[quote]Bismark wrote:
Sarcasm travels poorly it seems. Bauber’s form of “justice” requires that those amendments be tossed out of the window in favor of the 2nd.[/quote]
Not necessarily.
You can be afforded a speedy trial with due process and be hung for Treason. I don’t think it’s cruel and/or unusual either. Seizure could be justified as well. [/quote]
Certainly. But his definition of treason leaves much to be desired.[/quote]
Give them this and a few more steps and you might change your mind on the definition.
My main concern is we all know where the end game is with this mess, complete disarmament of anyone other than the government. That is plain as day and you are naive if you think otherwise. And we know how well that has worked out for countries in history.[/quote]
This is, without a doubt, the admitted goal of many of the top gun “control” proponents.
However, I think the tipping point has been reached. Even in MA, who is very unfriendly to gun ownership, the people are standing up and say “fuck you”.
My town, who is one of the red areas in the state had over 800 new license applications in 2013. Which doubles the town record. And the officer I spoke with said 2014 is shaping up to be another record, not double but still higher than 800.
The tide is changing I think, and it isn’t swinging towards Brady’s way.
My main concern is we all know where the end game is with this mess, complete disarmament of anyone other than the government. That is plain as day and you are naive if you think otherwise. And we know how well that has worked out for countries in history.[/quote]
This is, without a doubt, the admitted goal of many of the top gun “control” proponents.
However, I think the tipping point has been reached. Even in MA, who is very unfriendly to gun ownership, the people are standing up and say “fuck you”.
My town, who is one of the red areas in the state had over 800 new license applications in 2013. Which doubles the town record. And the officer I spoke with said 2014 is shaping up to be another record, not double but still higher than 800.
The tide is changing I think, and it isn’t swinging towards Brady’s way. [/quote]
My main concern is we all know where the end game is with this mess, complete disarmament of anyone other than the government. That is plain as day and you are naive if you think otherwise. And we know how well that has worked out for countries in history.[/quote]
This is, without a doubt, the admitted goal of many of the top gun “control” proponents.
However, I think the tipping point has been reached. Even in MA, who is very unfriendly to gun ownership, the people are standing up and say “fuck you”.
My town, who is one of the red areas in the state had over 800 new license applications in 2013. Which doubles the town record. And the officer I spoke with said 2014 is shaping up to be another record, not double but still higher than 800.
The tide is changing I think, and it isn’t swinging towards Brady’s way. [/quote]
I am about to pull two threads together, but this and the ACA are the reasons that the Repubs will win the Senate. If Repubs just sound off on Larger Government is bad and these are two reasons and extrapolate out to everything else they will win the Senate.
What’s stopping states from limiting other things involving firearms other than round count and bullet buttons? Is it out of the question that certain states (NY and CA ofcoarse) will make red dot sights illegal? You don’t need red dot sights right? What is stopping them from making laws that prevent you from purchasing more than 100 rounds at a time, because what could anyone possibly need more than 100 rounds for? Maybe you can only own no more than 4 firearms per person because no one person could possibly need more than 4 firearms to defend themselves. Want a new one? better get rid of one first. Or, better yet, having you pay for liability insurance for every gun you own. $50/month, just in case it shoots someone.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Now if this bastard doesn’t deserve a good beating I don’t know who does.
Army officer insults Supreme Court for Heller decision; calls for gun bans, turn-ins
"My entire adult life has been dedicated to the deliberate management of violence. . . . My job . . . is about killing. I orchestrate violence. . . . I am really good at my job…’ Alas, Bateman didn?t have the time to read either the U.S. Code or the UCMJ, because?boundless egos knowing no bounds?he fancies himself to be running for president on a platform that goes well beyond even Obama?s anti-gun agenda.
"The ambitious lieutenant colonel must be running on the Banana Republic ticket, because the ?Bateman-Pierce platform’ – whoever Pierce is – ‘will include a ban on the purchase of any firearm other than a musket, double-barreled shotgun, or five-shot, bolt-action rifle,’ he said. There will be a 400 percent tax on ammunition. And a government program will ‘buy back’ all of your guns. Those that you do not sell will be forfeited to the local police for destruction upon your death. ‘We will pry your gun from your cold, dead fingers,’ Bateman added.
Bateman seems like quite the internet commando, opening up his article with his supposed expertise on violence that has nothing to do with the issue at hand.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Now if this bastard doesn’t deserve a good beating I don’t know who does.
Army officer insults Supreme Court for Heller decision; calls for gun bans, turn-ins
"My entire adult life has been dedicated to the deliberate management of violence. . . . My job . . . is about killing. I orchestrate violence. . . . I am really good at my job…’ Alas, Bateman didn?t have the time to read either the U.S. Code or the UCMJ, because?boundless egos knowing no bounds?he fancies himself to be running for president on a platform that goes well beyond even Obama?s anti-gun agenda.
"The ambitious lieutenant colonel must be running on the Banana Republic ticket, because the ?Bateman-Pierce platform’ – whoever Pierce is – ‘will include a ban on the purchase of any firearm other than a musket, double-barreled shotgun, or five-shot, bolt-action rifle,’ he said. There will be a 400 percent tax on ammunition. And a government program will ‘buy back’ all of your guns. Those that you do not sell will be forfeited to the local police for destruction upon your death. ‘We will pry your gun from your cold, dead fingers,’ Bateman added.
Bateman seems like quite the internet commando, opening up his article with his supposed expertise on violence that has nothing to do with the issue at hand. [/quote]
Is it fate that gave him the same name and sensibilities as our esteemed American Pyscho, or simply happy coincidence? The world may never know but it certainly fits the ego.
My main concern is we all know where the end game is with this mess, complete disarmament of anyone other than the government. That is plain as day and you are naive if you think otherwise. And we know how well that has worked out for countries in history.[/quote]
This is, without a doubt, the admitted goal of many of the top gun “control” proponents.
However, I think the tipping point has been reached. Even in MA, who is very unfriendly to gun ownership, the people are standing up and say “fuck you”.
My town, who is one of the red areas in the state had over 800 new license applications in 2013. Which doubles the town record. And the officer I spoke with said 2014 is shaping up to be another record, not double but still higher than 800.
The tide is changing I think, and it isn’t swinging towards Brady’s way. [/quote]
[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
What’s stopping states from limiting other things involving firearms other than round count and bullet buttons? Is it out of the question that certain states (NY and CA ofcoarse) will make red dot sights illegal? You don’t need red dot sights right? What is stopping them from making laws that prevent you from purchasing more than 100 rounds at a time, because what could anyone possibly need more than 100 rounds for? Maybe you can only own no more than 4 firearms per person because no one person could possibly need more than 4 firearms to defend themselves. Want a new one? better get rid of one first. Or, better yet, having you pay for liability insurance for every gun you own. $50/month, just in case it shoots someone. [/quote]
[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
What’s stopping states from limiting other things involving firearms other than round count and bullet buttons? Is it out of the question that certain states (NY and CA ofcoarse) will make red dot sights illegal? You don’t need red dot sights right? What is stopping them from making laws that prevent you from purchasing more than 100 rounds at a time, because what could anyone possibly need more than 100 rounds for? Maybe you can only own no more than 4 firearms per person because no one person could possibly need more than 4 firearms to defend themselves. Want a new one? better get rid of one first. Or, better yet, having you pay for liability insurance for every gun you own. $50/month, just in case it shoots someone. [/quote]
[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
What’s stopping states from limiting other things involving firearms other than round count and bullet buttons? Is it out of the question that certain states (NY and CA ofcoarse) will make red dot sights illegal? You don’t need red dot sights right? What is stopping them from making laws that prevent you from purchasing more than 100 rounds at a time, because what could anyone possibly need more than 100 rounds for? Maybe you can only own no more than 4 firearms per person because no one person could possibly need more than 4 firearms to defend themselves. Want a new one? better get rid of one first. Or, better yet, having you pay for liability insurance for every gun you own. $50/month, just in case it shoots someone. [/quote]
Is this sarcasm?
[/quote]
Yes
[/quote]
I had to verify, because I was wondering if your account was hacked. lol
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Now if this bastard doesn’t deserve a good beating I don’t know who does.
Army officer insults Supreme Court for Heller decision; calls for gun bans, turn-ins
"My entire adult life has been dedicated to the deliberate management of violence. . . . My job . . . is about killing. I orchestrate violence. . . . I am really good at my job…’ Alas, Bateman didn?t have the time to read either the U.S. Code or the UCMJ, because?boundless egos knowing no bounds?he fancies himself to be running for president on a platform that goes well beyond even Obama?s anti-gun agenda.
"The ambitious lieutenant colonel must be running on the Banana Republic ticket, because the ?Bateman-Pierce platform’ – whoever Pierce is – ‘will include a ban on the purchase of any firearm other than a musket, double-barreled shotgun, or five-shot, bolt-action rifle,’ he said. There will be a 400 percent tax on ammunition. And a government program will ‘buy back’ all of your guns. Those that you do not sell will be forfeited to the local police for destruction upon your death. ‘We will pry your gun from your cold, dead fingers,’ Bateman added.
Bateman seems like quite the internet commando, opening up his article with his supposed expertise on violence that has nothing to do with the issue at hand. [/quote]
Is it fate that gave him the same name and sensibilities as our esteemed American Pyscho, or simply happy coincidence? The world may never know but it certainly fits the ego.[/quote]
I could be mistaken but, isnt it a violation of the UCMJ Article 88 for a officer to publicly denounce government officials such as the supreme court.
You can’t make this shit up. Truth is truly stranger than fiction. MSNBC & CNN had early stories that tried to associate Colorado Batman movie murders with the Tea Party. Turns out he was a nut job lefty. So was Gabby Gifford’s shooter, this latest shooter and many, many more.
What does the left try to do…
"In August 2009, Contessa Brewer was criticized by conservative blogs for a story about a man carrying an AR-15 assault rifle at an Obama appearance in Phoenix, Arizona, on August 17.
MSNBC was accused of editing the video to conceal the race of the man, WHO WAS BLACK, and Brewer commented “you have a MAN OF COLOR in the presidency and WHITE PEOPLE showing up with guns strapped to their waists or to their legs.”
(MSNBC has a history of editing and omitting segments of video in order to slant a story. Isn’t it ironic that they are repeatedly caught at what they accuse Fox/FAUX news or conservative radio of doing in order to further their Socialist manure?)
Now that they are enforcing the law the lawsuits will start going to the courts. Lets see if the SCOTUS will take this up in the next year or two.
[/quote]
You have a right to defend yourself and your household and the 2nd Amendment shall not be infringed. However, you can only defend yourself with 5 round magazines, one arm tied behind your back, and the intruder gets a five second head start and no limitations on weaponry. Go![/quote]
Ah another city that I will NEVER visit again or spend any money in. The list keeps growing. I personally think all the fucks enforcing this and who came up with the laws to do this should be tried for treason and hanged publicly.[/quote]
Seems reasonable. Who needs amendments 5-8 as long as we protect the 2nd?
I am a proponent of the horizontal proliferation of small arms by the way.
[/quote]
How does that violate 5-8?[/quote]
I fail to see how the legislation of poor and uninformed policy warrants an act of treason, defined in the U.S. as follows.
“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.”
Don’t like a policy? Vote with your hand or with your feet. [/quote]
Notice how US is a plural?
Notice how it went when states voted with their feet?
[quote]
Don’t like a policy? Vote with your hand or with your feet. [/quote]
Notice how US is a plural?
Notice how it went when states voted with their feet?[/quote]
Red herring. Nobody is going to be launching any wars to stop any citizen from getting up and leaving, and that–getting up and leaving, as a citizen–is what was suggested.
How did nobody comment on the giant headline from C-dog’s Drudge screen shot and the fact that China has gotten onto the moon this weekend?? The only other country to get there and I can’t believe nobody’s even said a word!
