JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Democrats have a very serious problem with hypocrisy.
Actually, they don't. Marxocrats have no compunction whatsoever with saying one thing and doing another. Why should they? They full-well know that the Evil Left Media will never, ever call them on it-- because the Evil Left Media fully supports the destruction of Freedom in America. Todays (alleged) journalists are taught in leftist journalism schools by Communist and socialist professors who hold a deep, vitriolic hatred for Individual Liberty.

The propagation of Leftism relies on lies, fear, ignorance and coercion. Look at many of the laws that have been promulgated since the massive Tyranny-crat takeover of Congress after Nixon resigned in August of 1974. We see Lenin's agenda as starkly as we'd see a yellow school bus parked against a white wall: The power of government has increased while the Freedom of Americans has certainly decreased. What we have in the United States today is certainly not for what The Founders and The Framers pledged their lives, fortunes and sacred honor...
 
Last Edited:
It is interesting the article's author states under DJT's tenure was bad for firearm sales, yet NICS stats show sales for the first three months of this year are larger than last year for the same period.
NICS Firearm Checks: Month/Year
This Columnist from the AZ republic has received numerous letters from me pointing out the out right lies she gets printed, but to no avail. The age of journalism is gone now. Research and fact checking are a thing of the past. Journalists have gone from reporting to advocacy. As far as the misstatement about gun sales, I would have expected a slump after the buying public saw HRC get defeated, but an increase is surprising. I hope there is a huge backlash come elections time this fall, I hope the 100+ million gun owners in this country let their voices be heard.
 
New York Mayor Bill De Blasio: Get Rid of the NRA by Voting Out Republican Lawmakers | Urged the city's pension funds on Friday to divest their holdings in stocks of gun manufacturers.
Also Bill De Blasio: Taxpayers Doling Out Millions to Fund de Blasio's 'Special Assistants' New York Mayor
Bill De Blasio's Assitant: Reagan Stevens, a deputy director in the Mayor's Office of Criminal Justice, was arrested for illegal weapons possession after cops founds a loaded, 9mm semi-automatic pistol with its serial number defaced.
https://nypost.com/2018/04/08/direc...f-criminal-justice-busted-for-gun-possession/
More examples of the left trying to stifle the conservative voices by what ever means necessary. So the elite will be the only ones armed and we are all left defenseless, the hypocrisy is palpable. While we are focused on 2A rights they are busy denying our 1A rights.
 
Sorry, your kind attention is directed to a small skirmish:
"The Whiskey Rebellion happened in 1794—when settlers in the Monongahela Valley of western Pennsylvania protested against the new federal tax on whiskey, which the settlers shipped across the mountains to earn money. It was the first serious test of the federal government. Washington ordered federal marshals to serve court orders requiring the tax protesters to appear in federal district court. By August 1794, the protests became dangerously close to outright rebellion, and on August 7, several thousand armed settlers gathered near Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Washington then invoked the Militia Law of 1792 to summon the militias of several states. A force of 13,000 men was organized, and Washington personally led it to Western Pennsylvania. The revolt immediately collapsed, and there was no violence."

This is what Washington was alluding to!

The militias were men who were not professional soldiers, but ordinary citizens, who bore their own weapons and reported for duty when called. The EXACT same thing happened in the revolution. The call went out in the colonies for men WITH THEIR OWN ARMS to assemble, train, and work together to protect their homes and families from the British invading armies. Afterward they returned to their lives with THEIR OWN WEAPONS. There was no UNION to defend at the time of the revolution. They were independent colonies with independent governing bodies that the British tried to destroy.

Just because Washington used the militia to put down the whiskey rebellion does not change the fact that it was individuals who had their own arms, not government issued muskets.

And as long as we are on the subject, Washington didn't write a single line of the Bill of Rights, nor was he the only founder with an opinion on the right to bear arms.

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

I could go on and on, but somehow I think the point will be lost upon you. So let me finish with this. The 2008 Supreme Court Heller decision ruled that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, not connected to service in any militia.
 
thank you for the cite Rob, and kudos, didn't see Mad move his fingers to make the cite appear under your name but are you sure that was the cite he was referring to?

but again the partial out of contextual statement and include the information after the word in the ruling: "AND to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."
or
" Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited..."
 
@nmwabbit I never stated that any right was unlimited on this site. I will state for the record here, the right to life is unalienable, as affirmed in the Declaration of Independence. It follows logically, that we all have the right to defend that life from anyone that would unjustly try to take it from us, including the government. The 2nd Amendment guarantees us the tools necessary to secure those rights.

A traditionally lawful use for a firearm would be to defend myself from a criminal attack, and it need not be in the home, thus the keep and BEAR arms being the relevant portion of the Amendment.
 
@nmwabbit I never stated that any right was unlimited on this site. I will state for the record here, the right to life is unalienable, as affirmed in the Declaration of Independence. It follows logically, that we all have the right to defend that life from anyone that would unjustly try to take it from us, including the government. The 2nd Amendment guarantees us the tools necessary to secure those rights.

A traditionally lawful use for a firearm would be to defend myself from a criminal attack, and it need not be in the home, thus the keep and BEAR arms being the relevant portion of the Amendment.

No, you actually did when you cited heller!

And as washington did when he mustered the militia, thus quashing the citizens sedition in PA over the taxes.
 
Last Edited:
@nmwabbit "No, you actually did when you cited heller!"

Uh, no. "The 2008 Supreme Court Heller decision ruled that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, not connected to service in any militia." How do you make the leap of logic from my statement, to citing Heller is a claim a right is unlimited? Heller does not apply to non-citizens, as we cannot guarantee ANY rights to citizens of Canada living in Newfoundland, for example. That seems like a limitation to me.
 
@nmwabbit "No, you actually did when you cited heller!"

Uh, no. "The 2008 Supreme Court Heller decision ruled that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, not connected to service in any militia." How do you make the leap of logic from my statement, to citing Heller is a claim a right is unlimited? Heller does not apply to non-citizens, as we cannot guarantee ANY rights to citizens of Canada living in Newfoundland, for example. That seems like a limitation to me.

Held

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia,
and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.

3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment .

Sorry, when you cite the court's decision, you can't cherrypick those decisions from the judgement which you believe are applicable.

For example, in Terry LEs at times seem to cherrypick and miss the court's commentary of their search of someone is limited to the outermost garment and is limited to anything which affects the LEs and nearby citizens safety.

The LEs also seem to forget, as do citizen's affected by Terry, seem unaware of the court's decision, while LEs can address questions to citizens, citizens, barring special circumstances, can legally refuse to cooperate and walk away from LEs without being detained or frisked!

(Please note the time for citizens discussion of the applicability of points constitutional/Federal/State law is not on the side of a rural road in the middle of the night with a cranky LE! These discusstions are best left to lawyers in courtrooms)

In for a penny in for a pound.
 
It is interesting the article's author states under DJT's tenure was bad for firearm sales, yet NICS stats show sales for the first three months of this year are larger than last year for the same period.
NICS Firearm Checks: Month/Year
I'm sure I'm preaching to the choir here but my impression of why the drop off of gun sales is in response to the election of our current POTUS.
Historically, when an rabidly anti-gun candidate announces their run for office, and as their gang gathers momentum, fears of reprisals against the pro-gun ownership and potential ban on certain firearms increase, pro-gun folks go out in droves and buy up guns that are being targeted for exitnction, ergo the rise in sales out of fear they may lose the opportunity to own said guns and, hopefully, those guns will be grandfathered in, even if new guns are made prohibited.
But assuming the pro-gun candidate wins, buyers feel secure, or less threatened, and sales slough off.
Whether or not this presumption can be shown as valid, my observations and discussions with other gun owners seem to bear this comparison out.
Thoughts?
 
I think that's pretty close to reality. I remember standing in lines to check out at Cabelas right before the election - and the shelves were about bare. Now that there has been a lowered risk of a Communist getting into the Oval Office - there are no lines.

I continue to stock up as budget allows, because pricing has nowhere to go but up as the freedom hating anti-gunners make more and more noise with the media's help.
 
Held

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia,
and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.

3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment .

Sorry, when you cite the court's decision, you can't cherrypick those decisions from the judgement which you believe are applicable.

For example, in Terry LEs at times seem to cherrypick and miss the court's commentary of their search of someone is limited to the outermost garment and is limited to anything which affects the LEs and nearby citizens safety.

The LEs also seem to forget, as do citizen's affected by Terry, seem unaware of the court's decision, while LEs can address questions to citizens, citizens, barring special circumstances, can legally refuse to cooperate and walk away from LEs without being detained or frisked!

(Please note the time for citizens discussion of the applicability of points constitutional/Federal/State law is not on the side of a rural road in the middle of the night with a cranky LE! These discusstions are best left to lawyers in courtrooms)

In for a penny in for a pound.

You just made my case for me. 1) I did NOT claim your rights are unlimited. 2) Heller states that right is NOT unlimited. 3) Me citing the Heller decision does NOT equate to a claim the right is unlimited.

There is nothing in anything I wrote here that states or implies that your rights are unlimited.
 
You just made my case for me. 1) I did NOT claim your rights are unlimited. 2) Heller states that right is NOT unlimited. 3) Me citing the Heller decision does NOT equate to a claim the right is unlimited.

There is nothing in anything I wrote here that states or implies that your rights are unlimited.

Again I sorry the concept(s) I espoused escaped you, but remember to enjoy life!
 
It's not about concepts, it's about facts. I have never posted anything in this thread, or on this site for that matter, claiming any right was unlimited. Heller does not make that claim, it's the opposite in fact. So me citing Heller is not some vague conceptual claim about an unlimited right, no matter how much you want to twist yourself into a verbal pretzel trying to make a connection.
 
It's not about concepts, it's about facts. I have never posted anything in this thread, or on this site for that matter, claiming any right was unlimited. Heller does not make that claim, it's the opposite in fact. So me citing Heller is not some vague conceptual claim about an unlimited right, no matter how much you want to twist yourself into a verbal pretzel trying to make a connection.

Rob, please take a breath and look at the my post which states:
Held
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment.

then, review this site: DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

you will see:
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER

certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit
No. 07–290. Argued March 18, 2008—Decided June 26, 2008

now please go look at the document under the word Held, look down the page at paragraph "2" you will see the words:

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.

so you were saying Rob, HELLER doesn't make that claim?
 
Rob, please take a breath and look at the my post which states:
Held
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment.

then, review this site: DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

you will see:
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER

certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit
No. 07–290. Argued March 18, 2008—Decided June 26, 2008

now please go look at the document under the word Held, look down the page at paragraph "2" you will see the words:

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.

so you were saying Rob, HELLER doesn't make that claim?

You have a reading comprehension problem. LIMITED=NOT UNLIMITED. Those terms are interchangeable. Heller states " the Second amendment is NOT UN LIMITED." Which is to say that there ARE limitations to the right. Thus, me referring to Heller does NOT equate to me saying the 2nd IS unlimited. Just the OPPOSITE. It equates to me saying it is NOT UN LIMITED. It has limits, and I even gave an example. "Heller does not apply to non-citizens, as we cannot guarantee ANY rights to citizens of Canada living in Newfoundland, for example. That seems like a limitation to me."
 

Upcoming Events

Crossroads of the West Gun Show
Las Vegas, NV

New Resource Reviews

Back Top