Palladin
NES Member
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
These "new tactics" sound more like an escalation and further militarization of the police. It's tough because I don't want cops to be easy targets, they have the right to defend themselves. Body armor sure, but having them walk around armed to the teeth like this is freakin' Fallujah is not ok. That will just make them feel even more justified in shooting first and ask questions later then cover up the results to protect the blue line. That is not the direction we need to go in. That is unfortunately the direction the Kenyan, Hitlery, Soros and the rest of the left want so they get the police state that locks down their power indefinitely.
Is there a difference between socialist europe and mass?
It would seem to me that both suck equally
The author just hasn't been paying attention. He sure posted a lot of info about the SKS though - maybe he didn't want to throw out all his research.
Evans is going to be on FNC shortly to talk about the Dallas shooting. It looks like a piranha did a number on his nose.
View attachment 171807
Is BLM an actual organized group with a leadership structure and some level of control over those running around in their name?
Is BLM an actual organized group with a leadership structure and some level of control over those running around in their name?
Yeah, considering they blew him up.I was listening to Beck this morning and he had an interesting interview with the shooters family and they kind of struck a lot of the media narrative down, bomb making factory in his bedroom, hateful towards white people, etc. I don't think we are ever going to know the real whole story.
I think the Police chief was outstanding.
The Dallas police chief said on Monday that Texas state laws allowing civilians to carry firearms openly, as some did during the protest where five officers were fatally shot, present rising challenges to law enforcement, as he stepped into America's fierce debate over gun rights.
...
Conservative Texas is known for its gun culture, and state laws allow gun owners to carry their weapons in public. Some gun rights activists bring firearms to rallies as a political statement. Some did this at Thursday's march in Dallas.
"It is increasingly challenging when people have AR-15's (a type of rifle) slung over, and shootings occur in a crowd. And they begin running, and we don’t know if they are a shooter or not," Brown said. "We don’t know who the 'good guy' versus who the 'bad guy' is, if everybody starts shooting."
I'd like to see politicians smarten up balance the budget, reduce the debt, stay out of other country's business, stay out of foreign wars, protect our shores and borders, reduce military spending, reduce regulations so US businesses can be profitable and provide manufacturing jobs here, eliminate the social safety net, eliminate social security, eliminate the ACA, end the war on drugs and repeal most laws.
That's a short inconclusive wish list, all of which is unlikely to happen because of the majority of Americans willing to vote into office politicians who support the opposite of what I would like. In other words, my wish list is unicorns and rainbows. To a statist I'm a snowflake.
I don't want a civil war, but I do have guns, ammo. and food stores because I think civil war is inevitable.
The only way civil war is not inevitable is if everyone gives up their guns, stops resisting and accepts all that progressive government would like for us.
I disagree, I don't see any of this sparking a civil war, nor should it. It takes just one person to unite the populace and see who the real enemy is, and it's not the person of another color
I think that sitting on the stove is a pot of "mini revolution" ...it's on low simmer and both, the people and the government, can turn the up the gas
Sounds like we all want the same things. And most of us have guns and ammo and I could easily get by for three months or more before I had to eat the pets, but I think of civil war as one of the least likely reasons I will need to use my preps.
But let's say for a minute that it were to happen. What is the objective? Is the goal to take over the entire country ? Just topple the government and install a whole new system? Or is that really more of a coupe, not a civil war? Or would the intention be to annex a few states and start a new country, gain recognition as a sovereign nation and elect a new old fashioned government ?
In the war against the states, individual states voted to leave the Union. There was an alternate government, defined territory, currency etc. The Confederacy, had they won, would be a country. With your inevitable civil war, the only way to " win" is essentially to kill enough of the current government and it's supporters , to rule... nation wide.
I have absolutely no idea what happens in my inevitable civil war.
He looks like the young Banjo Player in Dueling Banjos
I think the fundamental wish of many folks who understand the Constitution, how it came about and the writings of its authors would be to more permanently affix to it changes that remove the ambiguity that the politicians have been playing with for years.
Remove "A well regulated militia" from the 2nd Amendment and make it read more plainly that we have a right to keep and bear arms with some limits, but not many. Though, I am not sure that is even necessary, it isn't like I am going to be able to afford a Los Angeles class fast attack submarine right?
More clearly set boundaries for the 1st Amendment (not many, the old fire in a theater) as well as establish clear limits on the government's curtailing of the 1st Amendment (free speech zones? eff those).
More clearly define protections for the 4th and 5th Amendments with language that speaks to future possible "effects". We pretty easily made the jump from papers to email being protected by the 4th Amendment, but they have already found cracks in that language.
More clearly define the LIMITS on the Federal government and end this State's Rights bullshit completely. The Federal government does these things. Period. All else, is left to the States.
I'd argue for more clearly defining freedom. If something errs to freedom, that is the direction we want to go.
The Second Amendment has no restrictions. If you chose to attack somebody, convicted through legit due process, you've forfeited that right temporarily. Once you're sentence is over, and you're walking out of the jailhouse steps, you should have all your rights fully restored.
If you're still a danger to society, you should still in the clink.
The Second Amendment has no restrictions. If you chose to attack somebody, convicted through legit due process, you've forfeited that right temporarily. Once you're sentence is over, and you're walking out of the jailhouse steps, you should have all your rights fully restored.
If you're still a danger to society, you should still in the clink.
I think the fundamental wish of many folks who understand the Constitution, how it came about and the writings of its authors would be to more permanently affix to it changes that remove the ambiguity that the politicians have been playing with for years.
Remove "A well regulated militia" from the 2nd Amendment and make it read more plainly that we have a right to keep and bear arms with some limits, but not many. Though, I am not sure that is even necessary, it isn't like I am going to be able to afford a Los Angeles class fast attack submarine right?
More clearly set boundaries for the 1st Amendment (not many, the old fire in a theater) as well as establish clear limits on the government's curtailing of the 1st Amendment (free speech zones? eff those).
More clearly define protections for the 4th and 5th Amendments with language that speaks to future possible "effects". We pretty easily made the jump from papers to email being protected by the 4th Amendment, but they have already found cracks in that language.
More clearly define the LIMITS on the Federal government and end this State's Rights bullshit completely. The Federal government does these things. Period. All else, is left to the States.
I'd argue for more clearly defining freedom. If something errs to freedom, that is the direction we want to go.