Gun control is coming

Aeroknow

Aeroknow

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
The bill of rights says regarding guns. "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Those who are offering legislation or advocating voting for legislation which runs contrary to that are rights violaters, treasonous and should be held accountable. Think Trump, Biden, and many others who have suggested or implemented laws which violate rights. Also any that already enforce those kinds of laws. like police, or agencies like the ATF etc.

What is deprivation of rights under color of law?
Deprivation Of Rights Under Color Of Law. Summary: Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.



Should those traitors be hanged, shot or imprisoned is the question? At a minimum they should be held without bail and face trial like those "insurrectionists" that "attacked" on January 6th right?

Who supports equal justice, "under the law" ? Anybody? How does the constitution protect people who want to enforce their rights?


View attachment 5241795
Click to expand...

Second Amendment Does Not Guarantee the Right To Own a Gun (From Gun Control, P 99-102, 1992, Charles P Cozic, ed. -- See NCJ-160164) | Office of Justice Programs

www.ojp.gov www.ojp.gov
 
S

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
The bill of rights says regarding guns. "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Those who are offering legislation or advocating voting for legislation which runs contrary to that are rights violaters, treasonous and should be held accountable. Think Trump, Biden, and many others who have suggested or implemented laws which violate rights. Also any that already enforce those kinds of laws. like police, or agencies like the ATF etc.

What is deprivation of rights under color of law?
Deprivation Of Rights Under Color Of Law. Summary: Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.



Should those traitors be hanged, shot or imprisoned is the question? At a minimum they should be held without bail and face trial like those "insurrectionists" that "attacked" on January 6th right?

Who supports equal justice, "under the law" ? Anybody? How does the constitution protect people who want to enforce their rights?


View attachment 5241795
Click to expand...
They were talking about a musket.

And Sarah Winchester drove herself mad running from the ghosts made by a gun called The Winchester which 'Won the West'.

Do you know how many deaths were responsible from the new killing machine?..we can't appreciate it because we are not in that time. All we can do is learn from their history.

I saw that the Bill signed had another hefty amount for military complex.
 
Last edited:
S

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
Technically, all body parts. Which leads me to inappropriately wonder about how many instances of asphyxiation by hindquarters.
Click to expand...
I totally thought same and you beat me again dear Canna!

You have the Vulcan pinch which is real..and you can easily kill someone by accident.

Asphyxiation by burking like a snake- men are almost always heavier than the woman they wish to smother so it's easy to do.
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
schuylaar said:
I totally thought same and you beat me again dear Canna!

You have the Vulcan pinch which is real..and you can easily kill someone by accident.

Asphyxiation by burking like a snake- men are almost always heavier than the woman they wish to smother so it's easy to do.
Click to expand...
In my fevered imagination, it’s the women doing the smothering. Built-in gasket.
 
Aeroknow

Aeroknow

Well-Known Member
schuylaar said:
I totally thought same and you beat me again dear Canna!

You have the Vulcan pinch which is real..and you can easily kill someone by accident.

Asphyxiation by burking like a snake- men are almost always heavier than the woman they wish to smother so it's easy to do.
Click to expand...
you had beat me to the musket thing. I had a whole post written up about that and deleted after i seen your post.
Anyways, i’m pretty sure the founding fathers would want us all to have tactical nuclear weapons. Of course they did. They didn’t say no when the 2nd was ratified! Am I right or what?
 
S

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
Aeroknow said:
you had beat me to the musket thing. I had a whole post written up about that and deleted after i seen your post.
Anyways, i’m pretty sure the founding fathers would want us all to have tactical nuclear weapons. Of course they did. They didn’t say no when the 2nd was ratified! Am I right or what?
Click to expand...
Nothing says 'Merry Christmas' like blowing up Santa..Merry Christmas, Aero:hug:
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
Aeroknow said:
you had beat me to the musket thing. I had a whole post written up about that and deleted after i seen your post.
Anyways, i’m pretty sure the founding fathers would want us all to have tactical nuclear weapons. Of course they did. They didn’t say no when the 2nd was ratified! Am I right or what?
Click to expand...
Strategic, man, strategic. It don’t got the boom if it ain’t got that zoom.* You want your shot to be heard ‘round the world.

*with apologies to Ella Fitzgerald
 
Last edited:
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Aeroknow said:
you had beat me to the musket thing. I had a whole post written up about that and deleted after i seen your post.
Anyways, i’m pretty sure the founding fathers would want us all to have tactical nuclear weapons. Of course they did. They didn’t say no when the 2nd was ratified! Am I right or what?
Click to expand...
schuylaar said:
They were talking about a musket.

And Sarah Winchester drove herself mad running from the ghosts made by a gun called The Winchester which 'Won the West'.

Do you know how many deaths were responsible from the new killing machine?..we can't appreciate it because we are not in that time. All we can do is learn from their history.

I saw that the Bill signed had another hefty amount for military complex.
Click to expand...
No, they were talking about government not having a standing army and if there was an attack, the armed citizenry would be called out to defend against the attack using the weapons commonly available at that time.

Sort of like "free speech" and "free press" meant people could use the technology available then. Of course they didn't have electric printers or computers, are you suggesting since no computers existed then, "free speech" today doesn't include written things generated by a computer?

I don't want a nuclear weapon, as it's not really a weapon that can be used "defensively". They kill indiscriminately and it's almost impossible for them not to kill innocent people, which I think is murder.

Not to mention, any people that give up their weapons, while "their servants" keep them, are no longer the masters of their servants are they?
 
UncleJesse

UncleJesse

Well-Known Member
schuylaar said:
They were talking about a musket.

And Sarah Winchester drove herself mad running from the ghosts made by a gun called The Winchester which 'Won the West'.

Do you know how many deaths were responsible from the new killing machine?..we can't appreciate it because we are not in that time. All we can do is learn from their history.

I saw that the Bill signed had another hefty amount for military complex.
Click to expand...
If they were talking about a musket for a gun, which some like to say to limit what types of firearms we can have, what were they talking about for free speech? A simple printing press, however crude? Certainly not social media, the internet, cell phones or any other modern way of communication, etc?
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
I wonder when the "gun grabbing" legislators and other gov't. rights stealers will be brought up on rights violation charges like I mentioned in post #424 ?

I'm sure Merrick Garland is looking into it right now.
 
Roger A. Shrubber

Roger A. Shrubber

Well-Known Member
UncleJesse said:
If the government of the United States outlaws firearms, I believe it should be ALL firearms, including all private security for the politicians, government officials, EVERYONE. Nobody is any more special than anyone else and fuck the cocksucker who thinks they are. No guns for a single person. Fuck the political rich assholes. If the general public can't shoot some assaulting or home invading piece of shit, then nobody in government gets that right either. Let's see the Hollywood and elite fucks enjoy that. Until that time, you do you, I do me, I will never ever give up my firearms, EVER!

While we are in the business of tellingnother people what to do, while we do whatever we want and justify it with some enlightened greater good, why dont you give up your fast expensive cars, loose some weight you fat ass, you make all our insurance rates go up, start eating correctly. Get rid of your cellphone, all you do is text, talk and drive, i see thousands of people on the road doing that. Don't take risks, let government determine what you can and cannot do and what you can or cannot have. Why should these rich elites talk about carbon bullshit and then own multiple huge homes, jet all over the place, attend wasteful dinners, purchase $5000 shoes, etc. All a waste. Could give that money to others.

MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS!!!

Normal people don't go on rampages and shoot people. Deranged fuckheads who deserve to be hung from the bridge are the ones who do that. Try and figure out why and maybe then I will believe that someone actually gives a shit.

Ban guns.....a coward solution that doesn't fix the problems, but then again NOBODY in my government wants to actually fix the problems, otherwise they don't have a platform.
Click to expand...
i'm not even trying to be an ass...but good luck with keeping anything, if it's decided that no one will be. you might get away with hiding some, but where will you hunt? where will you practice? you think self defense will be a valid defense when those weapons have been outlawed? whether you get prosecuted for shooting someone or not, you'll get the weapons confiscated, probably your house searched for more, and then charged...
but...i haven't heard anyone getting ready to take everyone's guns. i've heard people talking about gun control, which is desperately needed, when you see the suicide rate, when you se the stories of shootings daily all over the country, when you see monthly mass murders...yeah, guns don't kill people, people do...WITH GUNS...
 
DeadHeadX

DeadHeadX

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
No, they were talking about government not having a standing army and if there was an attack, the armed citizenry would be called out to defend against the attack using the weapons commonly available at that time.

Sort of like "free speech" and "free press" meant people could use the technology available then. Of course they didn't have electric printers or computers, are you suggesting since no computers existed then, "free speech" today doesn't include written things generated by a computer?

I don't want a nuclear weapon, as it's not really a weapon that can be used "defensively". They kill indiscriminately and it's almost impossible for them not to kill innocent people, which I think is murder.

Not to mention, any people that give up their weapons, while "their servants" keep them, are no longer the masters of their servants are they?
Click to expand...
You did forget to quote the “well regulated” part that proceeds the bit you quoted.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
DeadHeadX said:
You did forget to quote the “well regulated” part that proceeds the bit you quoted.
Click to expand...
Did I ?

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

Did they mean "free state" as in state of being or a free state as in, colliding two words together in a thundering blast of oxymoron,
free and then state ?

The existence of freedom is subjagated by a state therefore either the founding fathers were ignorant, or meant
"state of being", right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top