Common Sense Gun Control is Nonsense | Change My Mind

https://youtu.be/Y45-_HE91Us

Gun control? Is that like fun violence? Only a libtard would think an inanimate object is capable of performing actions.

Fun violence! GUN VIOLENCE

None of my guns have ever just jumped up and started shooting by themselves.

Ever.

Oddly enough, I seriously doubt they ever will.

Welcome to Biden's America
Attachments:

It's not gun control. It's people control.

Common sense gun control = world peace = racial equality = humans growing wings and flying around.

Keep hoping though...and keep the virtue signals strong.

Common sense gun control works. Mentally ill people shouldn't have guns or C4.

It the same reason we don't give tanks and C4 to mental ill people.

If the NRA had their way you'd be able to buy C4 and Anthrax at 7-11's.

Common Sense Works Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Common sense gun control works. Mentally ill
> people shouldn't have guns or C4.
>
> It the same reason we don't give tanks and C4 to
> mental ill people.
>
> If the NRA had their way you'd be able to buy C4
> and Anthrax at 7-11's.


Yep, and the libshits want this country to be communist.

Now, when real honest facts are presented, only one of those statements holds up.

jus sayin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> None of my guns have ever just jumped up and
> started shooting by themselves.
>
> Ever.
>
> Oddly enough, I seriously doubt they ever will.


You’re not the problem and it isn’t about you to begin with.

also just sayin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> jus sayin Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > None of my guns have ever just jumped up and
> > started shooting by themselves.
> >
> > Ever.
> >
> > Oddly enough, I seriously doubt they ever will.
>
>
> You’re not the problem and it isn’t about you
> to begin with.

really, is it because I'm white? Or because I repect the law?

The democrats want gun control because it equates to people control. Imagine a black person being gunned down by a cop, people protesting, and the authorities shoot the protesters. You know why this generally doesn't happen? Because the government knows currently that public reinforcements would come in and it would be civil war due to human rights violations.

The government doesn't care about Billy shooting a kid at school. The government doesn't care about some hillbilly retard or mentally unstable idiot shooting up a group of people. They want you to think they care. All to save the kids. It's about the kids. Hearts and prayers.

What the government actually cares about is Shaquan, Billy, David, Melissa, and 1,000 other people standing up to a government that violates your rights as a citizen and as a human.

Banning guns, weakening the people as a "militia", and giving power to a bunch of fucking retards who were sadly elected to represent us is just the beginning of you losing your rights given to you under the constitution. If you want to be Hong Kong, keep giving the government retards more power.

Shotguns, revolvers, hunting rifles all limited to 6 round capacity. Everything else should be outlawed, confiscated and melted down. Its not complicated. These allow you to accomplish every utilitarian function firearms offer. Should people wish to own weapons of war such as assault-style rifles and high capacity sidearms we should pass a Constitutional Amendment to expand the current language in the 2nd Amendment which allows for weapons in a 'well regulated militia'

You are welcome.

PS I first fired a shotgun and 22 before age 8 and shot .22 caliber competitively with the NRA in high school

Troofer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The democrats want gun control because it equates
> to people control. Imagine a black person being
> gunned down by a cop, people protesting, and the
> authorities shoot the protesters. You know why
> this generally doesn't happen? Because the
> government knows currently that public
> reinforcements would come in and it would be civil
> war due to human rights violations.
>
> The government doesn't care about Billy shooting a
> kid at school. The government doesn't care about
> some hillbilly retard or mentally unstable idiot
> shooting up a group of people. They want you to
> think they care. All to save the kids. It's about
> the kids. Hearts and prayers.
>
> What the government actually cares about is
> Shaquan, Billy, David, Melissa, and 1,000 other
> people standing up to a government that violates
> your rights as a citizen and as a human.
>
> Banning guns, weakening the people as a "militia",
> and giving power to a bunch of fucking retards who
> were sadly elected to represent us is just the
> beginning of you losing your rights given to you
> under the constitution. If you want to be Hong
> Kong, keep giving the government retards more
> power.


100%

And for you idiots on here who have never read the declaration of independence WE are the power in the US

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

sureokkk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Shotguns, revolvers, hunting rifles all limited to
> 6 round capacity. Everything else should be
> outlawed, confiscated and melted down. Its not
> complicated. These allow you to accomplish every
> utilitarian function firearms offer. Should
> people wish to own weapons of war such as
> assault-style rifles and high capacity sidearms we
> should pass a Constitutional Amendment to expand
> the current language in the 2nd Amendment which
> allows for weapons in a 'well regulated militia'

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
- Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778

"The Constitution shall NEVER be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788

Troofer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The democrats want gun control because it equates
> to people control. Imagine a black person being
> gunned down by a cop, people protesting, and the
> authorities shoot the protesters. You know why
> this generally doesn't happen? Because the
> government knows currently that public
> reinforcements would come in and it would be civil
> war due to human rights violations.
>
> The government doesn't care about Billy shooting a
> kid at school. The government doesn't care about
> some hillbilly retard or mentally unstable idiot
> shooting up a group of people. They want you to
> think they care. All to save the kids. It's about
> the kids. Hearts and prayers.
>
> What the government actually cares about is
> Shaquan, Billy, David, Melissa, and 1,000 other
> people standing up to a government that violates
> your rights as a citizen and as a human.
>
> Banning guns, weakening the people as a "militia",
> and giving power to a bunch of fucking retards who
> were sadly elected to represent us is just the
> beginning of you losing your rights given to you
> under the constitution. If you want to be Hong
> Kong, keep giving the government retards more
> power.

It says 'well regulated militia' and the founders did not envision 16 year olds wondering around with assault-style rifles with high capacity. If 'militia' meant individuals access to any weapon why are we not allowed to carry C4, hand grenades and flame throwers?

sureokkk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Shotguns, revolvers, hunting rifles all limited to
> 6 round capacity. Everything else should be
> outlawed, confiscated and melted down. Its not
> complicated. These allow you to accomplish every
> utilitarian function firearms offer. Should
> people wish to own weapons of war such as
> assault-style rifles and high capacity sidearms we
> should pass a Constitutional Amendment to expand
> the current language in the 2nd Amendment which
> allows for weapons in a 'well regulated militia'
>
> You are welcome.
>
> PS I first fired a shotgun and 22 before age 8 and
> shot .22 caliber competitively with the NRA in
> high school


Thanks for post idiot. Now go back and cower in the corner of your basement with 3 masks on.

why knot Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Troofer Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The democrats want gun control because it
> equates
> > to people control. Imagine a black person being
> > gunned down by a cop, people protesting, and
> the
> > authorities shoot the protesters. You know why
> > this generally doesn't happen? Because the
> > government knows currently that public
> > reinforcements would come in and it would be
> civil
> > war due to human rights violations.
> >
> > The government doesn't care about Billy shooting
> a
> > kid at school. The government doesn't care
> about
> > some hillbilly retard or mentally unstable
> idiot
> > shooting up a group of people. They want you to
> > think they care. All to save the kids. It's
> about
> > the kids. Hearts and prayers.
> >
> > What the government actually cares about is
> > Shaquan, Billy, David, Melissa, and 1,000 other
> > people standing up to a government that
> violates
> > your rights as a citizen and as a human.
> >
> > Banning guns, weakening the people as a
> "militia",
> > and giving power to a bunch of fucking retards
> who
> > were sadly elected to represent us is just the
> > beginning of you losing your rights given to
> you
> > under the constitution. If you want to be Hong
> > Kong, keep giving the government retards more
> > power.
>
> It says 'well regulated militia' and the founders
> did not envision 16 year olds wondering around
> with assault-style rifles with high capacity. If
> 'militia' meant individuals access to any weapon
> why are we not allowed to carry C4, hand grenades
> and flame throwers?

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

But I don't have an issue keeping guns away from anyone below the age of 18/21. Also, punish parents if kids get ahold of a gun. As for military weapons, we don't have access. A fully-auto weapon is generally illegal. If you want one, you have to pay a lot of money and go through an extensive homeland security background check. On that note, I want to ban person to person gun sales. If you want to sell your gun to your neighbor, you should have to take the sale to a FFL/gun shop and do the background check.

sureokkkisgayasfuck Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> sureokkk Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Shotguns, revolvers, hunting rifles all limited
> to
> > 6 round capacity. Everything else should be
> > outlawed, confiscated and melted down. Its not
> > complicated. These allow you to accomplish
> every
> > utilitarian function firearms offer. Should
> > people wish to own weapons of war such as
> > assault-style rifles and high capacity sidearms
> we
> > should pass a Constitutional Amendment to
> expand
> > the current language in the 2nd Amendment which
> > allows for weapons in a 'well regulated
> militia'
> >
> > You are welcome.
> >
> > PS I first fired a shotgun and 22 before age 8
> and
> > shot .22 caliber competitively with the NRA in
> > high school
>
>
> Thanks for post idiot. Now go back and cower in
> the corner of your basement with 3 masks on.


You seem upset - why not go for a walk?

Fuck you with your 'change my mind' horseshit. Your infantile fascination with your guns outweighs any concern you have that children can sit at their desks at school without worrying about being murdered. Change your own mind, you troglodyte. You are an embarrassment.

derrrrrp, change my mind, derrrr Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Fuck you with your 'change my mind' horseshit.
> Your infantile fascination with your guns
> outweighs any concern you have that children can
> sit at their desks at school without worrying
> about being murdered. Change your own mind, you
> troglodyte. You are an embarrassment.


The democrats want gun control because it equates to people control. Imagine a black person being gunned down by a cop, people protesting, and the authorities shoot the protesters. You know why this generally doesn't happen? Because the government knows currently that public reinforcements would come in and it would be civil war due to human rights violations.

The government doesn't care about Billy shooting a kid at school. The government doesn't care about some hillbilly retard or mentally unstable idiot shooting up a group of people. They want you to think they care. All to save the kids. It's about the kids. Hearts and prayers.

What the government actually cares about is Shaquan, Billy, David, Melissa, and 1,000 other people standing up to a government that violates your rights as a citizen and as a human.

Banning guns, weakening the people as a "militia", and giving power to a bunch of fucking retards who were sadly elected to represent us is just the beginning of you losing your rights given to you under the constitution. If you want to be Hong Kong, keep giving the government retards more power.

kdsjdfhgdhg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> why knot Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Troofer Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > The democrats want gun control because it
> > equates
> > > to people control. Imagine a black person
> being
> > > gunned down by a cop, people protesting, and
> > the
> > > authorities shoot the protesters. You know
> why
> > > this generally doesn't happen? Because the
> > > government knows currently that public
> > > reinforcements would come in and it would be
> > civil
> > > war due to human rights violations.
> > >
> > > The government doesn't care about Billy
> shooting
> > a
> > > kid at school. The government doesn't care
> > about
> > > some hillbilly retard or mentally unstable
> > idiot
> > > shooting up a group of people. They want you
> to
> > > think they care. All to save the kids. It's
> > about
> > > the kids. Hearts and prayers.
> > >
> > > What the government actually cares about is
> > > Shaquan, Billy, David, Melissa, and 1,000
> other
> > > people standing up to a government that
> > violates
> > > your rights as a citizen and as a human.
> > >
> > > Banning guns, weakening the people as a
> > "militia",
> > > and giving power to a bunch of fucking
> retards
> > who
> > > were sadly elected to represent us is just
> the
> > > beginning of you losing your rights given to
> > you
> > > under the constitution. If you want to be
> Hong
> > > Kong, keep giving the government retards more
> > > power.
> >
> > It says 'well regulated militia' and the
> founders
> > did not envision 16 year olds wondering around
> > with assault-style rifles with high capacity.
> If
> > 'militia' meant individuals access to any
> weapon
> > why are we not allowed to carry C4, hand
> grenades
> > and flame throwers?
>
> "I ask who are the militia? They consist now of
> the whole people, except a few public officers."
> - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying
> Convention, June 4, 1788
>
> But I don't have an issue keeping guns away from
> anyone below the age of 18/21. Also, punish
> parents if kids get ahold of a gun. As for
> military weapons, we don't have access. A
> fully-auto weapon is generally illegal. If you
> want one, you have to pay a lot of money and go
> through an extensive homeland security background
> check. On that note, I want to ban person to
> person gun sales. If you want to sell your gun to
> your neighbor, you should have to take the sale to
> a FFL/gun shop and do the background check.


You didnt answer the question - why are we not allowed to have c4 and hand grenades? Where does the Constitution limit 'arms?' And, if we have limited the type of weapon after the 2nd Amendment it means we can do it now right?

sureokkk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Shotguns, revolvers, hunting rifles all limited to
> 6 round capacity. Everything else should be
> outlawed, confiscated and melted down. Its not
> complicated. These allow you to accomplish every
> utilitarian function firearms offer. Should
> people wish to own weapons of war such as
> assault-style rifles and high capacity sidearms we
> should pass a Constitutional Amendment to expand
> the current language in the 2nd Amendment which
> allows for weapons in a 'well regulated militia'
>
> You are welcome.
>
> PS I first fired a shotgun and 22 before age 8 and
> shot .22 caliber competitively with the NRA in
> high school

The 1st amendment should be limited to the quill pen and the type set press.

PS I first used my right to free speech as a very young child. My mom wasn't happy and smacked me for it.

why knot Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Troofer Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The democrats want gun control because it
> equates
> > to people control. Imagine a black person being
> > gunned down by a cop, people protesting, and
> the
> > authorities shoot the protesters. You know why
> > this generally doesn't happen? Because the
> > government knows currently that public
> > reinforcements would come in and it would be
> civil
> > war due to human rights violations.
> >
> > The government doesn't care about Billy shooting
> a
> > kid at school. The government doesn't care
> about
> > some hillbilly retard or mentally unstable
> idiot
> > shooting up a group of people. They want you to
> > think they care. All to save the kids. It's
> about
> > the kids. Hearts and prayers.
> >
> > What the government actually cares about is
> > Shaquan, Billy, David, Melissa, and 1,000 other
> > people standing up to a government that
> violates
> > your rights as a citizen and as a human.
> >
> > Banning guns, weakening the people as a
> "militia",
> > and giving power to a bunch of fucking retards
> who
> > were sadly elected to represent us is just the
> > beginning of you losing your rights given to
> you
> > under the constitution. If you want to be Hong
> > Kong, keep giving the government retards more
> > power.
>
> It says 'well regulated militia' and the founders
> did not envision 16 year olds wondering around
> with assault-style rifles with high capacity. If
> 'militia' meant individuals access to any weapon
> why are we not allowed to carry C4, hand grenades
> and flame throwers?


Its also says, "being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

A militia at the time was every willing able-bodied man in a community.
A State at the time meant individual states, not the federal government.
The people at the time meant individuals, not groups or militias.
Keep at the time meant own for their personal use.
Bear at the time meant carry and have ready when the need arises.
Arms at the time meant whatever weapon the people wanted to keep and bear.
Shall not at the time meant under no circumstances.
Infringed at the time meant regulated or compromised.

An armed citizenry, capable of overthrowing a tyrannical government, is the essence of the 2nd amendment. That is what the guys who wrote it had just done and very well understood the meaning.

derrrrrp, change my mind, derrrr Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Fuck you with your 'change my mind' horseshit.
> Your infantile fascination with your guns
> outweighs any concern you have that children can
> sit at their desks at school without worrying
> about being murdered. Change your own mind, you
> troglodyte. You are an embarrassment.


You seem upset - why not go for a walk?

derrrrrp, change my mind, derrrr Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Fuck you with your 'change my mind' horseshit.
> Your infantile fascination with your guns
> outweighs any concern you have that children can
> sit at their desks at school without worrying
> about being murdered. Change your own mind, you
> troglodyte. You are an embarrassment.


But you libshits created the federal gun free school zone for ALL public K-12 schools. According to YOUR logic, that fixed the problem.

The bigger problem that you libshits refuse to address, is the absolute lack of respect you libshits have for both law and human life. Fix those two things and a vast majority of this country's problems will go away.


and you can take your bullshit made up number of six round limit and shove it your ass..

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winchester_Model_1907

get real now Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> kdsjdfhgdhg Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > why knot Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Troofer Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > The democrats want gun control because it
> > > equates
> > > > to people control. Imagine a black person
> > being
> > > > gunned down by a cop, people protesting,
> and
> > > the
> > > > authorities shoot the protesters. You know
> > why
> > > > this generally doesn't happen? Because the
> > > > government knows currently that public
> > > > reinforcements would come in and it would
> be
> > > civil
> > > > war due to human rights violations.
> > > >
> > > > The government doesn't care about Billy
> > shooting
> > > a
> > > > kid at school. The government doesn't care
> > > about
> > > > some hillbilly retard or mentally unstable
> > > idiot
> > > > shooting up a group of people. They want
> you
> > to
> > > > think they care. All to save the kids. It's
> > > about
> > > > the kids. Hearts and prayers.
> > > >
> > > > What the government actually cares about is
> > > > Shaquan, Billy, David, Melissa, and 1,000
> > other
> > > > people standing up to a government that
> > > violates
> > > > your rights as a citizen and as a human.
> > > >
> > > > Banning guns, weakening the people as a
> > > "militia",
> > > > and giving power to a bunch of fucking
> > retards
> > > who
> > > > were sadly elected to represent us is just
> > the
> > > > beginning of you losing your rights given
> to
> > > you
> > > > under the constitution. If you want to be
> > Hong
> > > > Kong, keep giving the government retards
> more
> > > > power.
> > >
> > > It says 'well regulated militia' and the
> > founders
> > > did not envision 16 year olds wondering
> around
> > > with assault-style rifles with high capacity.
>
> > If
> > > 'militia' meant individuals access to any
> > weapon
> > > why are we not allowed to carry C4, hand
> > grenades
> > > and flame throwers?
> >
> > "I ask who are the militia? They consist now of
> > the whole people, except a few public
> officers."
> > - George Mason, Address to the Virginia
> Ratifying
> > Convention, June 4, 1788
> >
> > But I don't have an issue keeping guns away
> from
> > anyone below the age of 18/21. Also, punish
> > parents if kids get ahold of a gun. As for
> > military weapons, we don't have access. A
> > fully-auto weapon is generally illegal. If you
> > want one, you have to pay a lot of money and go
> > through an extensive homeland security
> background
> > check. On that note, I want to ban person to
> > person gun sales. If you want to sell your gun
> to
> > your neighbor, you should have to take the sale
> to
> > a FFL/gun shop and do the background check.
>
>
> You didnt answer the question - why are we not
> allowed to have c4 and hand grenades? Where does
> the Constitution limit 'arms?' And, if we have
> limited the type of weapon after the 2nd Amendment
> it means we can do it now right?

There is a big difference between C4 explosives, a tank, a bazooka, fully-automatic weapons...and a 22 caliber rifle. That's what an AR-15 is. It is a scary looking 22 caliber rifle (although a different level of powder in the charge). You are equating 2 very different things.

ps- these 2 rifles shoot the same bullet 223/5.56...one is just scarier looking...but BOTH will kill and BOTH will penetrate police body armor
Attachments:

asdjfjsgj Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> derrrrrp, change my mind, derrrr Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Fuck you with your 'change my mind' horseshit.
> > Your infantile fascination with your guns
> > outweighs any concern you have that children
> can
> > sit at their desks at school without worrying
> > about being murdered. Change your own mind,
> you
> > troglodyte. You are an embarrassment.
>
>
> The democrats want gun control because it equates
> to people control. Imagine a black person being
> gunned down by a cop, people protesting, and the
> authorities shoot the protesters. You know why
> this generally doesn't happen? Because the
> government knows currently that public
> reinforcements would come in and it would be civil
> war due to human rights violations.
>
> The government doesn't care about Billy shooting a
> kid at school. The government doesn't care about
> some hillbilly retard or mentally unstable idiot
> shooting up a group of people. They want you to
> think they care. All to save the kids. It's about
> the kids. Hearts and prayers.
>
> What the government actually cares about is
> Shaquan, Billy, David, Melissa, and 1,000 other
> people standing up to a government that violates
> your rights as a citizen and as a human.
>
> Banning guns, weakening the people as a "militia",
> and giving power to a bunch of fucking retards who
> were sadly elected to represent us is just the
> beginning of you losing your rights given to you
> under the constitution. If you want to be Hong
> Kong, keep giving the government retards more
> power.


Your post is wrong. These fucking retards were not "sadly elected". They stole the presidency, at least 30 House seats and at least 6 Senate seats, including Mark Warner in VA.

^what do you need more than 6 rounds for? You seem very upset and angry. Exercise and abstaining from drinking can help you friend.

Rural America is full of folks who own multiple guns. Yet it is the dem controlled cities that have all the gun violence. It's not the guns. It's the anti-God devolution the libs have saddled this country with.

None of this matters because I lost all my scary weapons in a tragic boating accident. IF the scary weapons ban actually takes effect, they will not find any scary weapons at my place. They will only find 2 9mm semi-auto handguns and a 12 gauge shotgun loaded with a mix of 00 and slug

None are "assault" weapons but funny how an intruder would feel assaulted

blue is bad Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Rural America is full of folks who own multiple
> guns. Yet it is the dem controlled cities that
> have all the gun violence. It's not the guns.
> It's the anti-God devolution the libs have saddled
> this country with.


Yes, bring your Imaginary Friend In The Sky into the debate.

oh, jeez Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> blue is bad Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Rural America is full of folks who own multiple
> > guns. Yet it is the dem controlled cities that
> > have all the gun violence. It's not the guns.
> > It's the anti-God devolution the libs have
> saddled
> > this country with.
>
>
> Yes, bring your Imaginary Friend In The Sky into
> the debate.

It's alway funny when libshits ridicule religion, specifically the the one that won't slit their throats for doing so, yet believe if they can get communism enacted here it will work, this time, because it wasn't done right before when it murderd over 100,000,000 people under its control in the 20th century.

The Observerer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> oh, jeez Wrote:
> ---------------
>
> It's alway funny when libshits ridicule religion,
> specifically the the one that won't slit their
> throats for doing so, yet believe if they can get
> communism enacted here it will work, this time,
> because it wasn't done right before when it
> murderd over 100,000,000 people under its control
> in the 20th century.



I prayed to my Imaginary Friend In The Sky for you to say that, and then you did. Thus proving his existence.

No US citizen needs a military assault rifle like the AK-47. Those guns have one purpose and that is to kill as many people as possible.

The Observerer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> oh, jeez Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > blue is bad Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Rural America is full of folks who own
> multiple
> > > guns. Yet it is the dem controlled cities
> that
> > > have all the gun violence. It's not the guns.
>
> > > It's the anti-God devolution the libs have
> > saddled
> > > this country with.
> >
> >
> > Yes, bring your Imaginary Friend In The Sky
> into
> > the debate.
>
> It's alway funny when libshits ridicule religion,
> specifically the the one that won't slit their
> throats for doing so, yet believe if they can get
> communism enacted here it will work, this time,
> because it wasn't done right before when it
> murderd over 100,000,000 people under its control
> in the 20th century.

Wait. Biden identifies as a Christian. Libtardz can't even stand their own leaders. What an unhappy miserable group of delusional fuckups.

Common Sense Works Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Common sense gun control works. Mentally ill
> people shouldn't have guns or C4.
>
> It the same reason we don't give tanks and C4 to
> mental ill people.
>
> If the NRA had their way you'd be able to buy C4
> and Anthrax at 7-11's.


The libtard with the typical CNN scripted, idiotic, anti reality talking points will never understand because libs are libtarded. It's like listening to Bruce Hornsby singing Get a job at a grateful dead concert.

Common Sense Works Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No US citizen needs a military assault rifle like
> the AK-47. Those guns have one purpose and that
> is to kill as many people as possible.

The word "assault" is not ascribed to a semi-automatic weapon, only to burst or fully automatic weapons. AR-15 does not mean Assault Rifle by the way. AR stands for Armalite Rifle, the original creator of the rifle.

Lol@libtards Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Common Sense Works Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Common sense gun control works. Mentally ill
> > people shouldn't have guns or C4.
> >
> > It the same reason we don't give tanks and C4
> to
> > mental ill people.
> >
> > If the NRA had their way you'd be able to buy
> C4
> > and Anthrax at 7-11's.
>
>
> The libtard with the typical CNN scripted,
> idiotic, anti reality talking points will never
> understand because libs are libtarded. It's like
> listening to Bruce Hornsby singing Get a job at a
> grateful dead concert.

I don't watch CNN, I have Roku.

Under libtard thinking it's ok to be a faggot or a tranny because you identify with it. But if you identify your belief in God, libtards can't tolerate it.

ljkasedkhwfejg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Common Sense Works Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > No US citizen needs a military assault rifle
> like
> > the AK-47. Those guns have one purpose and
> that
> > is to kill as many people as possible.
>
> The word "assault" is not ascribed to a
> semi-automatic weapon, only to burst or fully
> automatic weapons. AR-15 does not mean Assault
> Rifle by the way. AR stands for Armalite Rifle,
> the original creator of the rifle.

Armilite originally marketed the rifle to the civil market chambered in .222.
When they didn't make any money they sought out a military contract, just like colt did with six shot revolvers.

AKTVX Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Under libtard thinking it's ok to be a faggot or a
> tranny because you identify with it. But if you
> identify your belief in God, libtards can't
> tolerate it.

You gotta stop using logic. Libs can't comprehend.

Factual Fenis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ljkasedkhwfejg Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Common Sense Works Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > No US citizen needs a military assault rifle
> > like
> > > the AK-47. Those guns have one purpose and
> > that
> > > is to kill as many people as possible.
> >
> > The word "assault" is not ascribed to a
> > semi-automatic weapon, only to burst or fully
> > automatic weapons. AR-15 does not mean Assault
> > Rifle by the way. AR stands for Armalite Rifle,
> > the original creator of the rifle.
>
> Armilite originally marketed the rifle to the
> civil market chambered in .222.
> When they didn't make any money they sought out a
> military contract, just like colt did with six
> shot revolvers.


The whole truth now. The 223 was marketed to the military and the military declined. So it was then sold as a CIVILIAN rifle. If you need to blame anyone or ban the 223/5.56, it needs to be banned from the military. They bought the rifle AFTER it was sold as a civilian rifle.

wrong-O Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> why knot Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Troofer Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > The democrats want gun control because it
> > equates
> > > to people control. Imagine a black person
> being
> > > gunned down by a cop, people protesting, and
> > the
> > > authorities shoot the protesters. You know
> why
> > > this generally doesn't happen? Because the
> > > government knows currently that public
> > > reinforcements would come in and it would be
> > civil
> > > war due to human rights violations.
> > >
> > > The government doesn't care about Billy
> shooting
> > a
> > > kid at school. The government doesn't care
> > about
> > > some hillbilly retard or mentally unstable
> > idiot
> > > shooting up a group of people. They want you
> to
> > > think they care. All to save the kids. It's
> > about
> > > the kids. Hearts and prayers.
> > >
> > > What the government actually cares about is
> > > Shaquan, Billy, David, Melissa, and 1,000
> other
> > > people standing up to a government that
> > violates
> > > your rights as a citizen and as a human.
> > >
> > > Banning guns, weakening the people as a
> > "militia",
> > > and giving power to a bunch of fucking
> retards
> > who
> > > were sadly elected to represent us is just
> the
> > > beginning of you losing your rights given to
> > you
> > > under the constitution. If you want to be
> Hong
> > > Kong, keep giving the government retards more
> > > power.
> >
> > It says 'well regulated militia' and the
> founders
> > did not envision 16 year olds wondering around
> > with assault-style rifles with high capacity.
> If
> > 'militia' meant individuals access to any
> weapon
> > why are we not allowed to carry C4, hand
> grenades
> > and flame throwers?
>
>
> Its also says, "being necessary to the security of
> a free State, the right of the people to keep and
> bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
>
> A militia at the time was every willing
> able-bodied man in a community.
> A State at the time meant individual states, not
> the federal government.
> The people at the time meant individuals, not
> groups or militias.
> Keep at the time meant own for their personal
> use.
> Bear at the time meant carry and have ready when
> the need arises.
> Arms at the time meant whatever weapon the people
> wanted to keep and bear.
> Shall not at the time meant under no
> circumstances.
> Infringed at the time meant regulated or
> compromised.
>
> An armed citizenry, capable of overthrowing a
> tyrannical government, is the essence of the 2nd
> amendment. That is what the guys who wrote it had
> just done and very well understood the meaning.

Do you actually think 'armed citizenry' in the USA is 'capable of overthrowing' the United States of America? How would that work when tens of thousands of trained US armed forces, US tanks and attack helicopters get rolled out? Are you and your friends going to stop an M1 Bradley with your assault-style rifles with bump-stocks?

lol

Revolvers where first made in the early 1500s, over 200 years before the founding fathers wrote the Bill of Rights. They were well aware of technology and its advancements. That's why they used very common language for the day when writing it. Part of the problem is libtards want to redefine everything to fit their myopic world view, which by the way has never been successful or prosperous anywhere in the world.

Communism/Facism/Communism doesn't work, never has and never will.

Lol@libtards Wrote:
-------------------
> The libtard with the typical CNN scripted,
> idiotic, anti reality talking points will never
> understand because libs are libtarded. It's like
> listening to Bruce Hornsby singing Get a job at a
> grateful dead concert.


You should listen to the song. It doesn't say what you apparently think it says. A Wall St. type yells to a guy who can't find a job to get a job. Just, you know, in the interest of accuracy.

ur words dont make sense Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> wrong-O Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > why knot Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Troofer Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > The democrats want gun control because it
> > > equates
> > > > to people control. Imagine a black person
> > being
> > > > gunned down by a cop, people protesting,
> and
> > > the
> > > > authorities shoot the protesters. You know
> > why
> > > > this generally doesn't happen? Because the
> > > > government knows currently that public
> > > > reinforcements would come in and it would
> be
> > > civil
> > > > war due to human rights violations.
> > > >
> > > > The government doesn't care about Billy
> > shooting
> > > a
> > > > kid at school. The government doesn't care
> > > about
> > > > some hillbilly retard or mentally unstable
> > > idiot
> > > > shooting up a group of people. They want
> you
> > to
> > > > think they care. All to save the kids. It's
> > > about
> > > > the kids. Hearts and prayers.
> > > >
> > > > What the government actually cares about is
> > > > Shaquan, Billy, David, Melissa, and 1,000
> > other
> > > > people standing up to a government that
> > > violates
> > > > your rights as a citizen and as a human.
> > > >
> > > > Banning guns, weakening the people as a
> > > "militia",
> > > > and giving power to a bunch of fucking
> > retards
> > > who
> > > > were sadly elected to represent us is just
> > the
> > > > beginning of you losing your rights given
> to
> > > you
> > > > under the constitution. If you want to be
> > Hong
> > > > Kong, keep giving the government retards
> more
> > > > power.
> > >
> > > It says 'well regulated militia' and the
> > founders
> > > did not envision 16 year olds wondering
> around
> > > with assault-style rifles with high capacity.
>
> > If
> > > 'militia' meant individuals access to any
> > weapon
> > > why are we not allowed to carry C4, hand
> > grenades
> > > and flame throwers?
> >
> >
> > Its also says, "being necessary to the security
> of
> > a free State, the right of the people to keep
> and
> > bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> >
> > A militia at the time was every willing
> > able-bodied man in a community.
> > A State at the time meant individual states,
> not
> > the federal government.
> > The people at the time meant individuals, not
> > groups or militias.
> > Keep at the time meant own for their personal
> > use.
> > Bear at the time meant carry and have ready
> when
> > the need arises.
> > Arms at the time meant whatever weapon the
> people
> > wanted to keep and bear.
> > Shall not at the time meant under no
> > circumstances.
> > Infringed at the time meant regulated or
> > compromised.
> >
> > An armed citizenry, capable of overthrowing a
> > tyrannical government, is the essence of the
> 2nd
> > amendment. That is what the guys who wrote it
> had
> > just done and very well understood the meaning.
>
> Do you actually think 'armed citizenry' in the USA
> is 'capable of overthrowing' the United States of
> America? How would that work when tens of
> thousands of trained US armed forces, US tanks and
> attack helicopters get rolled out? Are you and
> your friends going to stop an M1 Bradley with your
> assault-style rifles with bump-stocks?
>
> lol


Did you know American citizen own more ARs than the military has M16/M4s? By quite a bit too. Plus we are better supplied with ammo. The BATFE has said this, not a news source that isn't on your approved list. And every single time the all volunteer American military is asked if they would fire upon their own countrymen, the asnwer is always a resounding no. It is against the law for the military to conduct police actions within our borders. The American solder is required by military code to disobey an unlawful order.

A bigger concern for the American citizen would be the national guard. But they have said they would refuse to fire on citizens as well.

If the socialist run DNC didn't plan on doing things that would start a revolution in lesser countries, civilians owning firearms wouldn't be a concern.

ur words dont make sense Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Do you actually think 'armed citizenry' in the USA
> is 'capable of overthrowing' the United States of
> America? How would that work when tens of
> thousands of trained US armed forces, US tanks and
> attack helicopters get rolled out? Are you and
> your friends going to stop an M1 Bradley with your
> assault-style rifles with bump-stocks?

The military would be able to defeat armed citizens. But let's take a look at those 2 nogs a while back. The cops couldn't track them down for a while and had the whole metro area on lock-down and incorrectly tracking a white van. The military is more heavily armed but is not prepared to take on guerilla warfare in the streets when homes, businesses, etc would easily be hiding places for snipers. Yes, helicopters and planes and missiles could take out some but at what cost?

The citizens don't have to defeat the military. They just have to be able to stand up to the point of creating world news with civil war.

pethetic yiur argument is Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ur words dont make sense Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > wrong-O Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > why knot Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > Troofer Wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > >
> > > > -----
> > > > > The democrats want gun control because it
> > > > equates
> > > > > to people control. Imagine a black person
> > > being
> > > > > gunned down by a cop, people protesting,
> > and
> > > > the
> > > > > authorities shoot the protesters. You
> know
> > > why
> > > > > this generally doesn't happen? Because
> the
> > > > > government knows currently that public
> > > > > reinforcements would come in and it would
> > be
> > > > civil
> > > > > war due to human rights violations.
> > > > >
> > > > > The government doesn't care about Billy
> > > shooting
> > > > a
> > > > > kid at school. The government doesn't
> care
> > > > about
> > > > > some hillbilly retard or mentally
> unstable
> > > > idiot
> > > > > shooting up a group of people. They want
> > you
> > > to
> > > > > think they care. All to save the kids.
> It's
> > > > about
> > > > > the kids. Hearts and prayers.
> > > > >
> > > > > What the government actually cares about
> is
> > > > > Shaquan, Billy, David, Melissa, and 1,000
> > > other
> > > > > people standing up to a government that
> > > > violates
> > > > > your rights as a citizen and as a human.
> > > > >
> > > > > Banning guns, weakening the people as
> a
> > > > "militia",
> > > > > and giving power to a bunch of fucking
> > > retards
> > > > who
> > > > > were sadly elected to represent us is
> just
> > > the
> > > > > beginning of you losing your rights given
> > to
> > > > you
> > > > > under the constitution. If you want to be
> > > Hong
> > > > > Kong, keep giving the government retards
> > more
> > > > > power.
> > > >
> > > > It says 'well regulated militia' and the
> > > founders
> > > > did not envision 16 year olds wondering
> > around
> > > > with assault-style rifles with high
> capacity.
> >
> > > If
> > > > 'militia' meant individuals access to any
> > > weapon
> > > > why are we not allowed to carry C4, hand
> > > grenades
> > > > and flame throwers?
> > >
> > >
> > > Its also says, "being necessary to the
> security
> > of
> > > a free State, the right of the people to keep
> > and
> > > bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> > >
> > > A militia at the time was every willing
> > > able-bodied man in a community.
> > > A State at the time meant individual states,
> > not
> > > the federal government.
> > > The people at the time meant individuals, not
> > > groups or militias.
> > > Keep at the time meant own for their personal
> > > use.
> > > Bear at the time meant carry and have ready
> > when
> > > the need arises.
> > > Arms at the time meant whatever weapon the
> > people
> > > wanted to keep and bear.
> > > Shall not at the time meant under no
> > > circumstances.
> > > Infringed at the time meant regulated or
> > > compromised.
> > >
> > > An armed citizenry, capable of overthrowing a
> > > tyrannical government, is the essence of the
> > 2nd
> > > amendment. That is what the guys who wrote
> it
> > had
> > > just done and very well understood the
> meaning.
> >
> > Do you actually think 'armed citizenry' in the
> USA
> > is 'capable of overthrowing' the United States
> of
> > America? How would that work when tens of
> > thousands of trained US armed forces, US tanks
> and
> > attack helicopters get rolled out? Are you and
> > your friends going to stop an M1 Bradley with
> your
> > assault-style rifles with bump-stocks?
> >
> > lol
>
>
> Did you know American citizen own more ARs than
> the military has M16/M4s? By quite a bit too. Plus
> we are better supplied with ammo. The BATFE has
> said this, not a news source that isn't on your
> approved list. And every single time the all
> volunteer American military is asked if they would
> fire upon their own countrymen, the asnwer is
> always a resounding no. It is against the law for
> the military to conduct police actions within our
> borders. The American solder is required by
> military code to disobey an unlawful order.
>
> A bigger concern for the American citizen would be
> the national guard. But they have said they would
> refuse to fire on citizens as well.
>
> If the socialist run DNC didn't plan on doing
> things that would start a revolution in lesser
> countries, civilians owning firearms wouldn't be a
> concern.

So citizens could violently overthrow the government and the military could not respond - you sound like a mental patient.

um, sure. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> So citizens could violently overthrow the
> government and the military could not respond -
> you sound like a mental patient.

Didn't that just happen in Seattle, the Autonomous Zone? People came in with scary rifles, overthrew the police, and military was not called in to take care of the issue. The group literally declared the area no longer part of the US. The leftist anti-gun Seattle government allowed armed people to take over part of the city.

And that won't happen anywhere else?

um, sure. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> pethetic yiur argument is Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > ur words dont make sense Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > wrong-O Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > why knot Wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > >
> > > > -----
> > > > > Troofer Wrote:
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > -----
> > > > > > The democrats want gun control because
> it
> > > > > equates
> > > > > > to people control. Imagine a black
> person
> > > > being
> > > > > > gunned down by a cop, people
> protesting,
> > > and
> > > > > the
> > > > > > authorities shoot the protesters. You
> > know
> > > > why
> > > > > > this generally doesn't happen? Because
> > the
> > > > > > government knows currently that public
> > > > > > reinforcements would come in and it
> would
> > > be
> > > > > civil
> > > > > > war due to human rights violations.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The government doesn't care about Billy
> > > > shooting
> > > > > a
> > > > > > kid at school. The government doesn't
> > care
> > > > > about
> > > > > > some hillbilly retard or mentally
> > unstable
> > > > > idiot
> > > > > > shooting up a group of people. They
> want
> > > you
> > > > to
> > > > > > think they care. All to save the kids.
> > It's
> > > > > about
> > > > > > the kids. Hearts and prayers.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What the government actually cares
> about
> > is
> > > > > > Shaquan, Billy, David, Melissa, and
> 1,000
> > > > other
> > > > > > people standing up to a government that
> > > > > violates
> > > > > > your rights as a citizen and as a
> human.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Banning guns, weakening the people
> as
> > a
> > > > > "militia",
> > > > > > and giving power to a bunch of fucking
> > > > retards
> > > > > who
> > > > > > were sadly elected to represent us is
> > just
> > > > the
> > > > > > beginning of you losing your rights
> given
> > > to
> > > > > you
> > > > > > under the constitution. If you want to
> be
> > > > Hong
> > > > > > Kong, keep giving the government
> retards
> > > more
> > > > > > power.
> > > > >
> > > > > It says 'well regulated militia' and the
> > > > founders
> > > > > did not envision 16 year olds wondering
> > > around
> > > > > with assault-style rifles with high
> > capacity.
> > >
> > > > If
> > > > > 'militia' meant individuals access to any
> > > > weapon
> > > > > why are we not allowed to carry C4, hand
> > > > grenades
> > > > > and flame throwers?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Its also says, "being necessary to the
> > security
> > > of
> > > > a free State, the right of the people to
> keep
> > > and
> > > > bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> > > >
> > > > A militia at the time was every willing
> > > > able-bodied man in a community.
> > > > A State at the time meant individual
> states,
> > > not
> > > > the federal government.
> > > > The people at the time meant individuals,
> not
> > > > groups or militias.
> > > > Keep at the time meant own for their
> personal
> > > > use.
> > > > Bear at the time meant carry and have ready
> > > when
> > > > the need arises.
> > > > Arms at the time meant whatever weapon the
> > > people
> > > > wanted to keep and bear.
> > > > Shall not at the time meant under no
> > > > circumstances.
> > > > Infringed at the time meant regulated or
> > > > compromised.
> > > >
> > > > An armed citizenry, capable of overthrowing
> a
> > > > tyrannical government, is the essence of
> the
> > > 2nd
> > > > amendment. That is what the guys who wrote
> > it
> > > had
> > > > just done and very well understood the
> > meaning.
> > >
> > > Do you actually think 'armed citizenry' in
> the
> > USA
> > > is 'capable of overthrowing' the United
> States
> > of
> > > America? How would that work when tens of
> > > thousands of trained US armed forces, US
> tanks
> > and
> > > attack helicopters get rolled out? Are you
> and
> > > your friends going to stop an M1 Bradley with
> > your
> > > assault-style rifles with bump-stocks?
> > >
> > > lol
> >
> >
> > Did you know American citizen own more ARs than
> > the military has M16/M4s? By quite a bit too.
> Plus
> > we are better supplied with ammo. The BATFE has
> > said this, not a news source that isn't on your
> > approved list. And every single time the all
> > volunteer American military is asked if they
> would
> > fire upon their own countrymen, the asnwer is
> > always a resounding no. It is against the law
> for
> > the military to conduct police actions within
> our
> > borders. The American solder is required by
> > military code to disobey an unlawful order.
> >
> > A bigger concern for the American citizen would
> be
> > the national guard. But they have said they
> would
> > refuse to fire on citizens as well.
> >
> > If the socialist run DNC didn't plan on doing
> > things that would start a revolution in lesser
> > countries, civilians owning firearms wouldn't be
> a
> > concern.
>
> So citizens could violently overthrow the
> government and the military could not respond -
> you sound like a mental patient.

who shitposts lies daily

and yes, if the people truly get fed up with your type of bullshit,
they can overthrow the government. Your socialists in charge must agree
or they wouldn't have erected a wall around the capital building.

.
Attachments:

lksakhegfgj Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> um, sure. Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > So citizens could violently overthrow the
> > government and the military could not respond -
> > you sound like a mental patient.
>
> Didn't that just happen in Seattle, the Autonomous
> Zone? People came in with scary rifles, overthrew
> the police, and military was not called in to take
> care of the issue. The group literally declared
> the area no longer part of the US. The leftist
> anti-gun Seattle government allowed armed people
> to take over part of the city.
>
> And that won't happen anywhere else?


Don't waste your time. Libtards have short memories. They forgot about that incident the week after it started.

ObserverInChief Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> lksakhegfgj Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > um, sure. Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> >
> > > So citizens could violently overthrow the
> > > government and the military could not respond
> -
> > > you sound like a mental patient.
> >
> > Didn't that just happen in Seattle, the
> Autonomous
> > Zone? People came in with scary rifles,
> overthrew
> > the police, and military was not called in to
> take
> > care of the issue. The group literally declared
> > the area no longer part of the US. The leftist
> > anti-gun Seattle government allowed armed
> people
> > to take over part of the city.
> >
> > And that won't happen anywhere else?
>
>
> Don't waste your time. Libtards have short
> memories. They forgot about that incident the week
> after it started.

Of course the only time a mob actually tried to attack the USA was Jan 6 2021 and yes the National Guard did respond. Pay attention dope.

ur words dont make sense Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> wrong-O Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > why knot Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Troofer Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > The democrats want gun control because it
> > > equates
> > > > to people control. Imagine a black person
> > being
> > > > gunned down by a cop, people protesting,
> and
> > > the
> > > > authorities shoot the protesters. You know
> > why
> > > > this generally doesn't happen? Because the
> > > > government knows currently that public
> > > > reinforcements would come in and it would
> be
> > > civil
> > > > war due to human rights violations.
> > > >
> > > > The government doesn't care about Billy
> > shooting
> > > a
> > > > kid at school. The government doesn't care
> > > about
> > > > some hillbilly retard or mentally unstable
> > > idiot
> > > > shooting up a group of people. They want
> you
> > to
> > > > think they care. All to save the kids. It's
> > > about
> > > > the kids. Hearts and prayers.
> > > >
> > > > What the government actually cares about is
> > > > Shaquan, Billy, David, Melissa, and 1,000
> > other
> > > > people standing up to a government that
> > > violates
> > > > your rights as a citizen and as a human.
> > > >
> > > > Banning guns, weakening the people as a
> > > "militia",
> > > > and giving power to a bunch of fucking
> > retards
> > > who
> > > > were sadly elected to represent us is just
> > the
> > > > beginning of you losing your rights given
> to
> > > you
> > > > under the constitution. If you want to be
> > Hong
> > > > Kong, keep giving the government retards
> more
> > > > power.
> > >
> > > It says 'well regulated militia' and the
> > founders
> > > did not envision 16 year olds wondering
> around
> > > with assault-style rifles with high capacity.
>
> > If
> > > 'militia' meant individuals access to any
> > weapon
> > > why are we not allowed to carry C4, hand
> > grenades
> > > and flame throwers?
> >
> >
> > Its also says, "being necessary to the security
> of
> > a free State, the right of the people to keep
> and
> > bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> >
> > A militia at the time was every willing
> > able-bodied man in a community.
> > A State at the time meant individual states,
> not
> > the federal government.
> > The people at the time meant individuals, not
> > groups or militias.
> > Keep at the time meant own for their personal
> > use.
> > Bear at the time meant carry and have ready
> when
> > the need arises.
> > Arms at the time meant whatever weapon the
> people
> > wanted to keep and bear.
> > Shall not at the time meant under no
> > circumstances.
> > Infringed at the time meant regulated or
> > compromised.
> >
> > An armed citizenry, capable of overthrowing a
> > tyrannical government, is the essence of the
> 2nd
> > amendment. That is what the guys who wrote it
> had
> > just done and very well understood the meaning.
>
> Do you actually think 'armed citizenry' in the USA
> is 'capable of overthrowing' the United States of
> America? How would that work when tens of
> thousands of trained US armed forces, US tanks and
> attack helicopters get rolled out? Are you and
> your friends going to stop an M1 Bradley with your
> assault-style rifles with bump-stocks?
>
> lol


Beat ya said that in Vietnam and Iraq and Afghanistan too. All 3 places where the vaunted US military couldn't defeat an citizenry that was much less capable than your conservative neighbors.

And your vaunted US military has their families living in the same communities as your conservative neighbors. A disadvantage that the dinks and jihadists couldn't exploit.

And an attack on the power grid by your conservative neighbors would send US cities into cannibalism within a month. Another disadvantage that the dinks and jihadists couldn't exploit.

Wonder why Xiden is trying to get conservatives out of the US military and our police forces. Because they are least likely to kill their own citizens. Guess who is most likely - black females. Second most likely are liberal men.

A white-hat war game by DHS and DOD of an armed insurrection inside the US found no way short of nuclear weapons that didn't have the insurrectionist winning within a year. And they estimated that at least 30% of the nuclear sub commanders and bomber squadrons would defect to the insurrectionists.

So yeah, I'm pretty confident that the US military would be offering terms of surrender in short order. Either that, or 90% of the population would be dead to secure the 'win'.

When cops don't need AR's, then I won't need AR's. As long as it's necessary for them to have them, it's necessary for me to have them.

um, sure. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> pethetic your argument is Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> >
> > Did you know American citizen own more ARs than
> > the military has M16/M4s? By quite a bit too.
> Plus
> > we are better supplied with ammo. The BATFE has
> > said this, not a news source that isn't on your
> > approved list. And every single time the all
> > volunteer American military is asked if they
> would
> > fire upon their own countrymen, the asnwer is
> > always a resounding no. It is against the law
> for
> > the military to conduct police actions within
> our
> > borders. The American solder is required by
> > military code to disobey an unlawful order.
> >
> > A bigger concern for the American citizen would
> be
> > the national guard. But they have said they
> would
> > refuse to fire on citizens as well.
> >
> > If the socialist run DNC didn't plan on doing
> > things that would start a revolution in lesser
> > countries, civilians owning firearms wouldn't be
> a
> > concern.
>
> So citizens could violently overthrow the
> government and the military could not respond -
> you sound like a mental patient.

Why do dumbassed dumbfuck libshits always ignore the majority of the information that would prove them wrong?

pay attention Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ObserverInChief Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > lksakhegfgj Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > um, sure. Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > >
> > > > So citizens could violently overthrow the
> > > > government and the military could not
> respond
> > -
> > > > you sound like a mental patient.
> > >
> > > Didn't that just happen in Seattle, the
> > Autonomous
> > > Zone? People came in with scary rifles,
> > overthrew
> > > the police, and military was not called in to
> > take
> > > care of the issue. The group literally
> declared
> > > the area no longer part of the US. The
> leftist
> > > anti-gun Seattle government allowed armed
> > people
> > > to take over part of the city.
> > >
> > > And that won't happen anywhere else?
> >
> >
> > Don't waste your time. Libtards have short
> > memories. They forgot about that incident the
> week
> > after it started.
>
> Of course the only time a mob actually tried to
> attack the USA was Jan 6 2021 and yes the National
> Guard did respond. Pay attention dope.


The only people who had guns were the cops. Only person shot was an unarmed protestor. If a cop shoots a looting armed lib, it's a national tragedy. If a cop shoots an unarmed conservative protestor, he's a hero.

Yeah we get it. That's why we won't give up our guns.

pay attention Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ObserverInChief Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > lksakhegfgj Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > um, sure. Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > >
> > > > So citizens could violently overthrow the
> > > > government and the military could not
> respond
> > -
> > > > you sound like a mental patient.
> > >
> > > Didn't that just happen in Seattle, the
> > Autonomous
> > > Zone? People came in with scary rifles,
> > overthrew
> > > the police, and military was not called in to
> > take
> > > care of the issue. The group literally
> declared
> > > the area no longer part of the US. The
> leftist
> > > anti-gun Seattle government allowed armed
> > people
> > > to take over part of the city.
> > >
> > > And that won't happen anywhere else?
> >
> >
> > Don't waste your time. Libtards have short
> > memories. They forgot about that incident the
> week
> > after it started.
>
> Of course the only time a mob actually tried to
> attack the USA was Jan 6 2021 and yes the National
> Guard did respond. Pay attention dope.

An unarmed mod that did not intend to overthrow anything. Pay attention dope.

pay attention Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ObserverInChief Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > lksakhegfgj Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > um, sure. Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > >
> > > > So citizens could violently overthrow the
> > > > government and the military could not
> respond
> > -
> > > > you sound like a mental patient.
> > >
> > > Didn't that just happen in Seattle, the
> > Autonomous
> > > Zone? People came in with scary rifles,
> > overthrew
> > > the police, and military was not called in to
> > take
> > > care of the issue. The group literally
> declared
> > > the area no longer part of the US. The
> leftist
> > > anti-gun Seattle government allowed armed
> > people
> > > to take over part of the city.
> > >
> > > And that won't happen anywhere else?
> >
> >
> > Don't waste your time. Libtards have short
> > memories. They forgot about that incident the
> week
> > after it started.
>
> Of course the only time a mob actually tried to
> attack the USA was Jan 6 2021 and yes the National
> Guard did respond. Pay attention dope.


This is factually inaccurate. You libshits have stormed the house while in session with the intention to disrupt government. And, since it was libshits doing it, libshits like pelousy praised your work.


Well, not YOU as you refuse to leave your basement, but your like minded fucktards

pay attention Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ObserverInChief Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > lksakhegfgj Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > um, sure. Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > >
> > > > So citizens could violently overthrow the
> > > > government and the military could not
> respond
> > -
> > > > you sound like a mental patient.
> > >
> > > Didn't that just happen in Seattle, the
> > Autonomous
> > > Zone? People came in with scary rifles,
> > overthrew
> > > the police, and military was not called in to
> > take
> > > care of the issue. The group literally
> declared
> > > the area no longer part of the US. The
> leftist
> > > anti-gun Seattle government allowed armed
> > people
> > > to take over part of the city.
> > >
> > > And that won't happen anywhere else?
> >
> >
> > Don't waste your time. Libtards have short
> > memories. They forgot about that incident the
> week
> > after it started.
>
> Of course the only time a mob actually tried to
> attack the USA was Jan 6 2021 and yes the National
> Guard did respond. Pay attention dope.


USA vs State vs City...it doesn't matter. Military or National Guard. It doesn't matter. Police? No worries. Potato, potaahto...we'll just call them troops for simplicity. None of them want to go up against a group of people scrambled around the city taking sniper shots. The troops would be sitting ducks. With 20 million "assault" rifles in the US, I'd say it's in the government's best interest to not go around violating the constitution and human rights.

pay attention Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ObserverInChief Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > lksakhegfgj Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > um, sure. Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > >
> > > > So citizens could violently overthrow the
> > > > government and the military could not
> respond
> > -
> > > > you sound like a mental patient.
> > >
> > > Didn't that just happen in Seattle, the
> > Autonomous
> > > Zone? People came in with scary rifles,
> > overthrew
> > > the police, and military was not called in to
> > take
> > > care of the issue. The group literally
> declared
> > > the area no longer part of the US. The
> leftist
> > > anti-gun Seattle government allowed armed
> > people
> > > to take over part of the city.
> > >
> > > And that won't happen anywhere else?
> >
> >
> > Don't waste your time. Libtards have short
> > memories. They forgot about that incident the
> week
> > after it started.
>
> Of course the only time a mob actually tried to
> attack the USA was Jan 6 2021 and yes the National
> Guard did respond. Pay attention dope.


Typical lib pretzel logic. Running through the halls of the Capitol, threatening cuck Senators in the elevator and trying to tear down the doors to the supreme court building is heroic. But only if libtards are doing it. When conservatives do it, it's an insurrection and "attack" on the USA. lol

jskfhsjh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> pay attention Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > ObserverInChief Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > lksakhegfgj Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > um, sure. Wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > >
> > > > -----
> > > >
> > > > > So citizens could violently overthrow the
> > > > > government and the military could not
> > respond
> > > -
> > > > > you sound like a mental patient.
> > > >
> > > > Didn't that just happen in Seattle, the
> > > Autonomous
> > > > Zone? People came in with scary rifles,
> > > overthrew
> > > > the police, and military was not called in
> to
> > > take
> > > > care of the issue. The group literally
> > declared
> > > > the area no longer part of the US. The
> > leftist
> > > > anti-gun Seattle government allowed armed
> > > people
> > > > to take over part of the city.
> > > >
> > > > And that won't happen anywhere else?
> > >
> > >
> > > Don't waste your time. Libtards have short
> > > memories. They forgot about that incident the
> > week
> > > after it started.
> >
> > Of course the only time a mob actually tried to
> > attack the USA was Jan 6 2021 and yes the
> National
> > Guard did respond. Pay attention dope.
>
>
> USA vs State vs City...it doesn't matter. Military
> or National Guard. It doesn't matter. Police? No
> worries. Potato, potaahto...we'll just call them
> troops for simplicity. None of them want to go up
> against a group of people scrambled around the
> city taking sniper shots. The troops would be
> sitting ducks. With 20 million "assault" rifles in
> the US, I'd say it's in the government's best
> interest to not go around violating the
> constitution and human rights.


That's 20 million AR-15s. There are also 12 million AK-47s, 4 million AR-10's, 300K 50 caliber BMGs and at least 10 million other scary "assault" rifles. Not to mention at least 150 million handguns. And these are old numbers from pre-2019. Once the libs stole the House in 2018, gun sales have doubled every year since. This against 800,000 military personnel on the ground in the US and 650,000 cops.

jus sayin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> None of my guns have ever just jumped up and
> started shooting by themselves.
>
> Ever.
>
> Oddly enough, I seriously doubt they ever will.


But guns have fired without a person at the trigger. Dumbass.

19 Feb 2021
Military.com | By Matthew Cox
A former U.S. Marine and federal agent has filed a $10 million lawsuit against Sig Sauer Inc. alleging that his holstered Sig P320 -- a pistol that the Army's new sidearm is based on -- accidentally discharged, firing a 9mm bullet into his right leg.

The lawsuit, filed Wednesday on behalf of Keith Slatowski in U.S. District Court in Pennsylvania, alleges his "substantial injuries" were the result of the handgun's "potentially deadly design defects" that allow it to fire without the user pulling the trigger, according to a news release from Slatowski's attorneys, Jeffrey Bagnell and Robert Zimmerman.

hutcu Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> That's 20 million AR-15s. There are also 12
> million AK-47s, 4 million AR-10's, 300K 50 caliber
> BMGs and at least 10 million other scary "assault"
> rifles. Not to mention at least 150 million
> handguns. And these are old numbers from
> pre-2019. Once the libs stole the House in 2018,
> gun sales have doubled every year since. This
> against 800,000 military personnel on the ground
> in the US and 650,000 cops.

Translation: Keep buying guns while you can because the ultimate goal of the leftists is to stop your ability to buy. Of course, guns and ammo are scarce and expensive now due to supply scarcity.

Federal agents have at least a 70% chance of being retarded. No doubt Slatowski (a pollock, come on) fits that bill.

Nothing to see here.

Red lion Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> jus sayin Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > None of my guns have ever just jumped up and
> > started shooting by themselves.
> >
> > Ever.
> >
> > Oddly enough, I seriously doubt they ever will.
>
>
> But guns have fired without a person at the
> trigger. Dumbass.
>
> 19 Feb 2021
> Military.com | By Matthew Cox
> A former U.S. Marine and federal agent has filed a
> $10 million lawsuit against Sig Sauer Inc.
> alleging that his holstered Sig P320 -- a pistol
> that the Army's new sidearm is based on --
> accidentally discharged, firing a 9mm bullet into
> his right leg.
>
> The lawsuit, filed Wednesday on behalf of Keith
> Slatowski in U.S. District Court in Pennsylvania,
> alleges his "substantial injuries" were the result
> of the handgun's "potentially deadly design
> defects" that allow it to fire without the user
> pulling the trigger, according to a news release
> from Slatowski's attorneys, Jeffrey Bagnell and
> Robert Zimmerman.


That is hearsay. No proof (yet). Any other actual proven instances not involving human error?

Red lion Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> jus sayin Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > None of my guns have ever just jumped up and
> > started shooting by themselves.
> >
> > Ever.
> >
> > Oddly enough, I seriously doubt they ever will.
>
>
> But guns have fired without a person at the
> trigger. Dumbass.
>
> 19 Feb 2021
> Military.com | By Matthew Cox
> A former U.S. Marine and federal agent has filed a
> $10 million lawsuit against Sig Sauer Inc.
> alleging that his holstered Sig P320 -- a pistol
> that the Army's new sidearm is based on --
> accidentally discharged, firing a 9mm bullet into
> his right leg.
>
> The lawsuit, filed Wednesday on behalf of Keith
> Slatowski in U.S. District Court in Pennsylvania,
> alleges his "substantial injuries" were the result
> of the handgun's "potentially deadly design
> defects" that allow it to fire without the user
> pulling the trigger, according to a news release
> from Slatowski's attorneys, Jeffrey Bagnell and
> Robert Zimmerman.

What does the word alledged mean you dumbfuck. How do product liability
lawsuits work dumbfuck. Far more often than they should, the lawsuit is
settled out off court for reasons of cost and bad press.

Guns don't fire themselves dumbfuck.

Honestly, most of the problems libshits have is not knowing the meanings of words.

Black Guns Matter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's not gun control. It's people control.


I am reminded of an episode of Judge Judy where she turned to the defendant and said:

"did you approach the plantiff with a gun?"

Defendant:"your honor, I have a concealed carry permit, so I take my gun wherever I go."

Judge: "I asked, 'did you approach the plantiff with a gun?'"

Defendant: "your honor, I have a state license to carry a gun, and I exercise my Constitutional rights."

Judy: "I will have to take that as a 'yes,' and it doesn't look good for you, you gun nut."





Judy:

I hate to burst your bubble there gerry, but it is %100 legal to own a tank
in this country, with zero background check. Same for flamethrowers.

Tulsa tiger Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Black Guns Matter Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > It's not gun control. It's people control.
>
>
> I am reminded of an episode of Judge Judy where
> she turned to the defendant and said:
>
> "did you approach the plantiff with a gun?"
>
> Defendant:"your honor, I have a concealed carry
> permit, so I take my gun wherever I go."
>
> Judge: "I asked, 'did you approach the plantiff
> with a gun?'"
>
> Defendant: "your honor, I have a state license to
> carry a gun, and I exercise my Constitutional
> rights."
>
> Judy: "I will have to take that as a 'yes,' and it
> doesn't look good for you, you gun nut."

Great to see a "judge" uphold the actual state law. What a fucking libtard.

Factual Fenis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I hate to burst your bubble there gerry, but it is
> %100 legal to own a tank
> in this country, with zero background check. Same
> for flamethrowers.

Wrong, or misrepresented by you:

The NFA regulates five different categories of firearms: machine guns, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, silencers, and destructive devices.

The NFA requires an excise tax on the sale or transfer of any firearms that fall into any of these categories, requires that these firearms be registered, and requires that anyone seeking to own one of these firearms undergoes a comprehensive background check..

Permanent transfer of an NFA item over state lines (like in the event of a sale) must be reported to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF).

The gun on a tank is going to fall in the category of destructive devices, so as long as you pass the background check and comply with the NFA’s regulations, you can buy a tank of your own!

Probably. While the NFA allows civilians to own destructive devices provided that they comply with the above requirements, some states have laws against it. Always check your local laws before buying something like this.

You can skip the NFA ordeal altogether, but it requires you to lose half the fun of the tank. The NFA just regulates the gun on the tank, not the vehicle itself. If the gun is rendered inoperable or removed entirely, you don’t have to jump through the NFA’s hoops.

I know, I know. But at least you can still crush stuff.

Only one of these has the ability to hurt others.
Attachments:

Factual Fenis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I hate to burst your bubble there gerry, but it is
> %100 legal to own a tank
> in this country, with zero background check. Same
> for flamethrowers.


1. Everyone is Gerry, of course...
2. what about grenades and C4?

The difference Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Only one of these has the ability to hurt others.


Which one?

One is an inanimate object that can't do anything without a human causing it to do something. The other is a human who could hurt you in 1000 different ways. I must assume you mean the human, not the inanimate object.

flamei Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Factual Fenis Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I hate to burst your bubble there gerry, but it
> is
> > %100 legal to own a tank
> > in this country, with zero background check.
> Same
> > for flamethrowers.
>
>
> 1. Everyone is Gerry, of course...
> 2. what about grenades and C4?


1. Gerry is now a colloquialism here. It means "fool" or "clown" or "goatfucking muzzie".

2. Sure, why not? Do cops need grenades and C4? If they do, we do.

yuc6p Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The difference Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Only one of these has the ability to hurt
> others.
>
>
> Which one?
>
> One is an inanimate object that can't do anything
> without a human causing it to do something. The
> other is a human who could hurt you in 1000
> different ways. I must assume you mean the human,
> not the inanimate object.


An inanimate object can't have abilities. I cannot believe that needs to be explained.

jaahffhg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Tulsa tiger Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Black Guns Matter Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > It's not gun control. It's people control.
> >
> >
> > I am reminded of an episode of Judge Judy where
> > she turned to the defendant and said:
> >
> > "did you approach the plantiff with a gun?"
> >
> > Defendant:"your honor, I have a concealed carry
> > permit, so I take my gun wherever I go."
> >
> > Judge: "I asked, 'did you approach the plantiff
> > with a gun?'"
> >
> > Defendant: "your honor, I have a state license
> to
> > carry a gun, and I exercise my Constitutional
> > rights."
> >
> > Judy: "I will have to take that as a 'yes,' and
> it
> > doesn't look good for you, you gun nut."
>
> Great to see a "judge" uphold the actual state
> law. What a fucking libtard. He had the right to carry a gun, but not a right to use it in an altercation. It is against the law to intimidate using a gun. Dumbass.

As a judge in New York Criminal Court and supervisor of New York's Family Courts for 25 years, I am sure Judge Judy knows more about gun laws, and interpreting those laws, than you will ever know.

The defendant was evading her question, she said she will "take that as a yes," to tell the defendant her intentions. She gave him an opportunity to refute, but he didn't. Standard legal procedure, and one which then Senator Kamila Harris used when questioning Judge Kavenaugh.

As for the gun nut comment, he was hiding behind his permit, which is nuts. He didn't say, "I have a permit to carry a gun. I know the dangers in and out of guns, and would never pull it out during an emotional or confrontational time." But he didn't.

Tulsa tiger Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> jaahffhg Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Tulsa tiger Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Black Guns Matter Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > It's not gun control. It's people control.
> > >
> > >
> > > I am reminded of an episode of Judge Judy
> where
> > > she turned to the defendant and said:
> > >
> > > "did you approach the plantiff with a gun?"
> > >
> > > Defendant:"your honor, I have a concealed
> carry
> > > permit, so I take my gun wherever I go."
> > >
> > > Judge: "I asked, 'did you approach the
> plantiff
> > > with a gun?'"
> > >
> > > Defendant: "your honor, I have a state
> license
> > to
> > > carry a gun, and I exercise my Constitutional
> > > rights."
> > >
> > > Judy: "I will have to take that as a 'yes,'
> and
> > it
> > > doesn't look good for you, you gun nut."
> >
> > Great to see a "judge" uphold the actual state
> > law. What a fucking libtard. He had the right
> to carry a gun, but not a right to use it in an
> altercation. It is against the law to intimidate
> using a gun. Dumbass.
>
> As a judge in New York Criminal Court and
> supervisor of New York's Family Courts for 25
> years, I am sure Judge Judy knows more about gun
> laws, and interpreting those laws, than you will
> ever know.
>
> The defendant was evading her question, she said
> she will "take that as a yes," to tell the
> defendant her intentions. She gave him an
> opportunity to refute, but he didn't. Standard
> legal procedure, and one which then Senator Kamila
> Harris used when questioning Judge Kavenaugh.
>
> As for the gun nut comment, he was hiding behind
> his permit, which is nuts. He didn't say, "I have
> a permit to carry a gun. I know the dangers in
> and out of guns, and would never pull it out
> during an emotional or confrontational time." But
> he didn't.


If he has a permit to carry, that is a fact for the court to decide. The permit to carry allows him to carry. That is law. If he drew his weapon, that would be a different circumstance. But the statement wasn't that he drew his weapon. The statement was that he approached the other person while (legally per his permit) having a gun.

wrong-O Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> why knot Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Troofer Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > The democrats want gun control because it
> > equates
> > > to people control. Imagine a black person
> being
> > > gunned down by a cop, people protesting, and
> > the
> > > authorities shoot the protesters. You know
> why
> > > this generally doesn't happen? Because the
> > > government knows currently that public
> > > reinforcements would come in and it would be
> > civil
> > > war due to human rights violations.
> > >
> > > The government doesn't care about Billy
> shooting
> > a
> > > kid at school. The government doesn't care
> > about
> > > some hillbilly retard or mentally unstable
> > idiot
> > > shooting up a group of people. They want you
> to
> > > think they care. All to save the kids. It's
> > about
> > > the kids. Hearts and prayers.
> > >
> > > What the government actually cares about is
> > > Shaquan, Billy, David, Melissa, and 1,000
> other
> > > people standing up to a government that
> > violates
> > > your rights as a citizen and as a human.
> > >
> > > Banning guns, weakening the people as a
> > "militia",
> > > and giving power to a bunch of fucking
> retards
> > who
> > > were sadly elected to represent us is just
> the
> > > beginning of you losing your rights given to
> > you
> > > under the constitution. If you want to be
> Hong
> > > Kong, keep giving the government retards more
> > > power.
> >
> > It says 'well regulated militia' and the
> founders
> > did not envision 16 year olds wondering around
> > with assault-style rifles with high capacity.
> If
> > 'militia' meant individuals access to any
> weapon
> > why are we not allowed to carry C4, hand
> grenades
> > and flame throwers?
>
>
> Its also says, "being necessary to the security of
> a free State, the right of the people to keep and
> bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
>
> A militia at the time was every willing
> able-bodied man in a community.
> A State at the time meant individual states, not
> the federal government.
> The people at the time meant individuals, not
> groups or militias.
> Keep at the time meant own for their personal
> use.
> Bear at the time meant carry and have ready when
> the need arises.
> Arms at the time meant whatever weapon the people
> wanted to keep and bear.
> Shall not at the time meant under no
> circumstances.
> Infringed at the time meant regulated or
> compromised.
>
> An armed citizenry, capable of overthrowing a
> tyrannical government, is the essence of the 2nd
> amendment. That is what the guys who wrote it had
> just done and very well understood the meaning.



And guns at the time took a very experienced shooter 90 seconds to reload, or an inexperienced shooter 3 minutes. How about, you gun nuts can have any guns you want, but they will only fire once every two minutes. Is that 1776 enough for you?

John Hancock Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> wrong-O Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > why knot Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Troofer Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > The democrats want gun control because it
> > > equates
> > > > to people control. Imagine a black person
> > being
> > > > gunned down by a cop, people protesting,
> and
> > > the
> > > > authorities shoot the protesters. You know
> > why
> > > > this generally doesn't happen? Because the
> > > > government knows currently that public
> > > > reinforcements would come in and it would
> be
> > > civil
> > > > war due to human rights violations.
> > > >
> > > > The government doesn't care about Billy
> > shooting
> > > a
> > > > kid at school. The government doesn't care
> > > about
> > > > some hillbilly retard or mentally unstable
> > > idiot
> > > > shooting up a group of people. They want
> you
> > to
> > > > think they care. All to save the kids. It's
> > > about
> > > > the kids. Hearts and prayers.
> > > >
> > > > What the government actually cares about is
> > > > Shaquan, Billy, David, Melissa, and 1,000
> > other
> > > > people standing up to a government that
> > > violates
> > > > your rights as a citizen and as a human.
> > > >
> > > > Banning guns, weakening the people as a
> > > "militia",
> > > > and giving power to a bunch of fucking
> > retards
> > > who
> > > > were sadly elected to represent us is just
> > the
> > > > beginning of you losing your rights given
> to
> > > you
> > > > under the constitution. If you want to be
> > Hong
> > > > Kong, keep giving the government retards
> more
> > > > power.
> > >
> > > It says 'well regulated militia' and the
> > founders
> > > did not envision 16 year olds wondering
> around
> > > with assault-style rifles with high capacity.
>
> > If
> > > 'militia' meant individuals access to any
> > weapon
> > > why are we not allowed to carry C4, hand
> > grenades
> > > and flame throwers?
> >
> >
> > Its also says, "being necessary to the security
> of
> > a free State, the right of the people to keep
> and
> > bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> >
> > A militia at the time was every willing
> > able-bodied man in a community.
> > A State at the time meant individual states,
> not
> > the federal government.
> > The people at the time meant individuals, not
> > groups or militias.
> > Keep at the time meant own for their personal
> > use.
> > Bear at the time meant carry and have ready
> when
> > the need arises.
> > Arms at the time meant whatever weapon the
> people
> > wanted to keep and bear.
> > Shall not at the time meant under no
> > circumstances.
> > Infringed at the time meant regulated or
> > compromised.
> >
> > An armed citizenry, capable of overthrowing a
> > tyrannical government, is the essence of the
> 2nd
> > amendment. That is what the guys who wrote it
> had
> > just done and very well understood the meaning.
>
>
>
> And guns at the time took a very experienced
> shooter 90 seconds to reload, or an inexperienced
> shooter 3 minutes. How about, you gun nuts can
> have any guns you want, but they will only fire
> once every two minutes. Is that 1776 enough for
> you?

As the muzzie terrorists, negro and spic gangs, and government obtain more advanced weapons, so should the other law-abiding people as a way to protect themselves. If you think gangs and criminals are going to give up their weapons, you truly are delusional. Once the police and military collect all the weapons from gangs and other criminals, we can then have a reasonable conversation about how little I need to have more advanced weapons.

Despite any effort from you or me, neither is going to change our minds.

Have a great night everyone. Be sure to leave your doors unlocked. It's a very safe world out there.

Not clicking on that Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gun control? Is that like fun violence? Only a
> libtard would think an inanimate object is capable
> of performing actions.

Cars are inanimate objects. We still regulate them.

Libs R Dum Fuqs Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> yuc6p Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The difference Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Only one of these has the ability to hurt
> > others.
> >
> >
> > Which one?
> >
> > One is an inanimate object that can't do
> anything
> > without a human causing it to do something.
> The
> > other is a human who could hurt you in 1000
> > different ways. I must assume you mean the
> human,
> > not the inanimate object.
>
>
> An inanimate object can't have abilities. I cannot
> believe that needs to be explained.


My car started on its own once. I believe it had to due with electronic ignition and very damp weather. The Fob wasn't even near the car.

Grammar hint, never use the words "this" or "that" without a limited modifier after it.

That car
This idea

Also, by definition, the sun is an inamate object with many abilities.

It is clear who took logic at university, and who did not.

I am reminded of the "Banana 9000 computer" in Bloom County which had on its screen,"I think, therefore I am."

One of you libtards doesn't think the sun is alive? That is probably the most stupidest thing I've ever read on this forum. If the sun isn't alive then neither are you.

Real science Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> One of you libtards doesn't think the sun is
> alive? That is probably the most stupidest thing
> I've ever read on this forum. If the sun isn't
> alive then neither are you.


By almost any definition of life, the Sun is most surely not alive. The sun, other than a third grade description, is a series of constant bombastic physical and chemical reactions.

It also does not smile.

Also, it is assinine, uneducated, and intellectually lazy to say "most stupidest."

Tulsa tiger Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Real science Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > One of you libtards doesn't think the sun is
> > alive? That is probably the most stupidest
> thing
> > I've ever read on this forum. If the sun isn't
> > alive then neither are you.
>
>
> By almost any definition of life, the Sun is most
> surely not alive. The sun, other than a third
> grade description, is a series of constant
> bombastic physical and chemical reactions.
>
> It also does not smile.
>
> Also, it is assinine, uneducated, and
> intellectually lazy to say "most stupidest."


Libs. You can't make them up. God damn they're stupid.

Just the Facts Ma'am Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Revolvers where first made in the early 1500s,
> over 200 years before the founding fathers wrote
> the Bill of Rights. They were well aware of
> technology and its advancements. That's why they
> used very common language for the day when writing
> it. Part of the problem is libtards want to
> redefine everything to fit their myopic world
> view, which by the way has never been successful
> or prosperous anywhere in the world.
>
> Communism/Facism/Communism doesn't work, never has
> and never will.

What are you talking about? Samuel Colt submitted a British patent for his "revolver" in 1835 and an American patent (number 138) on February 25, 1836 for a Revolving gun, and made the first production model on March 5 of that year. Another revolver patent was issued to Samuel Colt on August 29, 1839.

The product was immediately sold in the south to combat slave uprisings. Slaves at the time outnumbered slave owners and their families sixfold. A gun that could load six bullets at a time was better than anything they had before in combatting the hordes of slaves attacking the landowners.

Common Sense Works Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Common sense gun control works. Mentally ill
> people shouldn't have guns or C4.
>
> It the same reason we don't give tanks and C4 to
> mental ill people.
>
> If the NRA had their way you'd be able to buy C4
> and Anthrax at 7-11's.

Okay, if I understand your post tanks and C4 are free to people that aren’t mentally ill, the retards have to pay for those things? Sign me up for some of that free shit.

Goddamn this Country is Great! America!!!

Tulsa tiger Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just the Facts Ma'am Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Revolvers where first made in the early 1500s,
> > over 200 years before the founding fathers
> wrote
> > the Bill of Rights. They were well aware of
> > technology and its advancements. That's why
> they
> > used very common language for the day when
> writing
> > it. Part of the problem is libtards want to
> > redefine everything to fit their myopic world
> > view, which by the way has never been
> successful
> > or prosperous anywhere in the world.
> >
> > Communism/Facism/Communism doesn't work, never
> has
> > and never will.
>
> What are you talking about? Samuel Colt submitted
> a British patent for his "revolver" in 1835 and an
> American patent (number 138) on February 25, 1836
> for a Revolving gun, and made the first production
> model on March 5 of that year. Another revolver
> patent was issued to Samuel Colt on August 29,
> 1839.
>
> The product was immediately sold in the south to
> combat slave uprisings. Slaves at the time
> outnumbered slave owners and their families
> sixfold. A gun that could load six bullets aat a
> time was better than anything they had before in
> combatting the hordes of slaves attacking the
> landowners.

Our education system severely declined in the last four years, as demonstrated on this thread. The sun is not "alive," or a "living organism," and the revolver was not in production, and was certainly not in use durring the Saint Barholomew Massacre of 1572.

Also,if you approach someone and that person sees you have a gun, the law is clear. If you intimidate the person, and that person knows you have a gun, your are breaking the law. There is no wiggle room. The law in the commonwealth of Virginia is:
A. It shall be unlawful for any person to point, hold or brandish any firearm or any air or gas operated weapon or any object similar in appearance, whether capable of being fired or not, in such manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another or hold a firearm or any air or gas operated weapon in a public place in such a manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another of being shot or injured. However, this section shall not apply to any person engaged in excusable or justifiable self-defense. Persons violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor or, if the violation occurs upon any public, private or religious elementary, middle or high school, including buildings and grounds or upon public property within 1,000 feet of such school property, he shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony.

Actually, the other person doesn't even need to see the gun. If you try and intimidate someone by saying you have a gun, that is against the law even if you don't actually have a gun.

If they believe you in the slightest, you broke the law.

There was a thief in the 1920's who used a smoking pipe inside his jacket pocket to point and protrude the fabric to make it look like he had a gun when he robbed people on the streets of New York. At trial, he argued he used a pipe, not a gun, so he shouldn't be changed with weapons violations. The court ruled as long as the victim thought he had a gun, the existence or non existance of a gun is not relevant.

Latchme Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Libs R Dum Fuqs Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > yuc6p Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > The difference Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > Only one of these has the ability to hurt
> > > others.
> > >
> > >
> > > Which one?
> > >
> > > One is an inanimate object that can't do
> > anything
> > > without a human causing it to do something.
> > The
> > > other is a human who could hurt you in 1000
> > > different ways. I must assume you mean the
> > human,
> > > not the inanimate object.
> >
> >
> > An inanimate object can't have abilities. I
> cannot
> > believe that needs to be explained.
>
>
> My car started on its own once. I believe it had
> to due with electronic ignition and very damp
> weather. The Fob wasn't even near the car.
>
> Grammar hint, never use the words "this" or "that"
> without a limited modifier after it.
>
> That car
> This idea
>
> Also, by definition, the sun is an inamate object
> with many abilities.


Posting hint: when trying to appear educated, make sure you don't make bad spelling errors. Leaving out two letters in a 9-letter word is considered 'bad'.

Tula tiger Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It is clear who took logic at university, and who
> did not.
>
> I am reminded of the "Banana 9000 computer" in
> Bloom County which had on its screen,"I think,
> therefore I am."


at university? Get the fuck out of here you foreign piece of shit. An American would write, "It is clear who took logic in college..." You add nothing of value to this thread or this once-great country you have invaded. Fuck off.

Betsy Devos's brother Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Tulsa tiger Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Just the Facts Ma'am Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Revolvers where first made in the early
> 1500s,
> > > over 200 years before the founding fathers
> > wrote
> > > the Bill of Rights. They were well aware of
> > > technology and its advancements. That's why
> > they
> > > used very common language for the day when
> > writing
> > > it. Part of the problem is libtards want to
> > > redefine everything to fit their myopic world
> > > view, which by the way has never been
> > successful
> > > or prosperous anywhere in the world.
> > >
> > > Communism/Facism/Communism doesn't work,
> never
> > has
> > > and never will.
> >
> > What are you talking about? Samuel Colt
> submitted
> > a British patent for his "revolver" in 1835 and
> an
> > American patent (number 138) on February 25,
> 1836
> > for a Revolving gun, and made the first
> production
> > model on March 5 of that year. Another revolver
> > patent was issued to Samuel Colt on August 29,
> > 1839.
> >
> > The product was immediately sold in the south
> to
> > combat slave uprisings. Slaves at the time
> > outnumbered slave owners and their families
> > sixfold. A gun that could load six bullets aat
> a
> > time was better than anything they had before
> in
> > combatting the hordes of slaves attacking the
> > landowners.
>
> Our education system severely declined in the last
> four years, as demonstrated on this thread. The
> sun is not "alive," or a "living organism," and
> the revolver was not in production, and was
> certainly not in use durring the Saint Barholomew
> Massacre of 1572.
>
> Also,if you approach someone and that person sees
> you have a gun, the law is clear. If you
> intimidate the person, and that person knows you
> have a gun, your are breaking the law. There is
> no wiggle room. The law in the commonwealth of
> Virginia is:
> A. It shall be unlawful for any person to point,
> hold or brandish any firearm or any air or gas
> operated weapon or any object similar in
> appearance, whether capable of being fired or not,
> in such manner as to reasonably induce fear in the
> mind of another or hold a firearm or any air or
> gas operated weapon in a public place in such a
> manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of
> another of being shot or injured. However, this
> section shall not apply to any person engaged in
> excusable or justifiable self-defense. Persons
> violating the provisions of this section shall be
> guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor or, if the
> violation occurs upon any public, private or
> religious elementary, middle or high school,
> including buildings and grounds or upon public
> property within 1,000 feet of such school
> property, he shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony.

"point, hold or brandish any firearm or any air or gas operated weapon or any object similar in appearance, whether capable of being fired or not"

There was no information given as to whether the person was pointing, holding, or brandishing. The defendant only said he had a license to carry. When I carry, it is concealed. Nobody knows I have a gun with me. And, I am not breaking the law by carrying concealed because I have a valid permit.

You want to disarm the US citizen , your already on the communists side

Gun controllers move to china Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You want to disarm the US citizen , your already
> on the communists side

Libtardz by definition are communist

jsadhefhg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Betsy Devos's brother Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Tulsa tiger Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Just the Facts Ma'am Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > Revolvers where first made in the early
> > 1500s,
> > > > over 200 years before the founding fathers
> > > wrote
> > > > the Bill of Rights. They were well aware of
> > > > technology and its advancements. That's why
> > > they
> > > > used very common language for the day when
> > > writing
> > > > it. Part of the problem is libtards want to
> > > > redefine everything to fit their myopic
> world
> > > > view, which by the way has never been
> > > successful
> > > > or prosperous anywhere in the world.
> > > >
> > > > Communism/Facism/Communism doesn't work,
> > never
> > > has
> > > > and never will.
> > >
> > > What are you talking about? Samuel Colt
> > submitted
> > > a British patent for his "revolver" in 1835
> and
> > an
> > > American patent (number 138) on February 25,
> > 1836
> > > for a Revolving gun, and made the first
> > production
> > > model on March 5 of that year. Another
> revolver
> > > patent was issued to Samuel Colt on August
> 29,
> > > 1839.
> > >
> > > The product was immediately sold in the south
> > to
> > > combat slave uprisings. Slaves at the time
> > > outnumbered slave owners and their families
> > > sixfold. A gun that could load six bullets
> aat
> > a
> > > time was better than anything they had before
> > in
> > > combatting the hordes of slaves attacking the
> > > landowners.
> >
> > Our education system severely declined in the
> last
> > four years, as demonstrated on this thread.
> The
> > sun is not "alive," or a "living organism," and
> > the revolver was not in production, and was
> > certainly not in use durring the Saint
> Barholomew
> > Massacre of 1572.
> >
> > Also,if you approach someone and that person
> sees
> > you have a gun, the law is clear. If you
> > intimidate the person, and that person knows
> you
> > have a gun, your are breaking the law. There
> is
> > no wiggle room. The law in the commonwealth of
> > Virginia is:
> > A. It shall be unlawful for any person to
> point,
> > hold or brandish any firearm or any air or gas
> > operated weapon or any object similar in
> > appearance, whether capable of being fired or
> not,
> > in such manner as to reasonably induce fear in
> the
> > mind of another or hold a firearm or any air or
> > gas operated weapon in a public place in such a
> > manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind
> of
> > another of being shot or injured. However, this
> > section shall not apply to any person engaged
> in
> > excusable or justifiable self-defense. Persons
> > violating the provisions of this section shall
> be
> > guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor or, if the
> > violation occurs upon any public, private or
> > religious elementary, middle or high school,
> > including buildings and grounds or upon public
> > property within 1,000 feet of such school
> > property, he shall be guilty of a Class 6
> felony.
>
> "point, hold or brandish any firearm or any air or
> gas operated weapon or any object similar in
> appearance, whether capable of being fired or
> not"
>
> There was no information given as to whether the
> person was pointing, holding, or brandishing. The
> defendant only said he had a license to carry.
> When I carry, it is concealed. Nobody knows I have
> a gun with me. And, I am not breaking the law by
> carrying concealed because I have a valid permit.


Do you have a reading comprehension problem? The plaintiff knew he had a gun when the guy approached him. Since the gun nut knew he broke the law, he tried to equivocate using his permit. It didn't fly.

The law is clear, and the onus is on the gun owner, not the guy without a gun. If he sees a gun or you or you tell him you have a gun, and he feels threatened by you with areal or perceived gun, you are breaking the law.

You should know the law if you have a permit. It appears you don't.

The Commonwealth must prove the following elements in order for a person to be convicted of brandishing a weapon:

The defendant pointed, held or brandished any firearm or any air or gas operated weapon or any object similar in appearance, whether capable of being fired or not in such a manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another
or held a firearm or any air or gas operated weapon
in a public placein such a manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another of being shot or injured.

In other words, the basic elements of the crime are:

Pointing or brandishing a firearm, and
Doing so in such a manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of a victim

Brandishing

The term to "Brandish" means "to exhibit or expose in an ostentatious, shameless, or aggressive manner."

Example: After a man states "I'would like like that" pointing to a woman, then pulls up his shirt revealing a flare gun underneath, he would be "brandishing a weapon."

I can tell you, if someone goes before a judge and argues the definition of "brandishing," that person will lose, precedent has made the definition very broad.

Ten years ago, a judge here in Virginia convicted a man for brandishing a deadly weapon for revving up a parked car while someone he just had a fight with crossed (walked) in front of the car.

US spends more on its military then the next 10 largest military powers in the world COMBINED and dipshits with pretend assault rifles and pretend military costumes think they can 'overthrow' the USA. Redneck Playtime is over you dopes...

Redneck Playtime Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> US spends more on its military then the next 10
> largest military powers in the world COMBINED and
> dipshits with pretend assault rifles and pretend
> military costumes think they can 'overthrow' the
> USA. Redneck Playtime is over you dopes...


And dudes in dresses can insist you call them ma'am. But we don't outlaw that.

yemxt Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Redneck Playtime Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > US spends more on its military then the next 10
> > largest military powers in the world COMBINED
> and
> > dipshits with pretend assault rifles and
> pretend
> > military costumes think they can 'overthrow'
> the
> > USA. Redneck Playtime is over you dopes...
>
>
> And dudes in dresses can insist you call them
> ma'am. But we don't outlaw that.

difference being the dudes in dresses have courage - the fuckwits pretending to be military cry like babies and blame hippies when they get caught.

dresses are messes Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> yemxt Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Redneck Playtime Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > US spends more on its military then the next
> 10
> > > largest military powers in the world COMBINED
> > and
> > > dipshits with pretend assault rifles and
> > pretend
> > > military costumes think they can 'overthrow'
> > the
> > > USA. Redneck Playtime is over you dopes...
> >
> >
> > And dudes in dresses can insist you call them
> > ma'am. But we don't outlaw that.
>
> difference being the dudes in dresses have courage
> - the fuckwits pretending to be military cry like
> babies and blame hippies when they get caught.


There are currently about 18 million veterans in the US. They are overwhelming conservative (2-1 over libs at least). Stop being such a fag. If just the vets alone rose up against the government, they'd win.

Trannie are going to be mine sweepers. They'll be on point to take the brunt of the IEDs and snipers.

kdciu Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> dresses are messes Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > yemxt Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Redneck Playtime Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > US spends more on its military then the
> next
> > 10
> > > > largest military powers in the world
> COMBINED
> > > and
> > > > dipshits with pretend assault rifles and
> > > pretend
> > > > military costumes think they can
> 'overthrow'
> > > the
> > > > USA. Redneck Playtime is over you dopes...
> > >
> > >
> > > And dudes in dresses can insist you call them
> > > ma'am. But we don't outlaw that.
> >
> > difference being the dudes in dresses have
> courage
> > - the fuckwits pretending to be military cry
> like
> > babies and blame hippies when they get caught.
>
>
> There are currently about 18 million veterans in
> the US. They are overwhelming conservative (2-1
> over libs at least). Stop being such a fag. If
> just the vets alone rose up against the
> government, they'd win.
>
> Trannie are going to be mine sweepers. They'll be
> on point to take the brunt of the IEDs and
> snipers.


Seriously, where do you get such outdated information?

Military Times surveys veterans, and found in 2008, 64% voted Republican, in 2016, 60% voted Republican, and in 2020, 52% voted Republican. Do you see a trend?

Hint, As the WWII, and Korean War vets die or stop voting, the veteran Republican vote goes down.