Herald Standard
Monday, April 27, 2015
Not you?||

Act now to get your very own tank

Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Posted: Sunday, December 30, 2012 2:00 am | Updated: 3:49 pm, Sat Feb 9, 2013.

You know, I've been thinking about it, and banning assault rifles is a stupid idea.

After all, the point has been made that if guns — any type of guns — are illegal, only criminals will have them.

And since everywhere I go I am confronted by packs of criminals with assault rifles, I can't believe the government would be so stupid to try to ban them from God-loving, law-abiding folks like myself. I mean, really, President Obama, how can I be expected to defend myself from the roving bands of armed marauders who roam the border of Greene and Fayette counties if I don't have my military-style M4 assault rifle with me? (And, since there're always more than seven of them, I can't be expected to fend them off with anything less than a high capacity magazine.)

And while it's bad enough that they're talking about banning semi-automatic assault weapons, what really chaps my hide is the fact that it's illegal in some states to own a flamethrower! I mean, seriously, if military-style flamethrowers are illegal, only criminals will have military-style flamethrowers! And I don't know about you, but I'm tired of not being able to defend my house and home from criminals capable of launching controlled streams of fire.

And if those nambly pambly liberals get their panties in a bunch, I'll just remind them of this simple little axiom: Flamethrowers don't light people on fire. People do.

(Of course, if the criminals start using flamethrowers, I'll probably need to look into buying a bazooka, or at least some Sarin gas ... those better not be illegal, because that'll mean only criminals will have them.)

So while we have to keep assault rifles legal because otherwise how can we be expected to protect ourselves, remember that the real concern is that this talk of an assault rifle ban is just the beginning.

If they can ban military-style assault rifles designed for mass killing in a short amount of time, what's next? Where do you draw the line? How long before Comrade Obama is coming for all our guns?!

It's a slippery slope, my friends. A very sliiiippery slope.

And it's exactly why we need to fight back against Ayatolla-Obama's war on guns — by reversing the ban on civilians owning tanks.

I'm tired of not being able to defend myself by parking an M1 Abrams in my driveway. Sure, the thing is designed for modern armored ground warfare and not home defense, but I don't want some pinko government bureaucrat infringing on my God-given 2nd Amendment rights, you hear me? The Founding Fathers were expecting open warfare with an invading army and saw the need for average citizens to need to be a part of that war — which is just like today — so they'd clearly be on board with this idea.

Plus, I really want to see the look on the face of the next guy that tries to break into my house when I bring 62 metric tons of American ingenuity to the game. He'll have an assault rifle with him — obviously — but I'll have a 105 mm rifled tank gun that fires anti-personnel rounds, and three machine guns: a .50 cal, a 7.62 mm M240 machine gun and a 12.7 mm M2HB machine gun.

Now, some will say owning a tank is a bit overkill, but I don't care. Frankly, I'd just feel safer knowing I could level every single home on my block with the lethal stopping power designed for open combat. If I'm being completely honest, I'm tired of not treating our homes and places of work like battlefields. Hell, if we just gave everybody a tank, we'd all be a lot safer.

Now, granted, no one has ever broken into my house that I've needed to engage in a lengthy firefight with, and, because we live in a well-functioning, civilized society not on the brink of total collapse, I don't know anyone who's ever needed to be armed with military weapons capable of defending against multiple attackers — but still, I just know that if we let Barry Oh get his hands on our battle tanks, he'll be taking every last one of our guns.

And then, you guessed it, only criminals will have armored tanks.

Plus, think about it: If the government can ban tanks, where do you draw the line? If they can take away my tank, how long before they come for your F-150, huh? I mean, that's the logical conclusion, isn't it? And, and — and! — let's talk about this other slippery slope that The Chosen One is dragging us down: if it's illegal to drive drunk, how long before Nobama makes it illegal to drive at all!!!

Sure, they may try to convince us that it's OK that we have laws against dangerous driving — speeding, drinking and driving, driving on the sidewalk, ignoring stop lights — but it's only a matter of time before those so-called “common-sense” laws lead to you having to bike to work. Think about it! Why does Saddam Hussein Obama want to ban driving?!

If we can outlaw something like drunk driving — which is clearly dangerous, kills more people than regular driving and offers nothing of value to society — then it's only a matter of time before all driving is illegal.

This is the argument against banning assault rifles.

Makes perfect sense to me.

If you'd like to take his keyboard from his cold, well-moisturized hands, Brandon Szuminsky can be reached at bszuminsky@heraldstandard.com.

More about

More about

Welcome to the discussion.


  • Plato posted at 8:38 am on Fri, Jan 18, 2013.

    Plato Posts: 199

    Anthill, you talking the point on your head? No one can miss that.[beam]

  • antillies posted at 5:50 pm on Wed, Jan 16, 2013.

    antillies Posts: 6

    Uh, I think you're missing the point, old pal. Thanks for playing.

  • Plato posted at 5:10 pm on Wed, Jan 16, 2013.

    Plato Posts: 199

    Anthill, you call my logic, second-grader, and then you write this, "based on your ability to dismiss Seitz-Wald out of hand, if he were to write that 1+1=2, that would have to be wrong too, right?" Ha ha ha. [lol]

  • antillies posted at 8:25 pm on Tue, Jan 15, 2013.

    antillies Posts: 6

    Plato, splitting hairs is what you call responding to the main point of your original comment. Alrighty then.

    And since you're able to completely dismiss information that disagrees with your warped world view by simply saying you disagree with the politics of the author... let me take that second-grader logic to it's conclusion. Based on your ability to dismiss Seitz-Wald out of hand, if he were to write that 1+1=2, that would have to be wrong too, right? I mean, after all, there's no way that someone who disagrees with you could possibly be right about something.

    The fact you are unable to process information that contradicts your beliefs and deluded enough to think that half the country is "haites-bent" on destroying the country shows you're clearly not capable of having an intelligent conversation. I'm sure you're right that every single country in the world is just tipping on the edge of being Nazi Germany... saved only by the gun-toting patriots who keep tyranny at bay! I mean, it's not like the federal government could overcome a bunch of citizens with guns... I mean, they don't have tanks, or jet fighters or robot drones that can drop bombs from the sky...

  • Plato posted at 8:51 pm on Sun, Jan 13, 2013.

    Plato Posts: 199

    Brandon, how's the tank purchase coming along?[beam] You throw your idiot mantra out there and ignore those who are dumb enough to respond. C'mon, coward, let's hear some retort.[rolleyes]

  • Plato posted at 10:24 am on Sat, Jan 12, 2013.

    Plato Posts: 199

    @antillies, you are splitting hairs on the names and addresses thing. Who cares?
    It's insane in any respect to start publishing names of groups of people who are doing nothing illegal.

    As far as the holocaust/gun control issue....
    "The law did prohibit Jews and other persecuted classes from owning guns." -Could that be the only grain of truth on Alex Seitz-Wald's commentary?

    Who is Alex Seitz-Wald? Oh my, a good question would be, "is anything Alex Seitz-Wald writes credible?" Take a look at his politics. He is the Assistant Editor of ThinkProgress.org at the Center for American Progress Action Fund. Where do you suppose his political orientation lies? Has he ever written an article critical of the left? Steitz-Wald uses Bernard Harcourt, University of Chicago law professor, writings to discredit Germany's gun control argument, much the same way you use one article in Salon, to do the same. An excerpt from Harcourt's "The Illusion of Free Markets," "This modern vision rests on a simple but devastating illusion. Superimposing the political categories of freedom or discipline on forms of market organization has the unfortunate effect of obscuring rather than enlightening. It obscures by making both the free market and the prison system seem natural and necessary. In the process, it facilitated the birth of the penitentiary system in the nineteenth century and its ultimate culmination into mass incarceration today."
    I mince no words when I state, radical left progressives are haites-bent on destroying this county's economy and moral base. And if that takes re-writing history, so be it.

  • antillies posted at 7:35 pm on Fri, Jan 11, 2013.

    antillies Posts: 6

    Plato, your comment about listing the names and addresses of mentally ill was clearly a reference to the newspaper in another state that published the names of gun owners.

    And while you want to blame the holocaust on gun control, it appears you've got you're letting ideology get in the way of your facts: http://www.salon.com/2013/01/11/stop_talking_about_hitler/

  • Plato posted at 9:22 am on Sat, Jan 5, 2013.

    Plato Posts: 199

    “This will probably come as a total shock to most of my Western readers, but at one point, Russia was one of the most heavily armed societies on earth,” wrote Stanislav Mishin in his recent column.
    “This was, of course, when we were free under the Tsar. Weapons, from swords and spears to pistols, rifles and shotguns were everywhere, common items. People carried them concealed, they carried them holstered. Fighting knives were a prominent part of many traditional attires and those little tubes criss crossing on the costumes of Cossacks and various Caucasian peoples? Well, those are bullet holders for rifles.”
    However, the communists weren’t stupid, he wrote, and when they took power, “One of the first things they did was to disarm the population. ”
    “From that point, mass repression, mass arrests, mass deportations, mass murder, mass starvation were all a safe game for the powers,” Mishin wrote.
    “To this day, with the Soviet Union now dead 21 years, with a whole generation born and raised to adulthood without the SU, we are still denied our basic and traditional rights to self defense. Why? We are told that everyone would just start shooting each other and crime would be everywhere …. but criminals are still armed and still murdering and [too] often, especially in the far regions, those criminals wear the uniforms of the police.”
    Even today, authorities “do as they please, a tyrannical class who knows they have absolutely nothing to fear from a relatively unarmed population. This, in turn, breeds not respect but absolute contempt and often enough, criminal abuse.”
    Mishin said America’s Second Amendment, the right to bear arms, “is a rare light in an ever darkening room.”
    “Governments will use the excuse of trying to protect the people from maniacs and crime, but … in reality, it is the bureaucrats protecting their power and position,” he said.

  • Plato posted at 5:33 pm on Fri, Jan 4, 2013.

    Plato Posts: 199

    Huh? Did I say anything about posting the names of gun owners? And trust me on this one, 6,000,000 Jews killed during the Holocaust is not imaginary.

  • antillies posted at 2:55 pm on Fri, Jan 4, 2013.

    antillies Posts: 6

    Plato, there's nothing in this article about posting the names of gun owners. You're making stuff up.

  • Plato posted at 10:07 am on Fri, Jan 4, 2013.

    Plato Posts: 199

    In all seriousness, I do realize that mental illness is not limited to nambly pambly liberals. Perhaps Szuminsky should post the names and addresses of all of Fayette County's mentally ill. I mean, after all, Szuminsky would certainly agree that those neighbor's of the mentally ill should have a right to know if one of them lived next to them.
    Never forget this simple equation, gun control = 6,000,000 Jews [sad]

Weather brought to you by:

Online Poll

Featured Stories