Tag: “assault weapons”

An Unqualified Opinion

Oh, look: False authority. Lemme show you what I mean.

Meet self-identified Korea/Vietnam vet Paul A. Ransom, who “expertly” informs us:

The explosive in a bullet is the same as the explosive in a bomb. Just a smaller amount. Bombs are under tight control. Bombs can be purchased, but not without the proper credentials. We as American citizens have the right to bare arms, but nothing in the Constitution gives us the right to have a bomb or bullets. 

Remember who one of our greatest “war heroes” once was.

[Via Jess]

Worth Repeating

This comment:

Chief Patron of HB217, Del. Helmer, is on record saying they want them all gone. Helmer, a Jew, clearly is not familiar with JPFO, or the history of disarmament of Jews in the 20th century, and the consequences thereof.

And not just these. He and his treasonous kind want them all but most are politically savvy enough to know that it’s too soon to show all theirs cards.

Not to criticize my friend Aaron Zelman, who is no longer around to offer rebuttal, but “bagel brain” is too excusing of evil. That Helmer has a distinguished military career makes it worse, in a Benedict Arnold kinda way.

Another thing worth repeating: When the hell is SCOTUS gonna slap down such nonsense and put an end to it? Because if they don’t do it before Republicans hand over the keys in the midterms and ’28, all those gun owners who didn’t vote and made this outcome inevitable are going to find out what doing it the hard way entails.

Of Course You Realize This Means War

Proposed Minnesota legislation HF 3433 (often associated with HF 3434) includes provisions that would allow law enforcement to conduct warrantless, at-will inspections of private homes to ensure compliance with storage regulations for registered “semiautomatic military-style assault weapons” (SAMSAWs)… To retain previously owned semiautomatic rifles, owners must agree to allow law enforcement to inspect their home storage at any time without a warrant. [More]

“Registered”…?

Not for tyrants and traitors I won’t.

If you can ignore the Second Amendment, you don’t have to worry about the Fourth. Or the First. Or…

O Canada

Who were the 30 pu$$!e$?

[ViaĀ Michael G]

None Dare Call It Treason

Seeberger has since resolved to support ā€œwhatever it takesā€ to make Minnesota safer. ā€œIā€™ll be yes on anything and everything that comes through that will really make a difference to reduce gun violence here in the state of Minnesota,ā€ she said in a recent interview. [More]

So why is this oath-breaking useful idiot still being referred to as a “moderate legislator”?

[ViaĀ Michael G]

Survey SAYS…

Official Everytown for Gun Safety Poll … Should Congress ban assault weapons? [More]

I wish those saying “Absolutely” would flesh out what they estimate an attempt will cost in human lives lost to “gun violence” and how that compares to reality…

They won’t tally your response unless you give them contact info, so I resurrected a tactic from the old Million Moon March.

I wonder if ATF’s number takes texts?

Won’t Take ‘No’ for an Answer

How many times do they need to be rejected before they become stalkers?

Actually, it’s not that he doesn’t want to. It’s just that they’re frustrated he can’t satisfy them and are complaining to the neighbors about it.

Shall Not Be Infringed UNLESS…?

Viramontesā€™s criticism of Bevis on this point carries little weight, given Hellerā€™s holding that ā€œthe Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes[.]ā€ Id. at 625. Heller did not hold, as Viramontes seems to imply, that military-style weapons are protected ā€œarmsā€ because military action by civilians is lawful. Instead, Heller characterized self-defense as the ā€œcore lawful purposeā€ of firearm use. 554 U.S. at 630. [More]

I beg to differ. And have warned that ignoring the militia aspect would be used against us.

Funny, how a common prohibitionist argument is that 2A advocates ignore the first 13 words, and here it is they’re doing just that in their legal argument.

In any case, the amendment says “arms.” And as for the contention that its ban “finds support in this nationā€™s history and tradition,” tell that to Tench Coxe.

F-n’ lying Illinois Democrats…

[ViaĀ Jess]

The Servants Have Spoken

In response to a question of whether the people decide subjectively what they deem appropriate for self-defense, New Jersey argued that “the people” through their representatives decide what is unusually dangerous based on their perception of “objective characteristics.” As one judge suggested, since all firearms are dangerous under the alleged dangerous-or-unusual test, no limit would exist on what the legislature may choose to ban, despite what the people choose. [More]

Look at all the contortions these robed Democrats go through to obfuscate the unambiguous clarity of “shall not be infringed.”

How many horses and hounds may I keep, again…?

[ViaĀ Michael G]

O Canada

“This program is really a way to help lawful gun owners stay in compliance with the law.” [Watch]

Talk about industrial grade weasel wording… and what a perfect example of actual fascist mentality.

Then we have Thing 2, a frickin’ Sri Lankan refugee who repays the people who took him in with “Obey of die” mandates.

According to what the premier’s spokesperson told me, Alberta’s response is “Not on our watch.”

To Each According to His Needs?

COURTROOM AUDIO LIVE: AR & Mag Ban Arguments Reveal How Nefarious These Blue States Actually Areā€¦ [Watch]

You don’t need full auto because the government has it? We’re limited to “self-defense”? And only indoors? Anybody see the word “useful” in the Second Amendment…?

Are “average” <3-round limits next?

Everybody’s picking up that it’s “common usage” arguments they’re arguing to impose limits, right?

[Via Jess]

The Beginning of a Beautiful Friendship?

Following its amicus brief in support of us, the federal government has asked the Seventh Circuit for approval to participate in oral arguments in our lawsuit challenging Illinois’ “assault weapon” and magazine bans [More]

How could they refuse? After all, “Currently, six of the courtā€™s judges were appointed by Republicans and five by Democrats.”

Yeah, but one of those “Republicans” is treasonous dotard Frank Easterbrook…

[ViaĀ Jess]

Talk is Cheap

Dem MN State Rep.: Not Talking About Assault Weapons Is ā€˜an Attempt to Politicizeā€™ Grief and Distract [More]

Enough talk.

Flesh out how you’re going to take them from those of us who reject your authority to rob us of our right to keep and bear arms and will resist if you try.

[ViaĀ bondmen]

Who Couldn’t See That Coming?

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said groups challenging a 2013 law banning assault weapons and a second gun control law enacted a decade later could not show that the guns they are still able to possess, including several semi-automatic handguns, are not sufficient for self-defense purposes. [More]

I hate to say I told you so…

And no, I don’t think they’re embarrassed at all. I think they’re in-our-face about it.

[Via Jess]

The Stupidest Thing You’ll Read on the Internet All Day

you use meme magic or whatever to get people to throw them out. we both know the proliferation of AI, FYPs, etc are extremely powerful. people were memed into buying the guns, they can be memed out of it. [More]

Thing is, it’ll work as well as all the other plans.

Verified by MonsterInsights