'Chopstick' + Chinese Patriot video = Confucius say "Good Stuff"!
Well, that makes at least three of us so far. We should have one hell of a Shoot & Link-Up as soon as each of us has secured a place for our toothbrush.I am going to move my ass to Texas.
'Chopstick' + Chinese Patriot video = Confucius say "Good Stuff"!
Abso-Fing-lutly! Uh, logically; if he was a ChiCom Patriot - he wouldn't have immigrated to the US to start with would he? (OK, OK... perhaps as a ChiCom spy. But if that were so, he wouldn't now be making himself so visible as a protesting patriot.) Regardless, sorry I wasn't clearer as I tried to include the dumb Confucius bit.I'd say he's a US patriot.
Chop, thanks so much for posting that. Brings tears.I hope this isnt a repost. This gentleman really touched me with his speech. He is a Tian'anmen Square "veteran" if you will. If anyone knows the value of the 2nd Amendment, I think he does.
Well, that makes at least three of us so far. We should have one hell of a Shoot & Link-Up as soon as each of us has secured a place for our toothbrush.
I just wanna reiterate something, and I know, I'm preaching to the choir here.
My wife told me today that one of the drivers who works for the restaurant she manages was lured to a home on the pretense of a large delivery order and subsequently held at gun point by an assailant with 'some kind of rifle' while two others stripped him of the food, his work cash, wallet and cell phone. The delivery location was less than 200M from my front door.
Are these dickwads gonna turn in their gear if the AWB passes? I don't think so. So, if anything, my possession of a high quality weapon and accessories and the training and know how to use it properly theoretically gives me a superior edge against these animals should they try to get roudy in my neighborhood. Food for thought for the fucking idiot liberals.
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.How do most of you interpret the text? Do you see it as two separate parts? 1) The right to a forming a well regulated militia and 2) the right to bear arms Or as one part: the right to a well regulated militia which is necessary for the freedom of American citizens by allowing the militia the right to weaponry?
(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
Really great point. An unarmed hero, no matter how noble or courageous, can get only so far trying to rush an armed attacker.
Even their truck drivers (Zim trucking, container, and logistics) range anywhere from armed to heavily armed. This is a publicized point in many parts of the world where you'd want it publicized. They simply refuse to be victims, or to be percieved as "soft" targets.
For one reason and one reason only: precisely because if it were attempted straight shooting Neanderthals like me all over this country would go apeshit on a mass scale. It's because we won't calm down and be quiet, because we are raising hell. If more people had gotten involved sooner, writing letters and making a scene like a spoiled fat kid on the cake aisle, things wouldn't have progressed even as far as they have. My point is if it doesn't happen, it isn't because 'they' aren't going to try.eh, nvm. Won't get anywhere.
I'd approach that one with some measure of caution until it is confirmed.Just saw a post on FB about Geico supposedly cancelling a guy's truck insurance because his company, gunadapters.com, is part of the "weapons industry". Attached is a photo of the cancellation letter they sent him. Anyone know if this is legit? I have Geico currently, but will be switching companies immediately if this is true.
View attachment 7727
Meanwhile, the lamestream media in Chicago (Tribune) printed this image in a failed attempt to "educate" people on evil guns. :-/
And I bet all this time you guys thought that was for a sling, huh. :wall:
View attachment 7725
I'd approach that one with some measure of caution until it is confirmed.
...
So total body count of mass murders in the United States involving bayonets mounted on rifles and/or grenade launchers? There must be some, since the Chicago Fishwrap feels compelled to warn every one of its' readers of this scourge upon humanity.