« First « Previous Comments 512 - 551 of 1,451 Next » Last » Search these comments
Yugoslavian SKS versions have a grenade launcher, and can be bought in most of US of A perfectly legally:
Rb6d saysYugoslavian SKS versions have a grenade launcher, and can be bought in most of US of A perfectly legally:
Right, but where are you going to get Comblock rifle grenades for it?
Make no mistake: all politicians—even those ostensibly on the side of guns and gun ownership—hate the issue and anyone, like me, who insists on bringing it up. They hate it because it’s an X-ray machine. It’s a Vulcan mind-meld. It’s the ultimate test to which any politician—or political philosophy—can be put.
If a politician isn’t perfectly comfortable with the idea of his average constituent, any man, woman, or responsible child, walking into a hardware store and paying cash—for any rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything—without producing ID or signing one scrap of paper, he isn’t your friend no matter what he tells you. ...
What his attitude—toward your ownership and use of weapons—conveys is his real attitude about you. And if he doesn’t trust you, then why in the name of John Moses Browning should you trust him?
If he doesn’t want you to have the means of defending your life, do you want him in a position to control it?
If he makes excuses about obeying a law he’s sworn to uphold and defend—the highest law of the land, the Bill of Rights—do you want to entrust him with anything?
If he ignores you, sneers at you, complains about you, or defames you, if he calls you names only he thinks are evil—like "Constitutionalist"—when you insist that he account for himself, hasn’t he betrayed his oath, isn’t he unfit to hold office, and doesn’t he really belong in jail?
Sure, these are all leading questions. They’re the questions that led me to the issue of guns and gun ownership as the clearest and most unmistakable demonstration of what any given politician—or political philosophy—is really made of. ...
And if there are dangerous weirdos out there, does it make sense to deprive you of the means of protecting yourself from them? Forget about those other people, those dangerous weirdos, this is about you, and it has been, all along. ...
Makes voting simpler, doesn’t it? You don’t have to study every issue—health care, international trade—all you have to do is use this X-ray machine, this Vulcan mind-meld, to get beyond their empty words and find out how politicians really feel. About you. And that, of course, is why they hate it.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/supreme-court-shuts-down-police-attempts-search-homes-without-warrantThe Supreme Court on Monday shut down a police attempt to enter homes without a warrant, siding against the Biden administration.
The court, in a unanimous decision, found that police, using the "community caretaking" exception to the Fourth Amendment's prohibitions on unreasonable searches and seizures, were not allowed to enter a Rhode Island man's home and take his guns. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the court's opinion, saying that police had violated the "very core of the Fourth Amendment."
If a politician isn’t perfectly comfortable with the idea of his average constituent, any man, woman, or responsible child, walking into a hardware store and paying cash—for any rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything—without producing ID or signing one scrap of paper, he isn’t your friend no matter what he tells you. ...
This is a new idea for me, that just about anyone should be able to walk into a hardware store, buy a gun with cash and no ID, and walk out. Pretty sure I don't want psychos doing that, but otoh, the limits on psychos end up turning into limits on anyone who opposes the corporate-liberal Ivy League elite.
It's also a new idea to me that you can judge all politicians on this single issue.
Patrick saysIf a politician isn’t perfectly comfortable with the idea of his average constituent, any man, woman, or responsible child, walking into a hardware store and paying cash—for any rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything—without producing ID or signing one scrap of paper, he isn’t your friend no matter what he tells you. ...
This is the no bullshit version of honesty. In fact I once asked a Republican candidate for governor what he would do to support the second amendment and the asshole basically blew me and the question off claiming it is a federal not a state issue. Fuck that asshole. If it isn’t a state issue then why the fuck does every state have its own gun laws?
I think your post here Patrick is very important, if a politician refuses to let people freely exercise their second amendment right, it is only a matter of time before other rights are infringed or stolen ...
https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/huge-economic-boost-new-west-virginian-now-makes-gun-and-ammo-purchases-tax-free
Liberal states can't even afford to throw their criminal hordes in jail.
The evidence is clear that ordinary citizens could and did buy cannons; in fact, many Americans own cannons today. ...
You do not own a cannon? Why not? When I lived in the Bay Area of California, a friend was a Civil War Reenactor. He often towed a 4-inch cannon to events. Police would sometimes pull him over, ostensibly to see if he had license for it, but mostly out of curiosity. (Yes, think of the scene in The Mask where police pull a bazooka out of Jim Carrey’s pants, and his response, “I have a permit for that.”) His response was always the same: “I don’t need one. It’s black powder.” He had fired cannonballs from it at a special cannon range back east. He claimed it was accurate to 1,000 yards and capable of firing to 1,600 yards.
CIVIL WAR US NAVY 8" DAHLGREN CANNON ON CARRIAGE
https://www.gunbroker.com/item/904393619
CIVIL WAR US NAVY 8" DAHLGREN CANNON ON CARRIAGE
Buyer pays actual shipping costs
CIVIL WAR US NAVY 8" DAHLGREN CANNON ON CARRIAGEBuyer pays actual shipping costs
Could cost quite a lot to ship a cannon, lol.
Cannon will be my next purchase, thanks Patrick! I'll add some accecories to it and make it an assult cannon.f
http://steencannons.com/cannons/
Rb6d says
CIVIL WAR US NAVY 8" DAHLGREN CANNON ON CARRIAGE
When I used to live at an Oakland Marina, I had a neighbor, Gene, who was 93 years old and still lived aboard his 45 foot ketch. I always tried to help him with little electrical and mechanical issues. He rewarded me with an old Model 1913 Cavalry Sword, aka the "Patton Saber" after the famous WW2 general who designed it. He was quite the pirate as well as collector, "If I get anymore swords or cannons my boat is going to sink."
U.S. Sees Ongoing Spike in Gun, Ammo Sales: 'I've Never Seen Anything Like It'
Because the communists have dossiers on everyone.
Onvacation saysBecause the communists have dossiers on everyone.
they are making lists of people. just like nazis had lists.
KABUL, Aug 16 (Reuters) - Taliban fighters in the Afghan capital, Kabul, started collecting weapons from civilians on Monday because people no longer need them for personal protection, a Taliban official said.
"We understand people kept weapons for personal safety. They can now feel safe. We are not here to harm innocent civilians," the official told Reuters.
City resident Saad Mohseni, director of the MOBY group media company, said on Twitter that Taliban soldiers had come to his company compound to enquire about the weapons kept by his security team.
« First « Previous Comments 512 - 551 of 1,451 Next » Last » Search these comments
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Couple things to note in there:
1. The specific mention of a militia being the reason for the need to bear arms.
2. The 2nd Amendment never mentions the word gun at all.
So, what exactly is the definition of "arms"?
In 1755 Dr. Johnson’s Dictionary of the English Language was first published. It defined “arms” as “weapons of offence, or armour of defence.”
Weapons of offence would seem to include pretty much anything and everything, from knives to nuclear weapons. The US has already seen fit to ban some weapons of offence so the 2nd Amendment clearly has not been interpreted strictly as meaning that the US cannot ban all "arms". Therefore, the 2nd Amendment does not guarantee citizens the right to own whatever weapons they choose.
So it then becomes a question of which weapons should be banned, which should be strictly regulated, and which should be lightly regulated or not at all. Like anything else, we should weigh an individual's right with society's right. When looked at in that manner, it becomes very difficult to justify why fully automatic or semi automatic rifles should be allowed. What purpose do they serve an individual? And why would that purpose outweigh the extreme damage those weapons have cased society??
Patrick thinks the Chamber of Commerce is the worst organization, and he may be correct, but the NRA is not far behind.