Legally Armed Man Protesting at 0bama Townhall

here's a couple.

tacoma mall shootings.

stockton shoot-em up.

now let's all go feinstein!!!

dftf1.jpg
 
Soo...what you're saying, Gonz is that there's absolutely nothing wrong with someone who insists on owning a score of weapons for 'personal defense'?

IMHO...buddy with the arsenal in the above picture is nuttier than a Skippy™ warehouse, and just lookin' for an excuse to shoot someone like a REAL man.
 
MrBishop said:
Soo...what you're saying, Gonz is that there's absolutely nothing wrong with someone who insists on owning a score of weapons for 'personal defense'?
Click to expand...

That is what I'm saying (provided there is no evidence proving him dangerous)
 
2minkey said:
here's a couple.

tacoma mall shootings.

stockton shoot-em up.

now let's all go feinstein!!!

dftf1.jpg
Click to expand...

Tacoma - Good thing an armed citizen was around to intervene
During the course of the shooting, Brandon (Dan) McKown, a legally armed citizen, intervened. McKown drew his 9mm CZ pistol
Click to expand...


Stockton - 20 years ago.....not (relatively) recent. However, to play along, let's see content of the story
a man with a history of arrests, mental illness and problems with
alcohol
Click to expand...

Well, sumbitch, a history of problems which makes him ineligible to own firearms.
 
MrBishop said:
Soo...what you're saying, Gonz is that there's absolutely nothing wrong with someone who insists on owning a score of weapons for 'personal defense'?

IMHO...buddy with the arsenal in the above picture is nuttier than a Skippy™ warehouse, and just lookin' for an excuse to shoot someone like a REAL man.
Click to expand...
Between my hubby and myself we have a lot of firearms (and ammo) and we've never shot anyone. Owning firearms doesn't make you a killer. Killing makes you a killer.

The ideas behind the Constitution was to keep the government afraid of the people. When it's the other way around (i.e., GW Bush administration) it's always bad for the rights of the citizens in every way. Allowing citizens to own guns ensured a certain protection of citizens from their government going fascist on them and also protected the borders from invasion (which was a real threat at the time).

We may not need to protect ourselves from the British or Spanish anymore, but we still need to let our Government know who is boss.

As for the guy in the picture with the flag behind him and the bible on the floor surrounded by arms and ammo... he's just a freak at one end of the spectrum. We've got other freaks at the other end of the spectrum. :shrug:
 
Gonz said:
Tacoma - Good thing an armed citizen was around to intervene
Click to expand...

who was shot and killed. don't bring a pistol to a rifle fight. he would have been better attempting to flee. well then, maybe everybody should just carry an assault rifle at the mall. yeah.

(for me that would be fine. i never set foot in malls. i hate malls and the people in them. hopefully they'd all blast each other to kingdom come, and help purify the gene pool.)
 
Valk..with all due respect. If your GVT goes back to being fascist like a year ago, you could own as many handguns and longarms as you'd like, but it ain't going to stop your GVT from running railroad all over you. By the time enough people got organized enough to actually revolt, they'd be met at the front door by enough cops and security people to stop ten times their number in their tracks.

That's what Bush's Homeland Security is all about... protect America from all comers..foreign or domestic. Protect the status quo.
 
2minkey said:
(for me that would be fine. i never set foot in malls. i hate malls and the people in them. hopefully they'd all blast each other to kingdom come, and help purify the gene pool.)
Click to expand...

We're on the same page there
 
Does anyone here actually think that if the running GVT (whatever side of the aisle s/he came from) decided to give fascism a try that they would ever have a shot at it? D'ya you really think that the President has THAT much power over the minds and hearts of the military to convince them to effectively overthrow everything that America stands for, imprisoning it's populace, enforce death camps for dissenters and push through facism?

That President wouldn't even get past his secretary before s/he was shut down, impeached and imprisoned before the ink was dry on the laser-printed memo.

This would happen regardless of whether the right to bear arms was intact or not. You could physically take away every firearm from every American citizen not counting the cops and the military, and a sitting President could still not pull that off.

The "Right to bear arms" to protect us v. our own GVT is an NRA wet dream...and everyone's lining up for the sleeping pills. It'll Never Happen. Even if you lived 1000 years.

*Edit: Ya know what your greatest weapons against your own GVT is, and ever shall be? A pen and a voting booth.
 
Gonz said:
What fascism a year ago?
Click to expand...

yeah.

bush made some bad moves and the wave the flag cuz you're scared of them towelheads and let's invade iraq bitches bullshit was way too much, but dammit bishop where you getting these crazy ideas? maybe you should leave this to us red blooded 'mericans heh? and by the way us americans with guns vastly outnumber folks in uniform with guns, so unless they carpet bomb every neighborhood in the land, there ain't gonna be no wacky military takeover scenario yee fucking haw.
 
Republicans for gun control.

In 1969, journalist William Safire asked Richard Nixon what he thought about gun control. "Guns are an abomination," Nixon replied. According to Safire, Nixon went on to confess that, "Free from fear of gun owners' retaliation at the polls, he favored making handguns illegal and requiring licenses for hunting rifles."

It was President George Bush, Sr. who banned the import of "assault weapons" in 1989, and promoted the view that Americans should only be allowed to own weapons suitable for "sporting purposes."

It was Governor Ronald Reagan of California who signed the Mulford Act in 1967, "prohibiting the carrying of firearms on one's person or in a vehicle, in any public place or on any public street." The law was aimed at stopping the Black Panthers, but affected all gun owners.

Twenty-four years later, Reagan was still pushing gun control. "I support the Brady Bill," he said in a March 28, 1991 speech, "and I urge the Congress to enact it without further delay."

One of the most aggressive gun control advocates today is Republican mayor Rudolph Giuliani of New York City, whose administration sued 26 gun manufacturers in June 2000, and whose police commissioner, Howard Safir, proposed a nationwide plan for gun licensing, complete with yearly "safety" inspections.

Another Republican, New York State Governor George Pataki, on August 10, 2000, signed into law what The New York Times called "the nation's strictest gun controls," a radical program mandating trigger locks, background checks at gun shows and "ballistic fingerprinting" of guns sold in the state. It also raised the legal age to buy a handgun to 21 and banned "assault weapons," the sale or possession of which would now be punishable by seven years in prison.
Click to expand...

http://www.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=22064
 
2minkey said:
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.
Click to expand...

Nice try, but machine pistols are a different breed entirely. Different kind of rounds, but, then, you knew that. You're just trying to be deliberately obtuse in order to make my argument faulty. You can argue that the 1994 'definition' is more viable than mine, but, truth-be-told, that newer definition is nothing more than doublespeak. It means nothing at all. To be honest, a 12-guage shotgun is a lot more deadly than anything that the legislature can deem an 'assault weapon'.
 
MrBishop said:
Tell me..what's the difference between that guy and these?
Click to expand...

The answer is:

What are radical Muslims, explosive belts, RPGs and Korans?

These guys are implying they would kill infidels in the name of Allah.

british.islamist.jpg


:shrug:

That other guy is simply exercising his 2nd amendment right under the U.S. Constitution.
 
Roeder - mental illness.

McVeigh - bomb, not gun (oh yea, and put to death for his actions)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top