Close
Results 1 to 10 of 21

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Smeghead - ACE Rimmer ChadAmberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Colorado Springs
    Posts
    1,861

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by funkymonkey1111 View Post
    Or, perhaps you do. The article simply calls out the dick-measuring tough guy's position that he's going to fight the armed state's power to confiscate your gun.
    The term "neo-con" has nothing to do with the gun owners at all.

    Neo-con most accurately refers to former liberals who, when presented with the post 9/11 reality of the world, suddenly went very hawkish in foreign policy.

    That's like saying "What are you Cadillac owners going to do when they come to take your guns?"

    Neo-con gun owner, paleo-con gun owner, libertarian gun owner, liberal gun owner, a-political gun owner, it doesn't matter. People who own guns belong to all those groups of people and more. So why he specifically points at neo-cons makes no sense unless he's being stupidly provocative against one of the smallest subset of people who, being already shown to be "flexible" in their politics and would probably be the first to hand over their weapons. It's much more likely to be paleo-cons and libertarians to defend themselves.

    And my actual response to this no talent ass clown:
    Is he so ungodly stupid to think that the rank and file of the military would 1: be legally allowed to perform domestic law enforcement in US territory and 2: actually go along with something so unconstitutional? Because the relatively small amount of police in relation to gun owners in most of the country would quickly be wiped out assuming they had 100% participation also.

  2. #2
    Sig Fantastic Ronin13's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Arvada, CO
    Posts
    10,268

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChadAmberg View Post
    And my actual response to this no talent ass clown:
    Is he so ungodly stupid to think that the rank and file of the military would 1: be legally allowed to perform domestic law enforcement in US territory and 2: actually go along with something so unconstitutional? Because the relatively small amount of police in relation to gun owners in most of the country would quickly be wiped out assuming they had 100% participation also.
    I can tell you right now, if I was still in the military and suddenly they said "New orders, we're going to go take guns away from the citizens of this country," I'd tell them to go f*** themselves because that's an unlawful order and it's violating the rights we swore to protect and defend... it wouldn't happen and it would turn very ugly.
    "There is no news in the truth, and no truth in the news."
    "The revolution will not be televised... Instead it will be filmed from multiple angles via cell phone cameras, promptly uploaded to YouTube, Tweeted about, and then shared on Facebook, pending a Wi-Fi connection."

  3. #3
    Guest
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Parker, CO
    Posts
    1,608

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ronin13 View Post
    I can tell you right now, if I was still in the military and suddenly they said "New orders, we're going to go take guns away from the citizens of this country," I'd tell them to go f*** themselves because that's an unlawful order and it's violating the rights we swore to protect and defend... it wouldn't happen and it would turn very ugly.
    I love that...

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •