Timothy James McVeigh was an American domestic terrorist who carried out the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing that killed 168 people, 19 of whom were children, and injured more than 680 others, and destroyed one third of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building. The bombing was the deadliest act of terrorism in the United States prior to the September 11 attacks. Good Job Oklahoma!
Pancho Villa raided Columbus NM and killed a bunch of Americans his picture hangs in half of the bars in south Texas and nearly all of the taquerias and they use canned cheese to make the damned enchiladas some day MacVeigh’s picture will hang in some places as a hero of the anti government nuts
Governor Abbott signed a host of pro-gun bills today, including the big one, Constitutional Carry. As of 1 Sep, legal gun owners can carry a handgun for self-protection, without needing to obtain a License to Carry. This past legislative session was a clean sweep of pro-gun bills, and sent the Bloomberg financed Moms Demand Action!! (isn't that part of the Brazzers Network?), back home to their cats to cry and post curse words on Twitter. https://www.gunowners.org/texas-becomes-the-21st-constitutional-carry-state/
Old Piers is on the right track. If he'd said armed drones and laser guided missiles he'd have been more correct.
The use of the word "arms" was part of the genius of the Constitution. It is scalable. They knew weaponry would advance. Piers is really losing it if he believes his own BS on this.
Re: Joe saying we can't defeat our military It has always been my view that the idea is not that the people could defeat our military in a straight-up fight. It's that the government would be forced to kill us instead of easily rounding us up. It would be one American killing another. The horror of this would possibly be all we need to to collectively agree that force is not a last resort; it is no resort at all. It must be made difficult. Rounding people up is easier on their conscience. Look at the shame that occurred from Kent State. This stained our government deeply. And this is not just for conservatives. It is for all people because governments change; Left to Right and back to Left again. Both sides have their fears of government power. The people should come together on this basic level to have some form of deterrence against absolute power. They are brazen enough. Don't make it easy for them. It is sad irony that people run to the government to solve the problem created by the government. To believe in absolute power that is constructed of immutable benevolence to your particular grievance is to believe that we have a monarchy that will always retain the sympathy's upon which you feed.
But that's the typical liberal talking point. That along with saying they actually meant hunting rifles and ways to kill food for the table.
That was back when Piers was a Party Member in Good Standing (PMGS). PMGS must believe, without question, all aspects of the Party's views. If the Party thinks only the police (which they say they hate) should have guns, then that's what they all think and say. If they think some dude with a full beard and who weights 195 pounds is now Paula, and should be allowed to complete in sports against real women, then they think that too. I mean, it's not like some commie in Russia circa 1969 could say "Yes, I'm for the planned economy but we should not have invaded Czechoslovakia". Anyone outside the Party is against the Party. With predictable gulag results. Now that Piers has run off the Democrat plantation, he doesn't have to parrot the party line, so he dropped his role as anti-gunner point man. As for his original argument, that Barry is so enamored of, then you can just as easily say: The 1st Amendment was devised with movable type and ink pens in mind, not photographs and the internet. The 4th Amendment was devised with horses and saddle bags in mind, not cars and hard drives. If we're going back to 1791 for tools and technology, not ideas and concepts, then sorry ladies, if you want an abortion you need to use the tools available back then. Which were a pointed hickory stick and a leather strap to bite on. Only the most tired gun-grabbers still try the musket argument. Mostly they've latched onto "gun safety!" which usually means gun confiscation. What gun could be more safe than one taken away from you by the government!
1 Sep here in Texas. Gotta get my rubber boots ready for the bloodbath in the streets, as people shoot each other parking spots and Express Checkout line etiquette. Thankfully I still have mine from the original bloodbath of the 1995 Concealed Handgun License law, and the 2015 ones from open and campus carry. 2021 was a total disaster for the Moms Demand Action! (part of the Brazzers Network) gun grabbers. They failed to pass any grabbing laws, and could not stop a single good pro-gun bill, including the big one of Constitutional Carry. What a bitter pill that is and their funder Nanny Bloomberg to swallow.
I thought mass killings and attacks were impossible without guns. 3 Dead, 6 Injured After Attack By "Knifeman" In Wurzburg, Germany | ZeroHedge
Don't laugh, or grimace, but in the UK they have knife control. Carry of anything beyond fingernail clippers is illegal, and there's a movement to outlaw big kitchen knives, or any that have points on the end of it. What happened to England? They went in 75 years from a glorious empire, proud and sure of themselves, to a pathetic nanny state that wants to take away people's steak knives. Sad.
Joe should know better. The last time our military went up against an opponent that was more determined than itself, we lost. Saigon is now ho chi minh city, all because of our country being split down the middle and up against a more determined group. Of course Joe missed out on that war. His knees were sore or some **** like that
It's only the 7th mass killing (more than 2 victims) in Germany in the last 20+ years. You have to only go back to April to find as many mass shootings in the USA.
False comparison. You are not taking into account of western violence. The Western hemisphere is not Europe. The sheep were left in Europe and the wolves immigrated to America.
Don't sell them short - the Germans are quite accomplished at mass killings. Interestingly, one of the first things the National Socialists did once in full power was to institute harsh gun control in Germany - can't heard "sub-humans" as they called them, onto trains if they're armed. Given the desire amount many leftists for a "re-education" of conservatives, and the current Maoist Cultural Revolution / Year Zero from Man in the High Castle, I think I'm going to hold onto my firearms.
I was responding to your sarcasm that mass killings were impossible without guns. Guns make it easier and everyone knows it. As for your wolf/sheep metaphor, have fun being a wolf? How many Nazis do you think are in Germany today versus the United States? And are the ones in the US huge gun control proponents?
And how many lives do guns save in a highly violent Western Hemisphere? Take away the guns in one of the cities below and you will see your hypothesis is in error.
The question that should be asked is do all authoritative governments, be they Fascist, National Socialist, Communist, Chavez-istas, Chinese Communist Party, all institute harsh gun control as soon as they get into power? The answer is yes, and the reason is so they can crack down on all those who oppose them. Now in the US, the party that wishes to institute harsh gun control is the Democrat Party. For similar reasons. The idea that it's to control crime, when they've spent the last year letting people out out prison as fast as possible, is laughable. Gun control for the Democrat party is to control and ultimately crush all dissent to what they see as their rightful eternal rule.
They do the same thing on the net where they censor anything that doesn't fit their agenda. To hell with the truth because all dissent must be squashed.
Interesting: https://www.yahoo.com/news/san-jose-force-gun-owners-143557603.html "In a unanimous vote Tuesday night, San Jose’s city council approved a national first that will see gun owners being forced to compensate taxpayers for the spiraling costs of gun violence. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, gun owners in California’s third-largest city will be required to take out liability insurance for their firearms, and pay an annual tax that will help fund emergency responses to gun-related calls."
A little more detail on requiring all gun owners to buy insurance and pay additional taxes: Firearm and Ammunition Taxes "However, there is very little historic precedent for using taxation to manage harms associated with gun violence to inform these issues. A federal excise tax of 10–11 percent on the import and production of firearms and ammunition has been in place since 1919, but the rate has not been changed since it was first instituted. The National Firearms Act of 1934 imposed a $200 tax on manufacturers for the transfer of certain firearms, but the tax applied to a very narrow set of weapons and has not been changed since initial enactment. Revenues from federal excise taxes fund matching grants to states and territories to support wildlife conservation efforts and education programs for hunters; receipts from the National Firearms Act taxes are put into the General Fund of the Treasury (Crafton, Gravelle, and Krouse, 2018)." I wonder if we can tax gangs... This is absolutely another Liberal gambit. That is why I slam them constantly for their hypocrisy. They don't like guns so they will punish the 99% who use the lawfully.
Setting aside potential Constitutional issues related to the San Jose action, I suspect that it is something that would be like when Texas was issuing drug tax stamps. There were some who would be convicted of the felony offenses related to the lack of a drug tax stamp. The tax went by the wayside after appellate activity that basically claimed the tax was punishment for the illegal activity and thus the lack of stamp could not ALSO be punished. I would ultimately expect the 9th Circuit to avoid any of the tax-related Constitutional issues and instead rule against it on some manner of selective enforcement/disparate impact type of issue. I would not envision it surviving the SCotUS, at least not in the current iteration...
