (or should if were it not for oppressive governments). There are core rights that are inherent to being a human being, more commonly known today as human rights. (Side note: Religious people refer to these rights as "God-given because they believe God to be our creator. As a result, God would be the root of those rights)

The Bill of Rights seeks to put our natural rights in the context of law. The Second Amendment for example, is based off of the right of a person to defend himself.

And no, these rights are NOT given to us by the government. They CANNOT be given by the government because that means the government can also take them away. They cannot. (They do not go away in the sense that even if the government violates them, I still have those rights). The notion that all rights are given by the ever-so-gracious government would mean that the government are our rulers. This is not the case. The government (in the US at least), exists most basically to protect our rights via law and national defense. THEY work for US (or are supposed to). government FOR the people, OF the people, and BY the people. I understand if you don't grasp these concepts. The tradition and culture of liberty is not as strong in other places as it is here.

I recommend reading these:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights
http://www.crf-usa.org/foundations-of-our-constitution/natural-rights.html
You need to login to view this link
User avatar #289 to #227 - TastyBurger (12/05/2012) [-]
I don't personally believe we have ANY "rights". We don't deserve anything. Not the right to be happy. Not the right to have or do anything. We can earn those, but nothing is absolute. Human rights are something created by humans to benefit humans, but it isn't a natural right, because there are none. It's pretty arrogant and selfish to think you deserve something in this world. Give me one good reason why you or any body deserves to be happy or to deserve "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

I'm not trying to say you're wrong when it comes to constitutional rights or government given rights, but I don't think that we deserve anything just because we exist.
User avatar #296 to #289 - durkadurka (12/05/2012) [-]
How is that arrogant? You have a right to live. You have a right to make your own choices. You have a right to try and be happy. We deserve these things because they define humanity. Every person on this planet, who has existed, does exist, or will exist, all pursue those three things as unceasingly as they pursue food, water, and oxygen.



Question: If we're both on a deserted island, is it okay for me to kill you?
User avatar #306 to #296 - TastyBurger (12/05/2012) [-]
It doesn't seem arrogant to you because you're a human. Humanity is arrogance of our species. To think that we're important because we say so is ridiculous. We created these "rights" to better help ourselves live and survive. They're not natural. And they are only important to us. In fact, just to survive, we have to rely on the death of another. But they don't matter because they aren't humans. The need to feed and breathe aren't rights, they're something that we do to survive, but it doesn't mean that it's good. What I mean is, we're only important to us. We only make these rights to satisfy US. These rights don't exist. They're just an idea.

What I mean is, its arrogant to believe we should have the right to live, because that implies we all deserve to live. We don't. Give me a reason why humanity should exist on this planet, or better yet, a reason why anything should exist at all. Then, they will "deserve" to exist.

And an even better question: If we were ANYWHERE, is it bad to kill me? Is it bad to kill anything?
User avatar #342 to #306 - durkadurka (12/05/2012) [-]
You're trying to rationalize your position by broadening to a topic with no definitive answer. The reason for our existence is likely beyond our comprehension. But enough of that, it's beside the point.

There is nothing arrogant about wanting to do what were are naturally inclined to do. It is a right because it is the natural order of things. The fact that man discusses these concepts and creates ideas around them does not make it any less natural. Talking about and theorizing about physics or math does not make either man made. The manner in which we define and legislate our rights is just a human way of reinforcing natural order.

Saying something does not exist yet is an idea is contradiction.
You imply that some (if not all) deserve to die. Why?

#466 to #342 - cartridge (12/06/2012) [-]
durkadurka, I think this may help you understand TastyBurger's point, as having friends like this I think this is where he is coming from: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_nihilism   
   
But TastyBurger feel free to correct me if I'm wrong about this.    
And the pic was my thoughts on seeing this discussion.
durkadurka, I think this may help you understand TastyBurger's point, as having friends like this I think this is where he is coming from: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_nihilism

But TastyBurger feel free to correct me if I'm wrong about this.
And the pic was my thoughts on seeing this discussion.
User avatar #491 to #466 - TastyBurger (12/06/2012) [-]
What I'm saying does employ a lot moral nihilism, but not completely. I'm really interested in meta-physics, meta-psychology, meta-ethics. Pretty much anything thing meta and beyond.

I hope that pun lands.
User avatar #389 to #342 - TastyBurger (12/05/2012) [-]
I'm trying to broaden the topic because you're focusing on one small part from one single perspective of a much bigger thing. We're insignificant. Our view about what we deserve based on what we want isn't going to be what actually is. What I'm trying to get across to you is that everything is justifiable, and our "rights" only exist because we're trying to justify our own existence. Of course we want ourselves to live. It's only natural to try to survive. It's still not a "right".

And both math and physics are both theory and take place in an imaginary world. They're man made concepts that exist in a hypothetical place. 2 + 3 = 5 in theory, but in the natural world where nothing is absolute, 2 + 3 ≈ 5. Since there are so many variables in the real world, math and physics don't work 100%. There is no one answer to any question in the real world. We as humans think there SHOULD be an answer, but there isn't. Because the concept of a question and answer are both man made.

Also, its not a contradiction to say an idea doesn't exist, because it doesn't. The idea of ninja death laser robots exist, but ninja death laser robots don't. And contradictions are evidently natural anyways. They're present in basically every aspect of life.

And I'm not implying that some or all deserve to die or even live for that matter. I'm SAYING that its neither. Why DO they? You still have given me a reason why you or anyone deserve life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
#431 to #389 - freeyourmind (12/06/2012) [-]
paragraph
User avatar #436 to #431 - MrMouz (12/06/2012) [-]
reply paragraph
User avatar #510 to #389 - durkadurka (12/06/2012) [-]
I'm fully aware that I'm focusing on a certain level and not looking at the absolute big picture. I think it's rather detrimental to look at things from that perspective all of the time. From that mindset you can say anything is okay, and nothing matters. And if you look at us compared against the universe, nothing we do does matter. We are insignificant at this scale. But this perspective serves as nothing but an interesting thought. We cannot live our lives thinking from that perspective. If I spent all of my time thinking about things this way, I wouldn't do anything with my life because in the end it is truly pointless. The universe does not care about us, so why should we care about it? Is it really that selfish to be concerned with ourselves when everything else is indifferent? It is only a natural state of mind and beyond our control.

The same goes for math, physics, biology, chemistry, etc. Those things are 100% accurate (as long as our understanding is correct). Everything that happens can be explained by physics and math at a root level. The universe is governed by laws and they can never be broken. We may not understand everything, but that does not make this truth to be anything less.

At its root, any idea that enters your mind is a result of atomic changes occurring your brain. So in a sense, every idea exists because it has a physical manifestation of some definable magnitude.

We, as a species, have been trying to determine why we exist for as long as we've existed. There IS an answer, for every effect there is always a cause. We do not know what this "cause" is and may never know; it could very well be beyond our mental capacity or understanding.

We've been dealt a hand; We deserve to play it.

On a side note: I've really enjoyed this conversation. Usually debates on here degrade to insult-throwing, but this has been intellectually-satisfying and thought-provoking. Thanks.
User avatar #221 - Smidgit (12/05/2012) [-]
oh do **** off piers morgan you useless english twatbag
User avatar #8 - slone (12/05/2012) [-]
she does raise a valid point though
User avatar #242 to #8 - maxismahname (12/05/2012) [-]
isn't that what this post is about? that she's right? but they're both stupid cunts because she can't spell and he's a dumbass.
#313 - infested (12/05/2012) [-]
2nd Amendment doesn't apply to rifles because they weren't invented at the time

1st Amendment doesn't apply to internet because internet wasn't there at the time

Brilliant
User avatar #347 to #313 - sourhead (12/05/2012) [-]
The 1st amendment doesn't apply to TV because it wasn't around
User avatar #334 to #313 - CRosBY (12/05/2012) [-]
Rifles have been around since the mid 15th century.
#340 to #334 - infested (12/05/2012) [-]
I was talking about the high powered ones mentioned in the post, as opposed to muskets
#390 to #340 - ogloko (12/05/2012) [-]
"rifle" refers to grooves cut into the inside of the barrel. a musket was smoothbore, or groove less, to make it easier and faster to reload. there were plenty of high powered flintlock rifles at the time the constitution was written
#392 to #390 - infested (12/05/2012) [-]
Learn something new every day I guess
#152 - babyweewee (12/05/2012) [-]
Why does this man exist.. Everyone in the UK thinks he is a cunt. Wish we could just sell his body parts off to some witch doctor tribe to earn a bit of cash. At least that way the prick could help the economy and would have accomplished something. How about it?
Why does this man exist.. Everyone in the UK thinks he is a cunt. Wish we could just sell his body parts off to some witch doctor tribe to earn a bit of cash. At least that way the prick could help the economy and would have accomplished something. How about it?
User avatar #205 to #152 - notsixroller (12/05/2012) [-]
I'm not quite sure that is the right application for that gif... but still, you have a point...

Although him existing is good test for my tolerances. If I can suffer him and the like, what can I not tolerate?
#170 to #152 - itsyourkidsmarty (12/05/2012) [-]
Is he even liked in America?
#204 to #170 - omgroflzomg (12/05/2012) [-]
Unforunately, yes.
Unforunately, yes.
#299 to #204 - itsyourkidsmarty (12/05/2012) [-]
But......just.......How?
#478 to #299 - riceronijabrony (12/06/2012) [-]
He has a British Accent. (Women love that)
He's a liberal. (America's Left Wing Media loves that)



Here a picture of when I went to New York....
#476 to #299 - cartridge (12/06/2012) [-]
I personally like him as a source of humour. I think the above is funny in a twisted way.

<-- MFW people say I'm wrong or immoral for not taking offence at such things.
+10
#278 - abcdoremi **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#287 to #278 - Rascal (12/05/2012) [-]
You could say it like that, but then again... There are so many less shootings in England than 'murica.
User avatar #290 to #287 - xuvious (12/05/2012) [-]
but so many more stabbings
#293 to #290 - Rascal (12/05/2012) [-]
Rly? More stabbings? how so? Why dont those criminals use illegal guns, as op said? (btw ignore the fact that most harm is done by idiots who dont know how to handle their gun) Is it maybe...because...even for criminals its harder to get guns? Oh no wait, this wont work in AMERUCAA cause u guys have like 20 of them per person so even if u make them illegal there are so many of them, it still would be a problem. And why is that? Oh yeah, cause of "defending" yourself and **** . Sure buddy. No idea how countries like germany can handle that harsh world without guns.
User avatar #297 to #293 - Yardie (12/05/2012) [-]
Gun laws have existed for a long time in England. Nobody even had guns to hide when the laws were put in place. You're obviously trolling at this point though so there's no reason to even try to argue with you. Make one valid point without being blatantly retarded and I might consider responding.
User avatar #295 to #287 - Yardie (12/05/2012) [-]
You're more likely to be stabbed in England than you are to even have a gun pointed at you in 'murrica. Check, your move.
#502 - thecapnjake (12/06/2012) [-]
So... I'm a 5'6'' skinny college student who works nights at a hotel. I enjoy my job, and I put in a lot of hours to pay my bills, keep my head above water, and help support my aging and permanently disabled father. I pay my taxes, I volunteer in my community, I donate to charity, and I am not a psychopath. A few months ago, my hotel rented several rooms to a large group of older bikers. One of them, who was belligerently drunk, bought a regular guest of ours a case of beer. Obviously, with the intention of getting with her for the night. After he bought it, she promptly told him, "Goodnight!" and locked herself in her room. But not before pausing at the front desk while I was doing paperwork to tell me goodnight and call me by my first name. This infuriated the drunk biker, as he thought she was a close friend of mine and running some kind of free beer scam (he was a drunk moron after all). Before I even had much of a chance to look up from my paperwork, this 6' 5'' drunk maniac had ran into the lobby and gotten an iron grip around my throat. He looked me dead in the eye, and told me that he'd kill me for helping "that slut" to "play him like a fool". He tightened his grip, and I could tell that he meant it.

I did not kill him, as I didn't want to fire in the lobby unless I absolutely had to, but me drawing my firearm was sure as hell enough to make him take off running out of the front door. If I had not had my 9mm tucked into my waistband, I'm pretty confident that I would not be typing this today.

Therefore, I am now of the opinion that gun control laws are complete and utter ******** .

tl;dr mfw FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS!


-2
#505 to #502 - doctorlean **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
[ 490 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)