Advertisement
by Greater Cesnica » Sun Oct 07, 2018 4:28 pm
Sic Semper Tyrannis.
WA Discord Server
Authorship Dispatch
WA Ambassador: Slick McCooley
Firearm Rights are Human Rights
privacytools.io - Use these tools to safeguard your online activities, freedoms, and safety
My IFAK and Booboo Kit Starter Guide!
novemberstars#8888 on Discord
San Lumen wrote:You are ridiculous.George Orwell wrote:“That rifle on the wall of the labourer's cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there.”
by Greater Cesnica » Sun Oct 07, 2018 4:30 pm
Loben wrote:no
9mm
Sic Semper Tyrannis.
WA Discord Server
Authorship Dispatch
WA Ambassador: Slick McCooley
Firearm Rights are Human Rights
privacytools.io - Use these tools to safeguard your online activities, freedoms, and safety
My IFAK and Booboo Kit Starter Guide!
novemberstars#8888 on Discord
San Lumen wrote:You are ridiculous.George Orwell wrote:“That rifle on the wall of the labourer's cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there.”
by Hurtful Thoughts » Sun Oct 07, 2018 4:48 pm
Greater Cesnica wrote:Hey uh, can any of these kill a home invader?
https://www.airgunsource.ca/en/rifles/u ... page2.html
They shoot pellets under 500 fps, so I can get away with owning them without a license in Canada. Since Canada designates airguns that shoot over 500 fps as firearms, cus Canada is actual cancer when it comes to this stuff.
Mokostana wrote:See, Hurty cared not if the mission succeeded or not, as long as it was spectacular trainwreck. Sometimes that was the host Nation firing a SCUD into a hospital to destroy a foreign infection and accidentally sparking a rebellion... or accidentally starting the Mokan Drug War
Blackhelm Confederacy wrote:If there was only a "like" button for NS posts....
by Gig em Aggies » Sun Oct 07, 2018 4:56 pm
Gun Manufacturers wrote:Jolthig wrote:I fail to see the need to stock up guns against tyranny. I mean, guns can't fight against bombs or cruise missiles or tanks can they? The government would crush the armed militias.
It's more reasonable to have a gun for self-defense from a criminal, than against the government. It's simple paranoia that gun manufacturers want their buyers to believe.
I don't want my buyers to be paranoid, I just want to increase my prof... I mean, I want to promote firearms sports.
by Arengin Union » Sun Oct 07, 2018 5:31 pm
by Gun Manufacturers » Sun Oct 07, 2018 10:48 pm
Greater Cesnica wrote:Hey uh, can any of these kill a home invader?
https://www.airgunsource.ca/en/rifles/u ... page2.html
They shoot pellets under 500 fps, so I can get away with owning them without a license in Canada. Since Canada designates airguns that shoot over 500 fps as firearms, cus Canada is actual cancer when it comes to this stuff.
Natapoc wrote:...You should post more in here so I don't seem like the extremist...
Auraelius wrote:If you take the the TITANIC, and remove the letters T, T, and one of the I's, and add the letters C,O,S,P,R, and Y you get CONSPIRACY. oOooOooooOOOooooOOOOOOoooooooo
Maineiacs wrote:Give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and he'll sit in a boat and get drunk all day.
Luw wrote:Politics is like having two handfuls of shit - one that smells bad and one that looks bad - and having to decide which one to put in your mouth.
by Crockerland » Mon Oct 08, 2018 1:40 am
Greater Cesnica wrote:Hey uh, can any of these kill a home invader?
https://www.airgunsource.ca/en/rifles/u ... page2.html
They shoot pellets under 500 fps, so I can get away with owning them without a license in Canada. Since Canada designates airguns that shoot over 500 fps as firearms, cus Canada is actual cancer when it comes to this stuff.
by Kernen » Mon Oct 08, 2018 1:23 pm
by Greater Cesnica » Mon Oct 08, 2018 1:31 pm
Crockerland wrote:Greater Cesnica wrote:Hey uh, can any of these kill a home invader?
https://www.airgunsource.ca/en/rifles/u ... page2.html
They shoot pellets under 500 fps, so I can get away with owning them without a license in Canada. Since Canada designates airguns that shoot over 500 fps as firearms, cus Canada is actual cancer when it comes to this stuff.
Using the gun as intended, from a distance of several dozen feet or more, it's very unlikely you'd kill anyone unless you hit them square through the eye, though at a close enough range an air gun could certainly penetrate the skull; At the end of the day, it's better than nothing, even if certainly not ideal.
Sic Semper Tyrannis.
WA Discord Server
Authorship Dispatch
WA Ambassador: Slick McCooley
Firearm Rights are Human Rights
privacytools.io - Use these tools to safeguard your online activities, freedoms, and safety
My IFAK and Booboo Kit Starter Guide!
novemberstars#8888 on Discord
San Lumen wrote:You are ridiculous.George Orwell wrote:“That rifle on the wall of the labourer's cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there.”
by Saiwania » Mon Oct 08, 2018 1:52 pm
Arengin Union wrote:Raising the age to buy firearms to 21 is unconstitutional and should be grounds to depose and tried Jerry Brown and his cronies for treason.
by Greater vakolicci haven » Mon Oct 08, 2018 1:52 pm
by Greater vakolicci haven » Mon Oct 08, 2018 1:54 pm
Greater Cesnica wrote:Crockerland wrote:Using the gun as intended, from a distance of several dozen feet or more, it's very unlikely you'd kill anyone unless you hit them square through the eye, though at a close enough range an air gun could certainly penetrate the skull; At the end of the day, it's better than nothing, even if certainly not ideal.
I mean, if I get licensing, there are certain legal groups that will help me fight the retarded laws that are against me defending myself with a firearm against a deadly threat.
by Kernen » Mon Oct 08, 2018 1:55 pm
Saiwania wrote:Arengin Union wrote:Raising the age to buy firearms to 21 is unconstitutional and should be grounds to depose and tried Jerry Brown and his cronies for treason.
That is a bit of a stretch don't you think? There is more standing legal precedent for age limits than there is for example, banning all civilian access to firearms. I'd think that the 21 age requirement is easier to defend as constitutional than it'd be to defend a true example of gun control from being struck down in the US, that that was ever tried.
by Greater vakolicci haven » Mon Oct 08, 2018 1:56 pm
Kernen wrote:Saiwania wrote:
That is a bit of a stretch don't you think? There is more standing legal precedent for age limits than there is for example, banning all civilian access to firearms. I'd think that the 21 age requirement is easier to defend as constitutional than it'd be to defend a true example of gun control from being struck down in the US, that that was ever tried.
I suspect not. Raising the age to own a certain class of arms is, obviously, legal. We see that upheld all over the place in the form of handgun sale age limits. But for all firearms? You're systematically removing the right of a class of adults, 18-20 year olds, from exercising their right to bear arms in any form. Which gets you into 14th Amendment territory. So long as the age of majority is 18, you aren't going to win on broad age restrictions.
by Kernen » Mon Oct 08, 2018 1:59 pm
Greater vakolicci haven wrote:Kernen wrote:I suspect not. Raising the age to own a certain class of arms is, obviously, legal. We see that upheld all over the place in the form of handgun sale age limits. But for all firearms? You're systematically removing the right of a class of adults, 18-20 year olds, from exercising their right to bear arms in any form. Which gets you into 14th Amendment territory. So long as the age of majority is 18, you aren't going to win on broad age restrictions.
The courts seem to have a very retarded view about 14th amendment rights of 18-21 year olds. Given their are crimes they can be prosecuted for that those over 21 are immune from.
by Greater vakolicci haven » Mon Oct 08, 2018 2:01 pm
Kernen wrote:Greater vakolicci haven wrote:The courts seem to have a very retarded view about 14th amendment rights of 18-21 year olds. Given their are crimes they can be prosecuted for that those over 21 are immune from.
There is a policy reason for treating 18-20 year olds differently from 21 year olds insofar as brain development is still incomplete at 18.
But it doesn't jive with the clear age of majority being 18.
by Kernen » Mon Oct 08, 2018 2:04 pm
Greater vakolicci haven wrote:Kernen wrote:
There is a policy reason for treating 18-20 year olds differently from 21 year olds insofar as brain development is still incomplete at 18.
But it doesn't jive with the clear age of majority being 18.
Then change the age of majority.
Personally, studying law has driven me to hate 'policy reasons.' I favour a very strict interpretation of the law; it doesn't even have to make any degree of common sense. If that's what it says, that's what it says.
by Washington Resistance Army » Mon Oct 08, 2018 2:05 pm
Kernen wrote:Greater vakolicci haven wrote:Then change the age of majority.
Personally, studying law has driven me to hate 'policy reasons.' I favour a very strict interpretation of the law; it doesn't even have to make any degree of common sense. If that's what it says, that's what it says.
Literalism is basically the worst theory.
by Greater vakolicci haven » Mon Oct 08, 2018 2:06 pm
Kernen wrote:Greater vakolicci haven wrote:Then change the age of majority.
Personally, studying law has driven me to hate 'policy reasons.' I favour a very strict interpretation of the law; it doesn't even have to make any degree of common sense. If that's what it says, that's what it says.
Literalism is basically the worst theory.
by Kernen » Mon Oct 08, 2018 2:08 pm
Greater vakolicci haven wrote:Kernen wrote:Literalism is basically the worst theory.
Not really.
If you've made laws so dumb that to protect societal sanety courts have to interpret them in a way that bares no relation to the actual law itself, or quietly ignore sections of the law that are inconvenient for the continued functioning of society, you've made a bad law.
by Greater vakolicci haven » Mon Oct 08, 2018 2:10 pm
Kernen wrote:Greater vakolicci haven wrote:Not really.
If you've made laws so dumb that to protect societal sanety courts have to interpret them in a way that bares no relation to the actual law itself, or quietly ignore sections of the law that are inconvenient for the continued functioning of society, you've made a bad law.
Even the most aggressive forms of textualism abide by the canon to avoid absurdity, dude.
by Kernen » Mon Oct 08, 2018 2:12 pm
Greater vakolicci haven wrote:Kernen wrote:Even the most aggressive forms of textualism abide by the canon to avoid absurdity, dude.
You see, I'm not of the belief that societal stability is a particularly necessary thing. I think it's more important to know exactly where you stand; that your rights are not going to be removed based on a policy reason, or even more callously, the 'floodgates argument.'
by Greater vakolicci haven » Mon Oct 08, 2018 2:16 pm
Kernen wrote:Greater vakolicci haven wrote:You see, I'm not of the belief that societal stability is a particularly necessary thing. I think it's more important to know exactly where you stand; that your rights are not going to be removed based on a policy reason, or even more callously, the 'floodgates argument.'
Justice, though the heavens fall? Law is not a suicide pact.
by Kernen » Mon Oct 08, 2018 2:22 pm
Greater vakolicci haven wrote:Kernen wrote:
Justice, though the heavens fall? Law is not a suicide pact.
Justice at expense of all safeguards and hurdles is what society should strive for. The fact that the UK refuses to properly consider psychiatric injury, for example, is sickening; even more so when done to protect the court from a 'flood of complex claims.'
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Ancientania, El Rio De Juan, Hidrandia, Honourbound, Ifreann, Kainin, Maximum Imperium Rex, Sarolandia, Statesburg
Advertisement