testtest

You gotta be kiddin'?

Certainly there are always going to be some people who want to exploit an ambiguous section of the law. It comes down to the fact that that individual should be held liable for their actions.

Anytime the 2A community agrees to any restrictions on freedom it opens a Pandora's box the anti-gun fringe will exploit to pile further restrictions and unconstitutional policies on. Inevitably, they will argue along the lines that our new restrictions aren't anything more than a "clarification" of previous restrictions. Consequently, if you were willing to accept that, you should accept this as well.

No more compromises. Everything they want must be opposed because of where they intend to take it. Incremental loss of freedom is no more tolerable than the sudden imposition of tyranny.
IMG_2157.gif
 
I've heard it said and seen it written that the 2nd has been chipped away at, bit by bit, ever since the FCA of 1934, and not even once as far as I can tell has any of it ever been restored once it's gone. I fear that if ever it is lost, it will never be regained. jj
 
Last edited:
I've heard it said and seen it written that the 2nd has been chipped away at, bit by bit, ever since the FCA of 1934, and not even once as far as I can tell has any of it ever been restored once it's gone. I fear that if ever it is lost, it will never be regained. jj
Clinton "assault weapons" ban. Though I do understand what you're saying and agree like Ivory soap. 99/100% pure.
 
The Clinton AWB wasn’t an amendment to the GCA. It was a stand alone bill that was designed to sunset after 10 years.
Very true. Yet how many bills/laws, especially "temporary" taxes never go away ;)
The demoKKKrats could have striped the sunset out at any time. Just tack it on to a spending bill, Military appropriations bill etc, and the reDUMBlicans would have lapped it up. JMHO. I think the uniparty got cocky and forgot about it, then got caught with their pants down. They won't make that mistake again.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top