sol740

I honestly don't give a shit if someone chooses to be neutral on gun control, that's certainly within the scope of their rights. If you oppose gun rights that's all fine and dandy too. If you try and force me to register so some liberal shitrag can publish my address for every would be thief, burglar, or invader, you will be ignored(although sadly my CHL is public record I believe). If you come to my home to disarm me,things will go badly, and that's the last thing I would ever want. I want to work, feed my family, and be left the fuck alone.

He did very well in a hostile environment.

Just a few quotes from our tolerant, intellectual, liberal betters. By all means Mr. Muhlbauer, Mr. Cuomo, and please let me suggest you both volunteer for the job. Of course, the ammo is responsible. Sounds like registration, or more accurately, sounds like Mr. Biden can go fuck himself. It is, as it has always been, about the agenda, and not about the poor children murdered at Sandy Hook, and that's the most despicable thing of all.

^ fucking wunt.

I've seen these before and always thought the handle part looked stupid. How does the stock handle and feel?

No, any encroachment on the natural rights of citizens is of the utmost importance, if you disagree, that's fine, step aside and enjoy the rest of your day, awash in the warming glow of your benevolent leaders. This isn't some conspiracy theory Alex Jones cooked up on info wars, this is what we are being told directly from leftist leadership. Fuck them and fuck any coward that agrees with them. It's not just grandstanding, it's testing the water.

I think it's more an appeal to the spirit of the birth of US of America, because fireworks, bald eagles, and sexy women.

Yeah unfortunately there are a ton of either patently false, or misrepresented founders quotes all over the internet. Which is odd because there are plenty of actual quotes to choose from.

I agree with you, but the climate to excuse such an action has never been more fervent in my lifetime. The very idea of executive orders was mocked a page back, so this is my flippant retort.

Executive orders?!?! Take off the tin foil hat, that's right wing fear-mongering! Wait a minute ... http://m.weeklystandard.com/blogs/biden-obama-might-use-executive-order-deal-guns_694984.html

I use to own an HK USP40C, and very much enjoyed it. Never so much as a hiccup at the range, great handling, and I've always like the aesthetics of the newer HKs. I got rid of all of my .40 pistols or else I'd still own it, and I plan on picking up a USP, or other HK 9mm at some point in the future.

Would a sharp knife pierce the material used? Never been in or even near a real one.

Again unfortunately we do not know what type of ban will be passed if any, so the what would I do or what wouldn't I, at this juncture seems like a pointless exercise. So you're saying if collectivism screws us hard enough, just wait it out till we get a turn to unscrew us? Also, abortion isn't in the bill of rights, so that isn't really analogous.

http://i.imgur.com/VeA01.jpg

It would be difficult to apply an identical version of the old AWB to personal disobedience, since that only affected the sale of new goods, and current owners were grandfathered in. I'm still completely opposed to being forced into only procuring pre-ban goods at government inflated prices.

Great, we agree . The left is now openly discussing a so-called assault weapons ban "with teeth", I believe the nomenclature goes. Non-expiring, forced registration of currently owned weapons, extra taxes (of course extra taxes), and while this may be the 'throw everything at the wall, see what sticks tactic' I am opposed to basically all of it.

The past tense was probably because, like you, my rage has subsided, although somewhat renewed with the NDAA. Whose perspective? The 94 ban lead to artificial price inflation, and pointless magazine round limits, that solved no problems, and made gun owners potential criminals for exercising a constitutional right. You may not feel that those issues are important, I do, that's my perspective. Since I believe that laws passed in violation of my rights are unjust, not obeying them leaves me consciously, and morally sound, regardless if collectivists, or legal positivists label me a felon. Do I actually see this coming? I doubt it, but the terms must be known. Why don't we come together and figure how to actually stop a crazed mass murderer, instead of punishing the innocent. Signs, and laws will not accomplish this.

So forgive me, but this feels ad hominem, or maybe I'm feeling too defensive. Apples and oranges though, besides condemning and speaking out against the sections regarding invasive surveillance, amongst other things, there is no tangible way to be disobedient unless targeted. In this case if laws pass to force registration, I simply will not. Pay fees to have a government approved stamp? Go to hell. I will not act in haste, I will not be on the offense. I don't condone violence, or force. I will just not listen to you. If attacked, I will defend myself.

Fuck teams, plenty of so called republicans have shown their true colors since Sandy Hook, quick to turn their backs for political points, and are supporting so-called "common sense" gun control. Myth of the law-abiding gun owner? Being law does not make something right, being elected doesn't give one power to steal my rights, and that's beside the point that any law passed in direct violation of the constitution is automatically null. I hated Bush for The Patriot Act, and took flak for being un-american, or weak on terrorism from the right. That was bullshit then, this is bullshit now.

I'm of Asian descent, good at math (why is one + and the other - though), and an atheist. First, separate religion from the Constitution in your mind, our founders certainly did. Second please provide a better charter that outlines the rights of the individual that be must recognized, and the powers of the government, and why they should or should not have them.

I am 100% for civil disobedience on a large scale regarding matters of the constitution.

Good point, noted, but in that situation you'd think empty shell casings would help you prove you were being shot at, if you could find them. Let's pass a law that says all criminals must use revolvers so there's no chance of losing evidence.

He does come off poorly, but he makes some good points, and some not so good. The interview was a setup from the get go, and he did relatively well not falling into the obvious trap questions, but then fell for the most obvious one, the 9/11 truther bits, which has nothing to do with guns, and should have been as artfully dodged as possible. There were rebuttals available that he could have used, without getting all worked up, and feeding into the lunatic stereotype, but he was too eager to really stay focused.