It’s time to ban the AR-15. Come on Congress, grow a pair. There are plenty of guns people can own. People don’t need assault rifles.
Andy Cohen @Andy
Tweeted on June 13, 2016
[Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]
Please define “assault rifle.” Be specific.
By the way, you don’t get to tell me what I “need.” Go EABOD.
Rights. Still not about “need” no matter what the press says.
I’m seeing a trend. Those who wish to possess guns all have tiny penises. Those who are supposed to ban guns, but have not done so already, have no balls. This is troubling, since it would indicate that only those with gun-banning genes would be able to procreate.
You can’t procreate if you have “no balls”, it’s true, but having a tiny penis doesn’t meant you can’t have a lot of offspring.
Well, actually, half the people involved in the process of procreation have no balls.
I’m confused. Run that one by me again …
OK I’ll spell it out;
No balls = no sperm production = no offspring.
That much I believe was established by the science-minded and genetic selection aware Defens.
With a tiny penis (all gun owners, according to Markley’s Law, have tiny penises), and balls (Markley’s Law says nothing about balls so we can assume that gun owners, although we have tiny penises, still have balls – look it up in your local law library), you have sperm production and therefore still have the ability to procreate.
Defense seemed to be saying that neither gun owners (who we all know have tiny penises), nor ball-less (ineffective) gun ban advocates can procreate, that only the gun banners who actually get the job done and therefore clearly are the only human males with balls, can procreate, and that therefore in time there will be only effective gun banners walking the Earth as the rest of us will have died out, being unable to procreate, what with our tiny penises or lack of balls and all, and I disagreed, pointing out that simply having a teeny tiny little penis does not, in and of itself, preclude the production of viable offspring, that while the ball-less gun ban advocates would surely pass on no offspring, the tiny penised gun owners should still do fine in passing on a genetic legacy.
See? Simple.
Maybe you need to have read Charles Darwin’s book, On the Origin of Species to grasp the long term implications to what I’ll call Human Politico-Genetics in Defens’ assertion and my response to that assertion.
Is that simple enough or are you holding out for pictures, videos, diagrams, medical professionals’ opinions, media pundit round table discussions, and statistics tables rendered in fetching CG?
Or did I get it all wrong? Perhaps I misunderestimated Defens’ thesis and I am the one in need of correction.
Oh, I get it; you’re referring to in-vitro fertilization using DNA from regular cells. Very we’ll then. I stand corrected. I hadn’t thought of that. Carry on.
It’s funny how the Marxists want to decide which gun models are OK for criminals’ use.
Yeah, Congress. Grow a pair. Like King George did.
This would hasten things. Probably a good idea; like pulling off a Band-Aid quickly instead of one hair at a time, like they’re doing now.
Pingback: Quote of the day—Bugei | The View From North Central Idaho
In Andy’s ignorant mind the AR-15 is a “WEAPON OF WAR” as the press and Democrats are trying out their latest word to see if it sticks. This one irritates me quite a bit because every firearms design has been used in warfare.
The only ones that we are having any real difficulty in owning are the select fire (i.e. capable of automatic fire) weapons that the idiots in Congress, the POTUS and the press conflate with the lowly semi-automatic AR-15 rifle.
To be extra clear, the AR-15 rifle is NOT a good weapon of war. The design has been surpassed and the people with the real weapons of war are the police and the military with M4s, not most citizens. That is an argument that we should have. Why does the state outgun us when a main purpose of the Second Amendment is to have force parity with the government so that it behaves.
Of course, the whole purpose of the 2nd amendment is to make sure the people have access to weapons of war.