Getting shot in the head kind of brings a new perspective to the GunHugger issue.
I guess her husband didn't get the memo... oh wait yes he did he is just a hypocrite, a hypocrite you donated money to lmao.
"In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot."
Law abiding citizens... no change. GunHuggers arming themselves for the next race war... Big Change.
Nice try to spin it, admit it your lousy attempt at propaganda blew up in your face
"In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot."
Box why in the hell are you obssessed with a race war? I have never seen any post by anyone here that wants that. And using the Tea Party, Republicans, Ron Paul BS dosent cut it. I'm talking about ANY member here that has stated they want a race war.
Box why in the hell are you obssessed with a race war? I have never seen any post by anyone here that wants that. And using the Tea Party, Republicans, Ron Paul BS dosent cut it. I'm talking about ANY member here that has stated they want a race war.
When liberals are failing they bring up the race card, its their last resort
"In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot."
The most revealing thing about this cartoon is, the gun grabbers make it clear they want to disarm the guy exercising his 1st ammendment right with the anti Obama shirt, while letting the criminal keep his hand gun.
Oh yeah, and AR rifles are going to magically disappear. And also all gun owners appear to be white and male. Women, Blacks, Hispanics and Asians don't possess guns.
That is the fictitional world box and the left live in.
Box why in the hell are you obssessed with a race war? I have never seen any post by anyone here that wants that. And using the Tea Party, Republicans, Ron Paul BS dosent cut it. I'm talking about ANY member here that has stated they want a race war.
Why does a homeowner need an assault rifle RP? To protect his home? A shot gun would do just as well or better. Why do posters (like Henry) want the police to have the same weapons and the same magazines as the homeowner??? (Unless Henry's "homeowners" plan to do battle with the police).
Some on this board dance around this subject all the time, but their intentions are clear. They EXPECT to do battle with the police/military/ATF etc. For them, Ruby Ridge & the Waco wackos are justification for an all out war against their govt.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
They EXPECT to do battle with the police/military/ATF etc. For them, Ruby Ridge & the Waco wackos are justification for an all out war against their govt.
Why do police need military grade weapons? Why does the DHS need over 1 BILLION rounds of ammo? To do battle with the citizens? Nobody from Waco or Ruby Ridge attacked a government building. They were OFFENSIVE assaults by government agencies onto private property(tanks and all). So let's not try to rewrite history. History tells us, government treatens and conducts the most violence. Waco and Ruby are justifications to own weapons in order to defend your person and property from the historic fact of a government assault.
Why do police need military grade weapons? Why does the DHS need over 1 BILLION rounds of ammo? To do battle with the citizens? Nobody from Waco or Ruby Ridge attacked a government building. They were OFFENSIVE assaults by government agencies onto private property(tanks and all). So let's not try to rewrite history. History tells us, government treatens and conducts the most violence. Waco and Ruby are justifications to defend your person and property from the historic fact of a government assault.
See RP, They are arming for the coming war against their govt.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
: any of various automatic or semiautomatic firearms; especially : assault rifle First Known Use of ASSAULT WEAPON
1973 Learn More About ASSAULT WEAPON
Britannica.com: Encyclopedia article about "assault weapon"
Quoted Text
1as·sault noun \ə-ˈsȯlt\
Definition of ASSAULT
1 a : a violent physical or verbal attack b : a military attack usually involving direct combat with enemy forces c : a concerted effort (as to reach a goal or defeat an adversary) 2 a : a threat or attempt to inflict offensive physical contact or bodily harm on a person (as by lifting a fist in a threatening manner) that puts the person in immediate danger of or in apprehension of such harm or contact — compare battery 1b b : rape 2 See assault defined for English-language learners » See assault defined for kids » Examples of ASSAULT
She was injured in a brutal assault. Origin of ASSAULT
Middle English assaut, from Anglo-French, from Vulgar Latin *assaltus, from assalire First Known Use: 14th century Related to ASSAULT
Synonyms rape, ravishment, sexual assault, violation Related Words acquaintance rape, date rape, statutory rape; gang rape; indecent assault, molestation; defilement, deflowering Near Antonyms defense, defensive, guard, shield; opposition, resistance; protection, security, shelter more
Quoted Text
2assault verb Definition of ASSAULT
transitive verb 1 : to make an assault on 2 : rape 2 intransitive verb : to make an assault — as·sault·er noun See assault defined for English-language learners » Examples of ASSAULT
He was arrested for assaulting a police officer. She verbally assaulted one of her coworkers. Enemy forces assaulted the city. First Known Use of ASSAULT
15th century Related to ASSAULT
Synonyms rape, force, outrage, ravish, violate Related Words date rape; gang rape; molest; paw; defile, deflower Near Antonyms cover, defend, guard, protect, secure, shield more See Synonym Discussion at attack Other Legal Terms
actionable, alienable, carceral, chattel, complicity, decedent, larceny, malfeasance, modus operandi
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
So now box ditches the race war for another conspiracy theory hahahaha. And for your question why civilians should be armed just as well as the police is because homeowners have to deal with the scum before the police arrive. You want the police to be heavily armed but why not the ones who need the weapons more when it is actually needed, you make it seem as if the police face a different bad guy than civilian victims do when in fact they're the same. Maybe the real question should be why do you fear assault rifles in the hands of law abiding citizens.
"In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot."
See RP, They are arming for the coming war against their govt.
War? Nope, defense of person and property. Just want the same weapons government agencies deem appropriate to defend their persons and property. What's good for the goose...
U.N. RES. 1973 vs. THE U.S. WAR POWERS ACT OF 1973
By J.B. Williams March 30, 2011 NewsWithViews.com
The fact that Obama, Clinton, Gates and many other career politicos are outright liars is no secret to anyone. The steady string of outright lies flowing from the lips of these people over the last few years makes me think that they all went to the Bill Clinton School of professional lying.
But what is so troubling today is the plethora of media darlings who are willing to enforce blatant administration lies with outright lies of their own, leaving the American people drowning in a sea of deceptions, so deep that they have no clue which way is up.
In addition, we have libertarian anti-war nuts full of empty campaign bluster, who are otherwise just as shocked as I am that anyone believes them. Libertarians have been crying wolf over “illegal wars” since WWII. When they actually have a truly illegal war, they have no idea what to do about it, let alone the backbone to do it.
U.N. RES. 1973 was the only authority under which Barack Obama ordered U.S. troops into combat in Libya. Congress was not consulted. Congress did not declare war. Congress did not issue specific statutory authority for the action. Congress was not even advised in advance. The United Nations alone, backed by the U.S. administration waged war on Libya without congressional oversight.
Is it coincidental that the U.N. resolution is titled 1973?
The U.S. War Powers Act became U.S. law in 1973, over the veto attempt of President Richard Nixon. The War Powers Act stands as U.S. Law today. Democrats Bill Clinton and Barack Obama are the only presidents since to taken military action in direct violation of the War Powers Act.
Since its passage in 1973, the War Powers Act established that a U.S. President can use military force in only three situations.
• When congress declares war, which congress has not done since WWII. • When congress issues specific statutory authorization, as in Afghanistan and Iraq. • When the United States in under direct attack, be it on U.S. soil, U.S. assets, or U.S. interests. U.N. RES. 1973 is the tool being used to violate The War Powers Act of 1973. Congress did not declare war or pass specific statutory authority for Obama’s U.N. war on Libya. Clinton, Obama and the U.N. must be rolling on the floor in laughter over poking congress and the American people in the eye, using U.N. RES. 1973 to void the War Powers Act of 1973.
When asked if Libya presented any threat to the U.S., its assets or interests, Secretary of Defense Gates responded - "No, no," Gates said - "It was not -- it was not a vital national interest to the United States."
This is exactly why the Founders trusted the power to declare war with congress, not the president. After several presidents violated that trust, initiating use of military force without congressional authority, congress attempted to put a stop to such behaviors with the passage of the War Powers Act in 1973.
In dictator fashion, Obama pronounced to the world on March 28th – “I made it clear that Qaddafi had lost the confidence of his people and the legitimacy to lead, and I said that he needed to step down from power.”
1. Obama decided that Qaddafi lost the confidence of his people? 2. Obama decided that Qaddafi needs to step down? Who is Barack Obama to single handedly decide that a ruler of another sovereign nation must go? Is Obama aware that most Americans feel the same way about him?
This is why congressional oversight exists. Laws exist to keep a president from acting alone, beyond constitutional authority and at odds with the rule of law.
It doesn’t matter why Obama wanted to use military force in Libya. Under the U.S. Constitution and the 1973 War Powers Act, he is obligated by his oath of office to seek and gain congressional authority before ordering any U.S. troops into combat.
It doesn’t matter that Bill Clinton also violated the War Powers Act, or even that many ill-informed self-proclaimed experts believe that the War Powers Act is somehow unconstitutional, despite the fact that it was passed via constitutional process, even overcoming a presidential veto, and has never been set aside by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Idiots in Our Midst
Useful idiots have wrongly proclaimed so many wars “illegal” over the years that when a truly illegal war is underway, they are dumb-struck.
The current claims by kooks like Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul fall largely on deaf ears as they have been crying wolf over every war since Normandy. Not all military actions are unconstitutional, illegal or unwarranted. But the war in Libya is… so what do the anti-war types do now that it is their boy who committed the offense?
Is war illegal only when the other team does it, or even if they don’t?
The hypocrisy within the administration is blinding. Obama, Biden and Clinton are all on record condemning Bush on every military action since 9/11, even threatening to impeach him or have him tried on war crimes in international courts. The hypocrisy in the so-called anti-war movement isn’t any better, opposing “Bush’s wars” but not those that belong to Clinton or Obama.
It was only Bill Clinton and Barack Obama who actually ruled in a lawless administration though, for those interested in the facts.
Veterans Speak Out
Nobody knows more about war than our war veterans. Active duty soldiers are forbidden from speaking out against their Commander-in-Chief and will find themselves court-martialed and sitting in a prison like LTC Terry Lakin if they dare try.
But the Veterans can speak freely, so long as they don’t fear the loss of their pensions for doing so.
Representing thousands of retired U.S. Military Officers, Co-Chair of the United States Patriots Union Veterans Council is speaking out, loud and clear!
Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely (Ret.) had already called for the immediate resignation of Obama and his entire cabinet, in the best interest of the United States and the people. But in light of the situation in Libya, that call from Vallely and many other Veterans in the Council and beyond is reaching a crescendo.
“We all took an oath to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution, the rule of law and the people of the United States, against all enemies, foreign and domestic” – said Maj. Gen. Vallely.
“We have more violence and threat to national security on our southern border with Mexico than in Libya; at least before the Obama administration ignited a firestorm across the Middle East.” – Vallely said.
Maj. Gen. Vallely went even further –
“The Obama administration has repeatedly shown a total disregard for the Constitution and the rule of law, and now they have violated the War Powers Act as well. – This administration cannot be trusted with such power. They have thumbed their nose at the Constitution, the rule of law, the will of the American people and our national sovereignty and security. In the interest of the United States, I call upon the Obama administration to immediately resign. I further call upon the U.S. Congress to immediately begin impeachment of this lawless administration if they do not have the decency and honor to resign.” – Maj. Gen. Vallely “Is there anyone too stupid to understand that tyranny blatantly resides in the form of an imperial presidency, one in which the person, any person, uses executive power to dictate national policy without consent of the people, in violation of law, and defiance of the courts?” – says Dr. Gerald Stephens, former Marine. Even the elitist children at Yale can get this one right.
As usual, political half-breeds like McCain and Graham are out front carrying water for their alleged political nemesis, making it even more difficult for average Americans to tell up from down, or friend from foe.
Who’s running this country today, the United Nations or the U.S. Congress?
What constitutional authority does the United Nations have to order American troops into combat? Did the American people elect the United Nations?
Libya is not a humanitarian mission. Japan is a humanitarian mission. Can’t people tell the difference anymore?
If Obama is really worried about national security, he should be bombing just south of the U.S. - Mexican border, not halfway around the world in Libya, which presents no threat to American interests anywhere, and was peaceful compared to Mexico, until team Obama arrived.
The administration will bring their lies to congressional hearings tomorrow, and the American people need to flood their elected servants with phone calls until somebody takes a serious stand for the American people and the future of freedom here in this country.
Obama’s empty words about freedom and the rule of law abroad ring hollow to many here in America, as they watch this administration act as though they are the law of this land. Nothing could be further from the truth, except their false explanations for their assault on Libya.
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
Another revealing theme to this cartoon is the TRUE intentions of the left wing gun grabbers. They started off the gun grabbing debate with the noblest intentions of preventing school shootings and suicides. As the debate continued, now the REAL driving force behind the national gun grab has finally come out. The left wants to disarm their political opponents. They want to take away the guns of the person that says "Obama is a terrorist". Not because that person is a criminal or is going to shoot up a school, or is going to commit suicide(which I'm sure they wish he did). But because he is publicly dissenting against the regime. Even when statistic show that AR style rifles are responsible for a VERY SMALL number of gun deaths, yet they STILL are coming after them. Why?
They are trying everything and as you see with boxes attempts he wants gun owners to feel as if they did something wrong for owning a gun. Notice all his post suggesting how there are less gun owners like people should follow suit, its a keeping up with the Joneses strategy
"In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot."
War? Nope, defense of person and property. Just want the same weapons government agencies deem appropriate to defend their persons and property. What's good for the goose...
See RP? They NEED to out gun their opposition... And their opposition is NOT criminals... It's the govt.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Logged
