No one is taking them.

this guy is a tool bag.

He thinks he is a wizard too...

What an idiot. You are as intelligent as your band is good. Ba-zing.

This douchebag is supporting the 2nd Ammendment? Kiss your rights goodbye.

The Dems had so many opportunities to take away your guns in the past 4 years and yet the gun laws are as lenient as ever. The 2nd amendment is not going anywhere.

Cunt.

lol

I'm a gun owner as well. No one is coming to take your guns. These idiots need to settle down and stop creating issues where none exist.

Metaphorically the politicians are taking away our guns. It was ok when Eric Holder gave guns to Drug Cartels south of the border. But why are they attacking responsible gun owners? Should they focus on the criminals who get their guns illegally?

Who cares whether or not someones wants to buy a semi-automatic weapon. That is their business. Once they are successful at taking away our guns then the criminals are going to start killing everyone with ease. The Police can't be everywhere at all times.

Only wimps, cops and soldiers use guns and rifles for protection.

What a fucking child he is. That's the third time this week I've read or heard someone use that "assault rifle is a media term" argument. Marching orders!!

It's a stupid thing to even talk about.
No one is taking the guns away. It's a constitutional right.

To get a president in office, they use the electoral college.
But in order to change the constitution, each state has an equal vote.

And there is NO FUCKING WAY a majority would rule in that way for an amendment for banning guns basically ever.

So, everyone needs to quit wasting breath over this.
Teach your children proper gun safety. Get shooting lessons yourself if you intend to own. If not, then fuck off...mind your business. There's literally nothing you can do about the gun itself. You can only try to solve the real problem - the psychos who use them improperly.

There is no instance in history of a disarmed citizenry ever being abused by their government!

Then what exactly do you call the likes of Nazi Germany, Red China, and the Soviet Union? They disarmed their law-abiding citizens, and the number of defenseless people they were able to kill because of it speaks for itself!

We are not Nazi Germany, nor are we China. Neither country has ever come close to our creating anything remotely similar to our Constitution or democratic values. Both have always been strong, autocratic governments. Russia as well. It's comparing apples and meatloaf. There is no comparison.

Just ditch all the hand guns you can manufacture to the people in the US and the rest of the 3rd world. That will sort out the overpopulation of the earth.

opnpt0(from a few posts above), you couldn't be more wrong, unless that's sarcasm.

Here's a list of countries that have disarmed it's citizens with drastic consequences, just take a look.

http://warriortimes.com/2011/04/24/what-happens-when-governments-disarm-their-citizens/

They've ALWAYS been called assault rifles, you fucking retard.

I'd imagine people who own a lot of guns and would fight to the death to keep them somehow end up like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhe58xORWG0

Could you please cite a credible website? Maybe not one ran by a bunch of whackjobs?

Seriously, the Germany reference in there couldn't be more misleadingly presented.

himself sound like an asshole with no solid logic to back his witty little argument. Him talking about semantics and such is true; it's all word play. However, him stating that his precious guns are "defensive" rifles is a baseless comment that contradicts his orginal statement.
Firstly, dude, understand that YOU view your guns that particular way in terms of defense and that YOU plan on only using them for defense (which is a laughable statement anyway). Other people, mind you, wholly intend on using them for what they are desingned to do, kill!! WTF else do he and others whom back the NRA freakin' think these "inanimate objects" were designed to do, plant flowers?

This whole "hate the person not the gun" nonsense needs to stop. Guns, when used to fucking hurt and kill people, are being used exactly for the sole purpose of why they were made in the first place.

take his guitar instead

He probably knows how stupid what he's saying is, he's just pandering to his dumbass butt rock fans

Any site or evidence that i present that you don't agree with will be termed 'whackjobs.'

Go ahead, toss away your rights.

Keanu, Lanza wasn't a gun owner, get you 'facts' straight.

Keep them. No one is taking them you nut.

why am i not surprised

the gun does not intend to hurt anyone but guess what you fucking moron, that is exactly what it is designed to do. There is no good reason for this awful musician to have the gun that he is carrying in the picture. Have all the guns you. Im all for guns but certain weapons have no business being in the hands of the public. Just another asshole that bought into the fear mongoring put on by fox news and the nra. Evn if new gun laws are put into place, they are not going to take anyones guns.

We will thrown FFDP into the ocean full of sharks.

.... wait, who?

WHO THE FUCK TAKES THIS BAND SERIOUSLY?????? their music is shit, and now its obvious the 'men' within the band have SHIT for brains.

fucking CLOWNS.

take your precious 'defense rifle', stick it up your ass and squeeze the trigger as fast you can. rid the world of your 'tough guy mall metal'.

seriously, if you like this band or own any of their albums you should be ashamed of yourself.

Some guy from Five Fisted Donkey Piss making a fool of himself.

The only way I'll let ANYONE take away my firearms is by taking them from my cold, dead hands!

Where, precisely, are these guys getting the THEY'RE COMING FOR OUR GUNS horseshit from? There isn't a single person on the pro gun control side calling for total confiscation of firearms and repealing the Second Amendment. So where the fuck are they getting this stupid shit from?

They're just using FEAR on their behalf as always!

All these mass shooting have nothing to do with gun control it all just plain bad parenting. Dems and Reps should save all that money they waste in this issue to create parenting classes, support and help. Simple as that.

"I do know that the Constitution defines treason as levying war against the state or giving aid and comfort to its enemies. It does seem a stretch that the 2nd amendment was intended to secure an individuals right to levy war against the state and thereby commit treason."

In other words, if you're fear of losing your gun is based on worrying about the gov't taking them.... you might be a candidate for treason.

How about letting go of your guns and your wiener long enough to play a decent guitar riff. This band is as bad if not worse than Nickelcrack and I'm sick of hearing their sh*t "songs" on the radio.

FIVE FINGER DEATH PUNCH Guitarist Wants To Hold On To His 3" cock - Jan. 11, 2013

Well, you already got it half right with the name of your band, now just turn that name towards your face and all your problems will be solved (Pun intended)...

It is by no means an accident that religious fruit loops and right wing wacko gun nuts are interchangable terms. One and the same...

It's simple.

People who are fucking stupid and cowardly enough to believe in zombies, pregnant virgins, people that can part the sea, and once upon a time there were two humans and a snake, are usually immature enough to believe that everyone wants to break in to their house and steal their DVD collection or their NASCAR collector plates or their 12 pack of Keystone. They protect all this useless shit with a gun (or collection of guns) that cost more money than the cheap ass things they think they will have to guard with their lives.

The reality is.. they're far more likely to shoot themselves, a family member or neighbor or just freak out about the possibilities 24/7/all their lives. And then - if and when - there ever came a day when somebody did break in, chances are they are more skilled at using a gun and have one themselves, and have to shoot the dipshit gun owner because Dirty Harry gave him no other choice..

A complete nation of dipshits in this country.

what has a normal people have to do with machine rifles and pistols??? especialy the rifles??? rather have some few shots hunter rifles for hunting and thats it. and its better that crazy people have a gun that can only shoot 2-3 people and then someone would overpower them instead of 10-20 or more.

Gun fanatics are a strange breed. Nobody is coming for your guns. They might try to place some restrictions on certain aspects of firearm ownership, but not take them away. And there is nothing wrong with having some tighter restrictions on some things, especially something that's designed with the sole purpose to kill.

The term "assault weapon" may be a media term, but it's just like most other words out there. As time progresses, words take on additional meanings or become part of regular language. An easy example would be just taking, say, metal or heavy metal and now look at the dozens of subgenres as things were redefined or defined more specifically.

Wanting the NRA to educate the public about guns is a horrible idea. They're a part of the problem as they spout out so much pro-gun propaganda and spend millions a year lobbying for loose gun control laws.

I support the second amendment, but I'm not opposed to there being some limitations on certain things. Such as ammunition sales. Why is it that in many states you get a knock on your door if you happen to buy too much Sudafed or fertilizer, but you can buy thousands of rounds of ammo without anyone blinking any eye?

There are a lot of other issues involved in these cases, such as mental illnesses or just bad parenting, but I'm pretty sure I ranted far too much already.

No, it's not too much. lol

Here it is..another wise tale from Zoltan of Five Finger Death Sucks. Every day we are reminded how something designed to maim and kill, even in "responsible" hands ends up harming someone. The second amendment was created in a different time and era, in a different society completely. It makes me laugh when NRA card carrying, ultra right wing, paranoid lunatics cling on to this for dear life. Assault rifles, handguns, whatever it is, was made with intent to harm. Why is it that in the news, when tradgedies happen and it is investigated, that 9 out of 10 times some lunatic gets the guns in question from someone who is a gun owner? Why isn't the legal gun owner responsible enough to keep track of them? Zoltan, why do you need guns anyway? I thought you were a black belt in karate.

Six Pack Billy Joe

What a fucking pussy. Little man. little, little man

Omg did the guy with all the zzzzzzzzs in their name really start beating the UN IS COMING FOR OUR GUNS horseshit at me?

Really?

REALLY?

Stop listening to Megadeth, dude. The UN is so underfunded it's a joke. How the fuck are they going to take over the goddamn world?

"Guns, when used to fucking hurt and kill people, are being used exactly for the sole purpose of why they were made in the first place. "
The purpose of why they were made? Answer me this question in an honest manner; How many people have been saved by guns as opposed to by how many have been killed? The number would astound you. Joe 'Plugs" Biden would use some stupid analogy of how the auto industry was at first against air bags, but here we are and we have air bags. All while ignoring the evidence that CAFE standards (of which he supports) contribute to people dying on the roads. You can't change the laws of physics... when you make cars lighter using more plastic and aluminum people die in lighter cars, but hey... they helped save the planet in doing so.

Thanks for the reply, vitalsign. Okay, honestly, where are your facts and figures for the statement of how I'd be astounded that more people are "saved" than "harmed." How could one even come to such a conclusion?

It's all relative. What is one man being "protected" or "saved" is another man's murder. British soldiers in the Revolutionary war felt their cause was just, exactly like all of the courageous and heroic colonists did that defended or "saved" themselves. But I'm American so I would view them as heroes "killing" for safety and a just cause, not murdering- which is what they did, of course .

So, who's to say whose agenda in terms of "saving" or "harming" is which? Point being, guns kill in any instance whenever used for anything other than target practice, and that's just not usually a good thing.

I do understand, however, that in the hands of people like in my example above (or police officers), killing is absolutely necessary, but as regular old citizens, we have no real need for it.

Remember kids....

A dissenting opinion does not necessarily equate to stupidity. And judging by the way Zoltan effectively expresses himself through writing, I would say he is anything but stupid. Hell, most of you can't even spell your fucking names correctly.

For the record, I agree with him.

Guns are not the direct cause of massacres. Victim-complex having low IQ dickscrapes with ravenous appetites for ANY kind of attention appear to be the cause according to my observation of the latest round of murders in public places. So, basically PUSSIES who learn how to load a rifle (an extremely complicated act that can be executed only by the crème de la crème of mechanically inclined individuals LOL) and are not smart enough to handle personal issues with their intellects are the problem children of this society.

Also for the record, fuck Ted Nugent in his ass with a big rubber dick.

they went from "der takin our jerbs" to "der takin our gerns"! lol what tools.

1. If you feel you need an assault rifle to protect yourself you are a paranoid and a pussy.

You will be forced to run double-time, to the mass grave your neighbor probably helped dig while UN troops laugh at, and,mock you. Go look up footage from the ghettos of Warsaw if you need historical reference. History is repeating itself.

We most definitely need semi-auto rifles to fight tyranny.

and reinterpreting the amendment to suit your paranoia is not healthy. "Well regulated" is the first part of that amendment and it can be changed without infringement upon the right.

The founding fathers did not have public access to military grade weapons, 90 round clips, gun shows or the internet in mind when they wrote the amendment and it purpose was not that of a 'tyrannical' government.

"Neither country has ever come close to our creating anything remotely similar to our Constitution or democratic values."

WTF??? Are you serious? Have you ever been outside the US? Do you know of any other countries besides the US? Yikes!!

So should obama take away your fast cars because they can cause harm? Point is, it's not his right as president to take shit away from people. That's a dictator and that's what he have. Some of you are just so fucking stubborn and blind to realize it... like a boiling frog.

The founding fathers did not have public access to military grade weapons.....
And award for the dumbest comment.... DING DING DING.

Really they didn't have access to military weapons, i wonder what they used to fight the British during the revolutionary war.... Oh yeah GUNS!

when they wrote the amendment and it purpose was not that of a 'tyrannical' government.

Funny thing is your WRONG again.

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." Thomas Jefferson

“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”

A band full of idiots will of course make one ignorant statement after the other. As long as people like him have any sort of influence in the US people will continue killing each other to a greater extent than in any other civilized country (if you can call the US civilized).

Boycott Five Finger Death Punch.

of course a rifle has no will to kill anyone but it's much easier to kill someone holding a weapon than with your bare hands. You rarely see non-armed soldiers in wars, do you Zoltan? There's a reason for this... I'm sure he would have voted for the Jobbik neo-nazis if he was still in Hungary...

Wow, with a couple of exceptions I see a plethora of uneducated and downright ridiculous comments.

Calling somebody a NAZI for favoring the Constitution and suggesting that bands influence people to commit mass murder?
KID, ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME ?

Anyway. I don't remember "BLASTING" liberal Democrat politicians. My original post was mainly about the misinformation some the media's sensationalist catch phrases create. I was having a conversation about guns and the 2nd amendment on my *personal page*, and this was only ONE of my posts about the subjects... which I made right after Piers Morgans sensationalist tirade on the constitution, and semi-automatic rifles that he clearly did not understand.

Here's a recap (copied and pasted) from that newsfeed - so you can see the whole picture not just one segment the media lifted from my page:

So…. the reoccurring questions / concepts on the thread were these:

1. Why would anyone need rifles, or high cap mangazines for self defense?

The answer lies in the behavioral pattern between assailants and defenders. An assailant has planned his act and it makes no difference if he has hand guns with a bunch of magazines VS a riffle with a couple of high capacity mags - the outcome will be about the same. He has a crazy plan and one way or another he will carry all the ammo he can *on his person*. When you are being attacked however - the element of surprise will unlikely to find you with ammo on you in every pocket. You will reach for your primary defensive weapon and most likely all the rounds you will have available are the ones in that one gun. If it's a 6 round revolver and you have 3-4 home invaders you are shit out of luck. In a high stress scenario your accuracy goes out the window - so from 6 rounds you may not even hit one single assailant and can not defend yourself, your family, your property.


2. Second reoccurring question was : "give me a realistic scenario where you would actually need a rifle for self defense"

OK. Here you go: A natural disaster wipes out the power grid and within 2 weeks there's total chaos and people start looting. This can actually easily happen... Then you will do what? Sharpen your fork? Now What if this is widespread to multiple states, law enforcement and national guard is overwhelmed and spread thin. The damage is so substantial that it will take months to get the power back on. Possibly people would begun looting in organized armed groups. Now what, sharpen a backup fork?


3. Why this particular weapon. Why the AR15 platform?

Watch the law enforcement's response to popular weapons amongst criminals (who will inarguably attain these weapons illegally no matter what). Whatever criminals arm themselves with, the cops will mirror in order to equalize the threat. If the cops get tactical shotguns, 9mm semi autos or .40cal semi autos, and AR platform rifles they do so because they came to an educated conclusion that those are THE adequate weapons to defend themselves with. Now guess what is going to happen. The general public will attain the same weapons the cops deemed adequate, because who would know better than our own law enforcement about the level of threat and the measure they have to take to equalize it. Of course impracticality is a factor - arming up will probably stop where it's at right now, nobody will haul around a 100 pound machine-gun - and if they would - EQUAL force would arrive (SWAT, National Guard, ARMY... however big the threatening guns are)


4. The argument that the 2nd amendment is there to protect us from a tyrannical central government if necessary: It is true - BUT - on this point I have to agree with the "times changed' line of thought… The government is NOT trying to disarm you in order to turn against you.

That's way too much of a conspiracy theory for my taste. And I think this one is impossibly unlikely. While there were several examples of this in other countries' history yes, I think today the instant connectedness of modern society prevents something like that from even to begin to develop. Besides, how do you propose the government would convince American soldiers and law enforcement to turn their weapons on fellow Americans in large numbers. This isn't gonna happen. Also, remember - as much as we are mocked for our "Attitude", and portrayed as gun swinging crazies - screaming "America Fuck Yeah" - on the opposite side of that very same coin - because of that "attitude" - Americans are the last people on Earth to be subdued. It's a gun culture founded by, fought for and defended by guns. You can't tell Americans to shut up, to back off, to kneel down, to bow their heads, and do whatever they told. They won't. EVER. They have been backing up that "Attitude" for hundreds of years. You can't disarm them - they will "stick to their guns" 'til their last breath because that's their absolute last line of defense to protect their dignity. And they will… dare to challenge that.


5. Will the government override the 2nd amendment.
NO. I don't think they want to or can. Constitution aside... that would be a high level of hypocrisy. A lot of these politicians are protected by secret service and/or body guards armed to the chin. They would have a hard time to explain to the rest of the Americans why they are privileged citizens over the rest and why their lives should be protected by firearms while yours and your families aren't that important. No they are not going to say or do that. They will probably tax firearms and ammo, tighten up background checks, but (IMO) it's unrealistic to "unarm America". 400 Million guns and trillions of rounds of ammo. How would you collect and dispose that?


/// Zoltan Bathory