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.
Not apples to oranges. Not even apples to meatloaf.LOL!!! - They took guns from the people of New Orleans & you pussies did not injure the government thugs.We have tolerated quite a bit, and we probably will tolerate a bit more, but we are now telling you what will awake the guns--YOUR ATTEMPT TO TAKE THEM.We were armed when they taxed workers, created federal reserve, took our Gold, created military industrial complex, removed the gold standard, invited illegal foreigners to invade our lands, took automatic weapons, sent our jobs, wealth & technology to China, the government printing presses roar loudly. You & your guns remained silent!!!
I have listened to many. I have seen the resolve of citizens. You should take this very seriously.
You have a choice:
You decide.
- Leave well-enough alone and the status quo remains (i.e. very limited and highly regulated civilian possession of machine guns or other automatic weapons, but free use of semi-autos and magazine capacities)
- Push your luck, and we repeal everything either by representation or by armed rebellion/force and anything goes. Full Autos become readily available to anyone.
Let's look at why the 2nd Amendment was created: The private citizens (colonists) at the time, were living under an "oppressive" government (England), much like people live under oppressive governments today (Leninist/Marxist governments), although today, they just flee to the U.S.. Anyway, the private citizens rose up and created an army, navy and various private militias to throw England out. The weapons used by the colonists were exactly the same as those used by their British enemy armies.By Peter Weber
That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.
"Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
We have warned them.Let's look at why the 2nd Amendment was created: The private citizens (colonists) at the time, were living under an "oppressive" government (England), much like people live under oppressive governments today (Leninist/Marxist governments), although today, they just flee to the U.S.. Anyway, the private citizens rose up and created an army, navy and various private militias to throw England out. The weapons used by the colonists were exactly the same as those used by their British enemy armies.By Peter Weber
That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.
"Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
So, when the founders drafted the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment, they had in mind that private citizens should be allowed to form militias utilizing the standard firearms used by the enemy troops in order that they may protect their state from enemies, both foreign AND DOMESTIC!
Fast forward to today and while the public has accepted that they cannot own a fully automatic firearm without a Federal Firearms License, we put out foot down at an attempt to take away our right to own semi-automatic rifles with magazines. That oppressive tyrannical government that we were warned about has been insidiously growing from within and while in the past, was the Democratic party, is now a Leninist/Marxist party that is a threat to out individual liberties, our very freedom.
The problem we have is that the leftist Marists (formerly known as the Democratic Party) have suggested in a bribe to the military, that when they take away everyone's guns, the active duty military personnel will be allowed to keep theirs; this in a hope to bribe the military personnel to side with them, which the troops might go along with. Although some of them won't betray their families and friends.We have warned them.Let's look at why the 2nd Amendment was created: The private citizens (colonists) at the time, were living under an "oppressive" government (England), much like people live under oppressive governments today (Leninist/Marxist governments), although today, they just flee to the U.S.. Anyway, the private citizens rose up and created an army, navy and various private militias to throw England out. The weapons used by the colonists were exactly the same as those used by their British enemy armies.By Peter Weber
That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.
"Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
So, when the founders drafted the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment, they had in mind that private citizens should be allowed to form militias utilizing the standard firearms used by the enemy troops in order that they may protect their state from enemies, both foreign AND DOMESTIC!
Fast forward to today and while the public has accepted that they cannot own a fully automatic firearm without a Federal Firearms License, we put out foot down at an attempt to take away our right to own semi-automatic rifles with magazines. That oppressive tyrannical government that we were warned about has been insidiously growing from within and while in the past, was the Democratic party, is now a Leninist/Marxist party that is a threat to out individual liberties, our very freedom.
We are willing to leave well-enough alone (for now) and maintain the highly restrictive nature of certain military arms under the status quo, but if they continue to push the envelope, we have every right to demand and get unrestricted access to purchase MILITARY GRADE weapons and munitions, and we will carry our automatic weapons and other deadly arms openly so that they shit their pants in front of everyone.
Which will it be, commies?
.
And, Justice Burger was in error. The 2nd Amendment maintains that private citizens may possess and carry arms so that they may become part of a regulated militia to defend their states, unless of course, the state becomes the oppressive/tyrannical government that our founding fathers warned us about; then the armed citizens can form militias to combat their oppressive/tyrannical/Leninist/Marxist state.
Aren't the anti-gunners always on about making guns safe? Sounds to me like they just need to make tasers feel very different from firearms.The so-called right to bear arms seems to be getting drastically out of hand - even among cops who can't tell the difference between tasers and pistols.
View attachment 479324
Police Claim Officer Who Shot And Killed Man In Traffic Stop Likely Meant To Shock Him Instead
An officer killed Daunte Wright, 20, outside Minneapolis on Sunday. Police say she likely thought she was using a stun gun rather than a firearm.www.huffpost.com
Your logic is off.
Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means.
Aren't the anti-gunners always on about making guns safe? Sounds to me like they just need to make tasers feel very different from firearms.The so-called right to bear arms seems to be getting drastically out of hand - even among cops who can't tell the difference between tasers and pistols.
View attachment 479324
Police Claim Officer Who Shot And Killed Man In Traffic Stop Likely Meant To Shock Him Instead
An officer killed Daunte Wright, 20, outside Minneapolis on Sunday. Police say she likely thought she was using a stun gun rather than a firearm.
The so-called right to bear arms seems to be getting drastically out of hand - even among cops who can't tell the difference between tasers and pistols.
View attachment 479324
Police Claim Officer Who Shot And Killed Man In Traffic Stop Likely Meant To Shock Him Instead
An officer killed Daunte Wright, 20, outside Minneapolis on Sunday. Police say she likely thought she was using a stun gun rather than a firearm.
