Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
They are serious about it in Colorado Springs. They banned all semi autos. Commie California has banned all kinds of firearms. They are doing it in Washington State. It took the Supreme Court to stop the banning in DC and Chicago. Any place the asshole Democrats have the authority they have imposed significant restrictions on the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms and that is despicable.
The filthy Left would do it in a New York minute any place if they thought they could get away with it.
And this is a good thing. You don't need a gun, and most people aren't comfortable with you having one.
Says you, citing you.The reality is, if we put gun control to a vote, most of the 79% of us who don't own them would be just fine with sensible gun control.
You may be safe, but people observing someone with a machine gun might feel threatened. So, you might be obliged to announce that you had the weapon and that you were authorized to. Perhaps a very loud recording played over a bull horn that could be heard at a good distance.Fuck that.I see lefties frequently screech about how 2A supporters refuse to compromise. Well, that's because there's never BEEN a compromise, rather a one-sided chipping away of 2nd Amendment rights with nothing offered in return.
So here, I'll offer an actual compromise. You want universal background checks? I can get behind that. But in exchange I want universal reciprocity on CCW permits.
Deal?
UBC for zero restrictions on all firearms.
If you can pass a UBC, you're safe with a machine gun, right?'
.
We are in a dogfight for the very nature of our country. It is a choice between individual freedoms, liberties, and retaining our Natural Rights, or having an over bearing, overly controlling government run most aspects of our lives. It is the difference in government by the PEOPLE, or being governed (ruled) by the all powerful, centralized Bureaucracy.
They are serious about it in Colorado Springs. They banned all semi autos. Commie California has banned all kinds of firearms. They are doing it in Washington State. It took the Supreme Court to stop the banning in DC and Chicago. Any place the asshole Democrats have the authority they have imposed significant restrictions on the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms and that is despicable.
The filthy Left would do it in a New York minute any place if they thought they could get away with it.
And this is a good thing. You don't need a gun, and most people aren't comfortable with you having one.
Says you, citing you.
Says you, citing you.The reality is, if we put gun control to a vote, most of the 79% of us who don't own them would be just fine with sensible gun control.
Not everyone shits their pants at the sight of a gun, Joey.
Can I sue Freightliner? A semi they built ran me off I30 last summer and wrecked my bike.You see, here would be my simple solution.
Allow the victims of gun violence or their survivors to sue the gun companies and gun sellers.
Betcha they make darn sure who they are selling to after that.
Sounds like a good idea. And while we’re at it, be able to sue those union auto companies every time some drunk gets behind the wheel and kills somebody. Or pool manufacturers every time somebody drowns in one of their pools.
Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
Lol, piss you off a bit did I?Ok, but I was perfectly willing to compromise with them.How about this: we get strong gun control, you kids can have your silly wall.I see lefties frequently screech about how 2A supporters refuse to compromise. Well, that's because there's never BEEN a compromise, rather a one-sided chipping away of 2nd Amendment rights with nothing offered in return.
So here, I'll offer an actual compromise. You lefties want universal background checks? I can get behind that. But in exchange I want universal reciprocity on CCW permits.
Deal?
How about this: No compromise with people who consider Constitutional rights and national sovereignty nuisances to do away with or reluctantly tolerate to get their way.
Your delusions are the only place you do anything with the Constitution other than wipe your ass, so spare me yet another attempt at hypocrisy and self-flattery.
You know why?
It's because you know I'm right.
you know that better than meView attachment 240351thats not what that meansLol, piss you off a bit did I?Ok, but I was perfectly willing to compromise with them.
Your delusions are the only place you do anything with the Constitution other than wipe your ass, so spare me yet another attempt at hypocrisy and self-flattery.
You know why?
It's because you know I'm right.
They are serious about it in Colorado Springs. They banned all semi autos. Commie California has banned all kinds of firearms. They are doing it in Washington State. It took the Supreme Court to stop the banning in DC and Chicago. Any place the asshole Democrats have the authority they have imposed significant restrictions on the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms and that is despicable.
The filthy Left would do it in a New York minute any place if they thought they could get away with it.
And this is a good thing. You don't need a gun, and most people aren't comfortable with you having one.
Says you, citing you.
Says you, citing you.The reality is, if we put gun control to a vote, most of the 79% of us who don't own them would be just fine with sensible gun control.
Not everyone shits their pants at the sight of a gun, Joey.
There is a so called Veterans club here. I won't go into the negatives about it but for one item that has been talked about and more than a few veterans refuse to go there over it.
The Directors Son walks around with an open carry gun on his hip. He says it's to protect everyone in there. No, it's not. It's to make his Johnson feel bigger, nothing more. He's more than a bit of a fruitcake to begin with. To makes things even weirder, they say they are supporting US Veterans yet both the Director and the Son are Canadians. Yes, through the wiggle room of the laws, the Son gained Citizenship and then spent 2 years in the US Army. He used that to gain his various permits although Open Carry does not require any special licensing. He hasn't set one foot in a CCW class. He used the clause about a newly separated Military Person being able to apply and get a CCW just by filing. Do I need to be armed equally to protect everyone around him from Him if push comes to shove? In the event of an emergency I am quite certain he will do something stupid like draw and shoot when maybe there wasn't enough reason. 2 years of pushing a pencil in the US Army doesn't get your ready for anything other than how to administer first aid for paper cuts.
Of the gun deaths in the home, the vast majority are suicides. In the 43-to-1 figure, suicides account for nearly all the 43 unjustifiable deaths.
So what? A gun in the house made a suicide possible.
If there had not been a gun in the house the day that kid was feeling depressed, he'd be alive.
This is the whole point.
"Let's see, life is so terrible I just want to end it. Oh wait! There's no gun around. Okay, I'll just find something better to do."
Yup. pretty much... no gun, you have time to think about it and realize what an awful idea it is.
If by "living document" you mean that it can be amended, then yes, I do agree. Usually, when someone says "living document" they mean that it can be interpreted to fit with the political agenda of the Justices on the Court and their political ilk. They want to bypass the burden of amending.Then you agree that it's a living and breathing document like our FFs envisioned. They left a back door. But a difficult to operate back door so not every tom, dick and harry could willy nilly change things to suit just themselves.
THAT is BULLSHIT.
If Congress and the States amended the Constitution to restrict certain types of "arms" it would be constitutional to do so. As it stands, there SHOULD be no restrictions.
And that is just unrealistic. With the really nasty weapons, there has to be some limits made. Can you imagine if there weren't limits on manufacture and sales of battle rifles and explosive devices? Plastic Explosives would fall under Arms by some people's definition. Then there is the Mercury tipped bullets along with bullets capable of penetrating body armor and light vehicle armor. The Bad guys don't have these things because the manufacturing is heavily controlled. Now, remove that control. Yes, that's part of Firearms and Weapons Control. We need some control. But how much is debatable. And each person has their own idea where the line should be drawn. Some don't want a line. Some want a brick wall. Most of us fall somewhere n between. No restrictions means that when the Bad Guys get these really Bad Actor weapons and ammo, they are no longer able to be stopped by anything other than a small army along with losing a good portion of the surrounding neighborhood.
"Should be NO restrictions" is rather naive.
So who needs plastic explosives and armor piercing bullets for defense?
Lots of people.
If you have stumps or rocks to clear, the defense of your enterprise may need plastic explosives.
If you are a fisherman and have frequent encounters with sharks, you may need armor piercing projectiles that don't flatten out on the water's surface.
The point is that it is NOT up to government.
They have no authority at all to dictate anything, and can not infringe at all except the defense of the rights of others.
I don't live by an ocean. In fact never been to one in my life, but who takes a gun to shoot sharks when they go out on a boat, and who goes out in a boat so small where a shark would be a threat? Dynamite works just as well as any plastic explosives for rocks or stumps. Either that or rent a stump grinder.
The word "arms" is defined as a weapon you can use for defense.
Nobody who wants to commit suicide does that. Your life is so miserable you either want to end it all or you don't.
actually, quite the contrary. Most people who attempt suicide never try again. But while other methods can often fail, gun suicides are 96% lethal.
This is why our side will never trust your lying dishonest full-of-shit side.Of the gun deaths in the home, the vast majority are suicides. In the 43-to-1 figure, suicides account for nearly all the 43 unjustifiable deaths.
So what? A gun in the house made a suicide possible.
If there had not been a gun in the house the day that kid was feeling depressed, he'd be alive.
This is the whole point.
You are all obviously seeking complete confescation. Otherwise you wouldn't be such lying cocksuckers.
There will be no compromise.
The Second Amendment is clear about to whom the right which it affirms belongs. It is the right of the people. This means that it does not, and never did, belong to any level of government; not to the federal government, not to the states, not to local governments. It belongs to the people. And it doesn't say or imply that any level of government has the power to infringe it; it says that the right shall not be infringed.
It also says, "Well Regulated Militias"... which means regulating who can have what kinds of guns among the people.
But the reality is, militias don't work. It's why you need well trained professional soldiers and police. Not these guys.
View attachment 240425
When you tell me how you can keep guns out of the hands of these guys, let me know.
And that is just unrealistic. With the really nasty weapons, there has to be some limits made. Can you imagine if there weren't limits on manufacture and sales of battle rifles and explosive devices? Plastic Explosives would fall under Arms by some people's definition. Then there is the Mercury tipped bullets along with bullets capable of penetrating body armor and light vehicle armor. The Bad guys don't have these things because the manufacturing is heavily controlled. Now, remove that control. Yes, that's part of Firearms and Weapons Control. We need some control. But how much is debatable. And each person has their own idea where the line should be drawn. Some don't want a line. Some want a brick wall. Most of us fall somewhere n between. No restrictions means that when the Bad Guys get these really Bad Actor weapons and ammo, they are no longer able to be stopped by anything other than a small army along with losing a good portion of the surrounding neighborhood.
"Should be NO restrictions" is rather naive.
So who needs plastic explosives and armor piercing bullets for defense?
Lots of people.
If you have stumps or rocks to clear, the defense of your enterprise may need plastic explosives.
If you are a fisherman and have frequent encounters with sharks, you may need armor piercing projectiles that don't flatten out on the water's surface.
The point is that it is NOT up to government.
They have no authority at all to dictate anything, and can not infringe at all except the defense of the rights of others.
I don't live by an ocean. In fact never been to one in my life, but who takes a gun to shoot sharks when they go out on a boat, and who goes out in a boat so small where a shark would be a threat? Dynamite works just as well as any plastic explosives for rocks or stumps. Either that or rent a stump grinder.
The word "arms" is defined as a weapon you can use for defense.
There are many people with many different definitions of "Defense". Usually, it does involve some form of Offense. You may be armed to defend your home and keep your family safe. That is better suited for one type of weapon. Meanwhile, you may be armed to defend your way of life against others with a slightly different way of life. You may be arm..... It's a list as long as time itself.
SO YOURE BACK TO JUST MAKIN SHIT UP i SEE
If by "living document" you mean that it can be amended, then yes, I do agree. Usually, when someone says "living document" they mean that it can be interpreted to fit with the political agenda of the Justices on the Court and their political ilk. They want to bypass the burden of amending.Then you agree that it's a living and breathing document like our FFs envisioned. They left a back door. But a difficult to operate back door so not every tom, dick and harry could willy nilly change things to suit just themselves.
THAT is BULLSHIT.
If Congress and the States amended the Constitution to restrict certain types of "arms" it would be constitutional to do so. As it stands, there SHOULD be no restrictions.
And that is just unrealistic. With the really nasty weapons, there has to be some limits made. Can you imagine if there weren't limits on manufacture and sales of battle rifles and explosive devices? Plastic Explosives would fall under Arms by some people's definition. Then there is the Mercury tipped bullets along with bullets capable of penetrating body armor and light vehicle armor. The Bad guys don't have these things because the manufacturing is heavily controlled. Now, remove that control. Yes, that's part of Firearms and Weapons Control. We need some control. But how much is debatable. And each person has their own idea where the line should be drawn. Some don't want a line. Some want a brick wall. Most of us fall somewhere n between. No restrictions means that when the Bad Guys get these really Bad Actor weapons and ammo, they are no longer able to be stopped by anything other than a small army along with losing a good portion of the surrounding neighborhood.
"Should be NO restrictions" is rather naive.
Nonsense. The bad guys have all these things, like armor piercing bullets, because laws ALWAYS only restrict the honest people and not the criminals.
The only way you can restrict the criminals is by making the punishment too great of a risk.
But since any criminal using a firearm is already risking the maximum penalties, there is no possible way any federal weapons penalty is going to have any possible effect.
And no, the federal government needs no control at all.
Obviously it should be up to the states and municipalities instead, and even then, it is clear someday the federal government will have to be defeated once more. It always happens. History shows government last at most about 400 years. They always go bad.
You want to see pure panic from the Cops? Use even one amour piercing round or one mercury tipped bullet. They are going to go ape over that and it's all hands on deck. Same goes if you get your hands on an Automatic weapon and use it in a crime. They'll stop everything and concentrate in bring in everyone involved from the person that used these things to the chain where they aquired them. Having anyone running around with the will to use such things is suicide to Cops and every citizen on the street. And I don't care if the items were stolen from your home. There is a reason that you aren't supposed to have them in the home unless you have the proper licensing and storage facility. Lots of people die in the process if you don't because criminals will break in and take your dangerous stuff if it's not properly stored.
You can't smoke hemp. You can but it gets you nowhere. Doesn't have THC in it.
YOU DIDNT CLARIFY THAT YOU WERE IN THE RUSSIAN ARMYLots of people.
If you have stumps or rocks to clear, the defense of your enterprise may need plastic explosives.
If you are a fisherman and have frequent encounters with sharks, you may need armor piercing projectiles that don't flatten out on the water's surface.
The point is that it is NOT up to government.
They have no authority at all to dictate anything, and can not infringe at all except the defense of the rights of others.
I don't live by an ocean. In fact never been to one in my life, but who takes a gun to shoot sharks when they go out on a boat, and who goes out in a boat so small where a shark would be a threat? Dynamite works just as well as any plastic explosives for rocks or stumps. Either that or rent a stump grinder.
The word "arms" is defined as a weapon you can use for defense.
There are many people with many different definitions of "Defense". Usually, it does involve some form of Offense. You may be armed to defend your home and keep your family safe. That is better suited for one type of weapon. Meanwhile, you may be armed to defend your way of life against others with a slightly different way of life. You may be arm..... It's a list as long as time itself.
SO YOURE BACK TO JUST MAKIN SHIT UP i SEE
Ah, reality is just made up. Okay, in your case, it's just made up. This is why we have Gun Regulations to make sure you unrealistic types don't get the idea that you can do whatever the hell you please. That IS detrimental to everyone else's mortal health.
Our militias were well known for murdering Indian women and children and running quickly from Indian braves.The Second Amendment is clear about to whom the right which it affirms belongs. It is the right of the people. This means that it does not, and never did, belong to any level of government; not to the federal government, not to the states, not to local governments. It belongs to the people. And it doesn't say or imply that any level of government has the power to infringe it; it says that the right shall not be infringed.
It also says, "Well Regulated Militias"... which means regulating who can have what kinds of guns among the people.
But the reality is, militias don't work. It's why you need well trained professional soldiers and police. Not these guys.
View attachment 240425
When you tell me how you can keep guns out of the hands of these guys, let me know.
No, "well regulated" means to prevent impediments, such as in the interstate commerce clause, where the federal government is charged with the duty of "regulating" interstate commerce. It is quite clear from what the founders wrote, that the word regulate means to maintain regularity, such as regular digestion and bowel movements. In the case of interstate commerce, it means preventing one state from blocking commerce from another state, and creating an obstruction. The phrase "well regulated" in the 2nd amendment means that the militia has to have had regular practice with firearms so that if some emergency arises, they will be well practiced and ready.
It is obvious it does NOT at all mean restricting who should have guns or what kind, because the next part of the sentence say the "right of the people to bare arms shall not be infringed". Which clearly prohibits any federal jurisdiction at all. The term "the people" clearly means defensive arms are an individual right, and only local laws are then legal. Feds are supposed to have very limited jurisdiction, and only over what is explicitly given over to federal jurisdiction in the constitution. No where is there anything in the constitution giving any federal jurisdiction over weapons, except their importation.
And as far as militia goes, they almost ALWAYS work.
Not only was the US created by a successful militia, but there were no police of significant federal force for over a whole century. And in fact, the US military has consistently been beaten by every single militia they have ever gone up against, from Vietnam to Syria.
In places like Iraq and Afghanistan, we can hold the militia at bay, but only at great costs. So clearly the militia will eventually win. They almost always do.
