Quote of the day–Asguard

A sniper rifle, a M16 and an automatic hand gun are only designed to kill people, it cant cut your steak or make a nice stew. There is NO legitimate use for them PERIOD.

Asguard
November 10, 2008
Comment to 8 year old murders father and friend…
[Nice proof by vigorous assertion.–Joe]

9 thoughts on “Quote of the day–Asguard

  1. I would wager very good money that an honest-to-God M-16 would be more than capable of cutting a steak. It might take it a few magazines, and you might lose a significant portion of the steak, but it would assuredly be cut.

  2. The M9 bayonet is a fine knife. Attached to the end of my AR15 it will, indeed, cut a steak. It’s not ideal, and very awkward, but it can be done.

  3. Killing people *is* a legitimate use. Such as in self defense, defense of country, or defense of liberty.

  4. There is NO legitimate use for anti rights activists, PERIOD.

    There; I proved it. All I needed were a few capital letters. Maybe I can prove it even further;

    There is NO legitimate use for anti rights activists, PERIOD!!!!

    Add a string of exclamation points and you’re in the money. The science is settled. Don’t be a rights denier.

    And where does anyone, ever, come off installing themselves as chief of the Need Police? I could see it if your kid were asking for the money to buy an M-16, or your employees were asking for a company M-16. Sure; in that case you could question the need– it’s your money. Otherwise it’s none of your stinking business what someone else wants or owns.

    If it’s everyone’s business what Asguard owns or possesses, we could certainly question with equal validity his/her “need” for a computer. Maybe we should demand a “Declaration of Need” before granting permission to possess such a device, with a CLEO signoff requirement on top of it, and we’ll throw in a 200 hundred dollar tax just for good measure. If second amendment rights are to be subject to such tests and encumbrances (dare I say “infringements”) surely the first amendment rights are equally bendable. Or is a right a right after all? Surely we should decide that question before launching into demands for needs testing as a prerequisite for exercising an enumerated right.

    Or is this all about Asguard? Is a right a right only when Asguard personally approves of it? If Asguard hates you, I suppose you have no rights. If Asguard hates what you’re doing, I suppose Asguard should be The One to stop you, so Asguard can feel better. That simple test would certainly be much simpler than our constitution, so it has that much going for it.

  5. I’m not sure which is worse: the complete lack of logic in virtually all of Asguard’s posts, or that you’d never guess he was from an English speaking nation based on his writing.

Comments are closed.