Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Marine Writes Letter to Sen. Dianne Feinstein: ‘I will not be disarmed’

Posted 1 year ago on Jan. 3, 2013, 8:04 p.m. EST by outlawtumor (-162)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

A letter written by an 8-year Marine veteran to U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein, the architect of the comprehensive 2013 Assault Weapons Ban, has gone viral.

The author of the letter, Cpl. Joshua Boston who was deployed to Afghanistan between 2004-05, told CNN that he opposes gun registration because it will lead to confiscation. Moreover, that passing more gun control laws will only serve to disarm law-abiding citizens, leaving them defenseless.

“I own the guns I own because I acknowledge mankind’s shortcomings instead of pretending like they don’t exist. There are evil men in this world and there just may be a time when I need to do the unthinkable to protect me or my family,” Boston said.

Here is the letter Boston wrote, courtesy of CNN’s iReport:

Senator Dianne Feinstein,

I will not register my weapons should this bill be passed, as I do not believe it is the government’s right to know what I own. Nor do I think it prudent to tell you what I own so that it may be taken from me by a group of people who enjoy armed protection yet decry me having the same a crime.

You ma’am have overstepped a line that is not your domain. I am a Marine Corps Veteran of 8 years, and I will not have some woman who proclaims the evil of an inanimate object, yet carries one, tell me I may not have one.

I am not your subject. I am the man who keeps you free. I am not your servant. I am the person whom you serve. I am not your peasant. I am the flesh and blood of America.

I am the man who fought for my country. I am the man who learned. I am an American. You will not tell me that I must register my semi-automatic AR-15 because of the actions of some evil man.

I will not be disarmed to suit the fear that has been established by the media and your misinformation campaign against the American public.

We, the people, deserve better than you.

Respectfully Submitted,

Joshua Boston

Cpl, United States Marine Corps

2004-2012

125 Comments

125 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 6 points by Ache4Change (3158) 1 year ago

What A Crock Of Shit! If any of you gun nuts had a pair - you'd have stood up against The Scumbag Bankers by now! Whereas instead you obsessively polish your weapons, slowly going blind - as the people who have already stolen our country laugh at you.

Wtf does Cpl. Boston need a AR15 for? Is his penis really so small? What's wrong with just having hunting rifles, shotguns and personal side arms? What does he want next? An RPG? A fkn Tank?!

'I am the man who fought for my country.' - WRONG! You were a highly armed slave who did the corporations bidding and are now addicted to your tool!

'I am the man who learned.' - WRONG! You and your brains were separated a long time ago!

'I am an American' - RIGHT - but very sadly http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XlqudTC--I :(

That Guns confer the illusion of power to some anxious, frightened, lonely and paranoid people (mainly men) is undeniable and such is the nature of 'gun opium', that the continued addiction is preferred to actually dealing with the real issues facing our country - which is just as TPTB desire things to be!

Give Up Your Addictions! Occupy The Real Issues! Occupy Wall Street! Now Lock & Load That!

[-] 0 points by KevinPotts (363) 1 year ago

Round of Applause! Well Said! lol

[+] -5 points by outlawtumor (-162) 1 year ago

You've got some serious issue's. I doubt you are an American, you have no respect for this Marine. You post the most ignorant rant I've read in awhile.

"Guns confer the illusion of power" Now that's ignorant. Are you really that fucking stupid?

You need to Occupy reality for a change instead of your bong and your medical MJ.

You're completely misinformed on this issue (go take a gun class,learn something about it first) and are obsessed with Scumbag Bankers,how does that work when you pull cash out from your ATM?

You're fucking absolutely clueless.

[-] 2 points by Ache4Change (3158) 1 year ago

LOL! Not everyone worships the military numbnuts! I know more about guns and the marines than you will ever know or believe. Are you sure that you're on the right forum? You'll be looking at clueless when you find a mirror as you really are quite sad and deluded. Never Give Up Trying To Stop Occupying Your Ass With Your Head!

[-] -3 points by outlawtumor (-162) 1 year ago

You are that fucking stupid apparently.

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

There is no one quite as fucking stupid as you.

It may not even be possible.

If it is true that your aim here is to be banned, let me know and I'll put in a word or two for you to help you achieve your goal.

To be both insulting and boring is conscionable.

theblaze awaits your return to loony toondom

[-] -1 points by Ache4Change (3158) 1 year ago

Lucky for you I'm in a rush right now so stay happy spanking your own monkey, as now we all know how you got to be so fkn blind! You're probably the kind 'sportsman' who likes to machine gun deer!

Never Give Up Trying To Make Sense! Occupy The NRA - because they have Occupied American Politics For Long Enough!

[-] -1 points by outlawtumor (-162) 1 year ago

I'm sure you're in a "rush right now",you probably spend most your day in a head rush.

You really are clueless about this subject and are too far gone in the propaganda of your Ideology. Someone has to tell you the truth at least once or you will continue to suffer from a false sense of self righteousness.

Get some real education and leave the Leftist Ideology behind. In other words....grow up.

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Wait a minute.

You post from Brietbart and believe in Beck and you have the unmitigated nerve to tell anyone else to "grow up"???

I guess it's true, you can't buy a brain, and if you could?. You won't be smart enough nor rich enough to get one.

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Hey dipstick. Weren't you supposed to report back to the Glenn Beck already.

You're clueless........absolutely.

You need to prepare for the UN invasion.

They're coming to get you.............................LOL

You'll be happy to see those nice young men in their clean white coats.

Ooooops.........the (R)epelican'ts fucked that up too.

Too bad for you.

[-] -2 points by ExGoldmanSachs (-52) 1 year ago

Yes he is a marine and yes we respect him for that. But that doesnt mean we accept everything he says. It is highly unlikely he would have to ever use an assault weapon to protect his family. As for the govt enjoying protection and not him, well the threat to life of the president is not the same as you and me. When our said marine was in duty in Iraq or Afghanistan he had to wear a full military gear because the threat was high, while I am pretty sure he would have to be in full military fatigue when he is in a military base in US.

[-] -1 points by outlawtumor (-162) 1 year ago

" It is highly unlikely he would have to ever use an assault weapon to protect his family"

Since when can you predict the future??

The gun that somebody chooses legally to defend his self or family is nobody's biz. Guns are already so regulated as to preclude automatic weapons,and the debate is over, it is done. Gun ownership is here to stay,be it an AR-15 or an AK-47 with 30 or more round mags.

[-] -2 points by ExGoldmanSachs (-52) 1 year ago

I dont predict the future, But a simple look at statistics of people requiring to defend themselves using assualt weapons in this country should tell you he wud never need it. We like in USA not Afghanistan.

What gun somone owns is others' business. Freedom is all fine as long as it does intrude on someone's else well being, someone else's right to live.

In my 32 years of existence, I have never been in a situation where a gun was required, blows and punches yes and that too during a college altercation. But guns, NEVER.

[-] 1 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 1 year ago

You are an inexperienced little child. Please leave adult matters to adults.

[-] -1 points by ExGoldmanSachs (-52) 1 year ago

so u r an adult if u r carrying a gun? i thought only ppl with small dicks needed a big gun...

[-] 1 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 1 year ago

Weak, weak. I'd try to explain, but I suspect you are a paid poster.

[-] 4 points by NVPHIL (664) 1 year ago

If you want stricter gun control I'm all for a constitutional amendment to support that. But as long as the 2nd amendment remains unchanged the gov't has no right to ban specific firearms. BTW I've never owned a gun and am coming at this from a constitutional rights viewpoint.

[-] 0 points by outlawtumor (-162) 1 year ago

Phil,there is no wiggle room in gun regulation left. The only reason the Left is going balls to the walls for more gun regulation is to eventually have national gun confiscation. That's it,nothing more then a complete disarming of the American people.

They want to take out the semi-auto rifles and handguns first,then the shotguns and revolvers then the 22cal rifles and handguns.

This IS their agenda.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

thank you wayne.
are you paranoid - or do you just like others to be?


we're gonna take your guns - and then your kids - and then your lungs - and then your yettis

[-] 1 points by NVPHIL (664) 1 year ago

I'm worried about untrained users of automatic weapons. We need an amendment stating you need to be in a well trained militia to possess automatic weapons since a strong militia was the intent of the 2nd. Have the militias be required to train its members to military standards and be able to pass military readiness tests.

[-] -1 points by outlawtumor (-162) 1 year ago

"automatic weapons" are already extremely regulated and are very hard for civilians either to purchase or modify existing semi-automatics.

[-] -2 points by aville (-678) 1 year ago

you are wrong about the 2nd amendment. a well trained militia ( armed forces) is covered in article I section 8 , clause 16. the 2nd amendment is simply assures each citizen that they have the tools necessary to defend their life, family or property from agression, whether from an individual or the govt.

[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

If you want to protect yourself from the government - that is armed with fully automatic weapons, grenades, bombs, tanks, and atomic weapons-
EXACTLY what weapons should you own to protect yourself from the government?


Is this why the nra was against banning "cop killer" bullets ?

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

I don't own a gun and wouldn't want to, but I can understand why some people do. Think about how things happened in Nazi Germany and Communist Russia. The authorities didn't use bombs and tanks against their own citizens, they just went door to door with guns.

Personally, I think certain elements in our government, but more particularly in the shadow government, are already preparing to kill us off in large number.

If not by guns, they will do it by "austerity", allowing our infrastructure to break down, which will negatively impact farming and food distribution, crime prevention, defense and recovery from disasters, break downs in public health allowing diseases to spread rapidly, etc. These things are already happening.

However, I've also heard that there are certain breakdowns in the system now that could allow things to get better. Let's hope it goes that way instead.

[-] -2 points by oldJim (-96) 1 year ago

You need to stop reading conspiracy theory websites. They are hurting your logic.

The fact of the matter is that guns don't keep people safe. The vast majority of home killings is done by the guns owned at that home, not guns from bandits infiltrating it. Those are the figures today in the real world, not in some fantasy NWO world where a shadowy government is attacking it's citizens. Put simply, if you own a gun you have more chances of getting hurt by a gun.

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

I didn't read about the Nazis and the Communist revolution on a conspiracy website, I read about them in standard history books. Its no theory, these things have already happened.

There's no reason to think they couldn't also happen in America, particularly if there are enough people like you who prefer to repeat history rather than learn from it.

Its pretty pathetic to just call any Idea that you disagree with a conspiracy theory. If you don't wish to concern yourself with the study of covert operations, then just don't do so. Cover your eyes if you want, but don't expect me to.

When you talk about the majority of home killings, are you considering the number of people killed in the various "revolutions" and authoritarian takeovers worldwide? It must be many millions.

[-] -2 points by oldJim (-96) 1 year ago

There's no reason to think they couldn't also happen in America

I'm not interested in possibilities, only probabilities. Anything could happen. Tomorrow we could be invaded by aliens. It does not matter. What matters are the problems on the table right now. Arguing that we need guns in America today because Nazis took control of Germany in 1939 makes no sense, especially when we know that guns hurt more people than they help. Reality is important.

Its pretty pathetic to just call any Idea that you disagree with a conspiracy theory.

I'm not calling just any idea I disagree with a conspiracy theory. I call ideas which are conspiracy theories conspiracy theories. It's very simple. A duck is a duck.

If you don't wish to concern yourself with the study of covert operations, then just don't do so.

Studying covert operations is fine if it's done with a serious research method. I'll listen to serious journalists any day. The problem I have is not with covert operations, it's with conspiracy theorists and their flawed methods they use to explain and search for the truth.

When you talk about the majority of home killings, are you considering the number of people killed in the various "revolutions" and authoritarian takeovers worldwide? It must be many millions

Red herring. We're talking about people owning guns in their homes in America. Those guns kill and hurt their owners more than they help them. A revolution in another country doesn't change this. It's another subject all together.


I invite you to step back into reality.

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

You're just expressing opinions, and I see no reason to give your opinions any special credibility. WW2 did indeed happen before, I'm not talking about an alien invasion, you are. I'm talking about things that really happened and could happen again.

And by the way, I'm not arguing that we need guns, I just said that I understand why some people think we do. What I think we need is Glass Steagall, a national bank, and an economic development program.

And you further say that you "call ideas which are conspiracy theories conspiracy theories", so what? In mathematical terms this just mean you say that "A is equal to A". True indeed, but I'm not impressed.

You say that you listen to serious journalists, but I must assume you are again resorting to the same logic as when you say that "a duck is a duck" or that "A is equal to A". And I suppose you would determine a "flawed method" in the same way... by asserting its identity with itself.

Although I'm not particularly a gun advocate myself, I think it was Solzhenitsyn who suggested that Soviet officials who abducted Russian citizens from their homes for torture, murder or the Siberian work camps, wouldn't have been so brazen if they knew that citizens with guns would have been awaiting their visits.

[-] -2 points by oldJim (-96) 1 year ago

You're just expressing opinions, and I see no reason to give your opinions any special credibility

It's not an opinion that the vast majority of hand guns cause harm to their owners and not to intruders. This is a fact. If you buy a hand gun there are more chances that it will hurt your family than protect it.

And by the way, I'm not arguing that we need guns, I just said that I understand why some people think we do.

The reason some people think guns are good is not because of the arguments you raised, but because they don't use proper logic and facts.

You say that you listen to serious journalists, but I must assume you are again resorting to the same logic as when you say that "a duck is a duck" or that "A is equal to A". And I suppose you would determine a "flawed method" in the same way... by asserting its identity with itself.

It's very easy to determine if a research method is flawed because scholars have studied proper research methods for hundreds of years. For example, it's plainly obvious to anyone who understands research methods that Truthers don't use them, but instead make all kinds of methodological errors, most of them extremely obvious.


You're essentially arguing that we need guns in case history repeats itself and the US government turns on its people like the Nazis did. This is a hypothetical situation, so it doesn't interest us. What we care about is what guns are doing right now, and the fact is they are killing their owners more than anyone else. Again, not an opinion, but a fact.

Furthermore, your argument is extremely weak since owning a gun couldn't help you in the case that the government would turn on its people. The US military could invade your house with ease whether you have a gun or not. If you want your argumentation to make any sense, then you would need to provide the American people with the same weaponry as the US army; grenades, planes, tanks, nuclear weapons, etc... A population with guns against the US army is like someone trying to fight off a hundred men with a plastic party knife. Won't happen.

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

Like I said, I personally wouldn't want to have a gun, because I think they are dangerous, but I do understand why some people would want to have them. For me, its not even a major issue right now, though it could eventually become one.

The major issue is that the economy is breaking down, and if that isn't stopped, our situation will continue getting worse, and it could get just as bad as anything that has happened in history, or worse. We do in fact have the capacity to destroy the entire world these days.

Perhaps scholars have studied research methods for years, but still you have researchers at the most prominent institutions in the world who disagree with each other.

Researchers are influenced by big money as well, and their results can be given credit or be discredited by those with money who would wish to do so. I believe it happens quite often.

If there were to be a situation in which the people needed to use guns against their government, it could happen that at least part of the military would take the side of the American people and would bring substantial fire power with them.

In that case any additional weapons that the people had would be helpful. At least that's what I've read from an ex-marine, who does high level consulting on counterinsurgency and intelligence.

[-] -2 points by oldJim (-96) 1 year ago

Perhaps scholars have studied research methods for years, but still you have researchers at the most prominent institutions in the world who disagree with each other.

Of course, that's a given. There's many deserving theories that are competing against each other. Conspiracy theories are not in that mix because they are not deserving since they are built upon highly flawed research methods.

Researchers are influenced by big money as well, and their results can be given credit or be discredited by those with money who would wish to do so. I believe it happens quite often.

Proper research methods are based on evidence and on identifying all sources and details of the research. The reason is to avoid situations like you mention. This provides research that can be double checked.

Bad research methods like conspiracy theorists use don't protect against this. That's why guys like Alex Jones make tons of money. His claims are based on research that is not made available. We don't know his sources and his methodology in detail. This makes it possible for him to say just about anything and get away with it. He does this to make millions.

If there were to be a situation in which the people needed to use guns against their government, it could happen that at least part of the military would take the side of the American people and would bring substantial fire power with them.

In that case any additional weapons that the people had would be helpful. At least that's what I've read from an ex-marine, who does high level consulting on counterinsurgency and intelligence.

Yawn. More boring conjectures, desperate this time, in the hopes of giving credibility to owning guns.


Again, I welcome you back into the real world where guns kill their owners more often than they kill anyone else. Let's make decisions and hold positions based on reality, not fictitious situations dreamed up on conspiracy theory websites. The door to reality is open, you just need to step inside it.

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

If you want to talk about the real world, than look all around you and tell me why the world is going so badly these days. If everything is perfectly understood, and all the truth is openly shared in the media, then why is it all going to heck?

To me, there is no fact more obvious than that we are going down, so if we know and understand everything so clearly and honestly, than why is that happening? The reason, of course, is that we're being lied to on a massive scale about all kinds of things, but generally for the purpose of taking our society down.

So I think there is falsification happening in every field, from science to art, to economics to medicine. Is that your reality? Don't think that I will step inside.

Guns probably do kill their owners more than anyone else, but that probably happened during the American revolution as well. But considering the certain danger, it still was worthwhile to have those guns then. It may get to the same point today.

I gave my quote from the ex-marine just to say where I got the information from. You think its boring? So what? I think you're boring. It's just an opinion.

So as you were saying the information is double checked, and all of that, but still we face the stark fact that the world is getting worse every day and there are very few bright spots. All the research results you can provide are not going to change that.

[-] -2 points by oldJim (-96) 1 year ago

If you want to talk about the real world, than look all around you and tell me why the world is going so badly these days. If everything is perfectly understood, and all the truth is openly shared in the media, then why is it all going to heck?

Why are you putting words in my mouth? I never said the world was perfectly understood. I said proper journalism can lead us to that understanding, but conspiracy theories can't.

To me, there is no fact more obvious than that we are going down, so if we know and understand everything so clearly and honestly, than why is that happening? The reason, of course, is that we're being lied to on a massive scale about all kinds of things, but generally for the purpose of taking our society down.

Conjecture = boring. Evidence supporting your claims = interesting. Start aiming for the second equation, and start now.

So I think there is falsification happening in every field, from science to art, to economics to medicine. Is that your reality? Don't think that I will step inside.

Not my reality, only in the minds of deluded conspiracy theorists who see a conspiracy at each corner of every street. Again, where is your evidence? Remember, conspiracy theory websites that make money for Alex Jones don't count. Conjectures = boring.

Guns probably do kill their owners more than anyone else, but that probably happened during the American revolution as well

Not probably, they do. This is documented. And why do we care if this happened during the American Revolution or not? We care about the now. Stop using bogus arguments. How can we solve the gun problem that exists now, not the gun problem that existed in the past or one which exists in your fantastical possible futures. Now, in reality.

So as you were saying the information is double checked, and all of that, but still we face the stark fact that the world is getting worse every day and there are very few bright spots. All the research results you can provide are not going to change that.

I never argued that they could. I'm not sure what your point is. The goal is to understand society better and that's done through proper research, not conspiracy theories. Once we do understand things better we'll know if they can be changed or not.


May I ask, why are you against proper research?

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

Just exactly like I said, can't provide any evidence against Larouche. I've read a lot of the criticisms against him already. But what is there to criticize? He believes in the same policies as people such as FDR and JFK.

Sure mistakes are made. But I don't buy it that what happened to our economy was just a mistake. There is too much at stake for it just to have been a mistake.

Think we should investigate properly to find out? Than by all means do it! I and many others have been at it all along.

[-] 0 points by oldJim (-96) 1 year ago

As I stated earlier the economic fallout was created by greedy bankers, not just mistakes. This is obvious, but it's a very long way to the idea of conspiracy theories.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

No help from you is the best help you can offer. Try helping yourself and learn a new trick besides labeling everything you disagree with as a conspiracy theory.

I never watch Fox News, I don't even watch TV, except the occasional program on Youtube, mostly from non mainstream sources, though I can't say I've ever followed Alex Jones much.

If you think something is wrong with Larouche, than I'd be eager to see something from his website, rather than a secondary source, that proves the reasonableness of your objection to him. But of course you can't do that, so why do I even ask?

You're entitled to your opinion on the relevance of the American revolution, but that's all it is, your opinion.

And are you saying that an "economic fallout" just happened due to faulty laws? And what about the people who made those laws? Could it be that moneyed interests might of had some influence on getting those laws passed?

If proper research was conducted and verified, as you suggest, such mistakes would never have happened. But they did, didn't they?

[-] -2 points by oldJim (-96) 1 year ago

And are you saying that an "economic fallout" just happened due to faulty laws? And what about the people who made those laws? Could it be that moneyed interests might of had some influence on getting those laws passed?

It could. We would need to investigate properly to find out. Until then, it's just conjecture = boring.

If proper research was conducted and verified, as you suggest, such mistakes would never have happened.

No true. Even with all the information in the world many mistakes will be made. People are not machines, and the world is not black and white like you and other conspiracy theorists paint it.

If you think something is wrong with Larouche, than I'd be eager to see something from his website, rather than a secondary source, that proves the reasonableness of your objection to him. But of course you can't do that, so why do I even ask?

I don't waste my time with such nonsense. You posted many articles lifted from the Larouche site; that's all you do. Most readers here are able to understand the problems with those articles. I'll let them make there own research. I'm not here to convince you, only to help. If you are truly interested in knowing what is wrong with Larouche, simply google "debunking Larouche". Remember, google is your friend.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

I'm not against proper research, I just suspect that much of the research that is conducted these days can't be proper at all, or the situation of our society would not be so badly off.

If the goal of establishment research is to understand our society better, what makes it grow and what makes it collapse, than it must be failing miserably.

We've had many periods of growth in our society, there is no reason we should not be able to duplicate that growth these days, unless the most powerful people in the world are trying to prevent that from happening.

Why do we care about what happened during the American Revolution? So that we can learn from history. In that case, my opinion is that we did something right, and it may be that we will have to do so again at some time.

You want my evidence for a conspiracy around every corner? It's not Alex Jones, it's what is happening every day in every country in the world. Most obviously, its happening in places like Greece, Spain and Italy, but the US is not far behind, and China is being effected too.

Is that being deluded? That's a pretty weak argument to call someone deluded. The only thing that it proves is that your not capable of better. Think its boring to face the reality that is all around you? Sorry, I'm not here to entertain you, no reason to start now.

Proper journalism can lead us to understanding? Perhaps so, but its not happening these days. The mainstream media is primarily a lying machine.

[-] -2 points by oldJim (-96) 1 year ago

I'm not against proper research, I just suspect that much of the research that is conducted these days can't be proper at all, or the situation of our society would not be so badly off

Why suspect? Proper research can be verified. That's the whole point.

Proper journalism can lead us to understanding? Perhaps so, but its not happening these days. The mainstream media is primarily a lying machine.

Proper journalism is not printed in the media. Read scientific journals, political journals, etc... Get off Fox News.

You want my evidence for a conspiracy around every corner? It's not Alex Jones, it's what is happening every day in every country in the world. Most obviously, its happening in places like Greece, Spain and Italy, but the US is not far behind, and China is being effected too.

That's not evidence for a conspiracy theory. It's evidence of an economic fallout. Show us that a conspiracy was behind that fallout. Use evidence for it. I think the fallout was due to bad laws permitting greedy bankers to use the system to their advantage. That's not the same as thinking that they all colluded together in some grand scheme. There's just no evidence for that.

Why do we care about what happened during the American Revolution? So that we can learn from history. In that case, my opinion is that we did something right, and it may be that we will have to do so again at some time.

The issue we were discussing is why guns are a problem in US right now. Statistics show they hurt owners more than they help them, and we know they would not be helpful against an attack from the US military. The American Revolution has little to do with this discussion. You're just throwing red herrings.


My suggestion is you stop drowning yourself in conspiracy theories. There's nothing worse for your mind. Unfortunately, I cannot help you further, all I can do is make a suggestion to point you in the right direction. Demand evidence. Promote proper research methods. Turn off Fox News. Read proper research journals. Get off Larouche and Alex Jones websites.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 1 year ago

I believe every citizen is entitled to a least one thermonuclear devise.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28464) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Two - if never used - maybe make bookends?

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9780) 1 year ago

Hell, I got a shed outside that's standing empty right now. I think a nice 500 megaton bomb would fit in there nicely.

Of course the jones' next door have two 500 megatons, so I gotta build another shed.

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (28464) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Yep - gotta keep up appearances - wouldn't want the neighbors to think you were haven hard times.

[Removed]

[-] -3 points by Shayneh (-482) 1 year ago

What is your definition of "cop killer" bullets?

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

That shit that kills cops. Do the bullets go through the vest? WTF is wrong with you?

You have to nail something that fast? Repeatedly? Grow the fuck up.

[-] -3 points by Shayneh (-482) 1 year ago

Lady, you need some soap in your mouth. Apparently you don't know what "cop killer" bullets are for if you did you would have demonstrated your knowledge in this subject with the appropriate response.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

Shut the fuck up and sit down.. What else you got?

[-] -3 points by Shayneh (-482) 1 year ago

More manners then you.

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

Wrong answer, Corn-flake. You are deadlocked into a mo' betta' way to fuck the people. You do this consistently. It shows.

[-] 0 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 1 year ago

She's a troll who's trying to harm this forum through sheer ugliness. Ignore her.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

Things not going as planned?

A little uncomfortable for you? People still aren't eating your shit? Havin' a little trouble taking over the forum?

[-] -2 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 1 year ago

Go away evil one.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

You need a bit of Kleenex?

[-] -2 points by Shayneh (-482) 1 year ago

I have noticed that whenever she is not satisfied with what someone posts or can't come up with "appropriate response" she starts using vulgarity.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

Is that right?

Do tell.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

I thought that was the UN agenda?

Isn't that what Beck said?

[-] -2 points by aville (-678) 1 year ago

Your are 100% correct. The easiest way to control and subjugate people is to disarm them.

[-] 0 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

Maybe we could do one which would also fix getting money out of politics at the same time? Isn't this almost as important as alcohol?

[-] 2 points by NVPHIL (664) 1 year ago

Much more important. We been slacking when it comes to keeping the constitution up to date. People freak out about amending the constitution even though that is the reason the US has been able to be successfulwith keeping up with a changing world.

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

In some ways it is more difficult (50 states) to amend it and in some ways it is easier (communications and consistency in the arguments that everybody hears) but it is important non the less. If it is considered impossible, it will be abandoned and we will have to start over, in a bloody and stupid mess.

[-] 1 points by NVPHIL (664) 1 year ago

With the divide in the country we would never be able to creae a new govt. But thats why the founders were so brilliant. 200 + years later and the constitution is not only relevant but supported by people who don't agree on anything.

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

And it was changed in very important ways, never soon enough, never complete enough, but usually in the right direction and usually sooner than it was fixed in most other countries. It isn't done yet. It is still not really done in stone. And forces are still trying to prevent their advantage on the field from being leveled.

But we can't give up after so much progress has been made.

[-] 1 points by NVPHIL (664) 1 year ago

That is one of the few things that gives me hope. Whenever I get to worried I remind myself that we have gone through this before. Sometimes US history seems like nothing more then fights for rights and keeping the rich from taking over the country.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

That's a good observation. The assault on the 98% is unprecedented and amazingly successful, thus far. If we can fix that and the corrosive effects of money on elections and on governance we might survive. But that is what it boils down to. We finally have the data and the facts and must use them to turn this around,

[-] 1 points by NVPHIL (664) 1 year ago

Their success seems to be more complete then ever thanks to their domination of the airwaves but social media is starting to reveal their lies. It also let's us see that this isn't an American problem alone and gives us the ability to tackle the problem on a worldwide basis.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

I had been unfamiliar with the term neoliberal It seems counter intuitive, but it is an identity that Europeans seem to have been using but it describes the culture that is the source of much of the problem.

[-] 0 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

There are old newspapers in Ybor Centro on the walls....same stuff from way back when...politicians stealing money, people being afraid that America is turning into Europe...etc etc etc..

[-] 2 points by NVPHIL (664) 1 year ago

It seems to be a cycle. Rich take to much. We put in laws to protect us. Rich buy politicians and remove laws. Rich take too much. We put in laws etc. etc.

[-] -1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

"the gov't has no right to ban specific firearms"
So you disagree with the recent SCOTUS decision that says that it can.


do you know anyone who owns a fully automatic machine gun? or a grenade launcher? tank?

[-] 3 points by NVPHIL (664) 1 year ago

Just because SCOTUS says it's constitutional doesn't mean they are right. How many here agree with CU. And no I don't know anyone who is a gun collecter. IMO firearms are single person weapons that fire solid projectiles so GL, tanks etc' don't fall within the 2nd. I agree that people shouldn't own automatic weapons but until we amend the 2nd then we don't have the legal right to stop people from buying them.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

We did LEGALLY stop people from BUYING or OWNING
fully automatic weapons
The line is drawn by laws & the way SCOTUS defines them


Much to my surprise, Scalia said the 2nd amendment does NOT include the right to own assault weapons

[-] 2 points by NVPHIL (664) 1 year ago

From what I understand you can still buy automatic weapons just not mfg them.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

Note- an "automatic" weapon means many bullets are fired from a single trigger pull


I found this - that might be interpreted that we are both right.


Federal Firearms Regulations

It has been unlawful since 1934 (The National Firearms Act) for civilians to own machine guns without special permission from the U.S. Treasury Department. Machine guns are subject to a $200 tax every time their ownership changes from one federally registered owner to another, and each new weapon is subject to a manufacturing tax when it is made, and it must be registered with the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms and Explosives (ATF) in its National Firearms Registry.

To become a registered owner, a complete FBI background investigation is conducted, checking for any criminal history or tendencies toward violence, and an application must be submitted to the ATF including two sets of fingerprints, a recent photo, a sworn affidavit that transfer of the NFA firearm is of "reasonable necessity," and that sale to and possession of the weapon by the applicant "would be consistent with public safety." The application form also requires the signature of a chief law enforcement officer with jurisdiction in the applicant's residence.

Since the Firearms Owners' Protection Act of May 19, 1986, ownership of newly manufactured machine guns has been prohibited to civilians. Machine guns which were manufactured prior to the Act's passage are regulated under the National Firearms Act, but those manufactured after the ban cannot ordinarily be sold to or owned by civilians.

[-] 2 points by NVPHIL (664) 1 year ago

BTW I appreciate the work you do in keeping poster's honest. That includes me when I get exited.

[-] 2 points by NVPHIL (664) 1 year ago

Sorry the response is so late. I didn`t know about the background checks but the rest sounds right. By this time though I'm tired of the gun talk due to it overshadowing the real threat to us ie CU. Onebig fear is that gunowners who come to this sitewill be turned off of OWS because of the talk. I'm prepared to put up with a lot to get the ground swell needed to oust the puppets in govt. The first session of a truly reprasetative congress will be the place to worry about gun laws. Especially since I think the current gun control talk is tostop us fromtalking about thecorruption in congress.

[-] 0 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

You may be right - so many things DONE in DC are prompted by a crisis.
Global warming issue is mo ving forward because of Sandy, etc.


The sad reality on OUR issue is that the Rs in the house will block anything and our ONLY path is to elect pro-99% candidates next year

[-] 1 points by NVPHIL (664) 1 year ago

If we stay focused we have a decent shot of getting pro 99% past the primaries. Once some real candidates are running the lower mid term turnout gives us a chance to elect some real progressives. OTOH if a candidate for the dems is anything but pro 99% it will be a cold day in hell before I vote for them. As for reps I highly doubt any of them will be pro 99%.

[-] 1 points by Narley (280) 1 year ago

There are millions of full-auto (machine guns) in private hands. You do have to jump through the hoops you describe; and full-auto weapons are prohibitively expensive ($5K - $50K). There are gun dealers who specialize in machine guns, from a 1930’s Tommy Gun all the up to Tripod mounted, water cooled, belt fed .50 caliber machine guns. You can find full page ad’s for them in some gun magazines. Good or bad, they are out there.

[-] 0 points by Shayneh (-482) 1 year ago

Narley, you need to educate yourself about "firearms" in this country - there aren't "millions of machine guns" in private hands. Tell me where did you get your info from - provide some "factual" sources please

[-] 1 points by Narley (280) 1 year ago

Well, I don’t consider myself a gun nut, but I’m no rookie to firearm either. Many years ago I owned a Polytech AK-47 with a 75-round drum. It was a gift from my son and I never even fired the thing. Just not interested in those type weapons. I even gave my bolt-action hunting rifles to my son years ago. These days it’s just a few pistols, revolvers and a couple of shotguns. I even turned down a hog hunting trip a few weeks ago. Now I wish I hadn’t. I would have liked to pitted my .44 mag Super Redhawk against a hog.

The bottom line I’m just not interested in semi-auto rifles. I know they’re probably the most popular firearm around these days. I attend gun shows about once a month, and the AR’s have almost taken over.

As for machine guns, here’s one link. Also several Youtube videos where full-auto’s are in abundance. I have no way of knowing how many machine guns there are, but I do believe there are millions of them.

For the record, most of the gun owners I know aren’t interested in full-auto weapons. They just waste ammo. However, most would like a select-fire weapon (semi-auto and burst fire).

As for Obama’s proposed restrictions. I don’t like them. I would only be affected because I own a couple of pistols 17 – 20 rounds. My biggest gripe about the new restrictions is they won’t make a difference; and the only people affected will be honest gun owners.

http://dealernfa.com/shop/category/machine-guns/

[-] -1 points by Shayneh (-482) 1 year ago

I agree - even more background checks won't solve the problem. Just this past weekend there was a shooting in a uppity Atlanta subdivision.

Shots were fired, surrounding houses were hit with bullets and I think two people were injured by the gunfire.

No word on who did the firing -and the people who were shot aren't going to tell the police.

And if the perps do get caught I will guarentee it wasn't because of the bullets that were pulled out of walls or the shell casings. It's going to be because someone named them. And it would surprise me if the firearms were "illegally owned". Even legally owned it still doesn' matter - shots were fired because of something stupid.

Another example of just how violent the younger generation has become.

[-] 1 points by Narley (280) 1 year ago

I would support any legislation that really would reduce gun crime. I also believe the government can legally restrict guns under the 2nd amendment. The 2nd amendment doesn’t say anything about what type of guns you can own. They could restrict us to revolvers and bolt-action rifles like Australia and it would be legal under the 2nd amendment.

The problem I have is nothing in any of the proposed legislation will reduce gun crime. I think the most effective way to reduce gun crime is to go after the street and drug gangs; and straw buyers. That not only will reduce gun crime, but overall crime.

[-] -1 points by ExGoldmanSachs (-52) 1 year ago

The constitution is written by humans at a time when having guns was rather necessary. We don't live in those times anymore. As much as we respect the constitution, I donot see why it cannot be changed to reflect present reality.

[-] 2 points by NVPHIL (664) 1 year ago

That's why the amendment process is in place. I support an amendment to ban automatic weapons just not legislation.

Not a complete ban just for those who don't prove they are not a danger.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

Automatic weapons were made illegal to own or buy BY LEGISLATION- not amendment
a long time ago - 1934

[-] 0 points by Shayneh (-482) 1 year ago

Well with the present day "reality" in how people feel about our government and their approval rating of 15% and the fact that Homeland Security just purchased 7000 Automatic AR-15 calling them "personal defense firearms" along with over 6 million rounds of ammo purchased by our government what kind of picture does that paint in the eyes of people who 'trust our government"

And you are wondering why people are out there purchasing firarms?

[-] -1 points by chuckuschumer (-366) 1 year ago

If you check the daily news on site's other then Liberal,Leftist's site you will see that people even in this day and age of pseudo-enlightenment that people still break into innocent people's homes and kill,rob and rape on quite a regular basis.

Seems that guns are still "rather necessary".

Wake the fuck up!!

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9780) 1 year ago

I think these idiotic threads are always kept on top at night for foreign visitors to this forum, to make them think we are all a bunch of neo-nazi creeps.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (7060) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

I hope Josh backs up his bullshit, because I would see a hundred thousand of his kind put in the ground before I see another kid killed.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (2091) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

Gun activists heckle father of Sandy Hook victim Neil Heslin, whose six-year-old son Jesse was killed in the Sandy Hook massacre, is heckled by gun activists as he begs for tighter firearms restrictions. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/9833543/Gun-activists-heckle-father-of-Sandy-Hook-victim.html

[-] 1 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 1 year ago

Anyone know how widespread the suspicion/knowledge that a number of these mass shootings have been the-ends-justify-the-means psyops to disarm the 99%? Some blame Obama, but such actions would be way above his paygrade.

http://nsnbc.me/2012/12/28/sandy-hook-huge-hoax-and-anti-gun-psy-op/

http://www.naturalnews.com/036536_James_Holmes_shooting_false_flag.html

"Agenda Prevails Over Truth: As tyranny envelops the land, the main goal of the left-wing is to disarm the population. . . .The American left is the enabler of the police state, and the American right is its progenitor." http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article33472.htm

[-] 3 points by gsw (2697) 1 year ago

What American left? It's a huge myth. The news is all right, corporate.

If it was left, we'd have numbers in the streets now, like in rest of world.

If media was left, the wars and weapons of mass destruction would have been questioned, and wall street too.

[-] 0 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 1 year ago

The media is almost totally right and corpoRAT, including the "assigned" "leftists" such as Amy Goodman's corpoRAT funded DemocracyNow, the peace and war monger report (she just can't get enough of the NATO terrorist action in Syria and earlier Libya).

To understand today's world it is necessary to understand three concepts: information warfare (psyops), false flag attacks and control fraud.

[-] -1 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

And don't forget the ever-lovely synthetic paranoia.

[-] 1 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 1 year ago

Thanks for bumping this thread.

[-] 0 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

My Marine is smarter than his Marine.

[-] 1 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 1 year ago

Just because you jerks are running in packs, don't think that makes your humor funny. Step out of the echo chamber. You might learn a few things.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

He said, from the security of his echo chamber.

If you want to be taken seriously, just analyze the data bensdad posted below and show how it supports the solution you would propose.

[-] 1 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 1 year ago

You are a repeat illogical non sequitur offender. The form of your statements seem logical, but the content is not. It seems you have a thought disorder.

[-] 0 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

Avoid, escape, distract, obfuscate, run for the echo chamber.

[-] 0 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

was that marine's name lee harvey owsald?

[-] 0 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

marine gun nut = lee harvey oswald

[-] 0 points by outlawtumor (-162) 1 year ago

bensdad=0

[-] -1 points by WSmith (2091) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

CRAZY FUCKING DERANGED Republican Congressman Claims Hammers Could Be Outlawed Under Assault Weapons Ban

CRAZY FUCKING DERANGED NRA Hypocritcally Slams Violent Pop Culture, Even As It Puts On ‘Hollywood Guns’ Exhibit

CRAZY FUCKING DERANGED Arizona Attorney-General Calls For Arming School Principals

http://thinkprogress.org/tag/gun-control/

[-] -1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

Some real 2011 / 2012 gun statistics:

Americans own almost half of all civilian owned guns in the world.
Per 100,000: America: 88,880 guns owned / 2.97 homicides
Per 100,000: England…: 6,200 guns owned / 0.07 homicides
Per 100,000: Austrailia: 15,000 guns owned / 0.14 homicides
Per 100,000: Canada…: 30,800 guns owned / 0.51 homicides
Per 100,000: France…..: 31,000 guns owned / 0.06 homicides
Per 100,000: Japan……..: 1,000 guns owned / 0.08 homicides
Per 100,000: Israel……..: 7,300 guns owned / 0.90 homicides


Clearly the number of guns adds to the risk of homicides.

More complex is the effect of gun laws and restrictions.

When Australia had a massacre in 1996 when 35 people were killed, gun laws wer substantially strengthened and a major buy-back was instituted. There has not been an incident in Australia since then. Of course, they did not have the benefit of the nra.

For 2011, the average Murder Rate of Death Penalty States was 4.7, while the average Murder Rate of States without the Death Penalty was 3.1

For 2011, the murder rates were highest in red state regions:
Per 100,000: South 5.5 Midwest 4.5 West 4.2 Northeast 3.9

[-] -2 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

So let me help out our friends, The numbers with the decimals that are small, are good And some cultures are able to achieve those small numbers with a larger number of guns, (those are the numbers with the commas). So, France wins, having 1/3 our number of guns, but we have 49 times the number of homicides. And England, even though they have 5 times more guns than France has about the same number of homicides.

Wouldn't you think that politicians would want to look at the facts behind these numbers to so how to get to numbers that look like 0.0x? Instead they tell us that we have to except numbers like 3.00 because nothing can be done. When Israel, who lives in a perpetual war zone, is three times better?

Maybe living with folks under your elbow who are dedicated to your elimination, is actually a much safer way to live? Three times safer? There are those who are so convinced of American exceptionalism they can't learn ANYTHING from another country.

[-] -1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

Of course we cant learn anythinf from other countries -
WE'RE NUMBER ONE !
or are we number two ?

[-] -1 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

We are one too. Lalalalalalalalala I can't hear you.

[-] -1 points by highlander (-163) 1 year ago

Excellent letter. The fact that semiautomatic weapons are flying off the shelf should be an indication of the black market that will form if a ban is passed. Has no one learned from prohibition?

[-] 0 points by outlawtumor (-162) 1 year ago

Yes it it powerful. We can't let these tyrants,OUR SERVANTS try a ban on our Constitutional rights. If it's a fight they want,then that's exactly what they'll get.

[-] 0 points by highlander (-163) 1 year ago

the fear I have, and the morbid curiosity as well, is to see at what point people have had enough. the mid nineties militias will only be a preamble. I hope that does not come to pass. I have read The Turner Diaries and this is how the revolution starts, by taking citizen's weapons. Needless to say, that is extreme. But instead of letting the fine folks in Washington decide when enough is enough, I would rather take my chances with freedom in all its benefits and risks.

[-] 0 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

Somalia calls. Darfur calls. Syria calls. Freedom to own guns, 'tis paradise e'en now.

Per 100,000: England…: 6,200 guns owned / 0.07 homicides Per 100,000: Austrailia: 15,000 guns owned / 0.14 homicides Per 100,000: Canada…: 30,800 guns owned / 0.51 homicides Per 100,000: France…..: 31,000 guns owned / 0.06 homicides Per 100,000: Japan……..: 1,000 guns owned / 0.08 homicides Per 100,000: Israel……..: 7,300 guns owned / 0.90 homicides

Revolutions in Japan? In England? In Israel? In Australia? In Australia they are taking them back. Riots? Check the news. Nope. No riots? What does it all mean?

[-] 0 points by outlawtumor (-162) 1 year ago

Excellent post,I completely agree.

[-] -1 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

Somalia calls. Darfur calls. Syria calls. Freedom to own guns, 'tis paradise e'en now.

Per 100,000: England…: 6,200 guns owned / 0.07 homicides Per 100,000: Austrailia: 15,000 guns owned / 0.14 homicides Per 100,000: Canada…: 30,800 guns owned / 0.51 homicides Per 100,000: France…..: 31,000 guns owned / 0.06 homicides Per 100,000: Japan……..: 1,000 guns owned / 0.08 homicides Per 100,000: Israel……..: 7,300 guns owned / 0.90 homicides

Revolutions in Japan? In England? In Israel? In Australia? In Australia they are taking them back. Riots? Check the news. Nope. No riots? What does it all mean?

[-] -1 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

I believe that one should be called the white market. And then there is the War on Terror. We keep folks from buying stuff that only harms them, but not stuff that kills almost as many victims as it does owners?

[-] -1 points by outlawtumor (-162) 1 year ago

Here is a brief recap of Sen. Feinstein’s 2013 AWB

• Bans the sale, transfer, importation, or manufacturing of:

o 120 specifically-named firearms;

o Certain other semiautomatic rifles, handguns, shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and have one or more military characteristics; and

o Semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds.

• Strengthens the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and various state bans by:

o Moving from a 2-characteristic test to a 1-characteristic test;

o Eliminating the easy-to-remove bayonet mounts and flash suppressors from the characteristics test; and

o Banning firearms with “thumbhole stocks” and “bullet buttons” to address attempts to “work around” prior bans.

• Bans large-capacity ammunition feeding devices capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.

• Protects legitimate hunters and the rights of existing gun owners by:

o Grandfathering weapons legally possessed on the date of enactment;

o Exempting over 900 specifically-named weapons used for hunting or sporting purposes; and

o Exempting antique, manually-operated, and permanently disabled weapons.

• Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms Act, to include:

o Background check of owner and any transferee;

o Type and serial number of the firearm;

o Positive identification, including photograph and fingerprint;

o Certification from local law enforcement of identity and that possession would not violate State or local law; and

o Dedicated funding for ATF to implement registration.

This is the NEXT STEP IN TOTAL ARMS CONFISCATION.

[-] -1 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

You will still have half of all of the guns in the whole world with only 5% of the world's population. So, the next step would be, if you get nervous, (like you noticed that they had confiscated all of the guns in Maine, or Indiana, or Tennessee, your relatives there would probably tell you,) you could just go and take over ALL of the rest of the world and confiscate the few guns they still have. That is what the people with the guns do isn't it? And then you could lower all of their wages to those of China, and take away their healthcare, and make them overpopulate even more and teach them to be Republicans, and salute the Confederate flag, and shoot semiautomatic weapons and,..... Gosh, this sounds like so much fun. Where do I sign up?

[-] -1 points by outlawtumor (-162) 1 year ago

Moronic halfwit condescension. Is that all you got left?

[-] 0 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

Nawww! You just have no appreciation for talent. Tell me you don't hear a little Carlin in there? That was so much fun. When people's positions are this funny you just have notice and there is nothing funnier that to extend a ludicrous position to its inescapable conclusion. What A Riot. You might want to print that out and read it at bed time just before you click your nice warm, loving AK's safety ""on". You do sleep with your safety on don't you?

If you would wrap your AK in your Confederate flag it wouldn't be so cold on your skinny little thighs and then you wouldn't have to hold it in your cold dead fingers that THEY will take it out of. Bwahahaha!! Nighty nite!. Oh, don't even think about trading in the AK for one of those fancy new grenades with the chrome handcuff. It would be over accessorizing.

[-] -1 points by outlawtumor (-162) 1 year ago

I'm sorry,but I can't even get through the first paragraph. You're no longer capable of any critical thought or debate. You're just devolving into what all Leftist's ultimately become,...pathetically impotent and inconsequential.

Reply back when you find out you're not really that smart or amusing as you think you are right now.

[-] -1 points by aville (-678) 1 year ago

her goal is the goal of the current administration. an unarmed society which cant fight the agresssion of govt.

[-] -1 points by outlawtumor (-162) 1 year ago

Of course and none of the pro-Government hacks on this Forum realize what puppets they are in advocating for this bullshit.

[-] -1 points by aville (-678) 1 year ago

I think some do know . They have their talking points, thats why they're on here.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

Yep.........definitely out to get you.

[-] -1 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 1 year ago

You got that right.