Comments (14) (Please sign in to comment)

1. 

   omQ R said, 3 months ago

   Ha!
2. 

   cdward said, 3 months ago

   It’s his right, right?
3. 

   wmconelly said, 3 months ago

   Oy. Look at Lil’ Kim’s campaign button. Makes you wonder what the philosophical difference between Kimbo and LaPierre actually is…
4. 

   Respectful Troll said, 3 months ago

   Anyone read the story about concerns over our missile shield program? I can’t imagine sequestration is going to help improve that situation. I recorded the testimony of the Joint Chiefs and Gen. Dempsey. Be afraid, be very afraid. The NRA might be right. If Congress is going to make it impossible for the military to defend us, we may have to fight enemies on our own soil. Especially if cyber hackers can incapacitate our nukes; another program that will suffer cuts. We don’t need more tanks or advanced aircraft, but our military does have needs that deserve to be addressed.
   Respectfully,
   C.
5. 

   Respectful Troll said, 3 months ago

   @Mr. King

   Facetiousness isn’t my strong suit. And you’re so very and sadly correct.
   Thank you Oh Lord of Self. ;)
   I enjoy your postings.
   C.
6. 

   DavidGBA said, 3 months ago

   He’s the kind of people that incinerate or starve or shoot people.
7. 

   Rockngolfer said, 3 months ago

   See Feb 13
   http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/borowitzreport
8. 

   Adrian Snare said, 3 months ago

   @wmconelly

   One is nuttier than the other..
   I hope I am wrong here.. We do NOT need another Korean War.
   South K is a prime example of my concept that building is better than destroying…
   But so many think as North K does…
   Conservatives(mostly) and Liberals…
9. 

   braindead08 said, 3 months ago

   @cdward

   “It’s his right, right?”
   -
   Well, only if he lives in the U.S., where your right to bear nuclear arms is protected by the second ammendment.
   -
   You don’t have to register ’em either, ’cause, you know, then Obama would take away your guns.
10. 

    lonecat said, 3 months ago

    Just curious — I assume that our conservative posters would agree that the second amendment doesn’t include the right to have nuclear weapons (which, after all, could be made by a terrorist group in the US — certainly a “dirty bomb” at least). My question is Why doesn’t the second amendment include the right to have nuclear weapons? I want a legal argument, not just “Well, that would be horrible” or the like. It’s an open challenge.
11. 

    Ms. Ima said, 3 months ago

    @lonecat

    For one, nukes weren’t around in 1776. My question: Could liberals be any stupider?
12. 

    Adrian Snare said, 3 months ago

    @Ms. Ima

    Spoken well by a tea-head conservative…lol
    Very little was around in the 18th century…the time of our conservatives..
13. 

    lonecat said, 3 months ago

    @Ms. Ima

    So do you then agree that any weapons invented after 1776 are not covered by the second amendment? (Of course the second amendment wasn’t around in 1776 either, but I suppose a detail like that is beneath the notice of your vast intellect.)
14. 

    dipierro said, 3 months ago

    Everyone needs to stop the brinksmanship and begin to institute trust-building measures, and the 1st step should be taken by the party with superior power. I shudder to think what might have happened if that meteor had struck in the Middle East or the Korean peninsula instead of Siberia.
15. Refresh Comments.