Legally Armed Man Protesting at 0bama Townhall

"And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline... How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights."
 
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. 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 to 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."
 
randomJACKASS said:
I am quite sure that guy is only interested in peaceful demonstration, and helping bring back the lub of Jebus into government!

Anyone who would see him as a threat is a pansy ass pinko commie faggot!

:gun:
Click to expand...

He has weapons. That means he's prepared to defend himself. Without evidence, everything else is speculat...wait, sorry, spike says to call it a lie.
 
2minkey said:
it doesn't need to be fully automatic to be classified as an assault rifle. looked like an SBR to me, though. nice eotech 552 on it, though he cheaped it on the upper receiver. proving he's not a REAL ninja. real ninjas don't put tacticool accessories on compromises. that's for mall ninjas.
Click to expand...

Actually, it does have to be able to go fully automatic to be counted as an assault weapon. That definition didn't change until idiots in the media decided that anything that even looked military was an assault weapon. Anyone with any knowledge of military weapons at all knows the difference.
 
Gato_Solo said:
Actually, it does have to be able to go fully automatic to be counted as an assault weapon. That definition didn't change until idiots in the media decided that anything that even looked military was an assault weapon. Anyone with any knowledge of military weapons at all knows the difference.
Click to expand...

right. except for the fact that "assault weapon" was not formally defined in the US until the 1994 assault weapons ban, which specifically banned semiautomatic derivatives of certain military weapons with certain characteristics such as a pistol grip, flash suppressor et cetera. anyone with any real knowledge of firearms and the law in the US knows the difference.

:retard:

of course if you were really clever you would not be using the terms "assault rifle" and "assault weapon" interchangeably. nah i'm just fuckin' with you ha ha.
 
2minkey said:
right. except for the fact that "assault weapon" was not formally defined in the US until the 1994 assault weapons ban, which specifically banned semiautomatic derivatives of certain military weapons with certain characteristics such as a pistol grip, flash suppressor et cetera. anyone with any real knowledge of firearms and the law in the US knows the difference.

:retard:
Click to expand...

Actually, you'd better go back to 1944 for the true definition. Try Germany and the MP44. That was the first assault rifle. You may continue with the denial if you wish. ;)

2minkey said:
of course if you were really clever you would not be using the terms "assault rifle" and "assault weapon" interchangeably. nah i'm just fuckin' with you ha ha.
Click to expand...

If you were really clever, you'd understand the difference and act accordingly.
 
Gonz said:
He has weapons. That means he's prepared to defend himself. Without evidence, everything else is speculat...wait, sorry, spike says to call it a lie.
Click to expand...

I can speculate that he jerks off with gun oil?

Tell me..what's the difference between that guy and these?
Palistinian+Arab+Terrorist+Thugs.jpg

Nahr_al_Bared_Palestinian_terrorist_camp.jpg
 
MrBishop said:
Tell me..what's the difference between that guy and these?
Palistinian+Arab+Terrorist+Thugs.jpg

Nahr_al_Bared_Palestinian_terrorist_camp.jpg
Click to expand...

Recent historical evidence of violence.

Not many Americans have taken to the streets & rampaged with their RPGs & homemade bombs, killing civilians at random.

The other guy had semi-auto rifles & ammo (2nd amendement stuff)
 
Gato_Solo said:
Actually, you'd better go back to 1944 for the true definition. Try Germany and the MP44. That was the first assault rifle. You may continue with the denial if you wish. ;)

If you were really clever, you'd understand the difference and act accordingly.
Click to expand...

holy shit dude. yeah, i'm aware of the stormgeweher or whatever hitler named the thing. so great source for the moniker there.

until 1994 there was no formal definition. you're arguing formal definition, but... really it's just just what people may or may not have called certain things. so more accurately it's common usage you're pointing to. common usage today follows the 1994 formal/legal definition (strange how that happens...). previous common usage did tend to include "capable of automatic fire."

this is my boomstick. you say potato. (and BTW that site you linked to has several obvious marks of the mall ninja in it.)

it's an SBR, anyway, not an assault rifle. or, maybe it's both. hmmm... hard to decide. did that guy get the right tax stamp?

next you're going to mention submachine guns just so you can go clever and follow up with "but they are all actually machine pistols."

i quit. you're right. you've always been right and will always be right. good to see that despite jim's absence, his spirit lives on.
 
catocom said:
easier to tell whats the same...
they are both carrying weapons....That's it. That where the similarity ends.
Click to expand...

They are all armed legally at rallies and are all willing to use said arms to help overthrow the current GVT/Powers that be if they feel that said GVT is failing to serve them...even if that means that a few innocents die.
 
MrBishop said:
They are all armed legally at rallies and are all willing to use said arms to help overthrow the current GVT/Powers that be if they feel that said GVT is failing to serve them...even if that means that a few innocents die.
Click to expand...

you don't know that's what he thinks
Your speculating. Your math is fuzzy.
 
Joe six-pack armed to the teeth in middle-America is far more dangerous to Americans (innocent or not) than Mohammad no-booze-for-me armed with a soviet era most likely doesn't work RPG could ever dream of being.

It just makes more sense to be afraid of Mohammad than Joe, right?
 
Mohammad no-booze-for-me armed with a soviet era most likely doesn't work RPG has blown up buildings & killed many.

Joe six-pack armed to the teeth in middle-America is still hoping for change but nobody has died.
 
I never said I was "afraid of Mohammad".

I hesitate to say it, but here goes....

I somewhat sympathize with Hamas. I believe they are deeply religious, along
similar lines as Christians.
I somewhat understand their plight, but disagree on how to achieve what they are after.

I also do not believe in ever instance that Israel is right.

That said, I don't have the solution to peace, but I think there is one, or more.

My concern in that area atm is with Lebanon.
There seems to be good folks there in the gov., and I'm concerned that
radicals could influence them more.
 
depends on what a persons definition of
"love"
and
"terrorist"

while I'm a moderate religious person, I also try to apply logic where I can.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top