Advertisement

The Conservative Thread

This is the main board on The Outhouse, where Outhousers talk about everything. No topics are off limits, and it doesn't have to be about comics. All the topics from the other boards also show up in The Asylum, so you never have to leave1

Hey you! Reader! Want to be a part of the GREATEST COMIC BOOK AND GEEK COMMUNITY on the web?! Logged in users see WAY LESS ADS, so why not register? It's fast and it's easy, like your mom! Sign up today! Membership spots are limited!*

*Membership spots not really limited!

Nobama
 
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 61 posts


Re: The Conservative Thread

Postby Nobama » Wed Jan 16, 2013 8:44 am

Citizens File Articles of Impeachment Against Obama

http://www.infowars.com/citizens-file-a ... nst-obama/

Alex Jones
Infowars.com
January 15, 2013

“When a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776.

There can no longer be any doubt – the forces of tyranny are running wild across our once great Republic. The time has come for all good men and women to rally to the aid of their country. We have now entered a historic crossroads that will decide the destiny of the United States. Arrogance and corruption has long festered in Washington DC, but the last decade has seen an extreme acceleration of criminal looting and attacks on liberty – every freedom is under sustained assault.

We the People, the rightful masters of this Republic, will either rise up through Congress and the states or we can trade in our birthright of liberty for the chains of a technocratic slavery. Below we list some of the more egregious acts of seditious treason against the Republic of the United States. Anyone who wishes to continue to live in a free country and to pass that birthright on to their children must research this document and then lobby state legislatures and the Congress to do their duty and remove the would-be dictator.

The time has now come for a bill of impeachment to be introduced and debated in Congress. Obama’s crimes are public, and the debate in the House will serve as a court in which to display the tyrannical activities of President Obama and his cohorts. As in the case of Richard Nixon, the exposure of Obama’s crimes may cause him to resign in disgrace. If he does not step down, the full House will then vote to begin the impeachment trial in the US Senate. The time has now come to make your decision – to stand up to evil or get on your knees as a willing slave.

Articles of Impeachment Against Barack Hussein Obama – Filed by Citizen Alexander Emric Jones, January 15, 2013.

- He has clearly communicated his intent to eviscerate the second amendment rights of American citizens by pursuing executive orders to curtail the right to keep and bear arms without congressional authorization and in violation of the second amendment.

Below, Congressman Stockman has pledged to move for impeachment against Obama. I am standing up against Obama right beside him, will you?

“The President’s actions are an existential threat to this nation,” reads a statement by Rep. Steve Stockman. “The right of the people to keep and bear arms is what has kept this nation free and secure for over 200 years. The very purpose of the Second Amendment is to stop the government from disallowing people the means to defend themselves against tyranny. Any proposal to abuse executive power and infringe upon gun rights must be repelled with the stiffest legislative force possible.”

- He has aided America’s enemies, violating his oath, by sending funds to insurgents in Syria who are being commanded by Al-Qaeda terrorists.

- He has violated federal law by overseeing a cover-up surrounding Operation Fast and Furious, the transfer of guns to Mexican drug cartels direct from the federal government.

- He has lied to the American people by overseeing a cover-up of the Benghazi attack which directly led to the deaths of four American citizens. The cover-up has been called “Obama’s Watergate,” yet four months after the incident, no one in the administration has been held accountable.

- He has brazenly undermined the power of Congress by insisting his authority came from the United Nations Security Council prior to the attack on Libya and that Congressional approval was not necessary. “I don’t even have to get to the Constitutional question,” said Obama. This is an act that “constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution,” according to Congressman Walter Jones.

- He has ignored Congressional rejection of the cybersecurity bill and instead indicated he will pursue an unconstitutional executive order.

- He has signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act which includes provisions that permit the abduction and military detention without trial of U.S. citizens, violating Habeas Corpus. Despite Obama claiming he would not use the provisions to incarcerate U.S. citizens, it was his administration that specifically demanded these powers be included in the final NDAA bill.

- He has enacted universal health care mandates that force Americans to buy health insurance, a clear violation of the Constitution in exceeding congressional power to regulate interstate commerce. Obama has also handed outpreferential waivers to corporations friendly to his administration.

- He has declared war on America’s coal industry by promising to bankrupt any company that attempts to build a new coal plant while using unconstitutional EPA regulations to strangle competition, ensuring Americans see their energy costs rise year after year.

- He has violated the Constitution’s Takings and Due Process Clauses when he bullied the secured creditors of automaker Chrysler into accepting 30 cents on the dollar while politically connected labor unions and preferential others received better deals.

- He has violated Article II of the Constitution by using signing statements as part of his executive usurpation of power.

“I will seek to thwart this action by any means necessary, including but not limited to eliminating funding for implementation, defunding the White House, and even filing articles of impeachment.”

Rep. Steve Stockman, Texas.

For these, and other offenses which constitute high crimes and misdemeanors, including perjury of oath, abuse of authority, bribery, intimidation, misuse of assets, failure to supervise, dereliction of duty, conduct unbecoming and refusal to obey a lawful order, we call for the immediate impeachment of Barack H. Obama.

Spektre likes this post.

Advertisement

Nobama
 
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 61 posts


Re: The Conservative Thread

Postby Nobama » Wed Jan 16, 2013 8:48 am

NRA: Membership Has Grown by 250,000 in One Month

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/201 ... -one-month

A day before President Barack Obama is scheduled to release Vice President Joe Biden's recommendations to curb gun violence in the United States, the National Rifle Association told U.S. News and World Report that they have seen membership grow by 250,000 in the month since the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Newtown, Connecticut.

[PHOTOS: Newtown Observes One-Month Anniversary]

Politico reported membership had grown by more than 100,000 five days ago. The NRA says that when Politico reported the story, membership was close to 200,000, but the number has drastically grown in just five days. The association now has over 4.25 million members, but the NRA says that number is always fluctuating as memberships expire and new members join.

"I would say that every time President Obama opens his mouth and Sen. [Dianne] Feinstein opens her mouth and they talk about gun bans and restricting the rights of law abiding Americans, people pay attention to that and sign up," says Andrew Arulanandam, the NRA's public affairs director.

The growing rate of membership comes as Obama is slated to announce both legislative proposals and executive orders related to Biden's findings on how to stop the spread of gun violence. The vice president has said that his committee is mulling over stringent restrictions on high-capacity magazines, a national gun sale database and closing the gun show loophole, which allows unlicensed gun dealers to sell firearms to customers without background checks at gun shows.

[SEE: Editorial Cartoons About the Newtown Shooting]

Biden sat down with the NRA last week, in what the association described as a disappointing meeting.

"We were disappointed with how little this meeting had to do with keeping our children safe and how much it had to do with an agenda to attack the Second Amendment," the NRA said in a released statement Thursday. "While claiming that no policy proposals would be 'prejudged,' this task force spent most of its time on proposed restrictions on lawful firearms owners—honest, taxpaying, hardworking Americans."

[ALSO: National Campaign Wants Assault Weapons Off Wal-Mart Shelves]

New members can join the NRA with a one-year membership for $35, a two-year membership for $60, or become life members for $1,000. Members can also pay $25 up front, then be placed on a payment schedule until their lifetime dues are completely paid. Members receive an "official NRA members-only shooter's cap," a membership card and a decal and invitations to special NRA-only events
.

Spektre likes this post.

Nobama
 
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 61 posts


Re: The Conservative Thread

Postby Nobama » Fri Jan 25, 2013 4:34 pm

Ahh, someone speaking the truth here.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2 ... mamet.html

For the saying implies but does not name the effective agency of its supposed utopia. The agency is called “The State,” and the motto, fleshed out, for the benefit of the easily confused must read “The State will take from each according to his ability: the State will give to each according to his needs.” “Needs and abilities” are, of course, subjective. So the operative statement may be reduced to “the State shall take, the State shall give.”

All of us have had dealings with the State, and have found, to our chagrin, or, indeed, terror, that we were not dealing with well-meaning public servants or even with ideologues but with overworked, harried bureaucrats. These, as all bureaucrats, obtain and hold their jobs by complying with directions and suppressing the desire to employ initiative, compassion, or indeed, common sense. They are paid to follow orders.

Rule by bureaucrats and functionaries is an example of the first part of the Marxist equation: that the Government shall determine the individual’s abilities.

As rules by the Government are one-size-fits-all, any governmental determination of an individual’s abilities must be based on a bureaucratic assessment of the lowest possible denominator. The government, for example, has determined that black people (somehow) have fewer abilities than white people, and, so, must be given certain preferences. Anyone acquainted with both black and white people knows this assessment is not only absurd but monstrous. And yet it is the law.

President Obama, in his reelection campaign, referred frequently to the “needs” of himself and his opponent, alleging that each has more money than he “needs.”

But where in the Constitution is it written that the Government is in charge of determining “needs”? And note that the president did not say “I have more money than I need,” but “You and I have more than we need.” Who elected him to speak for another citizen?

It is not the constitutional prerogative of the Government to determine needs. One person may need (or want) more leisure, another more work; one more adventure, another more security, and so on. It is this diversity that makes a country, indeed a state, a city, a church, or a family, healthy. “One-size-fits-all,” and that size determined by the State has a name, and that name is “slavery.”

The Founding Fathers, far from being ideologues, were not even politicians. They were an assortment of businessmen, writers, teachers, planters; men, in short, who knew something of the world, which is to say, of Human Nature. Their struggle to draft a set of rules acceptable to each other was based on the assumption that we human beings, in the mass, are no damned good—that we are biddable, easily confused, and that we may easily be motivated by a Politician, which is to say, a huckster, mounting a soapbox and inflaming our passions.

The Constitution’s drafters did not require a wag to teach them that power corrupts: they had experienced it in the person of King George. The American secession was announced by reference to his abuses of power: “He has obstructed the administration of Justice … he has made Judges dependant on his will alone … He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution, and unacknowledged by our Laws … He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass out people and to eat out their substance … imposed taxes upon us without our consent… [He has] fundamentally altered the forms of our government.”

This is a chillingly familiar set of grievances; and its recrudescence was foreseen by the Founders. They realized that King George was not an individual case, but the inevitable outcome of unfettered power; that any person or group with the power to tax, to form laws, and to enforce them by arms will default to dictatorship, absent the constant unflagging scrutiny of the governed, and their severe untempered insistence upon compliance with law.

The Founders recognized that Government is quite literally a necessary evil, that there must be opposition, between its various branches, and between political parties, for these are the only ways to temper the individual’s greed for power and the electorates’ desires for peace by submission to coercion or blandishment.

Healthy government, as that based upon our Constitution, is strife. It awakens anxiety, passion, fervor, and, indeed, hatred and chicanery, both in pursuit of private gain and of public good. Those who promise to relieve us of the burden through their personal or ideological excellence, those who claim to hold the Magic Beans, are simply confidence men. Their emergence is inevitable, and our individual opposition to and rejection of them, as they emerge, must be blunt and sure; if they are arrogant, willful, duplicitous, or simply wrong, they must be replaced, else they will consolidate power, and use the treasury to buy votes, and deprive us of our liberties. It was to guard us against this inevitable decay of government that the Constitution was written. Its purpose was and is not to enthrone a Government superior to an imperfect and confused electorate, but to protect us from such a government.

Many are opposed to private ownership of firearms, and their opposition comes under several heads. Their specific objections are answerable retail, but a wholesale response is that the Second Amendment guarantees the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms. On a lower level of abstraction, there are more than 2 million instances a year of the armed citizen deterring or stopping armed criminals; a number four times that of all crimes involving firearms.

The Left loves a phantom statistic that a firearm in the hands of a citizen is X times more likely to cause accidental damage than to be used in the prevention of crime, but what is there about criminals that ensures that their gun use is accident-free? If, indeed, a firearm were more dangerous to its possessors than to potential aggressors, would it not make sense for the government to arm all criminals, and let them accidentally shoot themselves? Is this absurd? Yes, and yet the government, of course, is arming criminals.

Violence by firearms is most prevalent in big cities with the strictest gun laws. In Chicago and Washington, D.C., for example, it is only the criminals who have guns, the law-abiding populace having been disarmed, and so crime runs riot.

Cities of similar size in Texas, Florida, Arizona, and elsewhere, which leave the citizen the right to keep and bear arms, guaranteed in the Constitution, typically are much safer. More legal guns equal less crime. What criminal would be foolish enough to rob a gun store? But the government alleges that the citizen does not need this or that gun, number of guns, or amount of ammunition.

But President Obama, it seems, does.

He has just passed a bill that extends to him and his family protection, around the clock and for life, by the Secret Service. He, evidently, feels that he is best qualified to determine his needs, and, of course, he is. As I am best qualified to determine mine.

For it is, again, only the Marxists who assert that the government, which is to say the busy, corrupted, and hypocritical fools most elected officials are (have you ever had lunch with one?) should regulate gun ownership based on its assessment of needs.

Q. Who “needs” an assault rifle?

A. No one outside the military and the police. I concur.

An assault weapon is that which used to be called a “submachine gun.” That is, a handheld long gun that will fire continuously as long as the trigger is held down.

These have been illegal in private hands (barring those collectors who have passed the stringent scrutiny of the Federal Government) since 1934. Outside these few legal possessors, there are none in private hands. They may be found in the hands of criminals. But criminals, let us reflect, by definition, are those who will not abide by the laws. What purpose will passing more laws serve?

My grandmother came from Russian Poland, near the Polish city of Chelm. Chelm was celebrated, by the Ashkenazi Jews, as the place where the fools dwelt. And my grandmother loved to tell the traditional stories of Chelm.

Its residents, for example, once decided that there was no point in having the sun shine during the day, when it was light out—it would be better should it shine at night, when it was dark. Similarly, we modern Solons delight in passing gun laws that, in their entirety, amount to “making crime illegal.”

What possible purpose in declaring schools “gun-free zones”? Who bringing a gun, with evil intent, into a school would be deterred by the sign?

Ah, but perhaps one, legally carrying a gun, might bring it into the school.

Good.

We need more armed citizens in the schools.

Walk down Madison Avenue in New York. Many posh stores have, on view, or behind a two-way mirror, an armed guard. Walk into most any pawnshop, jewelry story, currency exchange, gold store in the country, and there will be an armed guard nearby. Why? As currency, jewelry, gold are precious. Who complains about the presence of these armed guards? And is this wealth more precious than our children?

Apparently it is: for the Left adduces arguments against armed presence in the school but not in the wristwatch stores. Q. How many accidental shootings occurred last year in jewelry stores, or on any premises with armed security guards?

Why not then, for the love of God, have an armed presence in the schools? It could be done at the cost of a pistol (several hundred dollars), and a few hours of training (that’s all the security guards get). Why not offer teachers, administrators, custodians, a small extra stipend for completing a firearms-safety course and carrying a concealed weapon to school? The arguments to the contrary escape me.

Why do I specify concealed carry? As if the weapons are concealed, any potential malefactor must assume that anyone on the premises he means to disrupt may be armed—a deterrent of even attempted violence.

Yes, but we should check all applicants for firearms for a criminal record?

Anyone applying to purchase a handgun has, since 1968, filled out a form certifying he is not a fugitive from justice, a convicted criminal, or mentally deficient. These forms, tens and tens of millions of them, rest, conceivably, somewhere in the vast repository. How are they checked? Are they checked? By what agency, with what monies? The country is broke. Do we actually want another agency staffed by bureaucrats for whom there is no funding?

The police do not exist to protect the individual. They exist to cordon off the crime scene and attempt to apprehend the criminal. We individuals are guaranteed by the Constitution the right to self-defense. This right is not the Government’s to “award” us. They have never been granted it.

The so-called assault weapons ban is a hoax. It is a political appeal to the ignorant. The guns it supposedly banned have been illegal (as above) for 78 years. Did the ban make them “more” illegal? The ban addresses only the appearance of weapons, not their operation.

Will increased cosmetic measures make anyone safer? They, like all efforts at disarmament, will put the citizenry more at risk. Disarmament rests on the assumption that all people are good, and, basically, want the same things.

But if all people were basically good, why would we, increasingly, pass more and more elaborate laws?

The individual is not only best qualified to provide his own personal defense, he is the only one qualified to do so: and his right to do so is guaranteed by the Constitution.

President Obama seems to understand the Constitution as a “set of suggestions.” I cannot endorse his performance in office, but he wins my respect for taking those steps he deems necessary to ensure the safety of his family. Why would he want to prohibit me from doing the same?

Spektre likes this post.

pastajoe
User avatar
Zombie Guard
 
Posts: 9638
Likes: 5 posts
Liked in: 392 posts
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 11:32 am


Online


Re: The Conservative Thread

Postby pastajoe » Fri Jan 25, 2013 5:01 pm

Why do you waste your time with this extremist garbage? If it was printed on paper I'd wipe my ass with it.

dairydead
User avatar
Zombie Guard
 
Posts: 9797
Likes: 52 posts
Liked in: 136 posts
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 1:12 am
Location: Detroit


Re: The Conservative Thread

Postby dairydead » Fri Jan 25, 2013 5:05 pm

pastajoe wrote:Why do you waste your time with this extremist garbage? If it was printed on paper I'd wipe my ass with it.


this, coming from you, is rich. :lol:
The Firelord to Hawk's Galactus

Nobama
 
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 61 posts


Re: The Conservative Thread

Postby Nobama » Fri Feb 15, 2013 12:04 pm

Well, it's starting....this is only going to lead to civil war. Hope you liberals are happy with the death you're about to bring about if any of this shit somehow passes. Fucking myopic fools. I do have a question about his brilliant new legislation though....do the folks who simply no longer have their "assault weapons" due to either selling them off or being robbed of them at some point still get charged with felonies when they are unable to turn them in because they no longer have them? Sounds like an awful lot of tax payer money dealing with those horrible "crimes"...

I've got an idea to cure cancer if anyone's interested though. I think packs of cigarettes should be reduced from 20 smokes to 10 smokes.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/02 ... me-felons/

Democrats in Missouri introduced startling anti-gun legislation that would require gun owners to hand over their legally purchased so-called “assault weapons” to “the appropriate law enforcement agency for destruction” within 90 days.

Under the proposed bill, “Any person who, prior to the effective date of this law, was legally in possession of an assault weapon or large capacity magazine shall have ninety days from such effective date to do any of the following without being subject to prosecution.”

Here are some additional provisions found in the gun control bill:

(1) Remove the assault weapon or large capacity magazine from the state of Missouri;

(2) Render the assault weapon permanently inoperable; or

(3) Surrender the assault weapon or large capacity magazine to the appropriate law enforcement agency for destruction, subject to specific agency regulations.

[..]

5. Unlawful manufacture, import, possession, purchase, sale, or transfer of an assault weapon or a large capacity magazine is a class C felony.

So essentially the law would turn a law-abiding gun owner today, into a felon tomorrow.

State Reps. Rory Ellinger (D-86) and Jill Schupp (D-88) reportedly introduced the anti-gun legislation, House Bill 545, this week.

Gun confiscation is being talked about more and more by lawmakers as a means to get so-called “assault weapons,” which are really semi-automatic rifles, off the streets. Democrats in California last week also proposed legislation that called for the potential confiscation of the state’s 166,000 legally purchased semi-automatic rifles.

California Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) defended the massive gun control package, saying “we can save lives.”

Spektre likes this post.

habitual
User avatar
YOU WILL NEED A NURSE
 
Posts: 18710
Likes: 103 posts
Liked in: 171 posts
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2006 1:41 am
Location: The Rock of Eternity
Title: Habinger of Doom!


Re: The Conservative Thread

Postby habitual » Fri Feb 15, 2013 12:28 pm

:lol:

You're making Twig look reasonable.

Hab

Nobama
 
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 61 posts


Re: The Conservative Thread

Postby Nobama » Fri Feb 15, 2013 12:57 pm

Maybe to some of the moronic sheep that frequent this place.

I didn't make this story up. Stuff like this isn't going to just happen quietly if it actually comes to pass. It's just not. People aren't going to just stand by and let the government disarm them.

Fact is that every single gun out there today meets the liberal definition of an assault weapon. To liberals anything semi-automatic = assault weapon, it's not about clip size. All that bullshit is just misdirection. Today it's 15 round clips, tomorrow it will be 7 round clips, then 5, then 3, then 1.

Semi-automatic only means one shot per one pull of the trigger. Anything from a six shooter revolver on up to an AR15 is semi-automatic. The only type of firearm that isn't semi-automatic is a fully automatic machine gun/pistol (which a person needs a federal permit to own, which is incredibly difficult to get) or a single bullet bolt-action pistol/rifle.

This isn't a tactic to simply get rid of AR15s that have 30 round clips. This is the beginning tactic to absolutely ban guns outright eventually.

It's idiocy at its finest

Spektre likes this post.

CountD
User avatar
Undead Member
 
Posts: 35569
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 1 post
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 7:19 pm
Title: Senior Citizen
Formerly: t00lverine


Re: The Conservative Thread

Postby CountD » Fri Feb 15, 2013 1:04 pm

Lionel Terror wrote:Maybe to some of the moronic sheep that frequent this place.

I didn't make this story up. Stuff like this isn't going to just happen quietly if it actually comes to pass. It's just not. People aren't going to just stand by and let the government disarm them.

Fact is that every single gun out there today meets the liberal definition of an assault weapon. To liberals anything semi-automatic = assault weapon, it's not about clip size. All that bullshit is just misdirection. Today it's 15 round clips, tomorrow it will be 7 round clips, then 5, then 3, then 1.

Semi-automatic only means one shot per one pull of the trigger. Anything from a six shooter revolver on up to an AR15 is semi-automatic. The only type of firearm that isn't semi-automatic is a fully automatic machine gun/pistol (which a person needs a federal permit to own, which is incredibly difficult to get) or a single bullet bolt-action pistol/rifle.

This isn't a tactic to simply get rid of AR15s that have 30 round clips. This is the beginning tactic to absolutely ban guns outright eventually.

It's idiocy at its finest

CIVIL WAR!
:lol:

LobsterJ
User avatar
Great Scott!!!
 
Posts: 4865
Likes: 3 posts
Liked in: 56 posts
Joined: Tue May 26, 2009 4:28 pm


Re: The Conservative Thread

Postby LobsterJ » Fri Feb 15, 2013 1:12 pm

Lionel Terror wrote:Maybe to some of the moronic sheep that frequent this place.

I didn't make this story up. Stuff like this isn't going to just happen quietly if it actually comes to pass. It's just not. People aren't going to just stand by and let the government disarm them.

Fact is that every single gun out there today meets the liberal definition of an assault weapon. To liberals anything semi-automatic = assault weapon, it's not about clip size. All that bullshit is just misdirection. Today it's 15 round clips, tomorrow it will be 7 round clips, then 5, then 3, then 1.

Semi-automatic only means one shot per one pull of the trigger. Anything from a six shooter revolver on up to an AR15 is semi-automatic. The only type of firearm that isn't semi-automatic is a fully automatic machine gun/pistol (which a person needs a federal permit to own, which is incredibly difficult to get) or a single bullet bolt-action pistol/rifle.

This isn't a tactic to simply get rid of AR15s that have 30 round clips. This is the beginning tactic to absolutely ban guns outright eventually.

It's idiocy at its finest


Would you turn in your guns if an Amendment to the Constitution were passed prohibiting private gun ownership?

Nobama
 
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 61 posts


Re: The Conservative Thread

Postby Nobama » Fri Feb 15, 2013 1:29 pm

LobsterJ wrote:Would you turn in your guns if an Amendment to the Constitution were passed prohibiting private gun ownership?

What guns?

Spektre likes this post.

S.F. Jude Terror
User avatar
OMCTO
 
Posts: 76409
Likes: 488 posts
Liked in: 767 posts
Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2008 11:44 pm
Location: Up Your Ass
Title: Webmaster Supreme
Formerly: Dr. Jude Terror


Re: The Conservative Thread

Postby S.F. Jude Terror » Fri Feb 15, 2013 2:59 pm

What's so civil about war anyway?

habitual
User avatar
YOU WILL NEED A NURSE
 
Posts: 18710
Likes: 103 posts
Liked in: 171 posts
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2006 1:41 am
Location: The Rock of Eternity
Title: Habinger of Doom!


Re: The Conservative Thread

Postby habitual » Fri Feb 15, 2013 3:08 pm

Lionel Terror wrote:Maybe to some of the moronic sheep that frequent this place.

I didn't make this story up. Stuff like this isn't going to just happen quietly if it actually comes to pass. It's just not. People aren't going to just stand by and let the government disarm them.

Fact is that every single gun out there today meets the liberal definition of an assault weapon. To liberals anything semi-automatic = assault weapon, it's not about clip size. All that bullshit is just misdirection. Today it's 15 round clips, tomorrow it will be 7 round clips, then 5, then 3, then 1.

Semi-automatic only means one shot per one pull of the trigger. Anything from a six shooter revolver on up to an AR15 is semi-automatic. The only type of firearm that isn't semi-automatic is a fully automatic machine gun/pistol (which a person needs a federal permit to own, which is incredibly difficult to get) or a single bullet bolt-action pistol/rifle.

This isn't a tactic to simply get rid of AR15s that have 30 round clips. This is the beginning tactic to absolutely ban guns outright eventually.

It's idiocy at its finest


:smt005

You're an idiot, and this is coming from a liberal gunowner.

Please stop talking about this, you're making gunowner's look bad.

Hab

habitual
User avatar
YOU WILL NEED A NURSE
 
Posts: 18710
Likes: 103 posts
Liked in: 171 posts
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2006 1:41 am
Location: The Rock of Eternity
Title: Habinger of Doom!


Re: The Conservative Thread

Postby habitual » Fri Feb 15, 2013 3:10 pm

LobsterJ wrote:
Would you turn in your guns if an Amendment to the Constitution were passed prohibiting private gun ownership?


Would you grab both your ankles if a chimpanzee crawled out of your ass? Because the chances are about equal that an amendment like your proposing would ever be passed.

Hab

nietoperz
User avatar
The Goddamn Bat-min
 
Posts: 42753
Likes: 218 posts
Liked in: 195 posts
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2006 5:36 pm
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Title: Forum Manager


Re: The Conservative Thread

Postby nietoperz » Fri Feb 15, 2013 3:25 pm

habitual wrote:
Would you grab both your ankles if a chimpanzee crawled out of your ass? Because the chances are about equal that an amendment like your proposing would ever be passed.

Hab

To be fair, I think he's just presenting a hypothetical question of ethics as opposed to an actual proposed constitutional amendment.

leave a comment with facebook

PreviousNext

Return to The Asylum



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: FaceBook [Linkcheck], Google [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot], MSNbot Media, pastajoe and 28 guests

Advertisement