All of that attached sheet of shit vs. “Shall NOT be infringed” (MUTHA FUKA or we will SHOOT your asses on a bridge)…. Yeah, I’m ready to just get this Revolution 2.0 underway…..

I think I know which side has the best “shot” (heard around the world (again)) of winning…..

Well...in these days and times when everyone is trying their best to rid us of that *pesky* 2nd Amendment...I like to every now-and-then see someone try to defend it. A/G Jeff Landry tells J.P. Morgan that if they try to restrict the 2nd Amendment, his state won't do business with them. It's a small fight, but it's a fight in the right direction.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...s-restrict-2a/

Good to see. Many such companies haven't changed their globalist practices and continue Operation CHOKE POINT voluntarily. It's still Obama 3.0. Everytime a little Mom & Pop FFL has to shut down because they can't get a payment processor to work with them Susan Rice and Samantha Power smile. They need to be humbled instead, or redacted.

These women have been spouting liberal talking points for decades.
You can see them struggling with their cognitive dissonance.

There may be hope if people this far left start to “get it”.
The desire to protect yourself and your offspring supersedes loyalty to a political party.

https://twitter.com/TheView/status/1...es-a-gun-owner

That appears to be the clinical definition of “cognitive dissidence”. To watch the second one talk about how having a gun in a home leads to the owners death is just pure B.S.

I think these are my favorite parts of this gem, but this is pure gold when you need to talk about the mental illness / psychological disorder that is the left (democrat / communist party).

Clown with red hair:
“I’m a big ‘gun control person’, back in the 60’s, the NRA fought along side the government for stricter gun regulations. Why? Because there was an effort to keep the guns out of the hands of Africa Americans as racial tensions grew”

Moron “prosecutor”:
“They wouldn’t even give Dr. King a concealed carry permit, the same man that was killed by gun violence”

You need an IQ lower than your shoe-size to not hear the blatant nonsensical ideas…..

Idiocracy
Narrator: As the 21st century began, human evolution was at a turning point. Natural selection, the process by which the strongest, the smartest, the fastest, reproduced in greater numbers than the rest, a process which had once favored the noblest traits of man, now began to favor different traits. Most science fiction of the day predicted a future that was more civilized and more intelligent. But as time went on, things seemed to be heading in the opposite direction. A dumbing down. How did this happen? Evolution does not necessarily reward intelligence. With no natural predators to thin the herd, it began to simply reward those who reproduced the most, and left the intelligent to become an endangered species.

Joe: For the last time, I'm pretty sure what's killing the crops is this Brawndo stuff.
Secretary of State: But Brawndo's got what plants crave. It's got electrolytes.
Attorney General: So wait a minute. What you're saying is that you want us to put water on the crops.
Joe: Yes.
Attorney General: Water. Like out the toilet?
Joe: Well, I mean, it doesn't have to be out of the toilet, but, yeah, that's the idea.
Secretary of State: But Brawndo's got what plants crave.
Attorney General: It's got electrolytes.
Joe: Okay, look. The plants aren't growing, so I'm pretty sure that the Brawndo's not working. Now, I'm no botanist, but I do know that if you put water on plants, they grow.
Secretary of Energy: Well, I've never seen no plants grow out of no toilet.
Secretary of State: Hey, that's good. You sure you ain't the smartest guy in the world?
Joe: Okay, look. You wanna solve this problem. I wanna get my pardon. So why don't we just try it, okay, and not worry about what plants crave?
Attorney General: Brawndo's got what plants crave.
Secretary of Energy: Yeah, it's got electrolytes.
Joe: What are electrolytes? Do you even know?
Secretary of State: It's what they use to make Brawndo.
Joe: Yeah, but why do they use them to make Brawndo?
Secretary of Defense: 'Cause Brawndo's got electrolytes.

I think we’ve reached this level of stupid even faster than Mike Judge predicted

Interesting subject. I was at the gun range yesterday with my shooting friend. He mentioned that he was at a recent gun show and that 80% of the gun buyers were black women.

He said he talked to a couple of them where one of the dealers was trying to get them to buy $900 pistols. He pointed to a much cheaper model and said they were just as reliable and easy to clean; said he owned one himself. My friend is the scourge of rip off dealers.:D

This is a big one.
Looks like it will be a win for gun rights, but the decision will still probably be narrow.

Many news articles are available.
Here’s one without much spin:

https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/11/m...narrow-ruling/

From the article:

Roberts made a related point in his questioning of Fletcher. He told Fletcher that, with other constitutional rights, the Constitution “gives you that right, and if someone’s going to take it away from you, they have to justify it.” Why, Roberts asked, should citizens need to prove that they are entitled to – or have a special need to – exercise their constitutional right to carry guns outside the home for self-defense?

Fletcher stood firm, telling Roberts that such an argument “assumes the conclusion.” The very question in the case, he said, is whether the Second Amendment guarantees the right to carry a handgun for self-defense without a demonstrated need to do so.

But Roberts was still skeptical. No matter what the right is, he responded, “it would be surprising to have it depend upon a permit system. You can say that the right is limited in a particular way, just as First Amendment right are limited, but the idea that you need a license to exercise the right, I think, is unusual in the context of the Bill of Rights.”

Robert's is a moron and needs to be impeached the first chance we get. The Constitution does not give rights in the Bill of Rights. The rights are acknowledged to exist by right of birth. Period.

Obviously his Clerk has not yet finished retrieving the stack of precedent with which to slap his boss upside the head.

Bye bye.

TR

Saw the beginnings of this story pop up weeks ago.
Looks like it has gained the attention of Congress.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-registry.html

Given how long it usually takes for Congress to get an answer from anyone in this administration I don't give them good odds. Plenty of cans will probably get out of approval jail before that happens.

I heard within the last 3 months that if you have in excess of "3" registered firearms you are already on an FIB list. The person that said that would be in a position to know. I would assume the FIB could grab that information during the background check process and/or credit card transactions.

Where is registration required? When I left CA they didn't even have "registration" yet. I haven't seen that they do now, either.

A register is used to record a transaction. Invoice Registers, Form 4473, Driver License, Social Security numbers are all forms of registering a identifier to a individual.

If a person is required to fill out a form to purchase a firearm and the serial number is input on the form that firearm is registered to the purchaser. Whether that serial number correlates to a person being in a vast database is up for debate.

When the gun shop calls the FBI for a background check on the purchaser its really unknown whether the FBI tracks of how many times a person has had a background check run for the purchase of a firearm.

If a person purchases over a certain amount of firearms within a certain time period they are flagged.

It's not unfathomable that purchases at gun shops via Visa, MC, AMEX, etc and even personal check could be reported. That's not much different than banks flagging transactions over $10,000 or getting your ass in a sling because you deposit just less than $10,000 to avoid the paper work.


Exclusive: Feds issue 4,000 orders to seize guns from people who failed background checks: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...cks/901017001/

The only way the Feds can issue 4,000 confiscation orders is if they know the individuals on the orders have guns. How would they know if a person who failed a background check owns firearms?