Choose Your Own Adventure: Coco’s Ass or F-cking Idiot Who Thinks We Have Right To Shoot Politicians

December 18th, 2012 // 76 Comments
Chief Meteorologist
Coco Cleavage Hurricane Sandy
Apparently Those Things Get Doppler Read More »

Here’s the deal, folks, we’re in the final shopping week before Christmas and on the heels of a major tragedy that has surprisingly, at least for now and at a horrible price, sparked an open discussion about how fucked up gun culture is in America that I’ve been completely glued to, which is another way too big bread of a crumb into my personal life. Anyway, there’s not a whole lot happening unless you want to hear Megan Fox act like she’s the first woman to ever give birth. But before I cave and start talking about Newtown, here’s Coco‘s ass replacing Holly Madison in Peep Show which I encourage you to get lost in if you don’t want to talk politics. (And, yes, I realize the irony in Ice-T being an open gun enthusiast who probably has a vast arsenal crammed up there, but as my grandfather always said, “Never bring your brain to an assplay.”)

They gone? Okay, grown up time. Below you’ll find Larry Pratt, the executive director of Gun Owners of America literally advocating in wake of the Newtown massacre that the 2nd amendment gives Americans the right to assassinate democratically elected officials if they don’t agree with them which is why we should never have gun control in this country. Remarkably, he says this while next to the most cordial ATF agent I’ve ever seen in my life who mostly just sits there smiling and thinking, “Old man if we want your shit, we’ll come get your shit. Just watch,” whereas I would’ve frightened Larry by telling him his daughter’s dating a colored fellow until he pooped Geritol. That’s just me. Anyway, watch, and try not to have your head explode at the fucking chaos that’s going to come from trying to rein in these people who think you should have the right to gun down public servants because they passed a leash law. It really makes you hope Quetzalcoatl does show up on Friday. (Do you think he likes Pepperidge Farm cookies? I’m putting out Pepperidge Farm cookies.)

Photos: Getty, Pacific Coast News, WENN


  1. rantatonne

    Analysis: Fewer U.S. gun owners own more guns

    A decreasing number of American gun owners own two-thirds of the nation’s guns and as many as one-third of the guns on the planet — even though they account for less than 1% of the world’s population, according to a CNN analysis of gun ownership data.

    This is form a CNN report, though i do not doubt its accuracy, thinking about it makes the mind boggle. There are countries in all out war, China has close to a third of the words population but still a 3rd of the worlds guns owned by American civilians. Counting the other 3rd of American owned guns (military and law enforcement) then we are talking about maybe half the guns in the world are in America.

    At one time Slavery made sense in the world at large and in America, that time passed. i think its time to reevaluate the situation. America should, and can, be better than this.

    • Griefer

      With that many guns in circulation, there is no practical solution for confiscating guns other than searching every home in America and nobody is for that.

  2. Ha! Larry Pratt. I remember back in 1996 how he co-chaired Pat Buchanan’s campaign, but then resigned when it came out that he routinely spoke at right-wing rallies alongside neo-Nazis and Klansmen. Oh, and he’s also credited with starting that whole militia movement, if you remember that. You’d think he would have been marginalized out of mainstream political existence after that, but no.

    And if you’re wondering why we need a Gun Owners of America AND a National Rifle Association? Pratt founded G.O.A. because he thought the NRA was too pansy-ass on gun control. The NRA. Too pansy-ass.

  3. Didn’t Chris Rock say basically, screw gun control, we need BULLET control?
    That’s it right there! Nothing in the 2nd Amendment about your right to bullets, so make it tougher to get them and you might control some of this lunacy.

    Look, I’m a gun owner, but these NRA nutjobs are out of their freaking minds. They all have these goddamn Red Dawn fantasies about how they will “save’ our country.
    Well, look, how would this old bastard feel if a bunch of brown people, armed with AR-15′s, decided it was time to refresh the tree of Liberty??? Hell, The Black Panthers had guns in the ’60′s and look how White people reacted then. you see, only White folks get to decide when it’s OK to overthrow their government patriotically.

    • JC

      I’ve heard it argued that since the 2nd protects “arms” instead of “guns,” that means that it protects any armament, including bullets/shells/other ammo. I’m not arguing that position, mind you, just throwing it out there.

      I also know that a lot of hunters I grew up around made some or all of their own ammo, either because they wanted to customize their loads and/or because it was cheaper, so I wonder how much ammo control would help. I suppose it could stop someone from going on an unplanned spree killing if they had to sit and make their own ammo, but I don’t know what percentage of these incidents are planned vs. not.

      • The distinction between ammunition and arms i guess would have to be settled by the courts. I would assume that powder, casings and primers would be controlled as well as the finished product, cartridges. I don’t know how, maybe put a limit on how much you buy? Another round of background checks maybe.

    • Zombie Charlton Heston

      Bullets don’t kill people, leaky HOLES kill people. Outlaw leaky holes!

  4. Tronald Dump

    Brown people are too busy shooting each other for that kind of thing.

  5. Coco Butt Bikini Peepshow Vegas
    Shitpickle McPooplover
    Commented on this photo:

    I have to wonder, being a fan of the anal sex, how often IceT gets to cum in that butthole?
    Any ol’ time he wants?
    Does she actively grip ihis cock with her asshole or just relax and let him thrust away?
    Does he get to double dip her?
    These are the questions that matter to me.

  6. Coco Butt Bikini Peepshow Vegas
    Deacon Jones
    Commented on this photo:

    I was banging a girl in college that let me, and man, that is more addictive than just about anything.

  7. Coco Butt Bikini Peepshow Vegas
    Deacon Jones
    Commented on this photo:

    Yes, yes I would

  8. Coco Butt Bikini Peepshow Vegas
    Commented on this photo:

    Performing? what exactly is she performing?

  9. nothing

    I love you Fish

  10. Coco Butt Bikini Peepshow Vegas
    The Royal Penis
    Commented on this photo:

    Jesus, it’s a man with butt implants now.

    I’m not even sure I could do the deed with a bag over its head.

  11. Dick Hell

    Unfortunately all the recent ‘discussion’ is just kabuki. It only seems like something has changed because until last week even kabuki was off the table, however there’s not a gun-control bill in the universe that could possibly pass both the House and Senate.

  12. SIN

    Only ass kissing liberals want to get rid of guns.

  13. JustMe

    I love this lady but it is over for her. She has not taken care of herself and has resorted to maaaadddd plastic surgery. She looks horrible, nice from far but up close, this woman is a mess. Her boobs just look awful and painful and the blotched stomach lipo makes her look lazy and cheap. And her overly botoxed face is just blah. Ratty fake blonde hair, ugly ass implants, mess, mess, mess.
    We are the same age and she looks a good 15 years older than I do, not hating, just saying.
    Very sad.

  14. Coco Butt Bikini Peepshow Vegas
    Dick Smokehand
    Commented on this photo:

    The only thing in that butt is meat. Meat and disaster.

  15. stratacat

    i think it’s safe to say from both the facts surrounding the tragedy and this video, that we need to have better access to mental healthcare in this country. there’s a whole lot more batshit people out there today than in 1789. having less guns or less access to guns isn’t going to decrease the amount of cray-crays running rampant.

    • There are also WAAAY more huge-assed women now than in 1789. You think there may be a corollary between mass gun violence and huge-assed women??

    • Alexis

      More people are shooting off because theyre fucking nuts and would go after small children with a meat cleaver if no gun was at hand. Large assed women, on the other hand, tend to take men to another place. Hopefully a more peaceful, benevolent place. If large assed women don’t do the trick, lets try small assed women, or tits, or legs – for those guys who swing in the other directin, photos of John Hamm’s penis…

  16. ThisWillHurt

    Of course we need guns in this country! How else are we going to defend ourselves from other people with guns? You might be saying, “If you take away ALL the guns, no one will need a gun to defend themselves.” Well . . . uh . . . Lookit Coco’s tits and ass!

  17. Arlene

    The fact of the matter is, if we had responsible gun owners and laws keeping guns out of the hands of nuts, it would cut down on a lot of the violence. I mean, at the risk of demonizing one of the victims of this tragedy, who fucking takes thier kid out target shooting when they KNOW FULL WELL that kid has mental health issues (I’m thinking schizonphrenia). Jesus Christ, is anyone in the shooters family really shocked? Did you see pictures of that weirdo? I wouldn’t leave him alone with my worse enemy, let alone put a loaded assault weapon in his hands at the shooting range.

    I don’t know, but here’s an idea: When your kid has an obvious mental health problem, why not take them in for some treatment, instead of teaching them how to load a 20 round clip on a gun range. Because judging by that little freaks stare into the camera, that kind of action isn’t going to end well.

    • Also, she had a responsibility to lock up those guns. As far as I know, they were HERS, not his. Get a gun safe and/or trigger locks for god’s sake!

    • KC

      The guy that babysat Adam Lanza said that the mother told him to never turn his back on Adam or to even go to the bathroom. So naturally ten years later she thought it would be a good idea to teach her son how to shoot and to keep a semi-automatic rifle in the house. (And not in a gun safe as far as we know.)

      • Gun safe, my ass. “We have a gun safe!” the parents whine, secure in the absolute certainty that 1) ther kids may have, uh, “issues”- but they certainly aren’t killers and 2) their kids could never figure out the code or find the key to get their hands on their weapons anyway. Pshaw. Oh no. Their faith is mispaced at the very least. These people are also the ones who whine about how they never could have predicted the kid that they raised could have done this, it had to be (fill in the malign influence of your choice) that made them “snap” or set them off, so hindsight certainly has nothing to teach them.

        Either sell the arsenal or put them in a fucking safe deposit box, but to keep pistols and a semi-automatic in your house because you fear the economy will melt down in the next 15 seconds and you’ll need them and your ammo stockpile to mow down your neighbors to get milk at the 7-11 is what’s fucked up here, and what’s wrong with survivalists in general.

      • KC

        I’m not arguing with you at all, if you have a mentally unstable person living in your house then you should lock up the knives and not even think about bringing a gun into the house. And I’m not arguing with you about survivalists either. They’re nuts and you’re not going to convince them to not own guns even it’s glaringly obvious that they shouldn’t. I’m just saying that if she was going to own guns then a gun safe would have at least been a half assed attempt to keep him from accessing them.

        For all we know she did keep them locked up and he figured out that she hid the key under her pillow.

      • It’s mind-boggling – according to the babysitter his mother is claiming no one should turn their back on the kid, but she somehow figures that if she takes the kid out to the shooting range this will somehow give her immunity or else prevent her kid from putitng his hands on her gun in the home? Seriously, survivalists are nucking futs. Look, Sandy Hook is a small community – and at some point when she was amassing those three guns, this woman actually envisioned she would be using those weapons against people she knew. With a mindset like that, I actually find it fitting that she took the first four shots. Unfortunately, she left it to others to pay the rest of her freight. And isn’t that always the way it goes?

        What’s equally mind-boggling to me is that this isn’t someone who took out all his rage on mom or the kids in HS who either did bully him – or would have bullied him if mom hadn’t home-schooled him – he deliberately went after little kids, who were strangers, who had done absolutely nothing to him, and worse, were too young to even grasp what “dead” means before they met the reality of it.

  18. Moo Cow Hunter

    It was amusing to watch Pratt trying to defend an unwinnable position by refering to 200 year old events. But he probably did win against the people who wanted to give him his medicine. I assume guns were involved in that too.

  19. Employee

    Chris Mathews is a cunt

  20. The ATF lost four agents going after some Jesus freaks in Waco and lost two others going after a family at Ruby Ridge when they tried. Then Timothy McVeigh responded by killing 168 people at the Federal building in OKC. So the “well come and take your shit” sounds good, but plays out less well. And that was the ATF picking off the low hanging fruit. Wait until they try that with Iraq/ Afghan war vets. Be very careful what you wish for.

  21. There’s just nothing like starting the day with a couple of cups of total insanity!

  22. Coco Butt Bikini Peepshow Vegas
    Commented on this photo:

    what is serena williams doing there?

  23. Jack Ketch

    That huge, lantern jaw scares me.

  24. Edvard Munch

    Yeah, I saw this last night. But this nutjob isn’y alone. He has a lot of tools that back him and believe the same thing. I actually think that guy is mentatlly ill enough to be locked up.

  25. Coco Butt Bikini Peepshow Vegas
    Leather Balls
    Commented on this photo:

    The black dude to her right looks better.

  26. cc

    Okay, I rarely venture into the American politics in these forums. I am pretty much here for tits and ass and making fun of Lindsay Lohan.

    However, today I will make an exception because I’ve seen things like this posted and said countless times over the last few days, i.e., ‘if you are going to bans automatic weapons, you should ban cars because over 40,000 people die in car crashes every year’ or ‘if you are going to ban automatic weapons, you should pharmaceuticals because 50,000 people die from drug overdoses every year’. There’s really only so much stupidity I can bear in silence, so let me explain.

    Guns are designed to be lethal WHEN USED AS INTENDED. All pharmaceuticals are, in effect, poisons; however when used AS INTENDED they have a beneficial effect. Taking a small dose of aspirin every day can prevent a heart attack, consuming an bottle of aspirin can kill you. Because of the way we have structured our communities, cars are a necessity for many people, when used AS INTENDED they allow us to go to school, work, etc. (not getting into the environmental aspects here). However, the careless, reckless, or improper use of cars leads to tragedy. Let me say it again, when an automatic rifle is used AS INTENDED it kills/injures a lot of people..

    ALSO, one has to consider the cost/benefit ratio. Banning pharmaceuticals would result in a great many more deaths than are presently caused by overdoses. And banning cars would, in the near term anyway, cause a lot of economic activity would grind to a halt (and it you include ambulances, firetrucks, and police cars in that ban, there’s a good chance fatalities would go up).

    If you are going to argue against tightening gun laws these false analogies and specious arguments aren’t going to cut it.

    Let the abuse begin…

    • A crazy guy can kill 20 people, a crazy government can kill 20 million. So the possibility exist that banning guns could lead to more deaths in the long run. Just using your analogy. When used as intended, guns preserve liberty. Some of course, disagree. Some trust the government to preserve their liberty.

      Many U.S. citizens look to our own history and see the Alien the and Sedition act, the Trail of Tears, the expulsion of the Mormons, the Indian Wars, the complicity in slavery, the Pullman Strike, the internment of Japanese Americans, and the suppression of African-American civil rights, and question the wisdom of trusting the government with our natural rights. Our government has a long history of suppressing rights.

      While I disagree with the guy in the video, there are posts on here calling him insane and advocating that he be locked up. When people start advocating stripping people of their liberty based on their beliefs it only fuels the distrust.

      • Funny, when I read “expulsion of the Mormons” as a justification for “guns preserv(ing) liberty”, what came to mind was the Mountain Meadows Massacre of 1857, where rampant Mormon xenophobia led to the mass murder of a wagon train en route to California and the death of every adult and adolescent in it – some 120 emigrant settlers whose only crime was to cross Utah territory. Only the children under the age of 7 were spared, presumably because they were too young to bear witness that white men, not Paiute Indians, were responsible, and could be indoctrinated by their families’ murderers. Are those the “rights” you were referring to?

        Calling someone insane and advocating he be locked up is a fucking far cry from a state or federal government going: “Uh, OK.” and sending a bunch of guys wth strait jackets to the TV studio to put away Pratt in the nearest booby hatch. It’s not a good reason for denying there should be better enforcement of gun control.

        Thinking that your Mac-10 is somehow going to preserve your liberty and force the gub’mint to respect your natural rights if it’s not so inclined didn’t work for the Panthers, and guess what – it ain’t gonna work for you, either. If you want to cling to your great-granddaddy’s horse pistol and claim that accepting that fact “only fuels the distrust” then you’re not all that much in touch with reality anyway, so any “distrust” you, or anyone else, has is going to go screaming into survivalist paranoia 60 seconds after reading this anyway.

      • The Mountain Meadows massacre did happen and the Mormons were also persecuted long before that. It might blow your mind but both things can be true. And the government was, and still is, complicit in all kinds of nefarious abuses. Even the left knows this.

        Not sure I even understand the second part. Did you mean send guys in “flak jackets”? If I understand correctly, I would say it isn’t a far cry at all. Politicians capitalize on populist sentiment all the time, so the issues are very linked.

        See the mistake in your logic is thinking that an insurgency can’t affect change. What is more important is not that you think it will fail, it is that the other guy thinks it will succeed. The other side might just give it a shot whether you like the idea or not.

        You can be as dismissive as you want, but the opposition exists, and it’s not a handful of rednecks cruising around in a pickup. I am merely explaining things as one side sees it. The explanation apparently gets you super angry and you expect that anger to be reflected back at you. Why would I be angry? I have rights, and I wont be angry until you violate them.

      • Since one of my ancestors was a Mormon factionalist who was eventually assassinated after he was exiled by Young, there’s not a lot about the Mormons that you can tell me that will “blow my mind”. It sure as fuck doesn’t blow it to know that people who are persecuted for their religion can become utterly devoid of empathy for their fellow man, and can become paranoid about it happening again – it’s not exactly a hard concept to grasp. I have far less sympathy when it comes to people who make a career of being persecuted in Christ’s name leaping at the opportunity to attack a bunch of strangers in reprisal and blaming it on “savage” Paiutes – the wagon train was from Arkansas, and since one of their “prophets” had been murdered there, Young’s followers held the state reponsible. It also didn’t hurt that the train was a very rich one – never neglect the fact that “prophet” has a homonym. When it was apparent the Indian excuse was blown and that white men committed the attack, that’s when they kiiled everyone in an attempt to cover it up. Con men are like that – from Smith to Young to Nixon, they never change when it comes to whitewashing,hiding or shifting the blame for their actions. It was at once payback, paranoia, and CYA – and it cannot ever be justified. Don’t dare try to do it here.

        If all you can do is equate strait jackets with “flak” jackets, you’re really beyond help. Either take the time to look up the term or resign yourself to more embarassment in future. Just because some people call for someone to be shut up or shut down doesn’t mean the government will do it. People tell others they should be forcibly silenced all the time – and to date I still haven’t had to pack a Glock to keep on mouthing off, nor have I been imprisoned by the government on some yahoo’s say-so.

        By my count, in the past two decades the “insurgecy”, as you term it, has taken out a lawyer/talk show host, a computer rental store owner, an advertising executive, multiple abortion doctors, two clinic receptionists, a congresswoman, numerous federal employees, little kids in a day care in a federal building, 6 people who just wanted their mail, some postal employees and a Sikh congregation. Wow, look at who they struck a blow against! Now that’s an “opposition” cause worth fighting for – just as soon as you can explain to me just what “change” those valiant soldiers (none of whom cruised around in pickups) want to effect, again?

        If you’re “merely explaining” things as “one side sees it”, then you’re doing a piss-poor job of it. FYI, the most basic rights of the people that the “opposition” cut down were violated – maybe you should consider that right after you google “restraints”.

      • cc

        justifiable. that was a damn good piece of reasoning (and writing).

      • stan

        The original point was only that the US government has the ability and tendency to be oppressive, which they were to Mormons long before the Mountain Meadows massacre. And that armed people could fight against that. It has nothing to do with trying to justify the massacre. At all.


  27. Right on

    Open discussion equals capitulation. Got it.

    We are so fucked.

  28. Right on

    And how dare you decry gun culture! Support the Troops!

  29. Coco Butt Bikini Peepshow Vegas
    Lil Benny Waffle
    Commented on this photo:

    Not to sound ungrateful, but I’m pretty sure I’ve seen this bitch wear less to go to the DMV, so why is she so covered up for a Vegas stage show?

  30. Considering that our founding fathers used guns to overthrow a government that they disagreed with, he may be pretty close to what they really did intend with the 2nd amendment.

    • Actually, no – our founding fathers used aid from France and Spain to buy munitions, which is what allowed them to “overthrow a government they disagreed with”. Because when you’re fighting an army that has no better armaments than you have, but has a fuck of a lot more of them, guerrila warfare will only get you so far.

      Now show me a situation today where a local militia has parity when it comes to what a national army, navy or air force is packing, and you and Pratt can explain how guns alone will allow them to overthrow that nation’s armed forces.

      • You assume a lot in your response. Maybe the insurgents use bombs. Maybe they use their light arms to bring your society to a halt because they can move among you freely. Maybe they join your security forces and gun yout guys down while they have morning coffee. Maybe, in true irony they buy weapons from cartels. Maybe large segments of the military side with the insurgents, IE Free Syrian Army. You don’t have to defeat a modern army, you just have to outlast it. The US left Vietnam, Lebanon, Somalia, and it will leave Afghanistan largely because of the efforts of insurgents. Just another way of looking at things.

      • The assumption’s on your part – read your response again. Go tell the Czechs and Hungarians how successful insurgencies can be carried out, and how a handful of Molotovs can defeat a tank deployment, and then when you get sick of hearing them laugh at you, go google “Tienanmin Square”. If your guerrilla force is planning on outlasting a fully equipped army, you pretty much need to have an unrestricted flow of outside aid.

        FYI – the US may have left Vietnam, etc – but it won’t be leaving North America any time soon.

      • I never claimed that all insurgencies were successful. I merely refuted your point with examples. Your examples are also weak because in the US, you might find half the army joining the insurgence. You never know. If a large percentage of the Soviet army aided the Czechs or Hungarians it might have been different. There may be plenty of guns and ammo here for an insurgency. We are the most heavily armed country in the world. That statistic might actually mean something in a fight. Insurgents might find outside support. Who knows. The argument that a citizen should give up their right to be armed because they cant win a rebellion has no merit. Clearly the armed citizens do not agree with you or they wouldn’t hoard arms like they are doing right now. Clearly they think they can win. There are plenty of better arguments against citizen gun owner ship than the one you are making.

  31. Coco Butt Bikini Peepshow Vegas
    Commented on this photo:

    as smooth and elegant as a hippo dancing ballet

  32. “If a large percentage of the Soviet army aided the Czechs or Hungarians it might have been different.”

    Yeah – but they didn’t. And if aliens from Mars threw in with Czechs during the Prague Spring things might have turned out differently and we might have a whole race of mutant beings – but they didn’t. And if you actually knew anything about the situation you’d know why that wasn’t likely to happen, but you just keep on telling yourself it really might’ve ended differently because it lends credence to your agenda. You can also fantasize that the RIC were on the verge of throwing in with the Easter Uprising, since it has as much credence and it’s as good a time-waster as anything you’ve put out here today.

    You’ve intimated more than once here that the US army is currently full of soldiers who will join the “insurgents” when and if they rise up – if this is what your local chapter is actually counting on based on your “you never know” theories, good luck – you really might want to think again.

    Your concept of arming yourself and creating a stockpile in order to be prepared to take over a government that’s hell-bent on divesting you of your rights is what’s devoid of merit. And if you think you’ve presented anything positive or unPratt-like in the way of gun ownership with that premise, you might want to guess again.

    • You proposed the premise and I illustrated how it failed. You compared apples to oranges to support your argument and pointed out the differences. I made my points. You made none.

      Here you are being silly again with your “you’ve intimated more than once that the US army…..” What I did was illustrate the fallacy in your argument that any rebellion would be guys with rifles vs a first world army. You set up the scenario to only unfold the way that you felt bolstered your argument and I illustrated other scenarios, dismantling your argument in the process. Your whole argument was “you cant fight the US army” and not only does history not support you, you can crack open a newspaper and check it out of yourself. And of course I wrote “who knows.” because it is hypothetical.

      Representing anything positive? What are you even talking about? I am just illustrating some of the beliefs your opposition holds. You don’t have to like them or agree with them. I understand that the subject drives you insane because you cant control it. And your use of red herring and straw man arguments tells me you probably spend a lot of time in the echo chamber surrounded by people that believe like you do.

      Keep reading those history books though. I found them all fascinating.

  33. Coco Butt Bikini Peepshow Vegas
    Commented on this photo:

    She looka likea man.

  34. Brooke

    That video was great. Rhe Pratt fuckhead was sweating bullets… hyuck hyuck.

    No more guns in the US, please. I moved to Japan where murders happen, sure, but 20 children are never gunned down like fish in a barrel. Murders will always happen, but maybe we can lessen the number if pyschopaths or frustrated teens in gangs or whatever don’t have a long-range killing machine to work with.

  35. The saddest part here is that nothing significant will come of this tragedy. They’ll politicize the hell out of it and shut it down.

  36. Sliver

    My brain only saw 2 words in the above article “ass” and “fucking”.
    Wow, and I used to be so sheltered. Yeesh.

  37. Mr. Pratt is factually correct, which I am sure all involved at this site find fascinating since all of you failed civics in school. The misunderstanding is the 2nd Amendment gives you the right to own a gun & shoot some
    a-hole who breaks into your house – which it does. What is commonly not known and what is purposely not taught is that the 2nd Amendment gives YOU the right to protect yourself from your own government. All the founding fathers understood this the exact same way. Tyranny was far more dangerous than violence. The Amendment reads: “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” Notice the words “a free state”, if for some reason the government went crazy and decided to say install a King or Dictator – it was up to you to rise up and destroy that government. The mistake that Chris Mathews and other liberals make is that the government of today is just fine for them – well for many in 1774 living under King George was fine for them too – it didn’t stop the Minutemen or the Continental Congress from declaring independence for Britain. What happened in 1776 is not different that what could happen in 2050, technology does not change one man’s desire to rule the world or to rule over you. The fascinating thing is for the first time in history not only where people given rule over their government but given the instruments and orders to destroy it fi it turned against them. That is the strength behind the second amendment and don’t be fooled that politicians do not fully realize it. Absolute power absolutely corrupts and that is why we have guns as a protected right, just like our choice of religion and ability to speak our minds.

  38. Imagine a country with strict laws bought in 1997 by a government after a massacre with men women and kids killed in Tasmania Australia. Well we did, we bought back guns and we complied. We have not had a massacre since,not one! We do not know what is like to bear arms and never will. Our shooting rate is 65 last year, america over 10,000. Please think about it.

  39. screwliberals

    If only we had gun control to get rid of those nasty guns the way drug control has eliminated drugs from our lives.


  40. Coco Butt Bikini Peepshow Vegas
    Not a Black Guy
    Commented on this photo:

    I just dont get the appeal

  41. stan

    I must have missed the part where he advocated assassination, but I bet if someone looked hard enough they could find a gun nut who actually did. I really believed Fish that this idiot would actually say someting like that.

    The really sad part is that as much as I hate this neonazi asshole and our general gun culture, I have to concede his point on the 2nd Amendment’s purpose. The Founders didn’t adopt it for us to hunt or to defend ourselves individually; they were paranoid after what happened with the king. They didn’t want us seeing an oppressive government again, foreign or domestic. Notice how the Amendment says “people,” not “persons”–words which meant two different things back then. We beat the British because a bunch of farmers and pioneers kept gun(s) at home and were ready to use them in war. So we made sure that could happen again if need be.

    But that doesn’t mean we can’t have reasonable gun control in this country. The constitution preserves our right to keep some arms, but not unlimited arms. People can’t own firebombs or mustard gas, so why must they be able to own fully automatic assault rifles? I say everybody gets a two front-loading pistols like Capt. Jack Sparrow’s, and a machete. And that’s our arms. Then maybe, hopefully, that can put an end to a gun culture where some troubled kid in Connecticut can kill his survivalist mom in her sleep with the arsenal of guns lying around the house, then have a half dozen potential murder weapons at his disposal.

    But that’s just me. And before the unreasonable people get all senitive on me, the antique pistols part was an exaggeration. For humor. I’m not very good at humor, but I understand it’s a major part of this site.

  42. Coco Butt Bikini Peepshow Vegas
    Jennifer P
    Commented on this photo:

    Her ass really isn’t that big.

  43. Coco Butt Bikini Peepshow Vegas
    Commented on this photo:


  44. morrent

    coco looks like a man, terrible!

  45. Coco Butt Bikini Peepshow Vegas
    Commented on this photo:

    she is whery big fuking as so nice

Leave A Comment