Tom the Dancing Bug by Ruben Bolling for October 09, 2015
Transcript:
A Thought Experiment What if current law made it legal for private citizens to own not only any type of firearm, but ballistic missiles? What would happen after each tragic case of a nut firing his hime missile at a school? The NRA would make the exact arguments against legal controls on missiles. The second Amendment says citizens can bear arms! Missles are literally arms, so owning them is a Constitutional right. Our founding Fathers meant it as a safe guard against tyrannical government. Pundits would make the exact same points about the cause of the tragedy. This is the price we pay to live in a free country Missles didn't cause this, an insane person did! this is about mental health! And politician would make the exact same excuses for non-action. If we outlaw missiles only outlaws will have missiles. Stuff happens.
LizardPriest about 9 years ago
Ted Cruz is incinerated while attempting to fry bacon using missile exhaust.
NeedaChuckle Premium Member about 9 years ago
In the 50’s some kids built a howitzer from army surplus and started firing into Chicago Stockyards. I guess that is youthful exuberance!
Eclectic-1 about 9 years ago
Ruben must think Castro a progressive. Cannons have been around a long time. The only incident I recall happened on ‘Columbo’. The school incidents happen because kids are taught to be victims.
Malcolm Hall about 9 years ago
Mr. Carson’s insights are valuable as well. The students should simply charge the house with the missiles. “You may be able to blow up all of us, but ….”He also has pointed out that the first thing a dictatorship does is take away the citizenry’s guided missiles.
CletustheBlack about 9 years ago
Of course it’s BS. It’s satire. But you’re wrong when you suggest the 2A refers to firearms—-It refers to “arms.”
And we all know that if you outlaw arms, only outlaws will be able to use a can opener.
ickymungmung about 9 years ago
Naturally, we will need our education system to include launch codes in the curriculum.
michael_orr25 about 9 years ago
“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.” Please point out the part that limits that to firearms & allows outlawing the possession of “crew-served weapons.”
King_Shark about 9 years ago
Those are SA3 anti aircraft radar guided missiles, not ballistic missiles. Tut tut, Bolling. Tut tut.
markjoseph125 about 9 years ago
Perfect proof that satire is no longer possible. “If a politician isn’t perfectly comfortable with the idea of his average constituent, any man, woman, or responsible child, walking into a hardware store and paying cash — for any rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything — without producing ID or signing one scrap of paper, he isn’t your friend no matter what he tells you.” (L. Neil Smith, libertarian gun nut extraordinaire)
Packratjohn Premium Member about 9 years ago
Sorta. Crew sets it up, but it only takes one person to launch it. Of course, the new and improved Ronco “megablast” missile is delivered “RTF”, or “ready to fire”, and requires no crew at all! You can be the fear of your neighborhood with only 6 easy payments of 1.6 million each. Plus, we’ll include the downloadable app for your smartphone which allows you to aim and launch your missile from anywhere!
makutaking about 9 years ago
I would say, due to the targeting restraints of BM’s, being probably Surface to Air Missiles, or SAMs, that it would be pretty hard to aim a defensive missile cluster at a school, if the school wasnt at 32000 feet and moving at 4500 mph.
makutaking about 9 years ago
hear hear!
Purple-Stater Premium Member about 9 years ago
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…”
This statement was written at a time when there were no plans for a standing military to be able to provide necessary protections. As a well-regulated militia is no longer necessary to our security, there really is no need assume those rights are still there.
Also, the argument about the need to protect against a tyrannical government doesn’t really hold up either, when the constitution states that one of the purposes of the militia is to suppress insurrection.
craigwestlake about 9 years ago
Actually Ruben borrowed this idea from a video that was made by one of the retired Monkees. He called it Neighbourhood Nuclear Retaliation.
ed anger about 9 years ago
shoulder-held rockets, grenades, machine guns, claymores… all arms as well, and outlawed for private citizen use. shocking.
BRI-NO-MITE!! Premium Member about 9 years ago
The average soldier at that time carried a smoothbore.The average colonist had a Pennsylvania or Kentucky long rifle, capable of a longer, more accurate shot. Civilians had superior weapons than the army at that time.
BRI-NO-MITE!! Premium Member about 9 years ago
I read last week that it’s legal in all but two states to own a flame thrower.
Packratjohn Premium Member about 9 years ago
Thanks for the replies to my “Ronco” ad. All good and funny. Reminds me of an ad in Mad Magazine about 100 years ago for a “Quad 40”. The photo showed two guys with a 40mm radar guided anti aircraft emplacement hunting pigeons in Central Park.
DirkTheDaring Premium Member about 9 years ago
Once again Michael Nesmith is way ahead of his time: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGCFmSFvIZw
Lord Gaga about 9 years ago
If you’re OK with a law that keeps the Tsarnaev brothers from buying an RPG launcher, flame thrower, or tactical nuke; then you already agree that there are, and should be, limits on the 2nd Amendment. All that’s left is to argue about where the line should be drawn.
gammaguy about 9 years ago
The Constitution says “arms”, not “firearms”. That would include swords, etc. But it also says “bear”, i.e., “carry”. That should exclude ICBMs and even howitzers.
Zesty over 3 years ago
WASHINGTON – As soon as it was revealed that a reporter for Progressive Magazine had discovered how to make a hydrogen bomb, a group of firearm zealots formed the National Hydrogen Bomb Assn., and they are now lobbying against any legislation to stop Americans from owning one.
"The Constitution,” said the association’s spokesman, “gives everyone the right to own and bear arms. It doesn’t spell out what kind of arms. But since anyone can now make a hydrogen bomb the public should be able to buy it to protect themselves.”
”Don’t you think it’s dangerous to have one in the house, particularly where there are children around?”
“The National Hydrogen Bomb Assn. hopes to spend a good portion of its dues on educating people in the safe handling of this type of weapon. We are instructing owners to keep the bomb in a locked closet and the fuse separately in a drawer. We also will hold classes in how to fire the bomb. We believe that if a person knows how to take care of his bomb there is no danger to himself or his family."
“Some people consider the .hydrogen bomb a very lethal weapon which could kill somebody.”
The spokesman said, “Hydrogen bombs don’t kill people— people kill people. The bomb is for self-protection and it also has a deterrent effect. If somebody knows you have a nuclear weapon in your house, they’re going to think twice about breaking in.”
“But those who want to ban the bomb for American citizens claim that if you have one locked in the closet, with the fuse in a drawer, you would never be able to assemble it in time to repulse an intruder.”
”That’s garbage put out by the antinuclear weapon people. We are only advocating ownership of hydrogen weapons by law-abiding citizens. If someone commits a crime with one, he should get a stiff jail sentence.”
— Art Buchwald, 1979