Tom the Dancing Bug by Ruben Bolling for June 13, 2014

If I’m in Florida, and I feel threatened by the sight of an Open Carry law-abiding patriot, I can shoot him, right?

Another epic FAIL by @libsmasher

I think he has to indicate that he might point his gun at you before you can legally fire. However, you CAN point your gun at him and see what he does.

Since Florida was brought up… In the Treyvon Martin case, remember that George Zimmerman was found innocent because he "believed” that his life was in danger. Martin never pointed a gun at him, because Martin didn’t have one. So, you don’t have to wait until a potential assailant points a gun at you before you shoot him (or her), you just have to “believe” that your life is danger.

Now that you can identify the deranged killer see if you can identify the one who will stop the killer, or at least buy you some time to get away?

- old1953In addition to the Skittles, it will help your defense it the “assailant” was wearing a hoodie.

What if they are carrying a ’Don’t Tread on me’ flag? -Open carry patriot, right?

“nearly all of these mass-shooting psychos have been Democrat voters” Not that this will matter to the joker who posted this, but that claim is totally bogus. He’s just repeating a lie he heard from a right-wing rant show host and repeating it without bothering to find out whether or not it’s true. He needs it to be true, so why bother to learn the facts?

See http://www.examiner.com/article/the-idea-that-recent-mass-shooters-are-mostly-registered-democrats-is-a-myth Once again, reality is shown to have a liberal bias.

It really is hard to tell the nuts with guns, from the gun nuts.

When Open Carry confronts Stand Your Ground, one of them ends up dead and the other feels patriotic. The supporters of both, moreover, are in agreement that the problem is that not enough people are heavily armed.

America loves killing and an honest reading of our brief history proves it. We are an unethical nation driven by profit and fear.

The writers of the 2nd Amendment did, in fact, state that the people were to have the right to keep and bear arms. The preceding clause is not grammatically restrictive; it just gives a reason for the main clause. However, the authors may not have intended the modern meaning; note that in the late 18th century, as demonstrated by the preamble of the Constitution and the political facts of the time, ‘the people’ meant ‘White men with a certain amount of property’, not ‘everybody’.

@AnarcissieNot to mention the fact that the authors of the 2nd amendment could have never in their wildest nightmares imagined the the level of carnage that a single Bushmaster can inflict. In their day, it took about 30 seconds to load one bullet.