Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
fear mongers on the right smdh. Every poll I've seen show the overwhelming majority of Americans want two things:
1. better background checks;
2. Reinstitute ban of AR-15 types guns that GOP chose not to renew in 1995.
90% of americans have repeatedly said DO NOT outlaw guns as whole! Limit them like other things are limited to reduce the changes of serious bodily harm or death.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRex2
Deja Moo.
(We have heard that bull before.)
Wow. I got my first "nasty remark" reputation comment!
Someone actually increased my reputation by insulting me!
Considering it came from a [word "not allowed" here] Bolchevik
I will consider it a badge of honer to be insulted by him
It's a keeper!
That's how they roll when triggered. Cut their nose off to spite their face. Can't wait for whatever war they wanna fight against us... 2nd day in, they'll be shooting their own deserters. Seen it before, somewhere...
Wow. I got my first "nasty remark" reputation comment!
Someone actually increased my reputation by insulting me!
Considering it came from a [word "not allowed" here] Bolchevik
I will consider it a badge of honer to be insulted by him
It's a keeper!
I got quite a few of those 'backhanded compliments' a couple years back in the midst of the troll festival over here! We all outlasted 'em and sent 'em scampering off, tails between their legs!
We also have a constitution which all current military members, veterans, and law enforcement took an oath to uphold. The oath doesn't have an expiration date.
Many military members and LEO's would side with the patriots.
There are literally millions and millions (probably around 40-50 million) of privately owned semi auto rifles, millions of veterans, millions of hunters and patriots. American citizens are the largest irregular armed force in the world.
Law enforcement and military would have a very difficult choice to make if they were ever given unlawful orders. They also know themselves and their family members live in these very communities.
Saddam had a large force and didn't do him much good but again. My point was that the poster implied owning long arms and sidearms on their own would deter a despot with WMDs and REAL war fighting material. But you try to bring in another element about who is going to be fighting on what side. I'd hope those who call themselves Patriots are not those who voted for the guy currently in office because for sure he's not in it for anyone but himself. He's no George H.W. Bush who volunteered for WWII, or John McCain whose grandfather, father and himself proved their patriotism by volunteering. He's no John Kerry who volunteered or Chris Kyle who did the same!
On second though given the guy now in the WH, maybe I DO need to get me something more than my Beretta shotgun and S&W .45! Anyone who praises a former KGB spy for reelection ....yea definitely not a patriot...John McCain, US Naval Academy, Lt. Commander kind of thinks the same.
I'll give up my AR's to the third person through the door. The first two will die with me for trying.
Good to see you. Surprised it took so long for you to notice this thread
The liberals, gun grabbers and statists just don't get it. This thread (like many similar ones) has gone completely off the rails and is full of outright lies and misinformation. Even when confronted with logic it's always the same reply of emotions and feelings or "CNN said so".
Regarding the clamoring for banning “weapons of war” these are EXACTLY the weapons the second amendment protects. Read it for yourself.
***************
“TWO SUPREME COURT DECISIONS THE ANTI-GUNNERS DON'T WANT YOU TO SEE
by Carl F. Worden
January 15, 2013
There are two Supreme Court rulings that directly relate to the current anti-Assault Weapon issue everyone needs to be reminded of.
The first is United States v. Miller 1939. Miller possessed a sawed-off shotgun banned under the National Firearms Act. He argued that he had a right to bear the weapon under the Second Amendment, but the Supreme Court ruled against him. Why? At the time, sawed-off shotguns were not being used in a military application, and the Supremes ruled that since it didn't, it was not protected. Even though Miller lost that argument, the Miller case set the precedent that protected firearms have a military, and thus a legitimate and protected Militia use. The military now uses shotguns regularly, but not very short, sawed-off shotguns, but an AR-15/AK-47 type weapon is currently in use by the military, therefore it is a protected weapon for the Unorganized Militia, which includes just about every American citizen now that both age and sex discrimination are illegal. (The original Militia included men of age 17-45) Therefore any firearm that is applicable to military use is clearly protected under Article II, and that includes all those nasty-looking semi-automatic black rifles, including full 30 round magazines.
The second important case is that of John Bad Elk v. United States from 1900. In that case, an attempt was made to arrest Mr. Bad Elk without probable cause, and Mr. Bad Elk killed a policeman who was attempting the false arrest. Bad Elk had been found guilty and sentenced to death. However, the Supreme Court ruled that Bad Elk had the right to use any force, including lethal force, to prevent his false arrest, even if the policeman was only trying to arrest him and not kill him. Basically, the Supremes of the day ruled that as a citizen, you have the right to defend against your civil rights being violated using ANY force necessary to prevent the violation, even if the offending party isn't trying to kill you.
Both of these cases are standing law to this day.
The Miller decision clearly includes AR-15/AK-47 type weapons as having a military application. The Bad Elk decision means that if the government tries to confiscate your AR-15/AK-47, or arrest you for having one, you can kill the offenders on the spot, even if they are not trying to kill you.
I didn't make these decisions; the United States Supreme Court did.
I got quite a few of those 'backhanded compliments' a couple years back in the midst of the troll festival over here! We all outlasted 'em and sent 'em scampering off, tails between their legs!
That is good. Too bad the moderators can't be counted on to deal with these vermin, but I guess there aren't enough moderators, and besides, they don't want to detract too much from the "post count" on the forum.
Sometimes I think about some devious tricks I could use to make their life miserable. I used to do some code hacking and some cryptography work. I have other things to do now, but I still have a slight vigilante streak in me. I think for now, I will live and let live.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airborneguy
I'll give up my AR's to the third person through the door. The first two will die with me for trying.
Saddam had a large force and didn't do him much good but again. My point was that the poster implied owning long arms and sidearms on their own would deter a despot with WMDs and REAL war fighting material. But you try to bring in another element about who is going to be fighting on what side. I'd hope those who call themselves Patriots are not those who voted for the guy currently in office because for sure he's not in it for anyone but himself. He's no George H.W. Bush who volunteered for WWII, or John McCain whose grandfather, father and himself proved their patriotism by volunteering. He's no John Kerry who volunteered or Chris Kyle who did the same!
On second though given the guy now in the WH, maybe I DO need to get me something more than my Beretta shotgun and S&W .45! Anyone who praises a former KGB spy for reelection ....yea definitely not a patriot...John McCain, US Naval Academy, Lt. Commander kind of thinks the same.
Yet you were more enthusiastic about the presidential choice of the prior eight years?
I'm no Trump worshiper, but compared to the previous despot, he's practically a liberator. If Trump had done nothing else up to this point, just the fact that he abolished the health care slavery act earns my trust (possibly the most heinous and unconstitutional law that has ever been inflicted--I don't care WHAT the SC said about it. It basically repealed the thirteenth amendment). As long as he is disconnecting the tentacles of the federal government from me (us) rather than connecting new ones, I'm fine with his actions. I don't care if he makes another billion dollars doing it, which of course he isn't. Seems I heard somewhere that he isn't even collecting compensation for his position. That sure beats committing treason, running dark web servers in your basement, lying, smashing court confiscated evidence, and being given a good-ol-boy exoneration, no?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
