Printable View
What ever his political leanings, Berkeley is a major indicator. The infighting on the left to see who's more PC is mind boggling. I'm waiting for the first (reported) case of a sjw having a coronary trying to show someone they are less racist, than their circle jerk of liberalsQuote:
Originally Posted by Bailey Guns
4 more years of this...
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/24/berkeley-protesters-form-human-chain-stop-white-st/Quote:
Students at the University of California, Berkeley held a day of protest on Friday to demand the creation of additional “safe spaces” for transgender and nonwhite students, during which a human chain was formed on a main campus artery to prevent white students from getting to class.
So is Michael Savage and Greg Gutfeld.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bailey Guns
If you look at some of the most powerful voices on "the right", the vast majority of them are former libs. Andrew Breitbart, Bill Whittle, David Horowitz, Thomas Sowell, Evan Sayet, Andrew Klavan (another Berkeley student) and dozens more.
My hope is that Adams has "got woke" ... not holding my breath but its my hope.
I've read some more of his stuff. He's a self-described "social liberal". He also says he's pro-gun. He obviously has no clue of the monumental contradiction he states in describing why he's pro-gun. He's probably not a flaming, communist-type liberal, but he's too left-leaning for me to really trust anything he says. Just my opinion.
Quote:
I am pro-gun.
Because … I might someday have a good reason to shoot someone who is bigger than me or armed. If your reason for supporting gun ownership involves loyalty to a document written hundreds of years ago by slave-owners with muskets, you probably have some explaining to do. Don’t include me in that camp. I support gun rights because I think there is a good chance I might someday need to shoot a human. Period. If the Constitution prohibited personal gun ownership, I would have to consider violating that document, for my own sense of safety.
His reasoning is at least more likely than fighting the government.
Or the editorsQuote:
Originally Posted by Irving
What he ^^^ saidQuote:
Originally Posted by Zundfolge
More to the point, if somebody that is a self-proclaimed "social liberal" (whatever he thinks that means) can see Hillary for what she really is and thinks Trump (however ________ you think he is) is an obvious better choice.... then there's hope.
As long as enough dead people are kept from voting, or people from voting in multiple states, etc...
I'm registered to vote in Colorado, have my mail-in ballot, but all I need to register and vote here in TX (where I am at the moment) is a utility bill showing I own a home in TX (and I do)... I'm too honest to do it, but there is nothing in the way with the current legal parameters that prevents me from voting in both CO and TX (no DL required to vote, which I think is by DEM design)
Except getting caught...Quote:
Originally Posted by 68Charger
Well also having scruples, morals and ethics.Quote:
Originally Posted by craysQuote:
Originally Posted by 68Charger
Except getting caught...
CT sheep lined up to register. A guy I kinda know in Australia said "The penalty for not complying is so severe....we really didn't have a choice."Quote:
Originally Posted by foxtrot
I've wondered how an outright ban (on all or even some types) of firearms would work. It seems like Sheriffs would be tasked with collection. How would the Sheriffs like that shit?
What kind of God-damn pussy is going to just roll over and give up their guns. Our firearms are the only thing standing between life and a mass grave.Quote:
Originally Posted by GilpinGuy
I will die on my feet rather than kneel to the motherfucking government.
...double tap. For some reason my text screen shows up blank when trying to edit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by foxtrot
But that's not what he said and I don't think he's on the right track at all...with the exception of saying he'd want a gun for protection regardless of how the law sees that. This is what he said:
Quote:
If your reason for supporting gun ownership involves loyalty to a document written hundreds of years ago by slave-owners with muskets, you probably have some explaining to do. Don’t include me in that camp.
This sentence tells me he pretty much has no grasp of the true meaning of the Constitution in general, or the Second Amendment specifically.
My interpretation of that is he believes the Constitution is outdated and flawed. "Slave-owners and muskets"? That's progressive code for "dead, rich white men wrote that" and "the framers couldn't possibly envisage modern guns like AR-15s"...the usual garbage that makes up the usual leftist argument that the Constitution being a living, breathing document. He didn't say anything about the SCOTUS.
A conservative, on the other hand, believes the Constitution says what it means. The Second Amendment allows us all to keep and bear arms, not because it was written by musket-owning slave-owners, but because they recognized that personal ownership of arms was of great value and a necessity to a truly free citizenry, for a variety of reasons...not the least of which was defense of self, home and property.
Quote:
Originally Posted by foxtrot
Maybe. But I'd argue there are some generalities that can be inferred by looking at where some went to school...especially when they have a lifetime of writings to look at. If two people tell me they went to the state universities of Montana and Wyoming I'd say it would generally be pretty hard to determine any true political leanings. But if someone tells me they went to Berkeley I can practically guarantee that person is going to be left-leaning at a minimum, if not a full-blown communist...despite the fact some notable conservatives attended that school as well. Profiling can sometimes be pretty accurate.
Exactly. SCOTUS can ban them all they want.Quote:
Originally Posted by roberth
Or National Guard? House to house urban searching in the middle east is quite dangerous, how well do you think anyone would want to do that at home?Quote:
Originally Posted by GilpinGuy
^^ Especially considering the homes of many of those Guard members (or even law enforcement officers) would also be subject to search. Highly doubtful that would ever happen. There would definitely be a shooting war.
Just as an aside, the Trump campaign stop here in Golden has effectively shut down my shop for the day, since the 5 different law enforcement agencies aren't letting any traffic west of the Jeffco Fairgrounds.
There seemed to be no issue at all in Boston after the marathon bombing. Hell people rolled over to accommodate the .mil presenceQuote:
Originally Posted by Jeffrey Lebowski
Scary wasn't it That is a live example of what would happen. Sheeple would be in the majority. After a few "redneck gunlovers" die in the shootouts, the rest of bad talkers will roll over pretty quickly, and the police and military would be just "doing their job" and "following orders" Just like the german army did at Aushwitz.
QUOTE=Great-Kazoo;2024969]There seemed to be no issue at all in Boston after the marathon bombing. Hell people rolled over to accommodate the .mil presence[/QUOTE]
There would be no need to go house to house, or use the National Guard or LEO.
The government can easily control the power grid, water, gas, the financial centers, food supply, air travel, public transportation.
Cut off these things to everyone that doesn't step forward and voluntarily turn in their firearms, ammunition, armor, reloading, and tactical equipment.
Make it a crime to transfer or posess any of these things and create a national tip line. Your neighbors will turn dou in for a Visa card. The powers that be will simply flip the switch and you will lose everything.
Active violence will be crushed by the following.
1. Individual to squad sized resistance elements will be handled by teams of paid mercenaries using ambushes.
2. Platoon sized elements of fighters will be taken out by drone strike.
3. Company sized element of active violent resistors will be met with combined air and ground attacks or raids.
4. Pockets of active resistance in large cities or regions larger than states will be threatened with force up to and including nuclear strikes. Good luck seceding from the union Texas or Utah.
Velocitas, Opprimere,
Violentia Operandi
They can't even keep the internet online if / when they need to do so.Quote:
Originally Posted by MOLON LABE
Do it that way and everyone will be turning in everyone for a freebie. Hell, I'll turn in everyone I know without a whisper of truth. Big data, yeah, but good luck sifting through all that. At the end, you still need people to do the job.Quote:
Originally Posted by MOLON LABE
So some people will be deemed OK?Quote:
Originally Posted by MOLON LABE
Edit: I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying you're likely right.
I just think it'll be a hell of a job and God have mercy on whoever is told to undertake it. These same folks who can't (or won't) put down an Occupy or BLM "event" are going to systematically disarm the masses? All it'll take is those few pockets of resistance to pop up and you better believe this country changes forever.
Easiest way to avoid any form of confiscation.. Publicly identify as a gender confused person. Between the civil rights implications and ACLU waffling whether to take the case. The .gov would be gridlocked.
Even better, barricade inside buildings marked as gender neutral restrooms .
Those pc snowflakes would have an aneurysm.
Haha, yeah.
And that's not bad either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Great-Kazoo
C'mon man!
"Within one generation - or two at most, the indoctrination system will make the successors terrified of these weapons."
Foxtrot
"He alone, who owns the youth, gains the future."
Adolf Hitler
Teach the youth. If you can't pull them out of school altogether, at least teach them history, guns, and liberty.
I do like the style of the Canadians when faced with registration....
Some registered ALL guns... nail guns, toy guns, glue guns... did everything to overwhelm the system.
Where is their registration now?
No, the election is not rigged !
http://dailycaller.com/2016/11/06/ex...wing-election/
I remember a story about allowing felons to vote somewhere (maybe VA?) that aired several months ago and IIRC the plan was dropped because too many of the felons said they were going to vote for Trump.
Would be hilarious if the bulk of this 60,000 felons voted to put Trump across the finish line.
Today is the big day. Will Trump carry the vote or will the country vote for 4 more years of failure and the ever-shrinking economy.l
The votes are in for Dixville Notch, NH.
4 votes for HRC
2 votes for Trump
1 for Gary Johnson
1 write-in for Mitt Romney
I sure hope that the outcome isn't handed to HRC due to 3rd party and protest votes that aren't productive but make people feel good emotionally for a few hours.
Idiots get the government they deserve.
If you like the status quo vote HRC.
If you want the opportunity for a change vote Trump.
If you think feelings trump behavior vote (L)oser parties.
Unfortunately, non-idiots surrounded by idiots get the government that the idiots deserve.Quote:
Originally Posted by roberth
Indeed sir. [Beer]Quote:
Originally Posted by Zundfolge
On the topic of gun bans/confiscation/buyback/etc... Australia didn't work- they only had about 30% turn in (there are still tons of guns in Aussieland), and the bad guys certainly didn't. It won't work here, even if they effectively outlaw the 2nd Amendment, which would be impossible without a ratifying vote. Ban? The most we'll see is another Bill Clinton-esque AWB, which if HRC is elected, and the R's lose the down ballot, count on it, but they'll more than likely grandfather in what's already out there, making it as useless as the magazine ban here in CO. Voluntary buy-back? Some will, most won't. Turn in your guns? Yeah right, too many would say "hell no!" Who can enforce that? Registration? Again, if Hillary and congress are elected, count on something like it coming down the pipe. But again, relies too much on voluntary compliance, like so many here, most won't. The only option is to comb through all the 4473's sitting with the ATF and local gun stores- it'll literally take a decade to complete.
Confiscation? Never going to happen. No life-respecting LEO would ever go door to door. Same with military and federal LE. We all live in the communities we serve, we would effectively be putting a massive target on our backs, and that'll never go through- Much less any County Sheriff ordering his guys to do so, too many David Clarkes out there. The only viable option would be to shut down the gun industry in America, which would be very difficult, to halt the supply of new firearms into the market. They can try to make possession of an "assault weapon" a felony, but if too many stand up and say no, it'll fail.
You can. There very hard to get, unless you have $$$$$
http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/2016...6c2b6356f8.jpg
Velocitas, Opprimere,
Violentia Operandi
Leaving aside the fact the media (even Fox) uses the "new" colors of Red=Republican/Blue=Democrat (historically it was the other way around ... the media reversed the colors without any explanation or comment for the 1984 election), I prefer the county-by-county map displayed on Fox that showed just how widespread the support for Trump was and how concentrated Hillary's vote was.