Taking things from white people

Whoever at that "National Conservative" wrote that is a pathetic hypocrite and what's wrong with America. He is literally accepting that modified full-auto's are illegal, which should not be, as outlined in the 2nd Amendment, and then he proceeds to want to prosecute people with "illegally" modified guns.

And then we have "National Conservative" followers who Pete and Repeat this pathetic crap.

I remember years ago raising the issue that CCW, Full-Auto's and Suppressors should not require any permit/paperwork, but the chest-thumping "republicans" pulled out their cards, displayed them and told me that I was a lunatic. Well, they deserve just what they get.

If the "republicans" across this country would have fought back years ago [instead of playing "show and tell" with their CCW and other cool licensing], the 2 far-left senators wouldn't have anything to ban. And we would be on stronger footing to put a quicker stop to it.

Occam's Banana · May 21, 2024

PAF said:
Whoever at that "National Conservative" wrote that is a pathetic hypocrite and what's wrong with America. He is literally accepting that modified full-auto's are illegal, which should not be, as outlined in the 2nd Amendment, [...]

They are illegal (whether they should be or not).

Merely saying so does not necessarily make one "accepting" of it (in the sense of approving or endorsing it).

PAF said:
[...] and then he proceeds to want to prosecute people with "illegally" modified guns.

I must have missed that part. Can you tell me where he expressed that he wants that? Maybe he really does want that - I can't say with any certainty that he doesn't - but if so, I can't see where he actually said (or even implied) such a thing. He merely said that the state senators to whom he referred do not want that, but that they simultaneously do want to prohibit non-criminals from owning lawful handguns.

As far as I can tell, "National Conservative" is correct in everything he actually explicitly said. Gun-grabbing statists don't really give a damn about criminals with guns, because criminals with guns don't really pose any threat to them. It's the non-criminals with guns that they fear and despise.

Anti Federalist · May 21, 2024

PAF said:
Whoever at that "National Conservative" wrote that is a pathetic hypocrite and what's wrong with America. He is literally accepting that modified full-auto's are illegal, which should not be, as outlined in the 2nd Amendment, and then he proceeds to want to prosecute people with "illegally" modified guns.

And then we have "National Conservative" followers who Pete and Repeat this pathetic crap.

I remember years ago raising the issue that CCW, Full-Auto's and Suppressors should not require any permit/paperwork, but the chest-thumping "republicans" pulled out their cards, displayed them and told me that I was a lunatic. Well, they deserve just what they get.

If the "republicans" across this country would have fought back years ago [instead of playing "show and tell" with their CCW and other cool licensing], the 2 far-left senators wouldn't have anything to ban. And we would be on stronger footing to put a quicker stop to it.

All he's doing is pointing out the fact that often there is no prosecution for "gun crimes", but yet there will be leftists who will attempt to disarm everybody.

But beyond that, you're right, the last restrictions to roll back will be those in the 1934 NFA, which is why I support GOA and FPC.

Thread: SCOTUS will hear FPC's "ATF 'frame or receiver' rule" lawsuit (VanDerStok v. Garland)

PAF · May 21, 2024

Occam's Banana said:
They are illegal (whether they should be or not).

Merely saying so does not necessarily make one "accepting" of it (in the sense of approving or endorsing it).

I must have missed that part. Can you tell me where he expressed that he wants that? Maybe he really does want that - I can't say with any certainty that he doesn't - but if so, I can't see where he actually said (or even implied) such a thing. He merely said that the state senators to whom he referred do not want that, but that they simultaneously do want to prohibit non-criminals from owning lawful handguns.

As far as I can tell, "National Conservative" is correct in everything he actually explicitly said. Gun-grabbing statists don't really give a damn about criminals with guns, because criminals with guns don't really pose any threat to them. It's the non-criminals with guns that they fear and despise.

...that illegally modify their handguns...

I admit to dropping the ball on forming coherent sentences at times, but for somebody who works for an organization and has followers, I would expect that he would word things better/differently. To me he is accepting of the fact, whether it is/isn't/should be/shouldn't be. I personally have been in the front line for years harping on gun rights so this is something that hits a huge ass nerve with me.

Anyway... carry on.

Edit: Upon thinking about your statement: "They are illegal (whether they should be or not)." Is that because the 2nd Amendment says so? Or because some politician wrote something contrary to the 2ndA and stoopid gun-owners follow it like sheep?

Anti Federalist · May 21, 2024

https://x.com/EndWokeness/status/1792294685546823746

Occam's Banana · May 21, 2024

PAF said:
Edit: Upon thinking about your statement: "They are illegal (whether they should be or not)." Is that because the 2nd Amendment says so? Or because some politician wrote something contrary to the 2ndA and stoopid gun-owners follow it like sheep?

It's because people with the will and wherewithal to do so will use force (or credible threats of force) against those who do not comply with their wishes. Neither the 2nd Amendment nor any other thing "some politician ~~wrote"~~ ~~really has anything to do with it, except as window dressing.~~

PAF · May 21, 2024

Occam's Banana said:
It's because people with the will and wherewithal to do will use force (or credible threats of force) against those who do not comply with their wishes.

Neither the 2nd Amendment nor any other thing "some politician ~~wrote"~~ ~~really has anything to do with it, except as window dressing.~~

...

PAF said:

I remember years ago raising the issue that CCW, Full-Auto's and Suppressors should not require any permit/paperwork, but the chest-thumping "republicans" pulled out their cards, displayed them and told me that I was a lunatic. Well, they deserve just what they get.

If the "republicans" across this country would have fought back years ago [instead of playing "show and tell" with their CCW and other cool licensing], the 2 far-left senators wouldn't have anything to ban. And we would be on stronger footing to put a quicker stop to it.

Click to expand...

Occam's Banana · May 21, 2024

PAF said:
...

"[...] far-left senators wouldn't have anything to ban."

:confused:

Of course they would.

The absence of CCW licensure (or any other rights-limiting schemes) certainly wouldn't thwart or stymie them.

If anything, it would just goad them into trying to impose something even worse.

PAF · May 21, 2024

Occam's Banana said:
"[...] far-left senators wouldn't have anything to ban."

Of course they would.

A litmus test; to see how far arm-less people can push armed people around.

The absence of CCW licensure (or any other rights-limiting schemes) certainly wouldn't thwart or stymie them.

A litmus test; to see how far arm-less people can push armed people around.

If anything, it would just goad them into trying to impose something even worse.

A litmus test; to see how far arm-less people can push armed people around.

But, I'm sure the attorney's will work something out.

Anti Federalist · May 21, 2024

Anti Federalist · May 21, 2024

Taking things from white people

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Moderator

Member

Member

Member

Moderator

Member

Moderator

Member

Member

Member

Similar threads