ATTENTION YouTubers! - The Fiend is supposed to introduce legislation today

[tangent4ronpaul]

In the Senate to kill 2nd Amd rights. I believe it's supposed to happen at 1pm, but keep an eye out earlier.

:(

-t

[JK/SEA]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-QQI6lb_Hg

Dedicated to the Senator from California.

[Noob]

defeat Feinstein's Gun Ban

http://www.nagr.org/FeinsteinGunBan_Petition.aspx?pid=2



Going Nuclear is No Option

http://www.nagr.org/filibusterfax.aspx?pid=i


STOP FEINSTEIN'S ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN

https://secure.freedomdonations.com/ccrkba/feinstein_ban/?a=7357-po

[ClydeCoulter]

If they consider the contract between the states as just a goddamn piece of paper, then how do they expect us to consider their goddamn pieces of paper that they vote on as anything other than a waste of sawdust and glue?

[tangent4ronpaul]

If they consider the contract between the states as just a goddamn piece of paper, then how do they expect us to consider their goddamn pieces of paper that they vote on as anything other than a waste of sawdust and glue?

It's not a waste... Everyone needs TP. But FRN's and corn cobs work too... :rolleyes:

-t

[tangent4ronpaul]

Seriously, the US treasury needs to start talking to whoever manufactures Charman(sp?). I mean really folks, get with the program!!!!

-t

[mrsat_98]

TWO SUPREME COURT DECISIONS THE ANTI-GUNNERS

DON'T WANT YOU TO HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF



There are two Supreme Court rulings that directly relate to the current anti-Assault Weapon issue everyone needs to be reminded of.


The first is United States v. Miller 1939. Miller possessed a sawed-off shotgun banned under the National Firearms Act. He argued that he had a right to bear the weapon under the Second Amendment, but the Supreme Court ruled against him. Why? At the time and currently, sawed-off shotguns were not being used in a military application, and the Supremes ruled that since it didn't, it was not protected. Even though Miller lost that argument, the Miller case set the precedent that protected firearms have a military, and thus a legitimate and protected Militia use. The military now uses shotguns regularly, but not very short, sawed-off shotguns, but an AR-15/AK-47 type weapon is currently in use by the military, therefore it is a protected weapon for the Unorganized Militia, which includes just about every American citizen now that both age and sex discrimination are illegal. (The original Militia included men of age 17-45) Therefore any firearm that is applicable to military use is clearly protected under Article II, and that includes all those nasty-looking semi-automatic black rifles, including full 30 round magazines.



The second important case is that of John Bad Elk v. United States from 1900. In that case, an attempt was made to arrest Mr. Bad Elk without probable cause, and Mr. Bad Elk killed a policeman who was attempting the false arrest. Bad Elk had been found guilty and sentenced to death. However, the Supreme Court ruled that Bad Elk had the right to use any force, including lethal force, to prevent his false arrest, even if the policeman was only trying to arrest him and not kill him. Basically, the Supremes of the day ruled that as a citizen, you have the right to defend against your civil rights being violated using ANY force necessary to prevent the violation, even if the offending party isn't trying to kill you.


Both of these cases are standing law to this day.

( Shepardized 13/01/23)

[Lucille]

If they consider the contract between the states as just a goddamn piece of paper, then how do they expect us to consider their goddamn pieces of paper that they vote on as anything other than a waste of sawdust and glue?

Truth!

A LETTER TO CONGRESSMAN THOMAS F. BAYARD: CHALLENGING HIS RIGHT -- AND THAT OF ALL THE OTHER SO-CALLED SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES IN CONGRESS -- TO EXERCISE ANY LEGISLATIVE POWER WHATEVER OVER THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES
http://lysanderspooner.org/node/60


All this pretended delegation of legislative power -- that is, of a power, on the part of the legislators, so-called, to make any laws of their own device, distinct from the law of nature -- is therefore an entire falsehood; a falsehood whose only purpose is to cover and hide a pure usurpation, by one body of men, of arbitrary dominion over other men.
[...]
Plainly, a man who exercises any arbitrary dominion over other men and who claims to be exercising only a delegated power, but cannot show who his principals are, nor, consequently, prove that he has any principals, must be presumed, both in law and reason, to have no principals; and therefore to be exercising no power but his own. And having, of right, no such power of his own, he is, both in law and reason, a naked usurper.
[...]
Do you really think, Sir, that such a constitution as this can avail to justify those who, like yourself, are engaged in enforcing it? Is it not plain, rather, that the members of Congress, as a legislative body, whether they are conscious of it or not, are in reality, a mere cabal of swindlers, usurpers, tyrants and robbers? Is it not plain that they are stupendous blockheads, if they imagine that they are anything else than such a cabal? Or that their so-called laws impose the least obligation upon anybody?

[Philhelm]

Seriously, the US treasury needs to start talking to whoever manufactures Charman(sp?). I mean really folks, get with the program!!!!

-t

I'd prefer Cottonelle with Aloe. The only downside is that the soothing texture causes dingleberries on a massive, massive scale.

[Noob]

Contact your Senators. Urge him to vote against any motion to proceed to goofball anti-gun bills like S. 54.

http://capwiz.com/gunowners/issues/alert/?alertid=62456266&PROCESS=Take+Action