Occam's Banana
Moderator

Again, it's not a "single issue" in the manner that many other issues are. If you do not have the fundamental understanding that free men are armed and serfs or slaves are disarmed by government edict, then you lack the basic understanding of how free men and government should co-exist in a free society. Full stop.

THREAD: Russia issues arrest warrant for Lindsey Graham

If the government cared about the environment--or even consumers with arthritis--"safe packaging" laws would already be repealed.

I'm going to need to know where the Swami is on muh bill of rights because these others are just too suspect.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Anti Federalist again. https://twitter.com/UncleZoGunTales/status/1661564409670512643

A tailless flying wing? Not for beginners. https://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.php?aircraft_id=549

Just just joined. https://secure.anedot.com/firearmspolicycoalition/march2023_joingaw?sc=joingaw

Okay, that was awesome. :tears:

If RFK Jr. thinks the NRA is a "terror group", I can't even begin to imagine what he would think of orgs like Gun Owners of America - or Firearms Policy Coalition, whose stock response to gun grabbers is literally "Fuck you. No.".

I was just posting that to have some fun with it, but it occurred to me, that second rant in my OP is the soundtrack that plays in the back of my mind 24/7.

https://twitter.com/lecternleader/status/1653484315949375488

LOL...I'd give it a shot.

RFK Jr. - "Defender" of the Bill of Rights (except the most important one, upon which the defense of the others ultimately depends): https://twitter.com/RobertKennedyJr/status/978719883528585217 John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment (archive link: https://archive.is/5aj9Z)] RFK Jr.: "the NRA is a terror group". (Actually, they're worse than that - they're Judas goats. Unfortunately, though, that's not why RFK Jr. hates them.)

"It wasn't competition ..." https://twitter.com/RickMcCargar/status/1663037159194984449

As has been amply demonstrated, the laws were never really meant to be enforced. They are effectively just window dressing - there for show, but not much else. They exist to be pointed at as reassurance (completely empty reassurance, as it turns out) that elections are fair, neutral, and even-handed, If that reassurance wasn't completely empty, then those responsible for all the rules-violating problems and irregularities that have been exposed would be held to account - and that would happen entirely regardless of whether there might be a number of "problematic" votes sufficient to change the outcome of an election. That those responsible for the violations and irregularities are not being held to account (and are apparently not going to be) is effectively a "green light" signalling that the laws and rules that supposedly govern the conduct of elections don't actually matter, and that they can be violated without consequence (just because the supposed winner would supposedly have won anyway). Thus, there's not a chance in hell any judge is going to have the balls to actually declare any election to be null and void (certainly not above a certain level of office, anyway) - no matter what shenanigans might be evidenced. Some excuse or other can always be found for ignoring or eliding any "irregularities", the easiest such excuse being "it cannot be said with any certainty that the outcome would have been different". As a practical matter, it is effectively impossible to prove the outcome would in fact have been different, even if it was true - and especially so if any cheating really did occur (the whole point and effect of cheating, after all, is to obfuscate the true results).