LEFT WING LOONS
See other LEFT WING LOONS Articles
Title: Condoleezza Rice says US needs to consider Second Amendment's place in 'modern world'
Source:
Fox News
URL Source: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201 ... nts-place-in-modern-world.html
Published: Feb 25, 2018
Author: Amy Lieu
Post Date: 2018-02-25 07:27:02 by IbJensen
Keywords: None
Views: 7829
Comments: 144
This month's massacre in Parkland, Fla., seems like a key moment in the nation's ongoing debate about the Second Amendment, former U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said during a radio interview Friday. “I think it is time to have a conversation about what the right to bear arms means in the modern world,” Rice told radio host Hugh Hewitt on Friday. “I don’t understand why civilians need to have access to military weapons. We wouldn’t say you can go out and buy a tank.” More specifically, Rice said weapons like the AR-15 rifle that authorities say shooting suspect Nikolas Cruz, 19, used to kill 17 students and teachers Feb. 14, shouldn't be available to civilians, the Washington Times reported. NIKOLAS CRUZ CHARGED IN FLORIDA SCHOOL SHOOTING But Rice, who served under President George W. Bush, made clear that she remains a believer in the Second Amendment. “We can’t throw away the Second Amendment and keep the First,” she said, adding that she considers the first two amendments to the Constitution to be “indivisible.” “We can’t throw away the Second Amendment and keep the First.” - Condoleezza Rice, former U.S. secretary of state Hewitt then asked if Rice -- being an educator herself as a political science professor at Stanford University -- supports the idea of teachers carrying guns as a deterrent to potential campus shootings. Rice said she doesn’t think that is “going to be the answer,” the Washington Times reported. “I don’t really like the idea, frankly, of a gun in my classroom,” she said. Rather, she supports looking to law enforcement and guards as ways for protection. Rice, 63, was exposed to senseless violence at an early age, having grown up in Birmingham, Ala., where the bombing of the 16th Street Baptist Church in 1963 resulted in the deaths of four young girls. She has written and spoken frequently about the impression the horrific event made on her. She told Hewitt that despite her reservations about weapons in the classroom, the proposal merited a serious discussion. (Watch video at link) Poster Comment: “Modern world” Same modern world pissing away their freedom left and right? No thanks Bush Globalist Harpy. The Second Amendment is to provide protection against a hungry, immense, evil and bankrupt government!
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-13) not displayed.
.
.
.
#14. To: A K A Stone (#11)
If it were the case that citizens could take up arms and go to war against the government, then we wouldn't have also included treason in the United States Constitution. We basically said if you take arms up against the government, we're going to knock your block off. And that's what the early presidents ended up doing in Shays' Rebellion Shays' Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion. The Second Amendment is not designed to allow the citizenry to arm itself against the government and anyone who argues that it does really has no understanding the true nature of that amendment. And as far as “gun control”….it is a fact, the Founders engaged in large-scale disarmament of the civilian population. The right to bear arms was conditional on swearing a loyalty oath to the government. Individuals who refused to swear such an oath were disarmed. “What was good for the goose is good for the gander?” Oh, NO! Since you disagreed with my statement, then show me any legal authority for citizens to take up arms against the government.
Seditious conspiracy - Advocating overthrow of Government -
Name calling is for a juvenile. Pay attention and stop twisting peoples' words. Stone did no such thing as "name calling"; He stated you "sound like" Bernie Sanders or Hillary. The Second Amendment is not designed to allow the citizenry to arm itself against the government and anyone who argues that it does really has no understanding the true nature of that amendment. The 2A IS designed to allow the citizenry to defend itself from individual as well as organized TYRANNY. Q: Do you feel it is "impossible" for this government to engage in tyranny?? A simple YES or NO answer will suffice.
No one disagrees with that statement. However - the Second Amendment exists precisely in the case that government "goes rogue" and becomes a dictatorship. I'm sure even you would agree with that, right? The Second Amendment is not designed to allow the citizenry to arm itself against the government... Once again - you're wrong. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Absolutely. AMEN! I'm sure even you would agree with that, right? *waiting for Gatlin's answer*....
The Second Amendment does not advocate overthrowing the government unless the government descends into outright tyranny. Rogue governments are rife throughout history. CONSENSUS: The American Founders agreed on the above mechanism that repels the tyranny of a rogue gubmint and re-secures the Rights endowed BY OUR CREATOR in a worst case scenario. Here is the other stark point that cannot be denied: In other words, the "government" IS created BY The People, FOR The People as OUR representatives. Are they not expected to uphold the US Constitution AND oath, Gatlin?
I can't imagine why you'd prefer beheading by a Muslim, to getting shot? Why do you want to give the muzzies a loophole, are you one of those ROP bushbots? You think you have the power to rewrite the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution? Check it out: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Stop trying to create a red herring. NOT flying. Still awaiting your answer to addressing Deckard's declaration by the Founders AS WELL AS the answer to several key questions... Tick... tick....
When the government descends into tyranny, we are no longer a free state. Are you claiming that when that happens, Americans do not have the right and the DUTY to defend themselves against an un-constitutional and rogue government? How about when U.N. troops join with American military forces and local cops to confiscate all guns - you gonna just bend over? The answer is: Yes. And if individuals in the government do no uphold the US Constitution and their oath of office, then the US Constitution spells out ways they will be removed and replaced. But nowhere in the Constitution can I find provisions to allow an armed insurrection by an insurgent citizenry force to rise up in armed rebellion against the government if government officials fail to carry out their duties. Can you? The discussion here is that the Second Amendment does not allow citizens to take up arms against the government. If there is ever, ever, a time when the vast majority of Americans feel it is absolutely necessary for armed rebellion to take control of the government…then they are not going to give a fuck about what the Second Amendment does or does not authorize.
That is very true I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
Think of all the machinists and gunsmiths in this country who have the knowledge and machine tools to produce, in short order, highly reliable shear kits for a wide variety of weapons. And about 0% of those gunsmiths would be on the lib side. That's before you even start in on people with skills using modern CNC milling machines and 3d printing and what they could do. If Civil War II ever comes, there won't be any lack of unofficial full-auto weapons. But no one would be handing out the truckloads of ammo to every asshole who had full-auto. They'd tell them, like they do in any modern military, to practice firing in single-shot and 2-round bursts or 3-round bursts. Spray-n-pray is not encouraged by any modern military.
By your standard, every revolution and civil war in history is illegal. It's just a silly argument. I don't understand why you don't see that.
“If” that happens, then we have no un-constitutional or rogue government....we have NO government at all because the US Constitution will no longer be in effect or have any power whatsoever. There will be no law and every person will have to provide for their own defense when it is necessary to do so.
Bosh. Adams wrote in March, 1776 prior to the Declaration. Obviously, Adams was advocating the disarming of "notorious" militant Tories who intended to aid the Tory cause and fight against American independence. In the era of the Founders and early republic, the colonies/states/feds had a lot more trouble from forcing colonists to buy weapons (swords at minimum, muskets by custom) than in seizing weapons from Tories. Of course, the most militant Tories abandoned the colonies and mostly fled to Toronto early on so they didn't cause much problem in practice.
I am not discussing every revolution and civil war in history. I am saying that the Second Amendment does not give Americans the right to take up arms agains the government. I don't understand why you don't see that.
So, you do admit there “obviously” was gun confiscation by the “government.” That was my point.
Stick... stick... I do WHAT I want to and I do it WHEN I want to do it. You are dismissed.. I will ping you when I have something to say to you.
I don't understand why you don't see that. And I am saying that no sovereign government in history has ever granted a right to armed rebellion. So you are mostly bleating a truism, not making some profound point as you seem to imagine. It's the first law, unwritten, of any government that they will enforce their laws and the recognized lawful regime with force of arms against any and all citizens who rebel (or merely refuse to obey the laws when the police/army insist). Any ruling entity who did not do that is not a sovereign government because the first business of government is always to enforce its laws and protect itself from external and internal threats via its armed forces and police.
Adams recommended it to the various pre-Revolutionary committees in the various colonies. You haven't provided any information on just how many weapons were seized during this period of rising Revolutionary sentiment. And it was practical revolutionary policy. The rebel colonists did not want their Tory-sympathizing fellow-colonists shooting them in the back while the rebel colonists were busy shooting Redcoats in the back from cover in the local woods. You may recall how bitterly the British complained over the cowardly colonists shooting at them from concealment. BTW, it was illegal for the Founders to rebel against their lawful monarch, nutty George III, or the authority of the English parliament. The English would have hung the lot of them if they could have laid their hands on the Founders.
That is really a silly question to ask…but I will still answer it anyway. Thanks for answering the bell, but no, it is NOT a "silly question" to ask given your silly assertions, which are LIGHT YEARS off the mark o the actual issue. If individuals in the government do no uphold the US Constitution and their oath of office, then the US Constitution spells out ways they will be removed and replaced. ALREADY happened. NOT the case. There has been NO constitutional enforcement of those who've BLATANTLY and often routinely violated their oaths while in office. Next... Nowhere in the Constitution can I find provisions to allow an armed insurrection by an insurgent citizenry force to rise up in armed rebellion against the government if government officials fail to carry out their duties. Can you? No I can't. Simply because NO ONE has made anywhere NEAR your breathless hyperbolic assertion. Moreover, gubmint officials have been and are currently ACTIVELY failing to "carry out their [constitutional] duties." CASE AND POINT: California's State gubmint and judiciary both in the past and actively are ignoring and violating feral law on the issue of preventing ICE officials from carrying out THEIR constitutional duties and oath of office in removing Illegal Invaders. Then there are countless cities and towns across America establishing what are illegal "Sanctuary Cities." President Trump's federal enforcement of the US Constitution are being ignored by Democrats all levels of state and local government over the country. WITH IMPUNITY. Any so-called "rebellion" against this government has been openly declared by high standing members of the Democrat Party. You may have heard of it; They call themselves "The Resistance." It has been exposed to have found its way into the bowels of the Deep State and DNC via active saboteurs. NOW WHAT TO DO, Commander Gatlin?? The discussion here is that the Second Amendment does not allow citizens to take up arms against the government. Once again you've got it wrong and created a strawman. The discussion here is over-lapping. But mostly about the clear intent of the Founders (as Deckard quotes from the Founders) with respect to the Rights of the citizenry to repel a rogue governance and tyranny via the Second Amendment. The American Founders agreed on a mechanism -- guaranteed by 2A rights -- that repels tyranny facilitated by a rogue gubmint that re-secures citizenry rights as well as liberty and freedom endowed BY OUR CREATOR in a worst case scenario. DO YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH THE FOUNDERS? Or do you dismiss the notion of a "rogue, tyrannical government" as even possible? If there is ever, ever, a time when the vast majority of Americans feel it is absolutely necessary for armed rebellion to take control of the government…then they are not going to give a fuck about what the Second Amendment does or does not authorize. On this point we agree. ALTHOUGH the "vast majority of Americans" are never going to agree to an "armed rebellion" or ANY crusade, so the point is moot, thus we circle back to THE original question and issue of the intent and meaning AND rights as written in the Founders' 2A.
Yup. Gatlin would have been a Redcoat in 1775. He's taken a disturbing position that ALL and any gubmint can do as they please without answering to anyone. And damn The Citizenry. The Commander appears to be advocating Totalitarianism in the democratic Republic of the United States of America. It's just a silly argument. I don't understand why you don't see that. He can't see it because he doesn't want to see it. OR just plain agrees with the USA transforming in a Totalitarian gubmint. Just like all the "good Germans" in 1940 or Stalinists.
Great, legit questions... He's a goose-stepping Totalitarian Statist. Anti-Constitution. At least it's on record. No further use in engaging.
You've come up empty, Commander. Ping me when you've become an actual American patriot.
I found it quite interesting that Thomas Jefferson wrote into his 1775 draft of the Virginia Constitution, “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." Then after giving it some thought, he added,“within his own lands or tenements.” It looks like old TJ gave some very serious consideration that there were to be some limitations on the individual’s right to gun ownership.
You do know that the Bill of Rights (which includes the Second Amendment) was not ratified until 1791, don't you Parsons? Having been approved by the requisite three-fourths of the several states, there being 14 States in the Union at the time (as Vermont had been admitted into the Union on March 4, 1791),the ratification of Articles Three through Twelve was completed and they became Amendments 1 through 10 of the Constitution. President Washington informed Congress of this on December 30, 1791 That's why I amass primers, brass and projectiles. (Don't tell Ba Ba Ba Bucky) I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
Naw, just a Tory. Perhaps planning to relocate to that vile den of slavish monarchists, Toronto. LOL I guess Gatlin hasn't told us yet if he would have been a rebel or a Tory during the Revolutionary War. It is a concrete example of whether man possesses an innate right to overthrow the lawful established government. So, Gatlin, would you have been a rebel American or a royalist Tory during the American Revolution?
I wonder how many people with the required gunsmithing skills and machine tools are out there. Has to be at least a half-million, perhaps more. And modern computerized tools could produce millions of shere kits in very short order. Like in a few days. You'd only need a few guys in a high-end manufacturing facility or at one of dozens of gun/accessory manufacturers. Not that I've ever thought about it much. I'd better stop before you feel the sudden urge to scope out your lines of sight from the rooftop. ; )
It looks like old TJ gave some very serious consideration that there were to be some limitations on the individual’s right to gun ownership. NEWSFLASH: And all that matter is the US Constitution AND ITS CLEAR INTENT. Thomas Jefferson was one of MANY participants and contributors of the US Constitution. But like most rabid Progs and Statists, you seem to believe Jefferson was the only Founder.
Heh... But before busting that move to Canada (or back onto King Georges lap), I'd assume he might have stuck around just long enough to become a Tory informant....then bolted when he felt the heat.
Nice counter...
I never denied that hotbeds of Tory royalists were not disarmed. No more than I would deny that the first actions of the Revolution involved the Redcoats marching by night to try to seize the weapons at rebel armories, for which they paid dearly. But how many were disarmed in these Tory hotbeds? These accounts don't tell us. Was it a handful? Dozens? Hundreds? It does make a difference in how much weight we should assign to this. Keep in mind that espionage is known to have exercised considerable, if not decisive, influence in the outcome of the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, WW I, WW II, etc. So our intrepid rebel colonial Founders would naturally act against traitors, traitors like Benedict Arnold, the West Point commander and American traitor. Benedict Arnold was a traitor. Should he have remained armed?
I would think there's enough weapons circulated that it wouldn't be worth the risk of concealing something as big as a workshop and machinery capable of making a firearm. I'd think bombs and explosives would be the hot item for underground manufacturing. Nothing would be safe tho. People on your side of the fight would rob your weapons if given the chance. I'd most likely be a rogue combatant... protecting just my own family and killing the parts of my family that endanger my agenda or are dead weight. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
Benedict Arnold was a traitor. Should he have remained armed? Well played. I anticipate an interesting answer (if at all.) If the Commander wants to engage in Red Herrings, I'm betting on you. ;-)
You really should edit that comment. Not everything has to be shared.
On which "side" would that be? Has that been defined? I'm pretty sure everyone here would batten down the hatches and protect their own in such a case.
The American side! Isn't it kind of silly to discuss the idea of the Right engaging the Left in America with their existing home arsenals? The Left would show up with a few million marginal guns. The Right would show up with 400 million guns and tens of millions of people who know how to use them. The only plausible civil war scenario in America is government doing some massive gun confiscation scheme as part of a general hard-Left takeover. Like if someone like Bernie Sanders but more extreme became prez with a 60-vote Dem Senate and a House majority. But not Sanders himself. He'd know better, even though he knows very little in general.
Comments (55 - 144) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest You sound like Bernie Sanders or Hillary.
Name calling is for a juvenile. I am expressing my OWN conclusion. I do not believe the Second Amendment gives Americans the right to take up arms against the government and overthrow it. The idea that the Second Amendment was put in there in order to allow citizens to fight their government is insane.
#15. To: Deckard (#13)
If two or more persons … in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, … they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both. 18 U.S.C. §2384.
Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State … by force or violence, * * * Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both…. 18 U.S.C. §2385.
#16. To: Gatlin, A K A Stone, Deckard (#14)
(Edited)
You sound like Bernie Sanders or Hillary.
#17. To: Gatlin (#14)
I do not believe the Second Amendment gives Americans the right to take up arms against the government and overthrow it
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.
#18. To: Deckard, A K A Stone (#17)
No one disagrees with that statement. However - the Second Amendment exists precisely in the case that government "goes rogue" and becomes a dictatorship.
#19. To: Gatlin (#15)
Advocating overthrow of Government
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.
#20. To: Deckard, A K A Stone, Gatlin (#17)
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."
#21. To: IbJensen, Religion Of Peace loophole (#6)
Enforce the laws on the books and add only one other: In the case of murder with a gun the perp is to be executed within 24 hours and the hell with injections, hang the bastard.
#22. To: Deckard (#19)
My God, is there no limit to you insaneness? The Second Amendment does not advocate overthrowing the government unless the government descends into outright tyranny.
The Second Amendment does NOT state that. RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS
You really should try to get a grip on your bizarre fantasies....Your Majesty.
Passed by Congress September 25, 1789. Ratified December 15, 1791. The first 10 amendments form the Bill of Rights
#23. To: Gatlin, Deckard (#22)
#24. To: Gatlin (#22)
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.
#25. To: Liberator (#20)
Are they not expected to uphold the US Constitution AND oath, Gatlin?
Are they not expected to uphold the US Constitution AND oath, Gatlin?
That is really a silly question to ask…but I will still answer it anyway.
#26. To: Gatlin (#25)
If there is ever, ever, a time when the vast majority of Americans feel it is absolutely necessary for armed rebellion to take control of the government…then they are not going to give a fuck about what the Second Amendment does or does not authorize.
#27. To: GrandIsland, Gatlin, sneakypete (#26)
If there is ever, ever, a time when the vast majority of Americans feel it is absolutely necessary for armed rebellion to take control of the government…then they are not going to give a fuck about what the Second Amendment does or does not authorize.
#28. To: Gatlin (#25)
But nowhere in the Constitution can I find provisions to allow an armed insurrection by an insurgent citizenry force to rise up in armed rebellion against the government if government officials fail to carry out their duties.
#29. To: Deckard (#24)
When the government descends into tyranny, we are no longer a free state.
“If” that ever happens, we are no longer a country....we are a “Somolia” any anything goes. Are you claiming that when that happens, Americans do not have the right and the DUTY to defend themselves against an un-constitutional and rogue government?
It is odd that you use the word “when” and I use the word “if.” How about when U.N. troops join with American military forces and local cops to confiscate all guns -
That is a post hoc fallacy. You are assuming with no supportive evidence that one will happen and that causes the other to happen. This is a unworthy debate tactic and I will not waste my time to straighten you out. .- you gonna just bend over?
I am not “that” way so I have never done that....and I have no interest to learn from you how much pleasure you get from it.
#30. To: Gatlin (#14)
And as far as “gun control”….it is a fact, the Founders engaged in large-scale disarmament of the civilian population. The right to bear arms was conditional on swearing a loyalty oath to the government. Individuals who refused to swear such an oath were disarmed.
Resolved That it be recommended to the several Assemblies, Conventions and Committees or Councils of Safety, of the United Colonies, immediately to cause all Persons to be disarmed, within their respective Colonies, who are notoriously disaffected to the cause of America, or who have not associated, and shall refuse to associate to defend by Arms these united Colonies, against the hostile Attempts of the British Fleets and Armies, and to apply the Arms taken from such Persons in each respective Colony, in the first place, to the Arming the continental Troops raised in said Colony, in the next, to the arming such Troops as are raised by the Colony for its own defence, and the Residue to be applied to the arming the Associators; that the Arms when taken be appraised by indifferent Persons, and such as are applied to the Arming the Continental Troops, be paid for by the Congress and the Residue by the respective Assemblies, Conventions, or Councils or Committees of Safety.
#31. To: Tooconservative (#28)
(Edited)
By your standard, every revolution and civil war in history is illegal.
#32. To: Tooconservative (#30)
Obviously, Adams was advocating the disarming of "notorious" militant Tories who intended to aid the Tory cause and fight against American independence.
#33. To: Liberator (#23)
Tick... tick....
#34. To: Gatlin (#31)
I am saying that the Second Amendment does not give Americans the right to take up arms agains the government.
#35. To: Gatlin (#32)
(Edited)
So, you do admit there “obviously” was gun confiscation by the “government.”
#36. To: Gatlin, Deckard (#25)
Are they not expected to uphold the US Constitution AND oath, Gatlin?
#37. To: Tooconservative, Gatlin (#28)
By your standard, every revolution and civil war in history is illegal.
#38. To: Tooconservative (#35)
George Washington’s first action of 1776 was a campaign to confiscate the private arms of the citizens in Queens Co., New York. The impoundments occurred without trial, though the Army did provide receipts, which were redeemable for (nearly worthless) Continental currency. Meanwhile, local militias in New Jersey confiscated arms and livestock from people living along the Jersey shoreline. In one county, the militia was called out specifically to confiscate guns from African-Americans, both free and slave. These were not actions taken against a handful of traitors, but large actions against neighborhoods of people. Guns were confiscated from individuals without due process. Firearms were treated similarly to other kinds of private property impounded for the war effort. In a region under British invasion, the need to win a war trumped individual property rights—including the right to own a gun. 1
#39. To: Deckard (#24)
#40. To: Gatlin (#33)
#41. To: All (#38)
#42. To: Gatlin (#38)
George Washington’s first action of 1776 was a campaign to confiscate the private arms of the citizens in Queens Co., New York.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.
#43. To: Tooconservative (#27)
If Civil War II ever comes, there won't be any lack of unofficial full-auto weapons. But no one would be handing out the truckloads of ammo to every asshole who had full-auto.
#44. To: Liberator, Gatlin (#37)
Yup. Gatlin would have been a Redcoat in 1775.
#45. To: GrandIsland (#43)
That's why I amass primers, brass and projectiles. (Don't tell Ba Ba Ba Bucky)
#46. To: Gatlin (#41)
I found it quite interesting that Thomas Jefferson wrote into his 1775 draft of the Virginia Constitution...
#47. To: Tooconservative (#44)
Naw, just a Tory. Perhaps planning to relocate to that vile den of slavish monarchists, Toronto. LOL
#48. To: Deckard (#42)
You do know that the Bill of Rights (which includes the Second Amendment) was not ratified until 1791, don't you Parsons?
#49. To: Gatlin, Liberator (#38)
George Washington’s first action of 1776 was a campaign to confiscate the private arms of the citizens in Queens Co., New York.
#50. To: Tooconservative (#45)
#51. To: Tooconservative, Gatlin (#49)
So our intrepid rebel colonial Founders would naturally act against traitors, traitors like Benedict Arnold, the West Point commander and American traitor.
#52. To: GrandIsland (#50)
#53. To: GrandIsland, Tooconservative (#50)
(Edited)
People on your side of the fight would rob your weapons if given the chance. I'd most likely be a rogue combatant... protecting just my own family and killing the parts of my family that endanger my agenda or are dead weight.
#54. To: Liberator (#53)
On which "side" would that be? Has that been defined?
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]