Jump to content

Deadric

Member
  • Content Count

    571
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. We do not need to worry about that. The posse comitatus act declares the military can not be used to enforce civilian laws. So you are stuck with 3 cops per 1,000 people to disarm us. Good luck with them odds.
  2. I wasn’t a gun owner until 2007, but lots were bought and sold because cosmetic features were changed. Scout was taking about standing. First there must be standing, as ban challenges are headed to this court now. But a ban on all semi-autos, especially one that has mandatory buyback, would give a shiiiitload of standing. And a federal right wing judge would issue an injunction forcing it to the court.
  3. They are too stupid to understand that assault weapon ban challenges are working their way to this scotus as we speak and that one of the big reasons Kavanaugh has replaced Kennedy is specifically because he believes in common use. The poster better wake up to reality. We are forcing gun cases to this court because we have the votes to win.
  4. We have five votes that feel common use applies to semi-autos; get ready for major disappointment when this court rules bans on them are unconstitutional.
  5. This is why all gun owners in red flag states need to hide their best guns off property. Since red flag laws ignore due process and allow any claim to be made against anyone without any proof, they need to keep a stash away. That way the cops will think they have disarmed them, but will have been fooled because the person has plenty of guns a few miles down the road hidden.
  6. Idiot there already is assault weapon ban challenges moving toward this court. This time around they will accept it now that Kennedy is gone. You all are screwed.
  7. There are like 3 cops per 1,000 non cops in this country. Good luck.
  8. You want to make a bet on that. Let’s get an assault weapon ban and buyback to this Supreme Court and find out. I bet my entire collection it is a 5-4 in my favor.
  9. I set the price for my property. If the price is too high, then it goes unsold, so 10,000 per rifle and $500 per magazine. I can’t go through with the sale anyway, because the government has a long history of violence with guns; so they can’t pass a background check.
  10. It is when you take a lighter, light it, bend over and blast a fart.
  11. ...it’s a gun. If you see a bulge in a liberal woman’s pants, it’s a penis.
  12. Beto said these guns only belong on the battlefield. If that is true, his security and the police should not have those guns, as they are not in a war zone on a battlefield.
  13. It is called “circumstantial evidence”. Courts use it all the time when criminals don’t come out and admit what they did. I do not need the left to come out and say “we don’t want gang members targeted by the same red flag laws used to disarm white rural law abiding citizens who have not committed a crime but someone randomly made a complaint about them so we disarm them for precrime, because the blacks and browns might think we are racist for using those laws to disarm the urban gangs and not vote for us”. I do not need them to say that, the circumstantial evidence allows me to draw the conclusion that they are guilty.
  14. This one is tough, so we will need the best brains on this board. So here goes. Riddle me this: If someone is for a law that disarms people who have no criminal record because someone made a complaint that they possibly could be a threat, how could that same person not be ok with having that same red flag law used to disarm known gang members, especially ones with a criminal history? Like I said, this one is a real brain teaser.
×
×
  • Create New...