THE 2ND AMENDMENT
The Right to Kick Ass, Take Names and Over-compensate
(Daniel Craig)
picture: dunno source, via our lol builder. lol caption: G-Rod
-
-
Copy & paste this:
« Previous Not as comfy as sports bra | VILLAINS Next »
THE 2ND AMENDMENT
» See all 85 comments
Leave a Reply
-
'Razzi Sez:
gen77c on Who You Trying to Get Crazy Wi… Shade1982 on 007 Carissa on Damn Girl, You Fine As Hell… Carissa on Oh Elmo, You So Funny Carissa on I’ve Never Wanted to be … The Daily Golden on Golden Retrievers That Look Li… Curtis on Good Guy George Danielle Lowrie on Who You Trying to Get Crazy Wi… crimzonchyld on GTFO of My Head, Carly!!! thegalaxygoddess on Why… WHY Would People do… 
Cheezburger Company Blog
More I CAN HAS CHEEZBURGER?
I Can Has Cheezburger? - Lolcats n Funny Pictures
Animal Videos: Slow Power-Down
Lolcats - Lolcats n' Funny Cat Pictures
Go ahead and laugh, Romeo.
I Has A Hotdog - Loldogs n Cute Puppies
Cyoot Puppy ob teh Day: So Thirsty!
Animal Capshunz - All of the Internet's Animals. Captioned
Even Lions Have These Moments
Animal Videos - Cute and Hilarious Animal Videos
Come On, Dog, Do You Really Need to do That?
Animal Gifs - Cute and Hilarious Animal Gifs
Daring Leap
Daily Squee - So cute your brain might explode.
Hide!
Historic LOLs - Captioned Portraits of Yore
Mis-Carved
My Food Looks Funny - Funny Food Photos
Cannot Be Unseen
So Much Pun - Visual Puns and Jokes
Cuz Dime-ins Are a Girl's Best Friend
Totally Looks Like - Stuff That Looks Like Other Stuff
Sheldon Cooper (Jim Parsons) Totally Looks Like Evil Spock (Leonard Nimoy)
Must Have Cute - See. Want. Must Have!
Epicute: Secret Rainbow House Cake
If Style Could Kill - OMG Style!
Ring of the Day: Gettin' Biblical
Pundit Kitchen - Lol News and Lol Politics Fun
Where The Deer and The Antelope Pee
Lovely Listing - Strange Findings in Real Estate Listings
All Jumbled Up
![\"Quantcast\"/](\"http://pixel.quantserve.com/pixel/p-94wNw88f65Rhk.gif?labels=MTVN%20Digital%20Tribes\")
Hmm… Bond isn’t American, so the 2nd amendment doesn’t really apply to him.
If he were in America it would.
And another Fail, V Gard… I hope you don’t think I’m singling you out here…
But Constitutional protections apply to citizens, not visiting foreigners.
Also, apparently, foreigners we caught in Iran or Afghanistan.
If (and only if) the 2nd Amendment applies to individual persons, it applies to all people who are legally staying in the U.S… (See the definition of the term “people” which was discussed in United States v. Verdugo-Urquirdez).
James bond isn’t American, the bill of rights doesn’t apply. FAIL.
Ummm, the Second Ammendment is in the Constitution. Fail.
This pic FTW.
V Gard, the Second Amendment to the Constitution is one of the ten known as the ‘Bill of Rights’.
You leave me with no choice…
Fail.
Wow you’re dumb.
Damn. As MUCH as I HATE it when Europeans talk down about Americans when they haven’t been here, this comment, I believe…is the reason why.
THANK YOU…for proving their point…when a lot of us are trying to fight against it.
*head desk*
Who needs a 2nd Amendment anyway when you’ve got a License to Kill
Touché
I bet whoever made this feels like a jackass.
Take names?
james bond is a fictional character who works for the british ministry of defence, the 2nd amendment is from the american bill of rights – FAIL
james bond has a license to kill, therefore has no need for a bill of rights regardless of his country of origin and/or hire – FAIL
idiots overcompensate in every possible way: be it a huge wake boarding boat, a jacked up truck, a loud stereo, a stupid motorcycle, jewelry, clothes, whatever. thus overcompensation has nothing to do with firearms and you’re a dumbass – FAIL
you’re a dumbass – FAIL
On a totally unrelated to dumb-assery note, I am pretty sure that neither the SIS nor MI6 are actually a part of the M.O.D.
Point.
However, SIS is MI6.
Fail.
Right… Cause a long tube that ejects stuff when squeezed is in no way phallic.
Though win on the Truck one, I’m still waiting to see one of those things driving on the highway with even a smug of dirt on them.
additionally, the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with “kicking ass” or “taking names”. it’s a an amendment that protects the right to keep and bear arms for the civilians of the united state of america. this is quite opposite of “kicking ass” or “taking names”. – FAIL
again, you’re a dumbass – FAIL
That’s awfy un-cheery!
I propose that we replace all FAILs with Not Quite Wins… And have rainbows and sand-fairies and joyous lobsters…
Have a happy day, grumpy person.
But Frank IS right, you moronic little twit.
He is inded. Except for the part where the second ammendment is in the Bill of Rights. Its in the Constitution smart guy. Fail.
Crickets and Toads….
When you get a bad idea in your head, you just run with it forever…
The Bill of… forget it.
Mass Fail.
And what exactly is the Bill of Rights? Go look it up right now, then come back here and tell us all what an amazing moron you are.
ummmmm the bill of rights is IN the constitution. they are the first ten ammendments. so you, dear v guard and at like infinity fail. you are infinifail
Bill of rights- N. first ten added amendments to the US Constitution… (cut short for other bills of rights) it is in the bill of rights, and in the constitution…
He can be as right as he likes, I wasn’t contesting that, but he’s still un-cheery and grumpy and it seems to have spread to you…
Have some joyousness, grumpy Eric…
Civilians.
Uhhhh. Really?
Didn’t you read “A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State…”?
In the 18th Century a “well regulated militia” was every adult male with a weapon.
Wrong. Alexander Hamilton wrote in the “Federalist Papers” that “well regulated” meant training in military maneuvers and warfare, not just owning a weapon.
Actually, according to George Mason, the miitia is “the whole of the people, except a few public officers”.
And the term “well regulated” has nothing to do with control. In period it was actually a watch / clockmaker’s term, and means able to work together in a proper and efficient manner.
The founders knew that dangers of a standing army – they’d just come through a period of about 20 years of oppression which included abuses ofthe people by the British army. Instead they wrote the 2nd Amendment “to provide for the common defense”. So that civilians could, in times of danger, take up arms in defense of their homes, communities, and country.
What gets my goat is that so many people want to make the 2nd Amendment a collective right, citing “the people” as in a court action — “the people vs Smith”. I doubt they would stand for the 1st and 4th, (the only others to specifically mention “the people”) being dsignated as collective rights – belonging only to the government.
I’d tend to agree; the Second confers a right to own firearms, but also a responsibility to learn how and when to use them properly, upon the citizenry.
Ignorance is not a right.
I guess you’ve never worked in retail
or social services
this should just be moved to the fail blog. we can put it under “Captioning FAIL.”
All will then be right in the world.
I would hardly call the relatively small caliber, low capacity guns like the Walther PPK that James Bond typically uses overcompensation. Most of what you see there is a silencer. Combine that with the fact that he is British and therefore has no 2nd amendment rights and what you have here is at least a DOUBLE FAIL.
Win.
I concure. Win.
Looked up the Bill of Rights to see what document it’s in yet? Since Frank was right at all your failings, and thus I’m dubious of your abilities, I’ll point it out- it’s part of the constitution, and hence all that spiel Frank went into and I’ll summarize by saying this: FAIL.
Why does this have 4 unicorns? Bond is british silly captioners!
Plus it would be ‘kick arse’, not ‘ass’.
Who the hell says kick-arse except ‘British’ people in American films? Srsly. Ass is a British term. Read some Shakespeare…
Caption fail. Everyone’s pointed out why, but I think we need another hundred-odd people to actually state that it’s a complete and utter failure before we get close to describing just how high this apex of stupidity rises.
Another example of total anti-gun ultra liberalism stupidity.
I didn’t know that six inches was overcompensating. Maybe it’s just you =P
HOW IN THE NAME OF HELL DOES CRAP LIKE THIS GET VOTED ONTO THE MAIN SITE????
Daniel Craig sure does make a lot of money swinging guns around for a guy who openly talks about disliking guns & gun-ownership.
PS – Using a silencer is NOT overcompensating. That’s a Walther PPK. They’re typically chambered in 32acp, or more recently 380 auto. Those are very weak bullets in case you don’t know. And it isn’t a big gun, it’s a tiny little pocket pistol!
You are aware that there’s a difference between movies and reality right? Right? I love guns in movies and other entertainment, but I hate guns in real life. That is not inconsistent in any way. In real life we can kill people with guns, in movies we pretend they kill people – there’s a huge difference.
So no, I really don’t see your point about an actor using guns in movies and being against gun-ownership.
But as for your other point, I thought about that too as soon as I saw the picture. He usually has tiny guns. I’ve never thought of a Bond as overcompensating with guns. Cars are a different matter though.
Well if he doesn’t think gun owners are responsible people, then he must think they are either criminals or irresponsible James Bond wannabees.
However, after all the gun smugglers stopped in his movies, he should know criminals get illegal guns.
Therefore he believes gun owners are James Bond wannabees.
Therefore he should believe his movies promote guns.
Therefore he should stop making James Bond movies.
Oh, and it’s Ironic how James Bond kills most criminals and hardly makes prisoners (and if he does he usually executes them later). Gun owners rarely shoot people in a case of self-defense (drawing your gun is usually enough to scare muggers away). James Bond does it ALL THE TIME, even when it’s not self-defense.
DANIEL CRAIG FAIL!
At the risk of sounding like a gun nut, that’s a Walther P99 which can be chambered for either .40S&W or 9mm rounds. It’s larger, and more powerful than the old PPK.
It’s still only a handgun with a silencer though, I agree it’s hardly overcompensating. The whole thing would probably come to 12 or so inches.
Agree that this post is total fail.
I see now that you’re right. The rail under the barrel is a dead giveaway. I had it in my head that Craig’s Bond had gone back to the PPK so I didn’t really take a close look at the gun in the pic. It is a bit blurry. Maybe if we’re lucky he’ll pick up the new PPS in future films (but I doubt it).
It’s not about the power of the gun but the precision of the shot. Bond could take that wimpy little popgun and put a bullet right in the center of your eyeball from a quarter mile out.
Actually, that’s a 9mm Walther p99. Still not overcompensating.
IMHO, the true over compensators are the guys with tiny little rice burner cars with great big oversize exhaust pipes, and McLaren type wing spoilers, or those with big tandem axle pickup trucks with twin exhaust stacks sticking up out of the bed (thus obviating any usefulness of the increased load capacity of the tandem axle).
But that is the shrink in me talking.
Dr. Freud… call your service.
We have to right to bear arms, arm bears and all points in between.
I’m glad this made others so cross as well – move it to the fail blog, or put it at the back of the internets to rot.
don´t forget the right to kill your own family members by mistake.
Godja FTW.
I still have to wonder why no one took up and used their rightfully owned arms to kick out Bush when he literally stole the election the first time round. Isn’t that what the 2nd Amendment is all about? But then I also have to wonder why no-one with an illegally owned arm has got round to shooting Gordon Brown yet.
Oh, do us a favour? Next time he visits the USA, put those guns to some use and shoot him.
That’s not a compensator, that’s a silencer! (giggles…)
This is being taken too seriously…just laugh
But it’s just not funny enough to compensate for the core ignorance!
it can be right, or it can be funny, or it can be both. This one is neither.
This one reminds me of how, sometimes, one of my friends will say “I plead the fifth!” when they don’t want to answer a question for whatever reason.
I never hesitate to point out that we can’t plead the fifth, we’re Canadian.
OUR constitution says that we have to politely ask people not to pry into our affairs, and then we’ll all go out for a beer and forget about it.
“Plead the 5th”. Pffft, half of them don’t even know what it means!
Most Americans don’t even use it properly.
Fail, fail, fail. I am British and part of the point of James Bond is that he, unlike practically everyone else not in military uniform in the United Kingdom, has a licence (not license, thank you very much) to kill. Anyone he damn well feels like.
And anyway, Roger Moore did the job for years and years, and he was literally terrified of guns. Watch some old Bond – you’ll rarely see his face in shot when he fires. Every single time, his eyes were shut.
Is it just me, or does Daniel Craig’s face look awkwardly photoshopped in this picture? I haven’t seen the new Bond movies, so I really have nothing to compare it to, but it just looks odd.
Oh, and FAIL. 2nd ammendment totally wouldn’t apply to James Bond. License to kill, foreign visitor…yaddayaddayadda… all I’m doing is repeating what’s been said.
Whether it applies or not, this isn’t too funny.
oh, get over it — search for the beauty – the hunkiness – the primal ‘oh my’ factor. This shot overwhelms any caption.
Fail.
Daniel Craig is notoriously anti-gun, yet he doesn’t hesitate to make a buck off of a movie using them.
Boycott Daniel Craig
Godja – Good call!
Well, if we are speaking strictly Constitutionally, the 2nd ammendment does not gurantee the right for every citizen to bare arms. It only gurantees the right of every citizen in a Militia to bare arms. Back then that did included mostly everybody, but now with a large army and no fronteir to protect, it mainly gives the right for the National Guard to Bare arms since they are the modern day version of the Militia. It was a Republican-controlled Supreme Court that upheld that the 2nd ammendment ment everybody, regardless if they belonged to a militia. They conveniently changed the meaning of the 2nd ammendment to make it say what they wanted it to say.
Good post, Sir!
Not to forget that “keep and bear arms” may be a metaphor for “keeping an armed force in battle-ready state”, meaning that the weapons and the training of soldiers is constitutionally guaranteed. You never know with 18th century English…
FAIL.
not even close to the correct interpretation, it is the people like you who are trying to manipulate the interpretation to strip this right away from the people. Maybe you should look at the DC ruling and you should really do your homework on this amendment. It seems you do not understand or appreciate it at all.
From the Wikipedia article, it’s quite clear that the 2nd Amendment’s intent was to confer the right to own and be trained in the use of firearms for the purposes of forming an armed militia, and for game hunting.
That would seem to indicate that you may only own military grade weapons or hunting weapons (so no handguns except for members of a militia), and you may not “carry concealed” (except plain clothes law enforcement and possibly militia officers), and may only carry or use military grade for formal training.
Of course. Why check what the US Supreme court has ruled is the correct interpretation when you can reference Wiki! Everyone knows user-edited databases are more knowledgeable than the highest court in the land.
Seriously, chief, the supreme court says the 2nd amendment is an individual right as well as a state’s right to form militias. The people’s right to arm themselves is not dependent on the existance of a militia to which they owe allegiance. Sorry, try again.
Intent – aim, purpose or design.
It’s quite possible for a court to misinterpret or re-interpret a point of law, particularly one that’s over 200 years old. It’s even possible for them to pervert the original intent of a law. Just because you happen to like a specific interpretation of a law doesn’t make it correct, or someone who has a different interpretation of the original text (which is why I went to Wikipedia; I wanted the original text, not a court’s interpretation of that text) to you, wrong.
Where did I say I like or dislike what the supreme court ruled? I just pointed out that you’re wrong, not that I approve of one thing or another. You’re wrong because the supreme court is the final word as to interpretation of the constitution. It is their only function, and they are the final voice on constitutional law. If you seriously think yours, mine, or any other citizens interpretation trumps theirs you really should crack a few more books and educate yourself.
This isn’t worth continuing; you clearly have no idea what the functions of the Supreme Court are. Even if you did, that does not mean that when they make a ruling on the constitution, that that ruling becomes fixed for evermore.
You are correct, it’s not worth continuing. You keep establishing strawmen to attack instead of my points.
Education is a wonderful thing. Look into some.
You’re correct. This isn’t worth continuing. You’re obviously more interested in beating up strawmen than facing my argument or facts.
Education is a wonderful thing. Look into attaining some.
Daniel. It is a gun. Please put it in your pocket. Then I can ask the question. Then we can debate the response.
Not over-compensating, just matching…
FAIL
Amen!!!!
This guy has come out as an anti gun spokesman. Where the Hell is John Wayne’s Picture?