|
posted to rec.boats
|
|
external usenet poster
|
|
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Aug 2013
Posts: 6,972
|
|
Very Refreshing
On 2/1/2015 6:48 PM, Tim wrote:
On Saturday, January 31, 2015 at 3:59:07 AM UTC-8, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/30/15 11:32 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jan 2015 14:55:59 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:
On 1/30/15 2:32 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jan 2015 13:10:06 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:
On 1/30/15 12:52 PM, wrote:
Bloomberg isn't spending his money to promote voter suppression,
backwards, overly religious candidates, and regressive legislation as
the Kochs are.
No, he wants to take your assault rifles away from you.
I support most of Bloomberg's
efforts to tighten up firearms laws on illegal possession,
One of them is eliminating civilian ownership of guns like your ARs.
So? If it came to pass, I'd do what was required. I'm a gun hobbyist,
not a crazed NRA gun nutsie.
So you would just turn it in and take the $50 the government said was
just compensation?
I'm certainly *not* going to try to hold off federal or local law
enforcement agents...I'll leave that to Wayne, who said here he would in
order to retain possession of his firearms.
I'd rather give them up and then go to the beach. Firearms are a hobby
for me.
--
Proud to be a Liberal.
I agree with Thomas Jefferson
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in Government... The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed"
Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)
Tim, that's a wonderful historical statement, true for it's time. It's
more of a tradition now though. I don't care how many guns are
privately owned, there's no way they could be used to fend off the US
military if our government somehow decided to become "tyrannical".
Heck, they can't agree on how many sugars to put in a coffee.
|