Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Virginia pro-gun rally draws crowds amid fears of violence
Comments
-
The State has had a near monopoly on REAL force since the late 1800s pretty much.MikeDamone said:
But never the need to defend rights against the state with guns. That never happens.YellowSnow said:
Yes, there are times when the State (with guns) has to defend the rights of minorities against armed militias (with guns).MikeDamone said:
So there are times guns are required to defend rights.YellowSnow said:
Yes, in the form of Federal troops with guns. Armed former slaves got massacred regularly during the Reconstruction period. They were outnumbered.MikeDamone said:
So guns were needed to ensure civil rights for freed slaves?YellowSnow said:
It was heavily armed white paramilitary groups that ended Reconstruction and created 100 years of Jim Crow. Only Federal troops staying in the South for decades could have ensured civil rights for the freed slaves. Ironic if you ask me.RaceBannon said:
Who threatened arm resistance to the government?YellowSnow said:
It was winning elections that got the Assault Weapons Ban to expire. Not guys threatening armed resistance to the government.RaceBannon said:
You're just looking for a reason to mock something along with the cool kidsYellowSnow said:
Well, my fren, as a gun owner and 2nd amendment supporter I guess I am just fucking lost sometimes. So the point of dressing up in Army gear and toting ARs to the State Capital is to demonstrate a willingness of armed resistance against a tyranny of the majority coming from the DC era metro progressives? And yet just a few decades a go the Feds came for our? guns (1994) to an extent of which is incomprehensible in 2020 and yet no one did a god damned thing. I can't square in my head.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Probably has to do with the fact that we live in a world where the media is far more populous in nature than then and people can self-organize more easily. Terrible things for democracy.YellowSnow said:
But I hear all this TUFF talk in the Tug about the necessity to demonstrate to the State Government of VA the willingness of patriots to die for their freedom and prevent tyranny. Where were these folks in 1994 when the Federal Assault Weapons ban went into effect? That legislation seemed like far more of an assault on the 2A than anything being proposed today. Why was there no revolt?Sledog said:
DC is still fucked and going back to the supremes as we speak.YellowSnow said:
Don't the courts have to weigh in first before we can conclude if the citizen's of VA have lost a constitutionally protected right? This is step 1 in the process which the Founders intended. Seemed to work out fine for gun owners in Washington, DC last I checked.Sledog said:
Not terrorists but yes they are saying that they will not allow the government to strip their constitutional rights from them. This is the very mechanism the founders intended when the government over reaches and it can't be resolved.DJDuck said:Democratic Governors Association Creative Director Shares Tweet Calling Peaceful Gun-Right Protesters ‘Terrorists’
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/01/democratic-governors-association-creative-director-shares-tweet-calling-peaceful-gun-right-protesters-terrorists/
The left is importing voters that will vote for their free shit. It is a plan to flip the nation in one direction. Socialism is not constitutional either.
Where were the milita bros in 1994 when Clinton signed the AWB? Why didn't they take up arms to defend 2A rights then?
They haven't shot anyone. HTH
Its not 1994
You could make a plausible case that it wasn't a slippery slope but now we know it was
They are coming to get the guns
Americans stand up to the government and you shit on them. Another Mr Conservative
You are peddling the bullshit narrative that was given to you before anyone even showed up
Black face racist governor down south have tried to disarm Blacks for centuries
For fucks sake there are few thing more American than protests.
I suppose we should have just elected our way out of Vietnam
So just allow the state to have a monopoly on force.
Might as well not even play the game.
In 1861 it was pretty much a fair fight. Big Ten had rifled muskets and cannons. SEC/ACC had rifled muskets and cannons.
Much has changed. -
OK, Boomer.RaceBannon said:Yeller getting shredded
GOP statist division. Trust the government to protect your rights
I trust Democracy and the Constitutional Process to protect my rights. The American citizenry has more and better guns than we've ever had access to in our entire history.
Seems like the 2A has been winning for the most part. -
Look at the military guys that post hereYellowSnow said:
The State has had a near monopoly on REAL force since the late 1800s pretty much.MikeDamone said:
But never the need to defend rights against the state with guns. That never happens.YellowSnow said:
Yes, there are times when the State (with guns) has to defend the rights of minorities against armed militias (with guns).MikeDamone said:
So there are times guns are required to defend rights.YellowSnow said:
Yes, in the form of Federal troops with guns. Armed former slaves got massacred regularly during the Reconstruction period. They were outnumbered.MikeDamone said:
So guns were needed to ensure civil rights for freed slaves?YellowSnow said:
It was heavily armed white paramilitary groups that ended Reconstruction and created 100 years of Jim Crow. Only Federal troops staying in the South for decades could have ensured civil rights for the freed slaves. Ironic if you ask me.RaceBannon said:
Who threatened arm resistance to the government?YellowSnow said:
It was winning elections that got the Assault Weapons Ban to expire. Not guys threatening armed resistance to the government.RaceBannon said:
You're just looking for a reason to mock something along with the cool kidsYellowSnow said:
Well, my fren, as a gun owner and 2nd amendment supporter I guess I am just fucking lost sometimes. So the point of dressing up in Army gear and toting ARs to the State Capital is to demonstrate a willingness of armed resistance against a tyranny of the majority coming from the DC era metro progressives? And yet just a few decades a go the Feds came for our? guns (1994) to an extent of which is incomprehensible in 2020 and yet no one did a god damned thing. I can't square in my head.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Probably has to do with the fact that we live in a world where the media is far more populous in nature than then and people can self-organize more easily. Terrible things for democracy.YellowSnow said:
But I hear all this TUFF talk in the Tug about the necessity to demonstrate to the State Government of VA the willingness of patriots to die for their freedom and prevent tyranny. Where were these folks in 1994 when the Federal Assault Weapons ban went into effect? That legislation seemed like far more of an assault on the 2A than anything being proposed today. Why was there no revolt?Sledog said:
DC is still fucked and going back to the supremes as we speak.YellowSnow said:
Don't the courts have to weigh in first before we can conclude if the citizen's of VA have lost a constitutionally protected right? This is step 1 in the process which the Founders intended. Seemed to work out fine for gun owners in Washington, DC last I checked.Sledog said:
Not terrorists but yes they are saying that they will not allow the government to strip their constitutional rights from them. This is the very mechanism the founders intended when the government over reaches and it can't be resolved.DJDuck said:Democratic Governors Association Creative Director Shares Tweet Calling Peaceful Gun-Right Protesters ‘Terrorists’
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/01/democratic-governors-association-creative-director-shares-tweet-calling-peaceful-gun-right-protesters-terrorists/
The left is importing voters that will vote for their free shit. It is a plan to flip the nation in one direction. Socialism is not constitutional either.
Where were the milita bros in 1994 when Clinton signed the AWB? Why didn't they take up arms to defend 2A rights then?
They haven't shot anyone. HTH
Its not 1994
You could make a plausible case that it wasn't a slippery slope but now we know it was
They are coming to get the guns
Americans stand up to the government and you shit on them. Another Mr Conservative
You are peddling the bullshit narrative that was given to you before anyone even showed up
Black face racist governor down south have tried to disarm Blacks for centuries
For fucks sake there are few thing more American than protests.
I suppose we should have just elected our way out of Vietnam
So just allow the state to have a monopoly on force.
Might as well not even play the game.
In 1861 it was pretty much a fair fight. Big Ten had rifled muskets and cannons. SEC/ACC had rifled muskets and cannons.
Much has changed.
They wouldn't shoot me on the orders of some fascist
The USA hasn't won a war where they couldn't flatten the place. Same with the USSR
Enough armed citizens make the price too high. VC 101
What was missing in Venezuela were the guns -
No, they wouldn't. Our service members believe in freedom and democracy and and won't fight and die for a totalitarian regime.RaceBannon said:
Look at the military guys that post hereYellowSnow said:
The State has had a near monopoly on REAL force since the late 1800s pretty much.MikeDamone said:
But never the need to defend rights against the state with guns. That never happens.YellowSnow said:
Yes, there are times when the State (with guns) has to defend the rights of minorities against armed militias (with guns).MikeDamone said:
So there are times guns are required to defend rights.YellowSnow said:
Yes, in the form of Federal troops with guns. Armed former slaves got massacred regularly during the Reconstruction period. They were outnumbered.MikeDamone said:
So guns were needed to ensure civil rights for freed slaves?YellowSnow said:
It was heavily armed white paramilitary groups that ended Reconstruction and created 100 years of Jim Crow. Only Federal troops staying in the South for decades could have ensured civil rights for the freed slaves. Ironic if you ask me.RaceBannon said:
Who threatened arm resistance to the government?YellowSnow said:
It was winning elections that got the Assault Weapons Ban to expire. Not guys threatening armed resistance to the government.RaceBannon said:
You're just looking for a reason to mock something along with the cool kidsYellowSnow said:
Well, my fren, as a gun owner and 2nd amendment supporter I guess I am just fucking lost sometimes. So the point of dressing up in Army gear and toting ARs to the State Capital is to demonstrate a willingness of armed resistance against a tyranny of the majority coming from the DC era metro progressives? And yet just a few decades a go the Feds came for our? guns (1994) to an extent of which is incomprehensible in 2020 and yet no one did a god damned thing. I can't square in my head.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Probably has to do with the fact that we live in a world where the media is far more populous in nature than then and people can self-organize more easily. Terrible things for democracy.YellowSnow said:
But I hear all this TUFF talk in the Tug about the necessity to demonstrate to the State Government of VA the willingness of patriots to die for their freedom and prevent tyranny. Where were these folks in 1994 when the Federal Assault Weapons ban went into effect? That legislation seemed like far more of an assault on the 2A than anything being proposed today. Why was there no revolt?Sledog said:
DC is still fucked and going back to the supremes as we speak.YellowSnow said:
Don't the courts have to weigh in first before we can conclude if the citizen's of VA have lost a constitutionally protected right? This is step 1 in the process which the Founders intended. Seemed to work out fine for gun owners in Washington, DC last I checked.Sledog said:
Not terrorists but yes they are saying that they will not allow the government to strip their constitutional rights from them. This is the very mechanism the founders intended when the government over reaches and it can't be resolved.DJDuck said:Democratic Governors Association Creative Director Shares Tweet Calling Peaceful Gun-Right Protesters ‘Terrorists’
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/01/democratic-governors-association-creative-director-shares-tweet-calling-peaceful-gun-right-protesters-terrorists/
The left is importing voters that will vote for their free shit. It is a plan to flip the nation in one direction. Socialism is not constitutional either.
Where were the milita bros in 1994 when Clinton signed the AWB? Why didn't they take up arms to defend 2A rights then?
They haven't shot anyone. HTH
Its not 1994
You could make a plausible case that it wasn't a slippery slope but now we know it was
They are coming to get the guns
Americans stand up to the government and you shit on them. Another Mr Conservative
You are peddling the bullshit narrative that was given to you before anyone even showed up
Black face racist governor down south have tried to disarm Blacks for centuries
For fucks sake there are few thing more American than protests.
I suppose we should have just elected our way out of Vietnam
So just allow the state to have a monopoly on force.
Might as well not even play the game.
In 1861 it was pretty much a fair fight. Big Ten had rifled muskets and cannons. SEC/ACC had rifled muskets and cannons.
Much has changed.
They wouldn't shoot me on the orders of some fascist
The USA hasn't won a war where they couldn't flatten the place. Same with the USSR
Enough armed citizens make the price too high. VC 101
What was missing in Venezuela were the guns
-
-
And there we areYellowSnow said:
No, they wouldn't. Our service members believe in freedom and democracy and and won't fight and die for a totalitarian regime.RaceBannon said:
Look at the military guys that post hereYellowSnow said:
The State has had a near monopoly on REAL force since the late 1800s pretty much.MikeDamone said:
But never the need to defend rights against the state with guns. That never happens.YellowSnow said:
Yes, there are times when the State (with guns) has to defend the rights of minorities against armed militias (with guns).MikeDamone said:
So there are times guns are required to defend rights.YellowSnow said:
Yes, in the form of Federal troops with guns. Armed former slaves got massacred regularly during the Reconstruction period. They were outnumbered.MikeDamone said:
So guns were needed to ensure civil rights for freed slaves?YellowSnow said:
It was heavily armed white paramilitary groups that ended Reconstruction and created 100 years of Jim Crow. Only Federal troops staying in the South for decades could have ensured civil rights for the freed slaves. Ironic if you ask me.RaceBannon said:
Who threatened arm resistance to the government?YellowSnow said:
It was winning elections that got the Assault Weapons Ban to expire. Not guys threatening armed resistance to the government.RaceBannon said:
You're just looking for a reason to mock something along with the cool kidsYellowSnow said:
Well, my fren, as a gun owner and 2nd amendment supporter I guess I am just fucking lost sometimes. So the point of dressing up in Army gear and toting ARs to the State Capital is to demonstrate a willingness of armed resistance against a tyranny of the majority coming from the DC era metro progressives? And yet just a few decades a go the Feds came for our? guns (1994) to an extent of which is incomprehensible in 2020 and yet no one did a god damned thing. I can't square in my head.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Probably has to do with the fact that we live in a world where the media is far more populous in nature than then and people can self-organize more easily. Terrible things for democracy.YellowSnow said:
But I hear all this TUFF talk in the Tug about the necessity to demonstrate to the State Government of VA the willingness of patriots to die for their freedom and prevent tyranny. Where were these folks in 1994 when the Federal Assault Weapons ban went into effect? That legislation seemed like far more of an assault on the 2A than anything being proposed today. Why was there no revolt?Sledog said:
DC is still fucked and going back to the supremes as we speak.YellowSnow said:
Don't the courts have to weigh in first before we can conclude if the citizen's of VA have lost a constitutionally protected right? This is step 1 in the process which the Founders intended. Seemed to work out fine for gun owners in Washington, DC last I checked.Sledog said:
Not terrorists but yes they are saying that they will not allow the government to strip their constitutional rights from them. This is the very mechanism the founders intended when the government over reaches and it can't be resolved.DJDuck said:Democratic Governors Association Creative Director Shares Tweet Calling Peaceful Gun-Right Protesters ‘Terrorists’
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/01/democratic-governors-association-creative-director-shares-tweet-calling-peaceful-gun-right-protesters-terrorists/
The left is importing voters that will vote for their free shit. It is a plan to flip the nation in one direction. Socialism is not constitutional either.
Where were the milita bros in 1994 when Clinton signed the AWB? Why didn't they take up arms to defend 2A rights then?
They haven't shot anyone. HTH
Its not 1994
You could make a plausible case that it wasn't a slippery slope but now we know it was
They are coming to get the guns
Americans stand up to the government and you shit on them. Another Mr Conservative
You are peddling the bullshit narrative that was given to you before anyone even showed up
Black face racist governor down south have tried to disarm Blacks for centuries
For fucks sake there are few thing more American than protests.
I suppose we should have just elected our way out of Vietnam
So just allow the state to have a monopoly on force.
Might as well not even play the game.
In 1861 it was pretty much a fair fight. Big Ten had rifled muskets and cannons. SEC/ACC had rifled muskets and cannons.
Much has changed.
They wouldn't shoot me on the orders of some fascist
The USA hasn't won a war where they couldn't flatten the place. Same with the USSR
Enough armed citizens make the price too high. VC 101
What was missing in Venezuela were the guns
Peace in our time -
I'm out, you fucking jerks. BDTW has said they'd take me.RaceBannon said:
And there we areYellowSnow said:
No, they wouldn't. Our service members believe in freedom and democracy and and won't fight and die for a totalitarian regime.RaceBannon said:
Look at the military guys that post hereYellowSnow said:
The State has had a near monopoly on REAL force since the late 1800s pretty much.MikeDamone said:
But never the need to defend rights against the state with guns. That never happens.YellowSnow said:
Yes, there are times when the State (with guns) has to defend the rights of minorities against armed militias (with guns).MikeDamone said:
So there are times guns are required to defend rights.YellowSnow said:
Yes, in the form of Federal troops with guns. Armed former slaves got massacred regularly during the Reconstruction period. They were outnumbered.MikeDamone said:
So guns were needed to ensure civil rights for freed slaves?YellowSnow said:
It was heavily armed white paramilitary groups that ended Reconstruction and created 100 years of Jim Crow. Only Federal troops staying in the South for decades could have ensured civil rights for the freed slaves. Ironic if you ask me.RaceBannon said:
Who threatened arm resistance to the government?YellowSnow said:
It was winning elections that got the Assault Weapons Ban to expire. Not guys threatening armed resistance to the government.RaceBannon said:
You're just looking for a reason to mock something along with the cool kidsYellowSnow said:
Well, my fren, as a gun owner and 2nd amendment supporter I guess I am just fucking lost sometimes. So the point of dressing up in Army gear and toting ARs to the State Capital is to demonstrate a willingness of armed resistance against a tyranny of the majority coming from the DC era metro progressives? And yet just a few decades a go the Feds came for our? guns (1994) to an extent of which is incomprehensible in 2020 and yet no one did a god damned thing. I can't square in my head.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Probably has to do with the fact that we live in a world where the media is far more populous in nature than then and people can self-organize more easily. Terrible things for democracy.YellowSnow said:
But I hear all this TUFF talk in the Tug about the necessity to demonstrate to the State Government of VA the willingness of patriots to die for their freedom and prevent tyranny. Where were these folks in 1994 when the Federal Assault Weapons ban went into effect? That legislation seemed like far more of an assault on the 2A than anything being proposed today. Why was there no revolt?Sledog said:
DC is still fucked and going back to the supremes as we speak.YellowSnow said:
Don't the courts have to weigh in first before we can conclude if the citizen's of VA have lost a constitutionally protected right? This is step 1 in the process which the Founders intended. Seemed to work out fine for gun owners in Washington, DC last I checked.Sledog said:
Not terrorists but yes they are saying that they will not allow the government to strip their constitutional rights from them. This is the very mechanism the founders intended when the government over reaches and it can't be resolved.DJDuck said:Democratic Governors Association Creative Director Shares Tweet Calling Peaceful Gun-Right Protesters ‘Terrorists’
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/01/democratic-governors-association-creative-director-shares-tweet-calling-peaceful-gun-right-protesters-terrorists/
The left is importing voters that will vote for their free shit. It is a plan to flip the nation in one direction. Socialism is not constitutional either.
Where were the milita bros in 1994 when Clinton signed the AWB? Why didn't they take up arms to defend 2A rights then?
They haven't shot anyone. HTH
Its not 1994
You could make a plausible case that it wasn't a slippery slope but now we know it was
They are coming to get the guns
Americans stand up to the government and you shit on them. Another Mr Conservative
You are peddling the bullshit narrative that was given to you before anyone even showed up
Black face racist governor down south have tried to disarm Blacks for centuries
For fucks sake there are few thing more American than protests.
I suppose we should have just elected our way out of Vietnam
So just allow the state to have a monopoly on force.
Might as well not even play the game.
In 1861 it was pretty much a fair fight. Big Ten had rifled muskets and cannons. SEC/ACC had rifled muskets and cannons.
Much has changed.
They wouldn't shoot me on the orders of some fascist
The USA hasn't won a war where they couldn't flatten the place. Same with the USSR
Enough armed citizens make the price too high. VC 101
What was missing in Venezuela were the guns
Peace in our time -
If there is a real God, Race should Photoshop a Kangol boiler cap over the Carhartt beanie.RaceBannon said:YellowSnow said:
Which is all I fucking said in the first place, before getting gang raped in this thread for having the nerve to make fun of militia bros.GrundleStiltzkin said:
^^ That, bigly.Southerndawg said:
Just my 0.02 but IMO the last rifle ban raised a lot of awareness that ultimately led to the rollback of the law. Now, the semi automatic Armalite Rifle form is the most popular in the USA, and any attempt to grab it is bound to be met with a lot more resistance.YellowSnow said:
Well, my fren, as a gun owner and 2nd amendment supporter I guess I am just fucking lost sometimes. So the point of dressing up in Army gear and toting ARs to the State Capital is to demonstrate a willingness of armed resistance against a tyranny of the majority coming from the DC era metro progressives? And yet just a few decades a go the Feds came for our? guns (1994) to an extent of which is incomprehensible in 2020 and yet no one did a god damned thing. I can't square in my head.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Probably has to do with the fact that we live in a world where the media is far more populous in nature than then and people can self-organize more easily. Terrible things for democracy.YellowSnow said:
But I hear all this TUFF talk in the Tug about the necessity to demonstrate to the State Government of VA the willingness of patriots to die for their freedom and prevent tyranny. Where were these folks in 1994 when the Federal Assault Weapons ban went into effect? That legislation seemed like far more of an assault on the 2A than anything being proposed today. Why was there no revolt?Sledog said:
DC is still fucked and going back to the supremes as we speak.YellowSnow said:
Don't the courts have to weigh in first before we can conclude if the citizen's of VA have lost a constitutionally protected right? This is step 1 in the process which the Founders intended. Seemed to work out fine for gun owners in Washington, DC last I checked.Sledog said:
Not terrorists but yes they are saying that they will not allow the government to strip their constitutional rights from them. This is the very mechanism the founders intended when the government over reaches and it can't be resolved.DJDuck said:Democratic Governors Association Creative Director Shares Tweet Calling Peaceful Gun-Right Protesters ‘Terrorists’
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/01/democratic-governors-association-creative-director-shares-tweet-calling-peaceful-gun-right-protesters-terrorists/
The left is importing voters that will vote for their free shit. It is a plan to flip the nation in one direction. Socialism is not constitutional either.
Where were the milita bros in 1994 when Clinton signed the AWB? Why didn't they take up arms to defend 2A rights then?
They haven't shot anyone. HTH
In addition, 1994 vs. 2020 probably has some reportage or visibility bias. Less likelihood of grassroots efforts being seen.
ATBS, tacticool cosplay is gay.
We don't cotton racism here. Very much -
You act like all of the weapons and personnel in the state military will remain so.YellowSnow said:
The State has had a near monopoly on REAL force since the late 1800s pretty much.MikeDamone said:
But never the need to defend rights against the state with guns. That never happens.YellowSnow said:
Yes, there are times when the State (with guns) has to defend the rights of minorities against armed militias (with guns).MikeDamone said:
So there are times guns are required to defend rights.YellowSnow said:
Yes, in the form of Federal troops with guns. Armed former slaves got massacred regularly during the Reconstruction period. They were outnumbered.MikeDamone said:
So guns were needed to ensure civil rights for freed slaves?YellowSnow said:
It was heavily armed white paramilitary groups that ended Reconstruction and created 100 years of Jim Crow. Only Federal troops staying in the South for decades could have ensured civil rights for the freed slaves. Ironic if you ask me.RaceBannon said:
Who threatened arm resistance to the government?YellowSnow said:
It was winning elections that got the Assault Weapons Ban to expire. Not guys threatening armed resistance to the government.RaceBannon said:
You're just looking for a reason to mock something along with the cool kidsYellowSnow said:
Well, my fren, as a gun owner and 2nd amendment supporter I guess I am just fucking lost sometimes. So the point of dressing up in Army gear and toting ARs to the State Capital is to demonstrate a willingness of armed resistance against a tyranny of the majority coming from the DC era metro progressives? And yet just a few decades a go the Feds came for our? guns (1994) to an extent of which is incomprehensible in 2020 and yet no one did a god damned thing. I can't square in my head.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Probably has to do with the fact that we live in a world where the media is far more populous in nature than then and people can self-organize more easily. Terrible things for democracy.YellowSnow said:
But I hear all this TUFF talk in the Tug about the necessity to demonstrate to the State Government of VA the willingness of patriots to die for their freedom and prevent tyranny. Where were these folks in 1994 when the Federal Assault Weapons ban went into effect? That legislation seemed like far more of an assault on the 2A than anything being proposed today. Why was there no revolt?Sledog said:
DC is still fucked and going back to the supremes as we speak.YellowSnow said:
Don't the courts have to weigh in first before we can conclude if the citizen's of VA have lost a constitutionally protected right? This is step 1 in the process which the Founders intended. Seemed to work out fine for gun owners in Washington, DC last I checked.Sledog said:
Not terrorists but yes they are saying that they will not allow the government to strip their constitutional rights from them. This is the very mechanism the founders intended when the government over reaches and it can't be resolved.DJDuck said:Democratic Governors Association Creative Director Shares Tweet Calling Peaceful Gun-Right Protesters ‘Terrorists’
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/01/democratic-governors-association-creative-director-shares-tweet-calling-peaceful-gun-right-protesters-terrorists/
The left is importing voters that will vote for their free shit. It is a plan to flip the nation in one direction. Socialism is not constitutional either.
Where were the milita bros in 1994 when Clinton signed the AWB? Why didn't they take up arms to defend 2A rights then?
They haven't shot anyone. HTH
Its not 1994
You could make a plausible case that it wasn't a slippery slope but now we know it was
They are coming to get the guns
Americans stand up to the government and you shit on them. Another Mr Conservative
You are peddling the bullshit narrative that was given to you before anyone even showed up
Black face racist governor down south have tried to disarm Blacks for centuries
For fucks sake there are few thing more American than protests.
I suppose we should have just elected our way out of Vietnam
So just allow the state to have a monopoly on force.
Might as well not even play the game.
In 1861 it was pretty much a fair fight. Big Ten had rifled muskets and cannons. SEC/ACC had rifled muskets and cannons.
Much has changed. -
It's hard to say. They didn't in 1861. The Southern States got most of the equipment from the Federal arsenals there.MikeDamone said:
You act like all of the weapons and personnel in the state military will remain so.YellowSnow said:
The State has had a near monopoly on REAL force since the late 1800s pretty much.MikeDamone said:
But never the need to defend rights against the state with guns. That never happens.YellowSnow said:
Yes, there are times when the State (with guns) has to defend the rights of minorities against armed militias (with guns).MikeDamone said:
So there are times guns are required to defend rights.YellowSnow said:
Yes, in the form of Federal troops with guns. Armed former slaves got massacred regularly during the Reconstruction period. They were outnumbered.MikeDamone said:
So guns were needed to ensure civil rights for freed slaves?YellowSnow said:
It was heavily armed white paramilitary groups that ended Reconstruction and created 100 years of Jim Crow. Only Federal troops staying in the South for decades could have ensured civil rights for the freed slaves. Ironic if you ask me.RaceBannon said:
Who threatened arm resistance to the government?YellowSnow said:
It was winning elections that got the Assault Weapons Ban to expire. Not guys threatening armed resistance to the government.RaceBannon said:
You're just looking for a reason to mock something along with the cool kidsYellowSnow said:
Well, my fren, as a gun owner and 2nd amendment supporter I guess I am just fucking lost sometimes. So the point of dressing up in Army gear and toting ARs to the State Capital is to demonstrate a willingness of armed resistance against a tyranny of the majority coming from the DC era metro progressives? And yet just a few decades a go the Feds came for our? guns (1994) to an extent of which is incomprehensible in 2020 and yet no one did a god damned thing. I can't square in my head.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Probably has to do with the fact that we live in a world where the media is far more populous in nature than then and people can self-organize more easily. Terrible things for democracy.YellowSnow said:
But I hear all this TUFF talk in the Tug about the necessity to demonstrate to the State Government of VA the willingness of patriots to die for their freedom and prevent tyranny. Where were these folks in 1994 when the Federal Assault Weapons ban went into effect? That legislation seemed like far more of an assault on the 2A than anything being proposed today. Why was there no revolt?Sledog said:
DC is still fucked and going back to the supremes as we speak.YellowSnow said:
Don't the courts have to weigh in first before we can conclude if the citizen's of VA have lost a constitutionally protected right? This is step 1 in the process which the Founders intended. Seemed to work out fine for gun owners in Washington, DC last I checked.Sledog said:
Not terrorists but yes they are saying that they will not allow the government to strip their constitutional rights from them. This is the very mechanism the founders intended when the government over reaches and it can't be resolved.DJDuck said:Democratic Governors Association Creative Director Shares Tweet Calling Peaceful Gun-Right Protesters ‘Terrorists’
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/01/democratic-governors-association-creative-director-shares-tweet-calling-peaceful-gun-right-protesters-terrorists/
The left is importing voters that will vote for their free shit. It is a plan to flip the nation in one direction. Socialism is not constitutional either.
Where were the milita bros in 1994 when Clinton signed the AWB? Why didn't they take up arms to defend 2A rights then?
They haven't shot anyone. HTH
Its not 1994
You could make a plausible case that it wasn't a slippery slope but now we know it was
They are coming to get the guns
Americans stand up to the government and you shit on them. Another Mr Conservative
You are peddling the bullshit narrative that was given to you before anyone even showed up
Black face racist governor down south have tried to disarm Blacks for centuries
For fucks sake there are few thing more American than protests.
I suppose we should have just elected our way out of Vietnam
So just allow the state to have a monopoly on force.
Might as well not even play the game.
In 1861 it was pretty much a fair fight. Big Ten had rifled muskets and cannons. SEC/ACC had rifled muskets and cannons.
Much has changed. -
I'll go ahead and error on the side of caution and keep my armed citizenry, since I like them.YellowSnow said:
It's hard to say. They didn't in 1861. The Southern States got most of the equipment from the Federal arsenals there.MikeDamone said:
You act like all of the weapons and personnel in the state military will remain so.YellowSnow said:
The State has had a near monopoly on REAL force since the late 1800s pretty much.MikeDamone said:
But never the need to defend rights against the state with guns. That never happens.YellowSnow said:
Yes, there are times when the State (with guns) has to defend the rights of minorities against armed militias (with guns).MikeDamone said:
So there are times guns are required to defend rights.YellowSnow said:
Yes, in the form of Federal troops with guns. Armed former slaves got massacred regularly during the Reconstruction period. They were outnumbered.MikeDamone said:
So guns were needed to ensure civil rights for freed slaves?YellowSnow said:
It was heavily armed white paramilitary groups that ended Reconstruction and created 100 years of Jim Crow. Only Federal troops staying in the South for decades could have ensured civil rights for the freed slaves. Ironic if you ask me.RaceBannon said:
Who threatened arm resistance to the government?YellowSnow said:
It was winning elections that got the Assault Weapons Ban to expire. Not guys threatening armed resistance to the government.RaceBannon said:
You're just looking for a reason to mock something along with the cool kidsYellowSnow said:
Well, my fren, as a gun owner and 2nd amendment supporter I guess I am just fucking lost sometimes. So the point of dressing up in Army gear and toting ARs to the State Capital is to demonstrate a willingness of armed resistance against a tyranny of the majority coming from the DC era metro progressives? And yet just a few decades a go the Feds came for our? guns (1994) to an extent of which is incomprehensible in 2020 and yet no one did a god damned thing. I can't square in my head.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Probably has to do with the fact that we live in a world where the media is far more populous in nature than then and people can self-organize more easily. Terrible things for democracy.YellowSnow said:
But I hear all this TUFF talk in the Tug about the necessity to demonstrate to the State Government of VA the willingness of patriots to die for their freedom and prevent tyranny. Where were these folks in 1994 when the Federal Assault Weapons ban went into effect? That legislation seemed like far more of an assault on the 2A than anything being proposed today. Why was there no revolt?Sledog said:
DC is still fucked and going back to the supremes as we speak.YellowSnow said:
Don't the courts have to weigh in first before we can conclude if the citizen's of VA have lost a constitutionally protected right? This is step 1 in the process which the Founders intended. Seemed to work out fine for gun owners in Washington, DC last I checked.Sledog said:
Not terrorists but yes they are saying that they will not allow the government to strip their constitutional rights from them. This is the very mechanism the founders intended when the government over reaches and it can't be resolved.DJDuck said:Democratic Governors Association Creative Director Shares Tweet Calling Peaceful Gun-Right Protesters ‘Terrorists’
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/01/democratic-governors-association-creative-director-shares-tweet-calling-peaceful-gun-right-protesters-terrorists/
The left is importing voters that will vote for their free shit. It is a plan to flip the nation in one direction. Socialism is not constitutional either.
Where were the milita bros in 1994 when Clinton signed the AWB? Why didn't they take up arms to defend 2A rights then?
They haven't shot anyone. HTH
Its not 1994
You could make a plausible case that it wasn't a slippery slope but now we know it was
They are coming to get the guns
Americans stand up to the government and you shit on them. Another Mr Conservative
You are peddling the bullshit narrative that was given to you before anyone even showed up
Black face racist governor down south have tried to disarm Blacks for centuries
For fucks sake there are few thing more American than protests.
I suppose we should have just elected our way out of Vietnam
So just allow the state to have a monopoly on force.
Might as well not even play the game.
In 1861 it was pretty much a fair fight. Big Ten had rifled muskets and cannons. SEC/ACC had rifled muskets and cannons.
Much has changed.
-
Wasn't as restrictive as what's going on and being proposed now.YellowSnow said:
Well, my fren, as a gun owner and 2nd amendment supporter I guess I am just fucking lost sometimes. So the point of dressing up in Army gear and toting ARs to the State Capital is to demonstrate a willingness of armed resistance against a tyranny of the majority coming from the DC era metro progressives? And yet just a few decades a go the Feds came for our? guns (1994) to an extent of which is incomprehensible in 2020 and yet no one did a god damned thing. I can't square in my head.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Probably has to do with the fact that we live in a world where the media is far more populous in nature than then and people can self-organize more easily. Terrible things for democracy.YellowSnow said:
But I hear all this TUFF talk in the Tug about the necessity to demonstrate to the State Government of VA the willingness of patriots to die for their freedom and prevent tyranny. Where were these folks in 1994 when the Federal Assault Weapons ban went into effect? That legislation seemed like far more of an assault on the 2A than anything being proposed today. Why was there no revolt?Sledog said:
DC is still fucked and going back to the supremes as we speak.YellowSnow said:
Don't the courts have to weigh in first before we can conclude if the citizen's of VA have lost a constitutionally protected right? This is step 1 in the process which the Founders intended. Seemed to work out fine for gun owners in Washington, DC last I checked.Sledog said:
Not terrorists but yes they are saying that they will not allow the government to strip their constitutional rights from them. This is the very mechanism the founders intended when the government over reaches and it can't be resolved.DJDuck said:Democratic Governors Association Creative Director Shares Tweet Calling Peaceful Gun-Right Protesters ‘Terrorists’
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/01/democratic-governors-association-creative-director-shares-tweet-calling-peaceful-gun-right-protesters-terrorists/
The left is importing voters that will vote for their free shit. It is a plan to flip the nation in one direction. Socialism is not constitutional either.
Where were the milita bros in 1994 when Clinton signed the AWB? Why didn't they take up arms to defend 2A rights then?
They haven't shot anyone. HTH -
What's interesting is that people have gone out and bought year like those plate carriers and plates. Why? Do they think they'll need them? Or looks?YellowSnow said:
Which is all I fucking said in the first place, before getting gang raped in this thread for having the nerve to make fun of militia bros.GrundleStiltzkin said:
^^ That, bigly.Southerndawg said:
Just my 0.02 but IMO the last rifle ban raised a lot of awareness that ultimately led to the rollback of the law. Now, the semi automatic Armalite Rifle form is the most popular in the USA, and any attempt to grab it is bound to be met with a lot more resistance.YellowSnow said:
Well, my fren, as a gun owner and 2nd amendment supporter I guess I am just fucking lost sometimes. So the point of dressing up in Army gear and toting ARs to the State Capital is to demonstrate a willingness of armed resistance against a tyranny of the majority coming from the DC era metro progressives? And yet just a few decades a go the Feds came for our? guns (1994) to an extent of which is incomprehensible in 2020 and ynow. one did a god damned thing. I can't square in my head.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Probably has to do with the fact that we live in a world where the media is far more populous in nature than then and people can self-organize more easily. Terrible things for democracy.YellowSnow said:
But I hear all this TUFF talk in the Tug about the necessity to demonstrate to the State Government of VA the willingness of patriots to die for their freedom and prevent tyranny. Where were these folks in 1994 when the Federal Assault Weapons ban went into effect? That legislation seemed like far more of an assault on the 2A than anything being proposed today. Why was there no revolt?Sledog said:
DC is still fucked and going back to the supremes as we speak.YellowSnow said:
Don't the courts have to weigh in first before we can conclude if the citizen's of VA have lost a constitutionally protected right? This is step 1 in the process which the Founders intended. Seemed to work out fine for gun owners in Washington, DC last I checked.Sledog said:
Not terrorists but yes they are saying that they will not allow the government to strip their constitutional rights from them. This is the very mechanism the founders intended when the government over reaches and it can't be resolved.DJDuck said:Democratic Governors Association Creative Director Shares Tweet Calling Peaceful Gun-Right Protesters ‘Terrorists’
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/01/democratic-governors-association-creative-director-shares-tweet-calling-peaceful-gun-right-protesters-terrorists/
The left is importing voters that will vote for their free shit. It is a plan to flip the nation in one direction. Socialism is not constitutional either.
Where were the milita bros in 1994 when Clinton signed the AWB? Why didn't they take up arms to defend 2A rights then?
They haven't shot anyone. HTH
In addition, 1994 vs. 2020 probably has some reportage or visibility bias. Less likelihood of grassroots efforts being seen.
ATBS, tacticool cosplay is gay.
Many veterans I've talked to and seen at my range have a lot of the same equipment they used in the service and I'll bet a bunch of people there were veterans. -
No I'm not. Never want to see that happen but that is why the right exists.GrundleStiltzkin said:
Sled is the armed rebellion fetishist.YellowSnow said:
What? It gets brought up here everyday- i.e., a well armed citizenry helps to ensure that we remain a republic free from tyranny.RaceBannon said:
Who threatened arm resistance to the government?YellowSnow said:
It was winning elections that got the Assault Weapons Ban to expire. Not guys threatening armed resistance to the government.RaceBannon said:
You're just looking for a reason to mock something along with the cool kidsYellowSnow said:
Well, my fren, as a gun owner and 2nd amendment supporter I guess I am just fucking lost sometimes. So the point of dressing up in Army gear and toting ARs to the State Capital is to demonstrate a willingness of armed resistance against a tyranny of the majority coming from the DC era metro progressives? And yet just a few decades a go the Feds came for our? guns (1994) to an extent of which is incomprehensible in 2020 and yet no one did a god damned thing. I can't square in my head.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Probably has to do with the fact that we live in a world where the media is far more populous in nature than then and people can self-organize more easily. Terrible things for democracy.YellowSnow said:
But I hear all this TUFF talk in the Tug about the necessity to demonstrate to the State Government of VA the willingness of patriots to die for their freedom and prevent tyranny. Where were these folks in 1994 when the Federal Assault Weapons ban went into effect? That legislation seemed like far more of an assault on the 2A than anything being proposed today. Why was there no revolt?Sledog said:
DC is still fucked and going back to the supremes as we speak.YellowSnow said:
Don't the courts have to weigh in first before we can conclude if the citizen's of VA have lost a constitutionally protected right? This is step 1 in the process which the Founders intended. Seemed to work out fine for gun owners in Washington, DC last I checked.Sledog said:
Not terrorists but yes they are saying that they will not allow the government to strip their constitutional rights from them. This is the very mechanism the founders intended when the government over reaches and it can't be resolved.DJDuck said:Democratic Governors Association Creative Director Shares Tweet Calling Peaceful Gun-Right Protesters ‘Terrorists’
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/01/democratic-governors-association-creative-director-shares-tweet-calling-peaceful-gun-right-protesters-terrorists/
The left is importing voters that will vote for their free shit. It is a plan to flip the nation in one direction. Socialism is not constitutional either.
Where were the milita bros in 1994 when Clinton signed the AWB? Why didn't they take up arms to defend 2A rights then?
They haven't shot anyone. HTH
Its not 1994
You could make a plausible case that it wasn't a slippery slope but now we know it was
They are coming to get the guns
Americans stand up to the government and you shit on them. Another Mr Conservative
You are peddling the bullshit narrative that was given to you before anyone even showed up
Black face racist governor down south have tried to disarm Blacks for centuries
For fucks sake there are few thing more American than protests.
I suppose we should have just elected our way out of Vietnam
The real check is against the incremental creep governmental overstep, and the tyranny of dependence. -
Nothing changed but laws allowing a person to buy the latest equipment.YellowSnow said:
The State has had a near monopoly on REAL force since the late 1800s pretty much.MikeDamone said:
But never the need to defend rights against the state with guns. That never happens.YellowSnow said:
Yes, there are times when the State (with guns) has to defend the rights of minorities against armed militias (with guns).MikeDamone said:
So there are times guns are required to defend rights.YellowSnow said:
Yes, in the form of Federal troops with guns. Armed former slaves got massacred regularly during the Reconstruction period. They were outnumbered.MikeDamone said:
So guns were needed to ensure civil rights for freed slaves?YellowSnow said:
It was heavily armed white paramilitary groups that ended Reconstruction and created 100 years of Jim Crow. Only Federal troops staying in the South for decades could have ensured civil rights for the freed slaves. Ironic if you ask me.RaceBannon said:
Who threatened arm resistance to the government?YellowSnow said:
It was winning elections that got the Assault Weapons Ban to expire. Not guys threatening armed resistance to the government.RaceBannon said:
You're just looking for a reason to mock something along with the cool kidsYellowSnow said:
Well, my fren, as a gun owner and 2nd amendment supporter I guess I am just fucking lost sometimes. So the point of dressing up in Army gear and toting ARs to the State Capital is to demonstrate a willingness of armed resistance against a tyranny of the majority coming from the DC era metro progressives? And yet just a few decades a go the Feds came for our? guns (1994) to an extent of which is incomprehensible in 2020 and yet no one did a god damned thing. I can't square in my head.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Probably has to do with the fact that we live in a world where the media is far more populous in nature than then and people can self-organize more easily. Terrible things for democracy.YellowSnow said:
But I hear all this TUFF talk in the Tug about the necessity to demonstrate to the State Government of VA the willingness of patriots to die for their freedom and prevent tyranny. Where were these folks in 1994 when the Federal Assault Weapons ban went into effect? That legislation seemed like far more of an assault on the 2A than anything being proposed today. Why was there no revolt?Sledog said:
DC is still fucked and going back to the supremes as we speak.YellowSnow said:
Don't the courts have to weigh in first before we can conclude if the citizen's of VA have lost a constitutionally protected right? This is step 1 in the process which the Founders intended. Seemed to work out fine for gun owners in Washington, DC last I checked.Sledog said:
Not terrorists but yes they are saying that they will not allow the government to strip their constitutional rights from them. This is the very mechanism the founders intended when the government over reaches and it can't be resolved.DJDuck said:Democratic Governors Association Creative Director Shares Tweet Calling Peaceful Gun-Right Protesters ‘Terrorists’
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/01/democratic-governors-association-creative-director-shares-tweet-calling-peaceful-gun-right-protesters-terrorists/
The left is importing voters that will vote for their free shit. It is a plan to flip the nation in one direction. Socialism is not constitutional either.
Where were the milita bros in 1994 when Clinton signed the AWB? Why didn't they take up arms to defend 2A rights then?
They haven't shot anyone. HTH
Its not 1994
You could make a plausible case that it wasn't a slippery slope but now we know it was
They are coming to get the guns
Americans stand up to the government and you shit on them. Another Mr Conservative
You are peddling the bullshit narrative that was given to you before anyone even showed up
Black face racist governor down south have tried to disarm Blacks for centuries
For fucks sake there are few thing more American than protests.
I suppose we should have just elected our way out of Vietnam
So just allow the state to have a monopoly on force.
Might as well not even play the game.
In 1861 it was pretty much a fair fight. Big Ten had rifled muskets and cannons. SEC/ACC had rifled muskets and cannons.
Much has changed.
Private citizens bought a lot of Rough Rider equipment in the Spanish American war including machine guns. Hard to buy machine guns and artillery now a days. -
I’m an armed citizen. No camo though.MikeDamone said:
I'll go ahead and error on the side of caution and keep my armed citizenry, since I like them.YellowSnow said:
It's hard to say. They didn't in 1861. The Southern States got most of the equipment from the Federal arsenals there.MikeDamone said:
You act like all of the weapons and personnel in the state military will remain so.YellowSnow said:
The State has had a near monopoly on REAL force since the late 1800s pretty much.MikeDamone said:
But never the need to defend rights against the state with guns. That never happens.YellowSnow said:
Yes, there are times when the State (with guns) has to defend the rights of minorities against armed militias (with guns).MikeDamone said:
So there are times guns are required to defend rights.YellowSnow said:
Yes, in the form of Federal troops with guns. Armed former slaves got massacred regularly during the Reconstruction period. They were outnumbered.MikeDamone said:
So guns were needed to ensure civil rights for freed slaves?YellowSnow said:
It was heavily armed white paramilitary groups that ended Reconstruction and created 100 years of Jim Crow. Only Federal troops staying in the South for decades could have ensured civil rights for the freed slaves. Ironic if you ask me.RaceBannon said:
Who threatened arm resistance to the government?YellowSnow said:
It was winning elections that got the Assault Weapons Ban to expire. Not guys threatening armed resistance to the government.RaceBannon said:
You're just looking for a reason to mock something along with the cool kidsYellowSnow said:
Well, my fren, as a gun owner and 2nd amendment supporter I guess I am just fucking lost sometimes. So the point of dressing up in Army gear and toting ARs to the State Capital is to demonstrate a willingness of armed resistance against a tyranny of the majority coming from the DC era metro progressives? And yet just a few decades a go the Feds came for our? guns (1994) to an extent of which is incomprehensible in 2020 and yet no one did a god damned thing. I can't square in my head.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Probably has to do with the fact that we live in a world where the media is far more populous in nature than then and people can self-organize more easily. Terrible things for democracy.YellowSnow said:
But I hear all this TUFF talk in the Tug about the necessity to demonstrate to the State Government of VA the willingness of patriots to die for their freedom and prevent tyranny. Where were these folks in 1994 when the Federal Assault Weapons ban went into effect? That legislation seemed like far more of an assault on the 2A than anything being proposed today. Why was there no revolt?Sledog said:
DC is still fucked and going back to the supremes as we speak.YellowSnow said:
Don't the courts have to weigh in first before we can conclude if the citizen's of VA have lost a constitutionally protected right? This is step 1 in the process which the Founders intended. Seemed to work out fine for gun owners in Washington, DC last I checked.Sledog said:
Not terrorists but yes they are saying that they will not allow the government to strip their constitutional rights from them. This is the very mechanism the founders intended when the government over reaches and it can't be resolved.DJDuck said:Democratic Governors Association Creative Director Shares Tweet Calling Peaceful Gun-Right Protesters ‘Terrorists’
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/01/democratic-governors-association-creative-director-shares-tweet-calling-peaceful-gun-right-protesters-terrorists/
The left is importing voters that will vote for their free shit. It is a plan to flip the nation in one direction. Socialism is not constitutional either.
Where were the milita bros in 1994 when Clinton signed the AWB? Why didn't they take up arms to defend 2A rights then?
They haven't shot anyone. HTH
Its not 1994
You could make a plausible case that it wasn't a slippery slope but now we know it was
They are coming to get the guns
Americans stand up to the government and you shit on them. Another Mr Conservative
You are peddling the bullshit narrative that was given to you before anyone even showed up
Black face racist governor down south have tried to disarm Blacks for centuries
For fucks sake there are few thing more American than protests.
I suppose we should have just elected our way out of Vietnam
So just allow the state to have a monopoly on force.
Might as well not even play the game.
In 1861 it was pretty much a fair fight. Big Ten had rifled muskets and cannons. SEC/ACC had rifled muskets and cannons.
Much has changed. -
Gone piss my pro gun hunting pod off from Red Arrow, Kip Campbell. Look him up...
-
I don't own any camo either. My stuff was all black so I've stuck with it.YellowSnow said:
I’m an armed citizen. No camo though.MikeDamone said:
I'll go ahead and error on the side of caution and keep my armed citizenry, since I like them.YellowSnow said:
It's hard to say. They didn't in 1861. The Southern States got most of the equipment from the Federal arsenals there.MikeDamone said:
You act like all of the weapons and personnel in the state military will remain so.YellowSnow said:
The State has had a near monopoly on REAL force since the late 1800s pretty much.MikeDamone said:
But never the need to defend rights against the state with guns. That never happens.YellowSnow said:
Yes, there are times when the State (with guns) has to defend the rights of minorities against armed militias (with guns).MikeDamone said:
So there are times guns are required to defend rights.YellowSnow said:
Yes, in the form of Federal troops with guns. Armed former slaves got massacred regularly during the Reconstruction period. They were outnumbered.MikeDamone said:
So guns were needed to ensure civil rights for freed slaves?YellowSnow said:
It was heavily armed white paramilitary groups that ended Reconstruction and created 100 years of Jim Crow. Only Federal troops staying in the South for decades could have ensured civil rights for the freed slaves. Ironic if you ask me.RaceBannon said:
Who threatened arm resistance to the government?YellowSnow said:
It was winning elections that got the Assault Weapons Ban to expire. Not guys threatening armed resistance to the government.RaceBannon said:
You're just looking for a reason to mock something along with the cool kidsYellowSnow said:
Well, my fren, as a gun owner and 2nd amendment supporter I guess I am just fucking lost sometimes. So the point of dressing up in Army gear and toting ARs to the State Capital is to demonstrate a willingness of armed resistance against a tyranny of the majority coming from the DC era metro progressives? And yet just a few decades a go the Feds came for our? guns (1994) to an extent of which is incomprehensible in 2020 and yet no one did a god damned thing. I can't square in my head.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Probably has to do with the fact that we live in a world where the media is far more populous in nature than then and people can self-organize more easily. Terrible things for democracy.YellowSnow said:
But I hear all this TUFF talk in the Tug about the necessity to demonstrate to the State Government of VA the willingness of patriots to die for their freedom and prevent tyranny. Where were these folks in 1994 when the Federal Assault Weapons ban went into effect? That legislation seemed like far more of an assault on the 2A than anything being proposed today. Why was there no revolt?Sledog said:
DC is still fucked and going back to the supremes as we speak.YellowSnow said:
Don't the courts have to weigh in first before we can conclude if the citizen's of VA have lost a constitutionally protected right? This is step 1 in the process which the Founders intended. Seemed to work out fine for gun owners in Washington, DC last I checked.Sledog said:
Not terrorists but yes they are saying that they will not allow the government to strip their constitutional rights from them. This is the very mechanism the founders intended when the government over reaches and it can't be resolved.DJDuck said:Democratic Governors Association Creative Director Shares Tweet Calling Peaceful Gun-Right Protesters ‘Terrorists’
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/01/democratic-governors-association-creative-director-shares-tweet-calling-peaceful-gun-right-protesters-terrorists/
The left is importing voters that will vote for their free shit. It is a plan to flip the nation in one direction. Socialism is not constitutional either.
Where were the milita bros in 1994 when Clinton signed the AWB? Why didn't they take up arms to defend 2A rights then?
They haven't shot anyone. HTH
Its not 1994
You could make a plausible case that it wasn't a slippery slope but now we know it was
They are coming to get the guns
Americans stand up to the government and you shit on them. Another Mr Conservative
You are peddling the bullshit narrative that was given to you before anyone even showed up
Black face racist governor down south have tried to disarm Blacks for centuries
For fucks sake there are few thing more American than protests.
I suppose we should have just elected our way out of Vietnam
So just allow the state to have a monopoly on force.
Might as well not even play the game.
In 1861 it was pretty much a fair fight. Big Ten had rifled muskets and cannons. SEC/ACC had rifled muskets and cannons.
Much has changed. -
I don’t have any guns. They scare me.YellowSnow said:
I’m an armed citizen. No camo though.MikeDamone said:
I'll go ahead and error on the side of caution and keep my armed citizenry, since I like them.YellowSnow said:
It's hard to say. They didn't in 1861. The Southern States got most of the equipment from the Federal arsenals there.MikeDamone said:
You act like all of the weapons and personnel in the state military will remain so.YellowSnow said:
The State has had a near monopoly on REAL force since the late 1800s pretty much.MikeDamone said:
But never the need to defend rights against the state with guns. That never happens.YellowSnow said:
Yes, there are times when the State (with guns) has to defend the rights of minorities against armed militias (with guns).MikeDamone said:
So there are times guns are required to defend rights.YellowSnow said:
Yes, in the form of Federal troops with guns. Armed former slaves got massacred regularly during the Reconstruction period. They were outnumbered.MikeDamone said:
So guns were needed to ensure civil rights for freed slaves?YellowSnow said:
It was heavily armed white paramilitary groups that ended Reconstruction and created 100 years of Jim Crow. Only Federal troops staying in the South for decades could have ensured civil rights for the freed slaves. Ironic if you ask me.RaceBannon said:
Who threatened arm resistance to the government?YellowSnow said:
It was winning elections that got the Assault Weapons Ban to expire. Not guys threatening armed resistance to the government.RaceBannon said:
You're just looking for a reason to mock something along with the cool kidsYellowSnow said:
Well, my fren, as a gun owner and 2nd amendment supporter I guess I am just fucking lost sometimes. So the point of dressing up in Army gear and toting ARs to the State Capital is to demonstrate a willingness of armed resistance against a tyranny of the majority coming from the DC era metro progressives? And yet just a few decades a go the Feds came for our? guns (1994) to an extent of which is incomprehensible in 2020 and yet no one did a god damned thing. I can't square in my head.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Probably has to do with the fact that we live in a world where the media is far more populous in nature than then and people can self-organize more easily. Terrible things for democracy.YellowSnow said:
But I hear all this TUFF talk in the Tug about the necessity to demonstrate to the State Government of VA the willingness of patriots to die for their freedom and prevent tyranny. Where were these folks in 1994 when the Federal Assault Weapons ban went into effect? That legislation seemed like far more of an assault on the 2A than anything being proposed today. Why was there no revolt?Sledog said:
DC is still fucked and going back to the supremes as we speak.YellowSnow said:
Don't the courts have to weigh in first before we can conclude if the citizen's of VA have lost a constitutionally protected right? This is step 1 in the process which the Founders intended. Seemed to work out fine for gun owners in Washington, DC last I checked.Sledog said:
Not terrorists but yes they are saying that they will not allow the government to strip their constitutional rights from them. This is the very mechanism the founders intended when the government over reaches and it can't be resolved.DJDuck said:Democratic Governors Association Creative Director Shares Tweet Calling Peaceful Gun-Right Protesters ‘Terrorists’
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/01/democratic-governors-association-creative-director-shares-tweet-calling-peaceful-gun-right-protesters-terrorists/
The left is importing voters that will vote for their free shit. It is a plan to flip the nation in one direction. Socialism is not constitutional either.
Where were the milita bros in 1994 when Clinton signed the AWB? Why didn't they take up arms to defend 2A rights then?
They haven't shot anyone. HTH
Its not 1994
You could make a plausible case that it wasn't a slippery slope but now we know it was
They are coming to get the guns
Americans stand up to the government and you shit on them. Another Mr Conservative
You are peddling the bullshit narrative that was given to you before anyone even showed up
Black face racist governor down south have tried to disarm Blacks for centuries
For fucks sake there are few thing more American than protests.
I suppose we should have just elected our way out of Vietnam
So just allow the state to have a monopoly on force.
Might as well not even play the game.
In 1861 it was pretty much a fair fight. Big Ten had rifled muskets and cannons. SEC/ACC had rifled muskets and cannons.
Much has changed. -
Those Krags and weak army revolvers certainly got out of date in a hurry.Sledog said:
Nothing changed but laws allowing a person to buy the latest equipment.YellowSnow said:
The State has had a near monopoly on REAL force since the late 1800s pretty much.MikeDamone said:
But never the need to defend rights against the state with guns. That never happens.YellowSnow said:
Yes, there are times when the State (with guns) has to defend the rights of minorities against armed militias (with guns).MikeDamone said:
So there are times guns are required to defend rights.YellowSnow said:
Yes, in the form of Federal troops with guns. Armed former slaves got massacred regularly during the Reconstruction period. They were outnumbered.MikeDamone said:
So guns were needed to ensure civil rights for freed slaves?YellowSnow said:
It was heavily armed white paramilitary groups that ended Reconstruction and created 100 years of Jim Crow. Only Federal troops staying in the South for decades could have ensured civil rights for the freed slaves. Ironic if you ask me.RaceBannon said:
Who threatened arm resistance to the government?YellowSnow said:
It was winning elections that got the Assault Weapons Ban to expire. Not guys threatening armed resistance to the government.RaceBannon said:
You're just looking for a reason to mock something along with the cool kidsYellowSnow said:
Well, my fren, as a gun owner and 2nd amendment supporter I guess I am just fucking lost sometimes. So the point of dressing up in Army gear and toting ARs to the State Capital is to demonstrate a willingness of armed resistance against a tyranny of the majority coming from the DC era metro progressives? And yet just a few decades a go the Feds came for our? guns (1994) to an extent of which is incomprehensible in 2020 and yet no one did a god damned thing. I can't square in my head.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Probably has to do with the fact that we live in a world where the media is far more populous in nature than then and people can self-organize more easily. Terrible things for democracy.YellowSnow said:
But I hear all this TUFF talk in the Tug about the necessity to demonstrate to the State Government of VA the willingness of patriots to die for their freedom and prevent tyranny. Where were these folks in 1994 when the Federal Assault Weapons ban went into effect? That legislation seemed like far more of an assault on the 2A than anything being proposed today. Why was there no revolt?Sledog said:
DC is still fucked and going back to the supremes as we speak.YellowSnow said:
Don't the courts have to weigh in first before we can conclude if the citizen's of VA have lost a constitutionally protected right? This is step 1 in the process which the Founders intended. Seemed to work out fine for gun owners in Washington, DC last I checked.Sledog said:
Not terrorists but yes they are saying that they will not allow the government to strip their constitutional rights from them. This is the very mechanism the founders intended when the government over reaches and it can't be resolved.DJDuck said:Democratic Governors Association Creative Director Shares Tweet Calling Peaceful Gun-Right Protesters ‘Terrorists’
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/01/democratic-governors-association-creative-director-shares-tweet-calling-peaceful-gun-right-protesters-terrorists/
The left is importing voters that will vote for their free shit. It is a plan to flip the nation in one direction. Socialism is not constitutional either.
Where were the milita bros in 1994 when Clinton signed the AWB? Why didn't they take up arms to defend 2A rights then?
They haven't shot anyone. HTH
Its not 1994
You could make a plausible case that it wasn't a slippery slope but now we know it was
They are coming to get the guns
Americans stand up to the government and you shit on them. Another Mr Conservative
You are peddling the bullshit narrative that was given to you before anyone even showed up
Black face racist governor down south have tried to disarm Blacks for centuries
For fucks sake there are few thing more American than protests.
I suppose we should have just elected our way out of Vietnam
So just allow the state to have a monopoly on force.
Might as well not even play the game.
In 1861 it was pretty much a fair fight. Big Ten had rifled muskets and cannons. SEC/ACC had rifled muskets and cannons.
Much has changed.
Private citizens bought a lot of Rough Rider equipment in the Spanish American war including machine guns. Hard to buy machine guns and artillery now a days. -
Rock River Arms, Snow.YellowSnow said:
Those Krags and weak army revolvers certainly got out of date in a hurry.Sledog said:
Nothing changed but laws allowing a person to buy the latest equipment.YellowSnow said:
The State has had a near monopoly on REAL force since the late 1800s pretty much.MikeDamone said:
But never the need to defend rights against the state with guns. That never happens.YellowSnow said:
Yes, there are times when the State (with guns) has to defend the rights of minorities against armed militias (with guns).MikeDamone said:
So there are times guns are required to defend rights.YellowSnow said:
Yes, in the form of Federal troops with guns. Armed former slaves got massacred regularly during the Reconstruction period. They were outnumbered.MikeDamone said:
So guns were needed to ensure civil rights for freed slaves?YellowSnow said:
It was heavily armed white paramilitary groups that ended Reconstruction and created 100 years of Jim Crow. Only Federal troops staying in the South for decades could have ensured civil rights for the freed slaves. Ironic if you ask me.RaceBannon said:
Who threatened arm resistance to the government?YellowSnow said:
It was winning elections that got the Assault Weapons Ban to expire. Not guys threatening armed resistance to the government.RaceBannon said:
You're just looking for a reason to mock something along with the cool kidsYellowSnow said:
Well, my fren, as a gun owner and 2nd amendment supporter I guess I am just fucking lost sometimes. So the point of dressing up in Army gear and toting ARs to the State Capital is to demonstrate a willingness of armed resistance against a tyranny of the majority coming from the DC era metro progressives? And yet just a few decades a go the Feds came for our? guns (1994) to an extent of which is incomprehensible in 2020 and yet no one did a god damned thing. I can't square in my head.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Probably has to do with the fact that we live in a world where the media is far more populous in nature than then and people can self-organize more easily. Terrible things for democracy.YellowSnow said:
But I hear all this TUFF talk in the Tug about the necessity to demonstrate to the State Government of VA the willingness of patriots to die for their freedom and prevent tyranny. Where were these folks in 1994 when the Federal Assault Weapons ban went into effect? That legislation seemed like far more of an assault on the 2A than anything being proposed today. Why was there no revolt?Sledog said:
DC is still fucked and going back to the supremes as we speak.YellowSnow said:
Don't the courts have to weigh in first before we can conclude if the citizen's of VA have lost a constitutionally protected right? This is step 1 in the process which the Founders intended. Seemed to work out fine for gun owners in Washington, DC last I checked.Sledog said:
Not terrorists but yes they are saying that they will not allow the government to strip their constitutional rights from them. This is the very mechanism the founders intended when the government over reaches and it can't be resolved.DJDuck said:Democratic Governors Association Creative Director Shares Tweet Calling Peaceful Gun-Right Protesters ‘Terrorists’
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/01/democratic-governors-association-creative-director-shares-tweet-calling-peaceful-gun-right-protesters-terrorists/
The left is importing voters that will vote for their free shit. It is a plan to flip the nation in one direction. Socialism is not constitutional either.
Where were the milita bros in 1994 when Clinton signed the AWB? Why didn't they take up arms to defend 2A rights then?
They haven't shot anyone. HTH
Its not 1994
You could make a plausible case that it wasn't a slippery slope but now we know it was
They are coming to get the guns
Americans stand up to the government and you shit on them. Another Mr Conservative
You are peddling the bullshit narrative that was given to you before anyone even showed up
Black face racist governor down south have tried to disarm Blacks for centuries
For fucks sake there are few thing more American than protests.
I suppose we should have just elected our way out of Vietnam
So just allow the state to have a monopoly on force.
Might as well not even play the game.
In 1861 it was pretty much a fair fight. Big Ten had rifled muskets and cannons. SEC/ACC had rifled muskets and cannons.
Much has changed.
Private citizens bought a lot of Rough Rider equipment in the Spanish American war including machine guns. Hard to buy machine guns and artillery now a days.
Just don’t call em “assault rifles”... da fuq is that, a howitzer???!
I can assault with a hammer... -
Yes they did. The Krag could have survived longer with pointed spitzer bullets instead of round nose bullets but the lack of the ability to use stripper clips really hindered it. Slick actions and very nice rifles otherwise.YellowSnow said:
Those Krags and weak army revolvers certainly got out of date in a hurry.Sledog said:
Nothing changed but laws allowing a person to buy the latest equipment.YellowSnow said:
The State has had a near monopoly on REAL force since the late 1800s pretty much.MikeDamone said:
But never the need to defend rights against the state with guns. That never happens.YellowSnow said:
Yes, there are times when the State (with guns) has to defend the rights of minorities against armed militias (with guns).MikeDamone said:
So there are times guns are required to defend rights.YellowSnow said:
Yes, in the form of Federal troops with guns. Armed former slaves got massacred regularly during the Reconstruction period. They were outnumbered.MikeDamone said:
So guns were needed to ensure civil rights for freed slaves?YellowSnow said:
It was heavily armed white paramilitary groups that ended Reconstruction and created 100 years of Jim Crow. Only Federal troops staying in the South for decades could have ensured civil rights for the freed slaves. Ironic if you ask me.RaceBannon said:
Who threatened arm resistance to the government?YellowSnow said:
It was winning elections that got the Assault Weapons Ban to expire. Not guys threatening armed resistance to the government.RaceBannon said:
You're just looking for a reason to mock something along with the cool kidsYellowSnow said:
Well, my fren, as a gun owner and 2nd amendment supporter I guess I am just fucking lost sometimes. So the point of dressing up in Army gear and toting ARs to the State Capital is to demonstrate a willingness of armed resistance against a tyranny of the majority coming from the DC era metro progressives? And yet just a few decades a go the Feds came for our? guns (1994) to an extent of which is incomprehensible in 2020 and yet no one did a god damned thing. I can't square in my head.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Probably has to do with the fact that we live in a world where the media is far more populous in nature than then and people can self-organize more easily. Terrible things for democracy.YellowSnow said:
But I hear all this TUFF talk in the Tug about the necessity to demonstrate to the State Government of VA the willingness of patriots to die for their freedom and prevent tyranny. Where were these folks in 1994 when the Federal Assault Weapons ban went into effect? That legislation seemed like far more of an assault on the 2A than anything being proposed today. Why was there no revolt?Sledog said:
DC is still fucked and going back to the supremes as we speak.YellowSnow said:
Don't the courts have to weigh in first before we can conclude if the citizen's of VA have lost a constitutionally protected right? This is step 1 in the process which the Founders intended. Seemed to work out fine for gun owners in Washington, DC last I checked.Sledog said:
Not terrorists but yes they are saying that they will not allow the government to strip their constitutional rights from them. This is the very mechanism the founders intended when the government over reaches and it can't be resolved.DJDuck said:Democratic Governors Association Creative Director Shares Tweet Calling Peaceful Gun-Right Protesters ‘Terrorists’
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/01/democratic-governors-association-creative-director-shares-tweet-calling-peaceful-gun-right-protesters-terrorists/
The left is importing voters that will vote for their free shit. It is a plan to flip the nation in one direction. Socialism is not constitutional either.
Where were the milita bros in 1994 when Clinton signed the AWB? Why didn't they take up arms to defend 2A rights then?
They haven't shot anyone. HTH
Its not 1994
You could make a plausible case that it wasn't a slippery slope but now we know it was
They are coming to get the guns
Americans stand up to the government and you shit on them. Another Mr Conservative
You are peddling the bullshit narrative that was given to you before anyone even showed up
Black face racist governor down south have tried to disarm Blacks for centuries
For fucks sake there are few thing more American than protests.
I suppose we should have just elected our way out of Vietnam
So just allow the state to have a monopoly on force.
Might as well not even play the game.
In 1861 it was pretty much a fair fight. Big Ten had rifled muskets and cannons. SEC/ACC had rifled muskets and cannons.
Much has changed.
Private citizens bought a lot of Rough Rider equipment in the Spanish American war including machine guns. Hard to buy machine guns and artillery now a days.
The Colt Potato Digger machine gun acquitted itself well but again the shorter range of the ammo was a minor problem. -
???Sledog said:
Yes they did. The Krag could have survived longer with pointed spitzer bullets instead of round nose bullets but the lack of the ability to use stripper clips really hindered it. Slick actions and very nice rifles otherwise.YellowSnow said:
Those Krags and weak army revolvers certainly got out of date in a hurry.Sledog said:
Nothing changed but laws allowing a person to buy the latest equipment.YellowSnow said:
The State has had a near monopoly on REAL force since the late 1800s pretty much.MikeDamone said:
But never the need to defend rights against the state with guns. That never happens.YellowSnow said:
Yes, there are times when the State (with guns) has to defend the rights of minorities against armed militias (with guns).MikeDamone said:
So there are times guns are required to defend rights.YellowSnow said:
Yes, in the form of Federal troops with guns. Armed former slaves got massacred regularly during the Reconstruction period. They were outnumbered.MikeDamone said:
So guns were needed to ensure civil rights for freed slaves?YellowSnow said:
It was heavily armed white paramilitary groups that ended Reconstruction and created 100 years of Jim Crow. Only Federal troops staying in the South for decades could have ensured civil rights for the freed slaves. Ironic if you ask me.RaceBannon said:
Who threatened arm resistance to the government?YellowSnow said:
It was winning elections that got the Assault Weapons Ban to expire. Not guys threatening armed resistance to the government.RaceBannon said:
You're just looking for a reason to mock something along with the cool kidsYellowSnow said:
Well, my fren, as a gun owner and 2nd amendment supporter I guess I am just fucking lost sometimes. So the point of dressing up in Army gear and toting ARs to the State Capital is to demonstrate a willingness of armed resistance against a tyranny of the majority coming from the DC era metro progressives? And yet just a few decades a go the Feds came for our? guns (1994) to an extent of which is incomprehensible in 2020 and yet no one did a god damned thing. I can't square in my head.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Probably has to do with the fact that we live in a world where the media is far more populous in nature than then and people can self-organize more easily. Terrible things for democracy.YellowSnow said:
But I hear all this TUFF talk in the Tug about the necessity to demonstrate to the State Government of VA the willingness of patriots to die for their freedom and prevent tyranny. Where were these folks in 1994 when the Federal Assault Weapons ban went into effect? That legislation seemed like far more of an assault on the 2A than anything being proposed today. Why was there no revolt?Sledog said:
DC is still fucked and going back to the supremes as we speak.YellowSnow said:
Don't the courts have to weigh in first before we can conclude if the citizen's of VA have lost a constitutionally protected right? This is step 1 in the process which the Founders intended. Seemed to work out fine for gun owners in Washington, DC last I checked.Sledog said:
Not terrorists but yes they are saying that they will not allow the government to strip their constitutional rights from them. This is the very mechanism the founders intended when the government over reaches and it can't be resolved.DJDuck said:Democratic Governors Association Creative Director Shares Tweet Calling Peaceful Gun-Right Protesters ‘Terrorists’
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/01/democratic-governors-association-creative-director-shares-tweet-calling-peaceful-gun-right-protesters-terrorists/
The left is importing voters that will vote for their free shit. It is a plan to flip the nation in one direction. Socialism is not constitutional either.
Where were the milita bros in 1994 when Clinton signed the AWB? Why didn't they take up arms to defend 2A rights then?
They haven't shot anyone. HTH
Its not 1994
You could make a plausible case that it wasn't a slippery slope but now we know it was
They are coming to get the guns
Americans stand up to the government and you shit on them. Another Mr Conservative
You are peddling the bullshit narrative that was given to you before anyone even showed up
Black face racist governor down south have tried to disarm Blacks for centuries
For fucks sake there are few thing more American than protests.
I suppose we should have just elected our way out of Vietnam
So just allow the state to have a monopoly on force.
Might as well not even play the game.
In 1861 it was pretty much a fair fight. Big Ten had rifled muskets and cannons. SEC/ACC had rifled muskets and cannons.
Much has changed.
Private citizens bought a lot of Rough Rider equipment in the Spanish American war including machine guns. Hard to buy machine guns and artillery now a days.
The Colt Potato Digger machine gun acquitted itself well but again the shorter range of the ammo was a minor problem.
Ok. -
Question?SECDAWG said:
???Sledog said:
Yes they did. The Krag could have survived longer with pointed spitzer bullets instead of round nose bullets but the lack of the ability to use stripper clips really hindered it. Slick actions and very nice rifles otherwise.YellowSnow said:
Those Krags and weak army revolvers certainly got out of date in a hurry.Sledog said:
Nothing changed but laws allowing a person to buy the latest equipment.YellowSnow said:
The State has had a near monopoly on REAL force since the late 1800s pretty much.MikeDamone said:
But never the need to defend rights against the state with guns. That never happens.YellowSnow said:
Yes, there are times when the State (with guns) has to defend the rights of minorities against armed militias (with guns).MikeDamone said:
So there are times guns are required to defend rights.YellowSnow said:
Yes, in the form of Federal troops with guns. Armed former slaves got massacred regularly during the Reconstruction period. They were outnumbered.MikeDamone said:
So guns were needed to ensure civil rights for freed slaves?YellowSnow said:
It was heavily armed white paramilitary groups that ended Reconstruction and created 100 years of Jim Crow. Only Federal troops staying in the South for decades could have ensured civil rights for the freed slaves. Ironic if you ask me.RaceBannon said:
Who threatened arm resistance to the government?YellowSnow said:
It was winning elections that got the Assault Weapons Ban to expire. Not guys threatening armed resistance to the government.RaceBannon said:
You're just looking for a reason to mock something along with the cool kidsYellowSnow said:
Well, my fren, as a gun owner and 2nd amendment supporter I guess I am just fucking lost sometimes. So the point of dressing up in Army gear and toting ARs to the State Capital is to demonstrate a willingness of armed resistance against a tyranny of the majority coming from the DC era metro progressives? And yet just a few decades a go the Feds came for our? guns (1994) to an extent of which is incomprehensible in 2020 and yet no one did a god damned thing. I can't square in my head.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Probably has to do with the fact that we live in a world where the media is far more populous in nature than then and people can self-organize more easily. Terrible things for democracy.YellowSnow said:
But I hear all this TUFF talk in the Tug about the necessity to demonstrate to the State Government of VA the willingness of patriots to die for their freedom and prevent tyranny. Where were these folks in 1994 when the Federal Assault Weapons ban went into effect? That legislation seemed like far more of an assault on the 2A than anything being proposed today. Why was there no revolt?Sledog said:
DC is still fucked and going back to the supremes as we speak.YellowSnow said:
Don't the courts have to weigh in first before we can conclude if the citizen's of VA have lost a constitutionally protected right? This is step 1 in the process which the Founders intended. Seemed to work out fine for gun owners in Washington, DC last I checked.Sledog said:
Not terrorists but yes they are saying that they will not allow the government to strip their constitutional rights from them. This is the very mechanism the founders intended when the government over reaches and it can't be resolved.DJDuck said:Democratic Governors Association Creative Director Shares Tweet Calling Peaceful Gun-Right Protesters ‘Terrorists’
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/01/democratic-governors-association-creative-director-shares-tweet-calling-peaceful-gun-right-protesters-terrorists/
The left is importing voters that will vote for their free shit. It is a plan to flip the nation in one direction. Socialism is not constitutional either.
Where were the milita bros in 1994 when Clinton signed the AWB? Why didn't they take up arms to defend 2A rights then?
They haven't shot anyone. HTH
Its not 1994
You could make a plausible case that it wasn't a slippery slope but now we know it was
They are coming to get the guns
Americans stand up to the government and you shit on them. Another Mr Conservative
You are peddling the bullshit narrative that was given to you before anyone even showed up
Black face racist governor down south have tried to disarm Blacks for centuries
For fucks sake there are few thing more American than protests.
I suppose we should have just elected our way out of Vietnam
So just allow the state to have a monopoly on force.
Might as well not even play the game.
In 1861 it was pretty much a fair fight. Big Ten had rifled muskets and cannons. SEC/ACC had rifled muskets and cannons.
Much has changed.
Private citizens bought a lot of Rough Rider equipment in the Spanish American war including machine guns. Hard to buy machine guns and artillery now a days.
The Colt Potato Digger machine gun acquitted itself well but again the shorter range of the ammo was a minor problem.
Ok. -
No question. A RRA with a hollow point or even a better round like Nosler Partition is more than sufficient.Sledog said:
Question?SECDAWG said:
???Sledog said:
Yes they did. The Krag could have survived longer with pointed spitzer bullets instead of round nose bullets but the lack of the ability to use stripper clips really hindered it. Slick actions and very nice rifles otherwise.YellowSnow said:
Those Krags and weak army revolvers certainly got out of date in a hurry.Sledog said:
Nothing changed but laws allowing a person to buy the latest equipment.YellowSnow said:
The State has had a near monopoly on REAL force since the late 1800s pretty much.MikeDamone said:
But never the need to defend rights against the state with guns. That never happens.YellowSnow said:
Yes, there are times when the State (with guns) has to defend the rights of minorities against armed militias (with guns).MikeDamone said:
So there are times guns are required to defend rights.YellowSnow said:
Yes, in the form of Federal troops with guns. Armed former slaves got massacred regularly during the Reconstruction period. They were outnumbered.MikeDamone said:
So guns were needed to ensure civil rights for freed slaves?YellowSnow said:
It was heavily armed white paramilitary groups that ended Reconstruction and created 100 years of Jim Crow. Only Federal troops staying in the South for decades could have ensured civil rights for the freed slaves. Ironic if you ask me.RaceBannon said:
Who threatened arm resistance to the government?YellowSnow said:
It was winning elections that got the Assault Weapons Ban to expire. Not guys threatening armed resistance to the government.RaceBannon said:
You're just looking for a reason to mock something along with the cool kidsYellowSnow said:
Well, my fren, as a gun owner and 2nd amendment supporter I guess I am just fucking lost sometimes. So the point of dressing up in Army gear and toting ARs to the State Capital is to demonstrate a willingness of armed resistance against a tyranny of the majority coming from the DC era metro progressives? And yet just a few decades a go the Feds came for our? guns (1994) to an extent of which is incomprehensible in 2020 and yet no one did a god damned thing. I can't square in my head.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Probably has to do with the fact that we live in a world where the media is far more populous in nature than then and people can self-organize more easily. Terrible things for democracy.YellowSnow said:
But I hear all this TUFF talk in the Tug about the necessity to demonstrate to the State Government of VA the willingness of patriots to die for their freedom and prevent tyranny. Where were these folks in 1994 when the Federal Assault Weapons ban went into effect? That legislation seemed like far more of an assault on the 2A than anything being proposed today. Why was there no revolt?Sledog said:
DC is still fucked and going back to the supremes as we speak.YellowSnow said:
Don't the courts have to weigh in first before we can conclude if the citizen's of VA have lost a constitutionally protected right? This is step 1 in the process which the Founders intended. Seemed to work out fine for gun owners in Washington, DC last I checked.Sledog said:
Not terrorists but yes they are saying that they will not allow the government to strip their constitutional rights from them. This is the very mechanism the founders intended when the government over reaches and it can't be resolved.DJDuck said:Democratic Governors Association Creative Director Shares Tweet Calling Peaceful Gun-Right Protesters ‘Terrorists’
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/01/democratic-governors-association-creative-director-shares-tweet-calling-peaceful-gun-right-protesters-terrorists/
The left is importing voters that will vote for their free shit. It is a plan to flip the nation in one direction. Socialism is not constitutional either.
Where were the milita bros in 1994 when Clinton signed the AWB? Why didn't they take up arms to defend 2A rights then?
They haven't shot anyone. HTH
Its not 1994
You could make a plausible case that it wasn't a slippery slope but now we know it was
They are coming to get the guns
Americans stand up to the government and you shit on them. Another Mr Conservative
You are peddling the bullshit narrative that was given to you before anyone even showed up
Black face racist governor down south have tried to disarm Blacks for centuries
For fucks sake there are few thing more American than protests.
I suppose we should have just elected our way out of Vietnam
So just allow the state to have a monopoly on force.
Might as well not even play the game.
In 1861 it was pretty much a fair fight. Big Ten had rifled muskets and cannons. SEC/ACC had rifled muskets and cannons.
Much has changed.
Private citizens bought a lot of Rough Rider equipment in the Spanish American war including machine guns. Hard to buy machine guns and artillery now a days.
The Colt Potato Digger machine gun acquitted itself well but again the shorter range of the ammo was a minor problem.
Ok.
Course a good blade would be too.
-
I might inherit a .30-30 soon, pod. That’s the only rifle I’m getting any time soon.SECDAWG said:
Rock River Arms, Snow.YellowSnow said:
Those Krags and weak army revolvers certainly got out of date in a hurry.Sledog said:
Nothing changed but laws allowing a person to buy the latest equipment.YellowSnow said:
The State has had a near monopoly on REAL force since the late 1800s pretty much.MikeDamone said:
But never the need to defend rights against the state with guns. That never happens.YellowSnow said:
Yes, there are times when the State (with guns) has to defend the rights of minorities against armed militias (with guns).MikeDamone said:
So there are times guns are required to defend rights.YellowSnow said:
Yes, in the form of Federal troops with guns. Armed former slaves got massacred regularly during the Reconstruction period. They were outnumbered.MikeDamone said:
So guns were needed to ensure civil rights for freed slaves?YellowSnow said:
It was heavily armed white paramilitary groups that ended Reconstruction and created 100 years of Jim Crow. Only Federal troops staying in the South for decades could have ensured civil rights for the freed slaves. Ironic if you ask me.RaceBannon said:
Who threatened arm resistance to the government?YellowSnow said:
It was winning elections that got the Assault Weapons Ban to expire. Not guys threatening armed resistance to the government.RaceBannon said:
You're just looking for a reason to mock something along with the cool kidsYellowSnow said:
Well, my fren, as a gun owner and 2nd amendment supporter I guess I am just fucking lost sometimes. So the point of dressing up in Army gear and toting ARs to the State Capital is to demonstrate a willingness of armed resistance against a tyranny of the majority coming from the DC era metro progressives? And yet just a few decades a go the Feds came for our? guns (1994) to an extent of which is incomprehensible in 2020 and yet no one did a god damned thing. I can't square in my head.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Probably has to do with the fact that we live in a world where the media is far more populous in nature than then and people can self-organize more easily. Terrible things for democracy.YellowSnow said:
But I hear all this TUFF talk in the Tug about the necessity to demonstrate to the State Government of VA the willingness of patriots to die for their freedom and prevent tyranny. Where were these folks in 1994 when the Federal Assault Weapons ban went into effect? That legislation seemed like far more of an assault on the 2A than anything being proposed today. Why was there no revolt?Sledog said:
DC is still fucked and going back to the supremes as we speak.YellowSnow said:
Don't the courts have to weigh in first before we can conclude if the citizen's of VA have lost a constitutionally protected right? This is step 1 in the process which the Founders intended. Seemed to work out fine for gun owners in Washington, DC last I checked.Sledog said:
Not terrorists but yes they are saying that they will not allow the government to strip their constitutional rights from them. This is the very mechanism the founders intended when the government over reaches and it can't be resolved.DJDuck said:Democratic Governors Association Creative Director Shares Tweet Calling Peaceful Gun-Right Protesters ‘Terrorists’
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/01/democratic-governors-association-creative-director-shares-tweet-calling-peaceful-gun-right-protesters-terrorists/
The left is importing voters that will vote for their free shit. It is a plan to flip the nation in one direction. Socialism is not constitutional either.
Where were the milita bros in 1994 when Clinton signed the AWB? Why didn't they take up arms to defend 2A rights then?
They haven't shot anyone. HTH
Its not 1994
You could make a plausible case that it wasn't a slippery slope but now we know it was
They are coming to get the guns
Americans stand up to the government and you shit on them. Another Mr Conservative
You are peddling the bullshit narrative that was given to you before anyone even showed up
Black face racist governor down south have tried to disarm Blacks for centuries
For fucks sake there are few thing more American than protests.
I suppose we should have just elected our way out of Vietnam
So just allow the state to have a monopoly on force.
Might as well not even play the game.
In 1861 it was pretty much a fair fight. Big Ten had rifled muskets and cannons. SEC/ACC had rifled muskets and cannons.
Much has changed.
Private citizens bought a lot of Rough Rider equipment in the Spanish American war including machine guns. Hard to buy machine guns and artillery now a days.
Just don’t call em “assault rifles”... da fuq is that, a howitzer???!
I can assault with a hammer... -
Short range great caliber. Awesome for 100 yards, starts falling off after . Although many stuff been kilt beyond 100. The gun of the west pod, 30-30 Marlin.YellowSnow said:
I might inherit a .30-30 soon, pod. That’s the only rifle I’m getting any time soon.SECDAWG said:
Rock River Arms, Snow.YellowSnow said:
Those Krags and weak army revolvers certainly got out of date in a hurry.Sledog said:
Nothing changed but laws allowing a person to buy the latest equipment.YellowSnow said:
The State has had a near monopoly on REAL force since the late 1800s pretty much.MikeDamone said:
But never the need to defend rights against the state with guns. That never happens.YellowSnow said:
Yes, there are times when the State (with guns) has to defend the rights of minorities against armed militias (with guns).MikeDamone said:
So there are times guns are required to defend rights.YellowSnow said:
Yes, in the form of Federal troops with guns. Armed former slaves got massacred regularly during the Reconstruction period. They were outnumbered.MikeDamone said:
So guns were needed to ensure civil rights for freed slaves?YellowSnow said:
It was heavily armed white paramilitary groups that ended Reconstruction and created 100 years of Jim Crow. Only Federal troops staying in the South for decades could have ensured civil rights for the freed slaves. Ironic if you ask me.RaceBannon said:
Who threatened arm resistance to the government?YellowSnow said:
It was winning elections that got the Assault Weapons Ban to expire. Not guys threatening armed resistance to the government.RaceBannon said:
You're just looking for a reason to mock something along with the cool kidsYellowSnow said:
Well, my fren, as a gun owner and 2nd amendment supporter I guess I am just fucking lost sometimes. So the point of dressing up in Army gear and toting ARs to the State Capital is to demonstrate a willingness of armed resistance against a tyranny of the majority coming from the DC era metro progressives? And yet just a few decades a go the Feds came for our? guns (1994) to an extent of which is incomprehensible in 2020 and yet no one did a god damned thing. I can't square in my head.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Probably has to do with the fact that we live in a world where the media is far more populous in nature than then and people can self-organize more easily. Terrible things for democracy.YellowSnow said:
But I hear all this TUFF talk in the Tug about the necessity to demonstrate to the State Government of VA the willingness of patriots to die for their freedom and prevent tyranny. Where were these folks in 1994 when the Federal Assault Weapons ban went into effect? That legislation seemed like far more of an assault on the 2A than anything being proposed today. Why was there no revolt?Sledog said:
DC is still fucked and going back to the supremes as we speak.YellowSnow said:
Don't the courts have to weigh in first before we can conclude if the citizen's of VA have lost a constitutionally protected right? This is step 1 in the process which the Founders intended. Seemed to work out fine for gun owners in Washington, DC last I checked.Sledog said:
Not terrorists but yes they are saying that they will not allow the government to strip their constitutional rights from them. This is the very mechanism the founders intended when the government over reaches and it can't be resolved.DJDuck said:Democratic Governors Association Creative Director Shares Tweet Calling Peaceful Gun-Right Protesters ‘Terrorists’
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/01/democratic-governors-association-creative-director-shares-tweet-calling-peaceful-gun-right-protesters-terrorists/
The left is importing voters that will vote for their free shit. It is a plan to flip the nation in one direction. Socialism is not constitutional either.
Where were the milita bros in 1994 when Clinton signed the AWB? Why didn't they take up arms to defend 2A rights then?
They haven't shot anyone. HTH
Its not 1994
You could make a plausible case that it wasn't a slippery slope but now we know it was
They are coming to get the guns
Americans stand up to the government and you shit on them. Another Mr Conservative
You are peddling the bullshit narrative that was given to you before anyone even showed up
Black face racist governor down south have tried to disarm Blacks for centuries
For fucks sake there are few thing more American than protests.
I suppose we should have just elected our way out of Vietnam
So just allow the state to have a monopoly on force.
Might as well not even play the game.
In 1861 it was pretty much a fair fight. Big Ten had rifled muskets and cannons. SEC/ACC had rifled muskets and cannons.
Much has changed.
Private citizens bought a lot of Rough Rider equipment in the Spanish American war including machine guns. Hard to buy machine guns and artillery now a days.
Just don’t call em “assault rifles”... da fuq is that, a howitzer???!
I can assault with a hammer...
Over 100 yards, it’s your responsibility to be good enough. Me? I am. You? Dunno. Good ratchet gun. Short range 30 caliber knock down. Past that, @Swaye be disappointed.
I may need get out of here before DJ does it for me. I’ve told you exactly what that gun good for. You see the old western hands cocking and clicking? It was the 30-30 pod. Good short range rifle. -
Tell ya what pod, and yes, you my pod.. if I had a field like this I’d want at least a 30-30....YellowSnow said:
I might inherit a .30-30 soon, pod. That’s the only rifle I’m getting any time soon.SECDAWG said:
Rock River Arms, Snow.YellowSnow said:
Those Krags and weak army revolvers certainly got out of date in a hurry.Sledog said:
Nothing changed but laws allowing a person to buy the latest equipment.YellowSnow said:
The State has had a near monopoly on REAL force since the late 1800s pretty much.MikeDamone said:
But never the need to defend rights against the state with guns. That never happens.YellowSnow said:
Yes, there are times when the State (with guns) has to defend the rights of minorities against armed militias (with guns).MikeDamone said:
So there are times guns are required to defend rights.YellowSnow said:
Yes, in the form of Federal troops with guns. Armed former slaves got massacred regularly during the Reconstruction period. They were outnumbered.MikeDamone said:
So guns were needed to ensure civil rights for freed slaves?YellowSnow said:
It was heavily armed white paramilitary groups that ended Reconstruction and created 100 years of Jim Crow. Only Federal troops staying in the South for decades could have ensured civil rights for the freed slaves. Ironic if you ask me.RaceBannon said:
Who threatened arm resistance to the government?YellowSnow said:
It was winning elections that got the Assault Weapons Ban to expire. Not guys threatening armed resistance to the government.RaceBannon said:
You're just looking for a reason to mock something along with the cool kidsYellowSnow said:
Well, my fren, as a gun owner and 2nd amendment supporter I guess I am just fucking lost sometimes. So the point of dressing up in Army gear and toting ARs to the State Capital is to demonstrate a willingness of armed resistance against a tyranny of the majority coming from the DC era metro progressives? And yet just a few decades a go the Feds came for our? guns (1994) to an extent of which is incomprehensible in 2020 and yet no one did a god damned thing. I can't square in my head.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Probably has to do with the fact that we live in a world where the media is far more populous in nature than then and people can self-organize more easily. Terrible things for democracy.YellowSnow said:
But I hear all this TUFF talk in the Tug about the necessity to demonstrate to the State Government of VA the willingness of patriots to die for their freedom and prevent tyranny. Where were these folks in 1994 when the Federal Assault Weapons ban went into effect? That legislation seemed like far more of an assault on the 2A than anything being proposed today. Why was there no revolt?Sledog said:
DC is still fucked and going back to the supremes as we speak.YellowSnow said:
Don't the courts have to weigh in first before we can conclude if the citizen's of VA have lost a constitutionally protected right? This is step 1 in the process which the Founders intended. Seemed to work out fine for gun owners in Washington, DC last I checked.Sledog said:
Not terrorists but yes they are saying that they will not allow the government to strip their constitutional rights from them. This is the very mechanism the founders intended when the government over reaches and it can't be resolved.DJDuck said:Democratic Governors Association Creative Director Shares Tweet Calling Peaceful Gun-Right Protesters ‘Terrorists’
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/01/democratic-governors-association-creative-director-shares-tweet-calling-peaceful-gun-right-protesters-terrorists/
The left is importing voters that will vote for their free shit. It is a plan to flip the nation in one direction. Socialism is not constitutional either.
Where were the milita bros in 1994 when Clinton signed the AWB? Why didn't they take up arms to defend 2A rights then?
They haven't shot anyone. HTH
Its not 1994
You could make a plausible case that it wasn't a slippery slope but now we know it was
They are coming to get the guns
Americans stand up to the government and you shit on them. Another Mr Conservative
You are peddling the bullshit narrative that was given to you before anyone even showed up
Black face racist governor down south have tried to disarm Blacks for centuries
For fucks sake there are few thing more American than protests.
I suppose we should have just elected our way out of Vietnam
So just allow the state to have a monopoly on force.
Might as well not even play the game.
In 1861 it was pretty much a fair fight. Big Ten had rifled muskets and cannons. SEC/ACC had rifled muskets and cannons.
Much has changed.
Private citizens bought a lot of Rough Rider equipment in the Spanish American war including machine guns. Hard to buy machine guns and artillery now a days.
Just don’t call em “assault rifles”... da fuq is that, a howitzer???!
I can assault with a hammer...
Where me
And my young son sat couple days ago. -
The cowboy Kalashnikov. Does a lot of things well inside 200 yards.YellowSnow said:
I might inherit a .30-30 soon, pod. That’s the only rifle I’m getting any time soon.SECDAWG said:
Rock River Arms, Snow.YellowSnow said:
Those Krags and weak army revolvers certainly got out of date in a hurry.Sledog said:
Nothing changed but laws allowing a person to buy the latest equipment.YellowSnow said:
The State has had a near monopoly on REAL force since the late 1800s pretty much.MikeDamone said:
But never the need to defend rights against the state with guns. That never happens.YellowSnow said:
Yes, there are times when the State (with guns) has to defend the rights of minorities against armed militias (with guns).MikeDamone said:
So there are times guns are required to defend rights.YellowSnow said:
Yes, in the form of Federal troops with guns. Armed former slaves got massacred regularly during the Reconstruction period. They were outnumbered.MikeDamone said:
So guns were needed to ensure civil rights for freed slaves?YellowSnow said:
It was heavily armed white paramilitary groups that ended Reconstruction and created 100 years of Jim Crow. Only Federal troops staying in the South for decades could have ensured civil rights for the freed slaves. Ironic if you ask me.RaceBannon said:
Who threatened arm resistance to the government?YellowSnow said:
It was winning elections that got the Assault Weapons Ban to expire. Not guys threatening armed resistance to the government.RaceBannon said:
You're just looking for a reason to mock something along with the cool kidsYellowSnow said:
Well, my fren, as a gun owner and 2nd amendment supporter I guess I am just fucking lost sometimes. So the point of dressing up in Army gear and toting ARs to the State Capital is to demonstrate a willingness of armed resistance against a tyranny of the majority coming from the DC era metro progressives? And yet just a few decades a go the Feds came for our? guns (1994) to an extent of which is incomprehensible in 2020 and yet no one did a god damned thing. I can't square in my head.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Probably has to do with the fact that we live in a world where the media is far more populous in nature than then and people can self-organize more easily. Terrible things for democracy.YellowSnow said:
But I hear all this TUFF talk in the Tug about the necessity to demonstrate to the State Government of VA the willingness of patriots to die for their freedom and prevent tyranny. Where were these folks in 1994 when the Federal Assault Weapons ban went into effect? That legislation seemed like far more of an assault on the 2A than anything being proposed today. Why was there no revolt?Sledog said:
DC is still fucked and going back to the supremes as we speak.YellowSnow said:
Don't the courts have to weigh in first before we can conclude if the citizen's of VA have lost a constitutionally protected right? This is step 1 in the process which the Founders intended. Seemed to work out fine for gun owners in Washington, DC last I checked.Sledog said:
Not terrorists but yes they are saying that they will not allow the government to strip their constitutional rights from them. This is the very mechanism the founders intended when the government over reaches and it can't be resolved.DJDuck said:Democratic Governors Association Creative Director Shares Tweet Calling Peaceful Gun-Right Protesters ‘Terrorists’
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/01/democratic-governors-association-creative-director-shares-tweet-calling-peaceful-gun-right-protesters-terrorists/
The left is importing voters that will vote for their free shit. It is a plan to flip the nation in one direction. Socialism is not constitutional either.
Where were the milita bros in 1994 when Clinton signed the AWB? Why didn't they take up arms to defend 2A rights then?
They haven't shot anyone. HTH
Its not 1994
You could make a plausible case that it wasn't a slippery slope but now we know it was
They are coming to get the guns
Americans stand up to the government and you shit on them. Another Mr Conservative
You are peddling the bullshit narrative that was given to you before anyone even showed up
Black face racist governor down south have tried to disarm Blacks for centuries
For fucks sake there are few thing more American than protests.
I suppose we should have just elected our way out of Vietnam
So just allow the state to have a monopoly on force.
Might as well not even play the game.
In 1861 it was pretty much a fair fight. Big Ten had rifled muskets and cannons. SEC/ACC had rifled muskets and cannons.
Much has changed.
Private citizens bought a lot of Rough Rider equipment in the Spanish American war including machine guns. Hard to buy machine guns and artillery now a days.
Just don’t call em “assault rifles”... da fuq is that, a howitzer???!
I can assault with a hammer... -
Chancing it. ..
