Comments on: Jimmy Carter on assault weapons

By: The Armed Partisan

The Armed Partisan — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 01:48:28 +0000

I saw a bumper sticker the other day with the Obama crest and the words “Welcome Back, Carter!”. Hilarious.

But I think that Jim boy is probably way off base on this one. Seeing as how the constitution provides provision for the protection of the natural right to keep and bear arms and makes no mention of the legitimate existence of police forces, I would say that the killing of government forces under any guise who seek to violate the constitution is legitimate and constitutionally protected.

By: Nathaniel

Nathaniel — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 22:06:57 +0000

Can he really be so clueless about guns that he can own nine of them yet not understand that weapons branded “assault weapons” are not operationally different from common semi-automatic hunting rifles that I’m sure he owns? It never ceases to amaze me how much black guns terrify people, even those who should know better.

By: ObiJohn

ObiJohn — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 20:56:54 +0000

Jimmy Carter is an unfailing indicator of the correct side of any issue… just look to see where he stands and take the opposite side.

By: Nylarthotep

Nylarthotep — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 20:49:17 +0000

Clueless on guns, foreign policy, economics, and reality overall.

Maybe someone should tell him what an idiot he is making of himself.

By: harleycowboy

harleycowboy — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 18:15:27 +0000

I recall Jimmy being ask a question and he said he didn’t know the answer. I knew then we were in trouble.

By: Huck

Huck — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 15:58:32 +0000

Billy had more class than “Jimmah” will ever have.

By: Les Jones

Les Jones — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 15:53:27 +0000

An old-fashioned shotgun is all a fella needs to kill his sister-in-law's cat, as Jimmy found out.

By: Snackeater

Snackeater — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 15:48:17 +0000

If that’s true, then why do the police have them?

By: Mikee

Mikee — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 15:21:25 +0000

Any one vote majority allowing passage of gun control legislation is an irrevocable mandate, good for all time forever amen.

Any one vote majority favoring the human right to self defense is only a temporary condition, to be corrected through any means necessary, as soon as possible.

By: Canthros

Canthros — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 15:17:52 +0000

Geez, I’ve been wondering for months now why I bought that AR. Good to know!

What a tool this guy is.

By: retro

retro — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 15:12:10 +0000

Actually, I always thought they were for the reeducation of wayward and tyranical politicians…

By: harleycowboy

harleycowboy — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 14:53:09 +0000

I guess we’re supposed to defend ourselves with oars.

Can you legally rabbit hunt with one of those?

By: the pistolero

the pistolero — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 14:47:27 +0000

That’s pretty rich coming from someone protected by guards armed with the very rifles he says we shouldn’t be able to own.

By: thirdpower

thirdpower — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 14:40:06 +0000

He’s about a informed on firearms as he was on the economy and military.

Stick to growing peanuts and building houses Jimmy.

By: HTownTejas

HTownTejas — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 14:33:38 +0000

Debunking that filth would be easy but the density of lies would require a long, long post……

By: DADvocate

DADvocate — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 14:07:25 +0000

There is nothing in the Constitution that says your right to bear arms depends upon your reason to for owning arms. Given the historical context of the Constitution, fighting the government was probably the intended reason of our forefathers.

By: chris

chris — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 14:06:42 +0000

Jimmah who?