Strawman argument. unless you have some ballistic missiles and plutonium, you've got nothing to worry about. If you are responsible and safe with your firearms, you've got nothing to worry about.

your paranoia is preventing you from living a productive life. you're too busy cowering in your bunker.

Thats the secret to them bunker busters, only works in winter.

Those bunker bombs are designed to penetrate then explode, not a lotta collateral damage but some (EPW) use a small nuclear detonation focused toward the ground for penetration with conventional explosives in the main warhead. Radiation residuals could be a problem.

You know, I have often wondered what the death toll from our old Bush/Clinton era bunker busters or cruise missiles would have been. Surely a high yield explosive would have cause more collateral damage, as well as being less precise on targeting.

Governments recording which of its citizens have guns is reasonable (I agree with Bill on this point), and not as terrifying as some might claim

Except for cases where paranoia is leading ones considerations.. in which case, finish building your bunker(s), they's a comin for ya!

"don't lump me in with Alex Jones"

HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHHA!

So if our government magically becomes tyrannical, they would obviously remove the 2nd amendment correct?

So if there is no second amendment and guns have been confiscated does this magically stop you from stealing/hiding/stockpiling guns and revolting anyway? Or do you just sit on your thumbs and accept the tyranny cursing "damnit! they revoked the 2nd amendment, we were so close to revolting too!"

And if our gov't becomes tyrannical in the right wing fanatic's fantasy world, how does your AR-15 plan on dealing with Apache helicopters? and F-22s? and laser guided munitions, and bunker busters...or SEAL teams?.

When has the lack of a 2nd amendment stopped anyone from revolting against an oppressive gov't?

If you're going to successfully revolt against a tyrannical 21st century America, you;re going to need at the very least"

1) popular support: in other words, if the guy you voted for doesn't win the election, that's not tyranny. Call me when we stop having elections, then you might have a stronger case for tyrannical govt. paying higher taxes isn't tyranny. Sorry.

2) military support: sorry, your cache of small arms, shotguns, and rifles (assault or otherwise) aren't going to cut it. you're going to need many military units to defect and oppose the government. And guess what, the commander of these units that defect will in all likelihood be leading said revolt, not the right wing pundits and chicken hawks (they'll be too busy cowering in the bomb shelters) and it won't be your "patriotic" militia wannabe survival nut.

3) lots of computer nerds and cyber warfare. Sorry son, the era of the jock is over. The world is digital now bitches. bits can be more powerful than bullets in today's world.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. the 2nd Amendment is largely symbolic and nothing more. It basically says that yes, the populace has the right to be armed (something both sides agree with, the degree of which is debatable but I'll get to that in a moment) and that *IF* the government gets tyrannical you aught to revolt

As for what kind of weapons should be allowed. If you acknowledge that its reasonable to keep nuclear arms, and military vehicles and planes and other heavy weapons and firearms out of civilian hands, then you acknowledge that the 2nd Amendments DOES have it's limits. When the founders wrote the 2nd amendment. Muskets were the pinnacle of weapons technology. Everyone was allowed to have them. So if you acknowledge that in TODAY'S world, that there are certain firearms that civvies shouldn't have, then you acknowledge that the founding fathers didn't think of everything and times do, in fact, change

Those of us in the nuclear community have discussed turning container-ships like these into a functional civilian nuclear navy. The normal powerhouse in this beast is a Wärtsilä-Sulzer RTA96-C, an amazing 107 389.049 horsepower engine, and even though they talk about its fuel efficiency with it...it still burns hundreds of tons of bunker fuel a day (nasty stuff). They also go slower now to burn less fuel in this energy conscience world, whereas a reactor basically has no fuel costs. You wouldn't need a large one either, 80MW or so, so design specs would be very modest.

Archie Bunker the early years.

1). The Jefferson's
2). All in the Family (Archie Bunker)
3). Golden Girls
4). Friends
5). Prince of Bel Air
6). Facts of Life
7). Good Times
. Greatest American Hero
9). Threes Company
10). Sanford and Son (Thanks diggum317)(That was my guess but I wasn't sure)
11). Full House
12). Saved by the Bell
13). Happy Days
14). Cheers
15). The Mary Tyler Moore Show'

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/The-Bed-Bunker-Sleep-with-your-Guns-America

2 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

This video has been declared a duplicate by the original submitter; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof declared by mintbbb.

http://videosift.com/video/The-Bed-Bunker-Sleep-with-your-Guns-America

They were WAY too close when they blew up the fridge.

Reminds me of when my cousin and I made some PVC pipe bombs with black powder and PVC pipe when we were kids. My aunt had to help him extract a piece of plastic from his butt because he didn't set a long enough fuse to be able to get back to our bunker at a safe distance.

The Government is building underground bunkers for the upcoming apocalypse or collision with an asteroid.It's so obvious!