Sure, that’s what all wizards say.
Damn good question; for once the Internet Movie Firearms Data Base failed me. That huge flared muzzle should be a giveaway but I can’t find a match.
This Atlantic article has a quick overview of when the Black Panthers marched on the state capitol in California, triggering gun control from a Republican.
The Korean storeowners from the LA riots would like to have a word with you.
I don’t know about historians but the founding fathers certainly understood that “tyrannies of the majority” could arise. Oppression of minorities sort of fits the bill of “tyranny of the majority”
I would guess that the sort of tyranny that second amendment can prevent are undemocratic tyrannies, i.e. tyrannies of the minority.
The government couldn’t prevent it but the gun shop owners could and the government could control who had gun shops.
Staff fighting doesn’t work so well in a hallway. But the deterrent effect is probably at least as good. Noone robs the crazy guy at the end of the street.
Halberds are really the way to go. I have a gas powered chainsaw on a pole that I think would make an awesome weapon. Noone walks their dog on my lawn when I’m using this chainsaw.
searchign for the word gun, it says she used a submachine gun. The folding stock is consistent with that. The flared muzzle might be a silncer or flash suppressor. I would have expected a larger magazine with a submachine gun but anyhoo.
See, gun control is bad 
Aside: οἱ πολλοί already means “the many” and does not require the definite article.
Carry on.
Apparently Lincoln was not much of hunter, a firearm might not have been his weapon of choice. Axe would certainly be an option for “The Railsplitter”, and he was once challenged to a duel, and chose “cavalry broadswords of the largest size” (according to wikipedia), but axe or sword could be a problem in the confines of a theater.
There is some evidence that he was a good wrestler, and of course, he had the reach. He’d probably have just punched the hell out of Booth or grabbed him by the neck and thrown him off the balcony.
Oh, yes. The 1990 documentary Berkeley in the Sixties covered that – hilarious story! 
Well, we can’t just say “hoi polloi” with “hoi” serving for article, doesn’t work in English even among the educated, not the way la untranslated article from French or Spanish would work . . . Very well. Spread the word throughout the land: Henceforth, “hoi” is jettisoned and the phrase shall be “the polloi.” So let it be written, so let it be done, Amen, Selah.
Why am I not surprised to learn that there is such thing as an Internet Movie Firearms Data Base?
While I sympathize with your post since I am in favor of reasonable gun control measures, the children of Little Rock specifically needed men with guns to escort them into school, namely the 101st Airborne.
So that is a case where I think guns were needed to protect freedom.
The second amendment solution doesn’t involve the government paying people to be trained in usage of guns to enforce its laws and preserve social order. It involves any idiot out there being able to by a gun, no questions asked, in order to shoot on the federal government if they get too uppity–if their laws get too immoral.
(Note, even though I don’t support following immoral laws if you can get away with doing otherwise, even I know that carrying a gun is not one of those ways that will allow me to do otherwise.)
And, yes, this thread is about making fun of people with that viewpoint. Which, yes, does not include anyone who has actually managed to stay on this board. Learn to fucking read, John Mace, and stop making a fool of yourself.
I continue to be surprised that no one has offered any constructive opinion on how Rosa Parks should have used her 2nd amendment rights to guarantee her civil rights. I remember many posters being clear that they would use guns to avoid having their guns confiscated, but surely the point of the second amendment is to prevent tyranny in all forms. We haven’t even gotten to other potentially more current questions such as how I should have used my second amendment rights to make sure that the Florida 2000 presidential ballots were re-counted.
Well actually there are 3 gun arguments.
- OMG you’re going to take my hunting rifle away! Slippery slope!
- I need a gun to defend myself against criminals.
- We need guns to defend ourselves against overbearing guvments and their tanks and trained solders.
The OP addresses silly argument #3, not silly argument #1 nor problematic argument #2. I don’t think #2 is silly but I don’t think the OP was attacking a straw man either.
Trying to goad other members into posting based on your unheld beliefs comes mighty close to trolling. Unless as JM has suggested, you are JAQing off?
Regardless, your OP is silly and stupid and you are coming off as an idiot. Rosa Parks used the very best weapon available to her, her words.
BigT, you, sir, owe me a new irony meter.
fumster, my hat is off to you; this is one of the greatest OPs ever. I laughed so hard reading it that people at work were shushing me!
Being an American citizen, she should have carried whatever gun she preferred. The question I have is how do you know she WASN’T already carrying what she preferred? I know you’re trying to be facetious here, but Second Amendment advocates don’t think every body should carry or that anybody has to. It’s a choice and we respect those who choose not to. The problem is that those who choose not to seem to lack the reciprocal level of respect for our choices.
So you’re pro-choice?
I agree - this is a seriously clever OP.
Indeed. Just because she was packing doesn’t mean she recognized the bus conflict as one which necessitated her ventilating the driver.