JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
nc_ohc=1gdlMemzW6UAb47vMmj&_nc_ht=scontent.fhio3-1.jpg
 
Fun fact; the NFA was upheld* on account of the designated firearms were deemed unsuitable for use in a military fashion, which was a recognized aspect of the 2nd at the time. Contrast that today with the argument that guns should be banned due to having only a military purpose. . .

*Yes, the plaintiff had died and no actual argument really took place in that case, but that does not diminish the fact that this was the argument SCOTUS published in their opinion on the case. . .
 
Fun fact; the NFA was upheld* on account of the designated firearms were deemed unsuitable for use in a military fashion, which was a recognized aspect of the 2nd at the time. Contrast that today with the argument that guns should be banned due to having only a military purpose. . .

*Yes, the plaintiff had died and no actual argument really took place in that case, but that does not diminish the fact that this was the argument SCOTUS published in their opinion on the case. . .
It was a specious assertion and fallacious reasoning then, and even more so now.
 
It was a specious assertion and fallacious reasoning then, and even more so now.
For sure, I just find it ironic that one of gun control's crowning achievement was founded on reasoning that is directly opposite of the "reasoning" they are pushing today. I like to bring up that case when arguing with them and ask if that means all the NFA stuff should be recognized as protected by the 2nd since we have a SCOTUS ruling it all as explicitly not military in nature. . . It is fun watching them destroy their own arguments just to keep what they already have.
 
For sure, I just find it ironic that one of gun control's crowning achievement was founded on reasoning that is directly opposite of the "reasoning" they are pushing today. I like to bring up that case when arguing with them and ask if that means all the NFA stuff should be recognized as protected by the 2nd since we have a SCOTUS ruling it all as explicitly not military in nature. . . It is fun watching them destroy their own arguments just to keep what they already have.
It's all about the feels. They want you to feel like guns are bad. It's a classic Marxist approach.
 
It's all about the feels. They want you to feel like guns are bad. It's a classic Marxist approach.
For sure, you just have to get to that point in the argument, because they always start off presenting their philosophy as reasonable and logic based. It's only when you start digging do you find the insanity.
 
For sure, I just find it ironic that one of gun control's crowning achievement was founded on reasoning that is directly opposite of the "reasoning" they are pushing today. I like to bring up that case when arguing with them and ask if that means all the NFA stuff should be recognized as protected by the 2nd since we have a SCOTUS ruling it all as explicitly not military in nature. . . It is fun watching them destroy their own arguments just to keep what they already have.
Whatever works. The antis don't care whether they are correct or not, they only care about results. If that means lying and/or using emotional persuasion, then if it works, it is good.
 
Whatever works. The antis don't care whether they are correct or not, they only care about results. If that means lying and/or using emotional persuasion, then if it works, it is good.
Yep, and they will be successful at that every time if left unchallenged. The mask only slips if there is someone there to tug at it.
 

Upcoming Events

Good News!! The Carson, WA shows are back!!
Carson, WA
Handgun Self Defense Fundamentals
Sweet Home, OR
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top