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.
Sure. But what if you miss a zombie (aka Rightie). Then what?????
60 round mags!!!! That's the ticket!!!
Is this a threat?
Sure. But what if you miss a zombie (aka Rightie). Then what?????
60 round mags!!!! That's the ticket!!!
Is this a threat?
Only if you feel threaten by irony. If so, BUY MORE GUNS and AMMO and shit!!!!
That's the ticket!!!
To shoot 30 zombies once or 15 zombies with a head and chest shot each?
Sure. But what if you miss a zombie (aka Rightie). Then what?????
60 round mags!!!! That's the ticket!!!
Not only this, but "why not" if you are a law abiding legal gun owning citizen in the USA ? I love to target practice or shoot guns (they are fasinating mechanically engineered objects), and I like to feel the full potential of the weapons capabilities and power. 30 round clips or whatever are totally awesome on the target range and/or under demonstration of.Senator Dianne Feinstein's latest divide-and-conquer attack on the Second Amendment has made even Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) a sucker for the argument that private citizens do not need high-capacity magazines. These include not only 30-round rifle magazines, but 17-round magazines for handguns like the Glock.
Why does anybody need a high capacity magazine? If Senator Manchin were to educate himself by, for example, attending Front Sight's four-day defensive handgun class, he would learn the two primary answers:
(1) Failure to stop the aggressor
(crazies will not stop)
(2) Multiple aggressors
(gang bangers don't play nice)
Read more: Articles: Why Does Anybody Need a 30-Round Magazine?
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
He cannot.Maybe you should read it without the assistance of your ideological glasses... Because you have completely missed the premise of the Second Amendment, and why it was written.
No..I am reading it without YOUR ideological glass and in clear text.
And in context.
There is NOTHING and I mean nothing..either implied or explicit that allows for armed rebellion.
That's what you folks project into it..because of your hatred for America and Americans.
You postulate you can shoot folks you don't like..and it's constitutional.
It's not.
Can you show where there is something implied or explicit that denies it?
IntestineYet the Philadelphia Convention itself, and the Continental Congress before it, and the various state constitutional conventions, had all acted as the hour required undeterred by any "little ill-timed scruples." In this the Convention, at least, displayed "a manly confidence" in the people, fortified by the knowledge that if the people approved their extraordinary actions "all antecedent errors and irregularities" would be blotted out. The "transcendent and precious right of the people to 'abolish or alter their governments'" first excused and then justified others in proposing how the people might best exercise that right (Madison [see ch. 6, no. 20]). But for Madison, no less than for Hamilton, the right called for more than popular self-expression. A people on the eve of revolution was surely a vexed people, but not every vexation was justification for revolt. Just as popular government sought to express "the cool and deliberate sense of the community" (see ch. 4, no. 27), so too ought popular resistance and revolution to express the settled desperation of people in extreme cases, not the pique of those who merely cannot have things their way (no. 14).
Not only this, but "why not" if you are a law abiding legal gun owning citizen in the USA ? I love to target practice or shoot guns (they are fasinating mechanically engineered objects), and I like to feel the full potential of the weapons capabilities and power. 30 round clips or whatever are totally awesome on the target range and/or under demonstration of.Senator Dianne Feinstein's latest divide-and-conquer attack on the Second Amendment has made even Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) a sucker for the argument that private citizens do not need high-capacity magazines. These include not only 30-round rifle magazines, but 17-round magazines for handguns like the Glock.
Why does anybody need a high capacity magazine? If Senator Manchin were to educate himself by, for example, attending Front Sight's four-day defensive handgun class, he would learn the two primary answers:
(1) Failure to stop the aggressor
(crazies will not stop)
(2) Multiple aggressors
(gang bangers don't play nice)
Read more: Articles: Why Does Anybody Need a 30-Round Magazine?
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
The left needs to take heed that the people now see their attempt in dis-arming the public somehow in all of this mess, yet they won't be successful at doing so against the good citizens. Now if they begin talking about more ways to dis-arm the bad citizens in this nation, then everyone would be open to all sorts of options in that respect, because good citizens don't want bad citizens having weapons of any caliber or clip upon their person. It will never happen though, because the nation is trapped in political correctness, where as it is forbidden to use any tact to go after the bad guy's, because the left will scream pure bloody murder when it does, and that my friends is also tied into the bigger agenda in this nation, that is being waged by the left in which is sought after in all of this as well.
ok.....show where the word ARMS means just Muskets.....
Common sense is all that is needed.
why don't you start showing some?.....instead of trying to restrict the law abiding Citizens....why don't you go after those who use guns everyday to shoot people?....i don't even hear these low life's mentioned in these arguments.....and you know damned well,they wont adhere to anything you restrict.....instead i hear ....."they have rights"......violent people should be the ones who have their rights taken away.....not the law abiding non-violent person.....all the gun violence right now in Chicago and none of these Anti-Gun advocates are talking about Gun violence by Gangs nationwide.....as Spock would say......"Fascinating".....
No one needjs a 30 round magazine.
I support the constitution the way the founding fathers intended it to be. Every American should be able to own a musket, nothing more.
Just as the poor do not need cell phones, flat panel televisions, designer clothing,junk food, a bedroom for each child they have in section 8 housing. ...ect.
its called wanting something.
Not only this, but "why not" if you are a law abiding legal gun owning citizen in the USA ? I love to target practice or shoot guns (they are fasinating mechanically engineered objects), and I like to feel the full potential of the weapons capabilities and power. 30 round clips or whatever are totally awesome on the target range and/or under demonstration of.Senator Dianne Feinstein's latest divide-and-conquer attack on the Second Amendment has made even Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) a sucker for the argument that private citizens do not need high-capacity magazines. These include not only 30-round rifle magazines, but 17-round magazines for handguns like the Glock.
Why does anybody need a high capacity magazine? If Senator Manchin were to educate himself by, for example, attending Front Sight's four-day defensive handgun class, he would learn the two primary answers:
(1) Failure to stop the aggressor
(crazies will not stop)
(2) Multiple aggressors
(gang bangers don't play nice)
Read more: Articles: Why Does Anybody Need a 30-Round Magazine?
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
The left needs to take heed that the people now see their attempt in dis-arming the public somehow in all of this mess, yet they won't be successful at doing so against the good citizens. Now if they begin talking about more ways to dis-arm the bad citizens in this nation, then everyone would be open to all sorts of options in that respect, because good citizens don't want bad citizens having weapons of any caliber or clip upon their person. It will never happen though, because the nation is trapped in political correctness, where as it is forbidden to use any tact to go after the bad guy's, because the left will scream pure bloody murder when it does, and that my friends is also tied into the bigger agenda in this nation, that is being waged by the left in which is sought after in all of this as well.
Again... To Liberals it really isn't about controlling guns... It's about controlling people.
Not only this, but "why not" if you are a law abiding legal gun owning citizen in the USA ? I love to target practice or shoot guns (they are fasinating mechanically engineered objects), and I like to feel the full potential of the weapons capabilities and power. 30 round clips or whatever are totally awesome on the target range and/or under demonstration of.
The left needs to take heed that the people now see their attempt in dis-arming the public somehow in all of this mess, yet they won't be successful at doing so against the good citizens. Now if they begin talking about more ways to dis-arm the bad citizens in this nation, then everyone would be open to all sorts of options in that respect, because good citizens don't want bad citizens having weapons of any caliber or clip upon their person. It will never happen though, because the nation is trapped in political correctness, where as it is forbidden to use any tact to go after the bad guy's, because the left will scream pure bloody murder when it does, and that my friends is also tied into the bigger agenda in this nation, that is being waged by the left in which is sought after in all of this as well.
Again... To Liberals it really isn't about controlling guns... It's about controlling people.
Actually it's about preventing innocent people from being murdered all too easily and all too often through the use of guns.
But continue to believe what your Fox news masters tell you to think.
Again... To Liberals it really isn't about controlling guns... It's about controlling people.
Actually it's about preventing innocent people from being murdered all too easily and all too often through the use of guns.
But continue to believe what your Fox news masters tell you to think.
How does restricting a law-abiding citizen's Constitutional rights accomplish your stated goal of "preventing innocent people from being murdered all too easily and all too often through the use of guns."?
Actually it's about preventing innocent people from being murdered all too easily and all too often through the use of guns.
But continue to believe what your Fox news masters tell you to think.
How does restricting a law-abiding citizen's Constitutional rights accomplish your stated goal of "preventing innocent people from being murdered all too easily and all too often through the use of guns."?
Lol. I almost thought you were serious for a minute there.
How does restricting a law-abiding citizen's Constitutional rights accomplish your stated goal of "preventing innocent people from being murdered all too easily and all too often through the use of guns."?
Lol. I almost thought you were serious for a minute there.
Wassamatter? The question too tough for you?
Let me see if I can dumb it down for you.
A law-abiding citizen isn't the person "murdering innocent people".
Your desired new gun laws will ONLY effect law abiding citizens.
Think you 'get it' now?
Answer the question.
Not only this, but "why not" if you are a law abiding legal gun owning citizen in the USA ? I love to target practice or shoot guns (they are fasinating mechanically engineered objects), and I like to feel the full potential of the weapons capabilities and power. 30 round clips or whatever are totally awesome on the target range and/or under demonstration of.
The left needs to take heed that the people now see their attempt in dis-arming the public somehow in all of this mess, yet they won't be successful at doing so against the good citizens. Now if they begin talking about more ways to dis-arm the bad citizens in this nation, then everyone would be open to all sorts of options in that respect, because good citizens don't want bad citizens having weapons of any caliber or clip upon their person. It will never happen though, because the nation is trapped in political correctness, where as it is forbidden to use any tact to go after the bad guy's, because the left will scream pure bloody murder when it does, and that my friends is also tied into the bigger agenda in this nation, that is being waged by the left in which is sought after in all of this as well.
Again... To Liberals it really isn't about controlling guns... It's about controlling people.
Actually it's about preventing innocent people from being murdered all too easily and all too often through the use of guns.
But continue to believe what your Fox news masters tell you to think.
Again... To Liberals it really isn't about controlling guns... It's about controlling people.
Actually it's about preventing innocent people from being murdered all too easily and all too often through the use of guns.
But continue to believe what your Fox news masters tell you to think.
innocent people were killed during Clinton's assault weapons ban. NOW WHAT?
Actually it's about preventing innocent people from being murdered all too easily and all too often through the use of guns.
But continue to believe what your Fox news masters tell you to think.
innocent people were killed during Clinton's assault weapons ban. NOW WHAT?
Thanks for pointing that out! Exactly why we need to be stricter.
Please tell Me you are not that fucking stupid.Lol. I almost thought you were serious for a minute there.
Wassamatter? The question too tough for you?
Let me see if I can dumb it down for you.
A law-abiding citizen isn't the person "murdering innocent people".
Your desired new gun laws will ONLY effect law abiding citizens.
Think you 'get it' now?
Answer the question.
Who said the laws will only be aimed at law abiding gun owners? That's pretty dumb. Obviously new gun laws would be for everyone.
And I know your response like clockwork will be....."since when do criminals obey laws".
And I'd say, why have any laws then if "criminals will just disobey them"?
So I'll just get that response out of the way for you.
Everyone who will OBEY them...Lol. I almost thought you were serious for a minute there.
Wassamatter? The question too tough for you?
Let me see if I can dumb it down for you.
A law-abiding citizen isn't the person "murdering innocent people".
Your desired new gun laws will ONLY effect law abiding citizens.
Think you 'get it' now?
Answer the question.
Who said the laws will only be aimed at law abiding gun owners? That's pretty dumb. Obviously new gun laws would be for everyone.
BINGO!And I know your response like clockwork will be....."since when do criminals obey laws".
To legally PUNISH the criminals, of course. But you libberhoid idiots keep coddling them, instead.And I'd say, why have any laws then if "criminals will just disobey them"?
I appreciate it that you realize already how moronic your position really is, thanks for saving me the effort.So I'll just get that response out of the way for you.
