Also, I must’ve missed the mandate for a national Gun registry from the voters, I thought it was about the price of gas groceries and affordable homes?
Drumpf
Yep. Same thing California wanted to do when they banned magazines of certain capacity, one day you’re a law abiding citizen the next you’ve committed a federal crime because you have a magazine that holds to many rounds.
If it becomes that bad I just bury them in the backyard until it blows over. I'm sure I wouldn't be the only one.
If it becomes that bad I just bury them in the backyard until it blows over. I'm sure I wouldn't be the only one.
Again, it’s really about being able to charge you with a crime if they still want to.
And we really shouldn’t have to live under a soft tyranny simple because the government wants to pass arbitrary rules that makes us criminals from one day to the next.
The important thing is that mothers can continue to buy their 16 year old special needs son shot guns.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/oregon-school-shooter-identified-silver-rail-elementary/
The important thing is that mothers can continue to buy their 16 year old special needs son shot guns.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/oregon-school-shooter-identified-silver-rail-elementary/
I think 16-year-old having shotguns has always been a thing (at least I were live) hunting and so forth and so have lawsuits for the parents that buy them. That do not practice Gun safety..
I learned most about Gun safety before I was 12.
I think 16-year-old having shotguns has always been a thing (at least I were live) hunting and so forth and so have lawsuits for the parents that buy them. That do not practice Gun safety..
I learned most about Gun safety before I was 12.
Did you ride the short bus and attend the very same special needs classroom that got shot up?
I find it comical that anybody here (especially that coward @unionstrong) believes their guns will defend them from a treasonous government.
Did you ride the short bus and attend the very same special needs classroom that got shot up?
I find it comical that anybody here (especially that coward @unionstrong) believes their guns will defend them from a treasonous government.
Well, I did ride the short bus because that was the only one there was lol. I was on the rifle team at my high school. The best shooter we had was a special-needs kid who could hit any Target dead center. We didn’t call them special needs back then it was a different word that you can’t say anymore lol.
And I can’t speak for @unionstrong but the founding fathers apparently believed that at least according to the Library of Congress thankfully we’ve never had to exercise that to find out.
“The Founding Fathers believed in the Second Amendment primarily to prevent government tyranny, maintain state-organized militias for security, and avoid the risks associated with large, permanent standing armies”
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt2-2/ALDE_00013262/
Again, it’s really about being able to charge you with a crime if they still want to.
And we really shouldn’t have to live under a soft tyranny simple because the government wants to pass arbitrary rules that makes us criminals from one day to the next.
What crime can they charge you with? If you have nothing they can't charge you with anything right?
Well, I did ride the short bus because that was the only one there was lol. I was on the rifle team at my high school. The best shooter we had was a special-needs kid who could hit any Target dead center. We didn’t call them special needs back then it was a different word that you can’t say anymore lol.
And I can’t speak for @unionstrong but the founding fathers apparently believed that at least according to the Library of Congress thankfully we’ve never had to exercise that to find out.
“The Founding Fathers believed in the Second Amendment primarily to prevent government tyranny, maintain state-organized militias for security, and avoid the risks associated with large, permanent standing armies”
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt2-2/ALDE_00013262/
Wasn't much of an air force in 1791,
....or automatic weapons for that matter.
Kind of an antiquated notion in 21st century America where most gun owner have them to make their dicks feel bigger and have no sense of statesmanship.
Wasn't much of an air force in 1791,
....or automatic weapons for that matter.
Kind of an antiquated notion in 21st century America where most gun owner have them to make their dicks feel bigger and have no sense of statesmanship.
Very few regular Americans own automatic weapons.
Well, I did ride the short bus because that was the only one there was lol. I was on the rifle team at my high school. The best shooter we had was a special-needs kid who could hit any Target dead center. We didn’t call them special needs back then it was a different word that you can’t say anymore lol.
And I can’t speak for @unionstrong but the founding fathers apparently believed that at least according to the Library of Congress thankfully we’ve never had to exercise that to find out.
“The Founding Fathers believed in the Second Amendment primarily to prevent government tyranny, maintain state-organized militias for security, and avoid the risks associated with large, permanent standing armies”
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt2-2/ALDE_00013262/
@bubblehead can suck my ass.
Wasn't much of an air force in 1791,
....or automatic weapons for that matter.
Kind of an antiquated notion in 21st century America where most gun owner have them to make their dicks feel bigger and have no sense of statesmanship.
I get what you’re saying and I don’t think it would be a very pretty thing, but the United States has lost a whole lot of war against a lot of people who were a lot less armed and certainly didn’t have the type of weaponry the United states military has.. We have the most advanced weapons and we still can’t beat people in a jungle or on the side of the mountain.. perhaps Americans don’t have that sort of desire or guts,. but it’s certainly possible.
I can feel the love!
@unionstrong would curl up like a pill bug and piss his pants if he ever had to use his guns, if he even has any.
I get what you’re saying and I don’t think it would be a very pretty thing, but the United States has lost a whole lot of war against a lot of people who were a lot less armed and certainly didn’t have the type of weaponry the United states military has.. We have the most advanced weapons and we still can’t beat people in a jungle or on the side of the mountain.. perhaps Americans don’t have that sort of desire or guts,. but it’s certainly possible.
Jungle......if you're referring to Vietnam remember most of those were draftees who didn't really want to be there. So there is that.
Wasn't much of an air force in 1791,
....or automatic weapons for that matter.
Kind of an antiquated notion in 21st century America where most gun owner have them to make their dicks feel bigger and have no sense of statesmanship.
@unionstrong would curl up like a pill bug and piss his pants if he ever had to use his guns, if he even has any.
Well be that as it may I think my original point was that when one party wins big they think they have a mandate to do whatever they want. They don’t. The Republicans learned that a couple nights ago pretty sure the Democrats are gonna learn that in two years.
Jungle......if you're referring to Vietnam remember most of those were draftees who didn't really want to be there. So there is that.
We were talking about Air superiority and advanced weaponry. We had all those things in Vietnam as well. But yes to your point the amount of lives lost, and that war still haunts us today.
Log in to reply.