“I support government intervening unconstitutionally in all private sales and transfers of legally owned property because I’m a Statist. I’m one of the ignorant masses.”
So I don’t have to validate the Mexican guy I sold my chainsaw to, but I should have run my father through a background check to give him my .380 after a break-in? Not in my America.
Why are you afraid to show your face? Is there a legal reason perhaps? Are you just really ugly? Or are you just a coward? Be a man show your face and your guns.
Like I posted a few days ago
A Liberal with a gun will use it to oppress a Conservetive with a gun+their famly, just like their Stazzi mentors
But really this is just Agi-prop, if that kid owns any handguns he’s violating federal law
Perhaps he’s just afraid of “responsible” gun owners tracking him down and threatening to kill him, as happened to staff of the NYT. I mean just look at how rabid and hateful you are about somebody who SUPPORTS gun ownership, but wants to have a sanity check to prevent psychos from owning them – or would a ban on psychos prevent you from buying guns? Is that your problem with this guy?
Anyway, isn’t anonymous free speech a cornerstone of the constitution of this country? Why do you hate America so much?
“Anyway, isn’t the Second Amendment a cornerstone of the constitution of this country? Why do you hate America so much?”
There ya go, hmmm.
By the way, as we’ve seen from this recent debacle, antis display FAR more willingness to incite violence, endanger people, and kill those with varying opinions. Nice try though, projectionist.
I don’t care about his mask, although the character represented was against state control, not in favor of it. What’s wrong there is his lack of logic and facts. Banning private sales will only stop those people who are willing to follow the law.
Rabid and hateful isn’t how I would describe it considering how loaded both of those words are. I personally don’t foam at the mouth, thank you.
Note that he defined specifically why he owns firearms “for hunting”–not, apparently, for anything else. Also note that HE did not define why he wants background checks, you put those words in his mouth. And though it is interesting to be labeled a psycho, as it’s never happened before, I know for a fact that because of my moral and political views many people would consider me a psycho, just as religious fundamentalists would consider to be eternally damned because I see no supreme being–my owning guns and buying them without background checks does not cause YOU danger though I have no intent of harming anyone who doesn’t intend to harm me.
And how, if you will permit me, will anyone ever successfully ban “psychos” by passing a law? Are you going to regulate how people’s minds function?
Also, he doesn’t support gun ownership, he supports hunting gun ownership…which has nothing to do with the 2A. He also supports state intervention in a Constitutionally protected right, which is a slippery slop to inevitable corruption and de facto bans. I bet you wouldn’t like background checks to make sure you’re well enough to practice your 1A rights (hint: you’re not).
God, gain some comprehension before you come on here and spout your idiocy.
I never said he did not have the right of free speech, I just said he was a chicken shit for hiding behind a mask. Cowards have the same rights a brave men and women.
Say how do we not know that “Trevor” here is not a “rabid and hateful” psychopath or a convicted felon bared from owning guns? Perhaps it’s more then being a craven coward that keeps him from showing his face?
Anyway why don’t you want to keep guns out of the hands of those that ought not have them?
It doesn’t seem like anyone here wants to deny him his right to anonymity. But people are going to take statements like this less seriously when there isn’t a name or face attached.
There’s also bad associations with people wearing masks, even from occupy itself. Occupy Boston’s “security” wore masks because it’s easier to strong-arm and intimidate people when no one knows who you are. That’s obviously not this guy’s intention, but wearing a mask calls to mind some unfortunate associations.
“Perhaps he’s just afraid of “responsible” gun owners tracking him down and threatening to kill him, as happened to staff of the NYT.”
We only have the NYT’s word for that. Notice how none of the staff of the NYT were hunted down and killed, hmmmm?
Dear Hummmmmmer (as in slang oral sex act): Anybody who mentions hunting while discussing this topic, DOES NOT support the 2nd amendment. Hunting and sports are brought up to divide and conquer while establishing a false allegiance.
Clever, evil libtards.
Guy Fawke’s public perception in many ways changed since V for Vendetta became a movie-especially I think in America where few even know much about him.
Odd that Guy Fawkes should be mentioned TODAY.
On this day (January 27th), in 1606, the trial of Guy Fawkes and his fellow conspirators began. They were executed on January 31.
At the time Parliament was having fun having Catholics tortured to death for being Catholic and killing civilians by the tens of thousands in Ireland, so I’d hesitate to call him a “true scumbag.”
I smell a hoax. The fact that he’s not showing his face makes me doubt he’s a legit gun owner. Everyone else doing those pictures is showing their face. I think its because someone would find out who he is and call him out as a phony. He could have easily done a google search for hunting firearms to spin propaganda. Or its MikeyB#s. Either way ignore the troll.
Too bad 91 percent of a constitutional republic don’t get to rewrite Constitutionally-protected rights. Rights aren’t up to popular vote. Sorry, buddy, the government was set up this way to prevent a majority of idiots from turning America into a thugocracy.
Am I the only one who doesn’t understand the Guy Fawkes mask being used as a symbol to FURTHER oppression and curtail rights? Uh, think you have that backwards, pal. It’s ok, without idiots on display, how would we know who the smart ones are?
Have fun selling out true American gun owners, Trev, and falling head over heels into the government’s divide and conquer tactics. I’m sure the gov’t will never come for yours.
“Too bad 91 percent of a constitutional republic don’t get to rewrite Constitutionally-protected rights”
LOL – you really have exactly zero clue what you are talking about! Try opening any book about the constitution and see how wrong you are slick, if you can actually read.
So you think if 91% of the population supported an amendment then their representatives would not vote for it? I have no words for how stupid you sound.
…that’s still the representatives voting, NOT the popular vote. Since when do reps vote according to what the people want rather than their own agendas anyway? Are you kidding me? Could you POSSIBLY be this mind-numbingly stupid?
I think you know you’re wrong and just can’t admit it.
“So you think if 91% of the population supported an amendment then their representatives would not vote for it?”
Regarding the second amendment, the Constitution hasn’t changed. Until it does, the government is bound to follow it, regardless of what the people want. That’s how our system works.
“Could you POSSIBLY be this mind-numbingly stupid?”
somebody grab a body bag.
Silver just made a mess out of Hmmmmm. LMAO!!!
couldnt have responded better silver, bravo!
Small, but very important point.
Even if 91% of the public supported it, AND 91% of reps voted for it, and ammendment to the Constitution that revokes ANY of the Bill of Rights (1-10) does NOT remove that right. Those rights are inherent, unalienable, natural rights. My right to defend my self exists, with or without the Constitution.
An ammendment that revokes the 2nd simply confirms that we have a Tyrannical gov’t, and all bets are off.
An new amendment requires two thirds of the state legislatures to ratify same. That ratification requires a two thirds majority vote. Since all but a few states also have RTKBA amendments in their state constitutions, this is unlikely. It appears that the current administration is also trying to avoid another nulification crisis. Hmmmm you should look up the definition of jury nulification too, if you want to see where this argument is going.
Dude, he’s right. That’s kind of the point of the constitution.
The Bill of Rights is a written articulation and guarantee of human rights that inherent in every human being, provided that person can and will govern himself. You or your supposed “91 percent” have no right to infringe upon the rights of others, no matter what Constitution amendments you repeal or pass.
“You or your supposed “91 percent” have no right to infringe upon the rights of others, no matter what Constitution amendments you repeal or pass.”
poetically spoken and absolutely true.
that particular point has been very amusing to me in regards to obama and the anti-gun movement in this country: i dont care if your calls for gun control are popular and majority (which is a incorrect assertion in my opinion). my rights are not dictated by the majority.
the very idea of “majority rules” is among the most anti-american concepts that exists.
Fools who think being in a majority means they’re right. Because quantity always means quality, right? Just looks at how many people read/see Twilight.
Does that name, “the 91%,” have any particular meaning? I Googled it, but all that came up was something about a tax rate in the ’50’s.
On an unrelated note, I saw someone opine recently that given the number of copies sold, at least some of which will survive long after we’re gone, and the fact that most of the criticism of it exists only online, and those electrons will not survive long after we’re gone, it’s entirely possible that some distant future archaeologists will form the opinion that Twilight was the Beowulf of our time.
Which begs the question: When Beowulf was penned, did people think it was the dumbest, most far-fetched, fairy tale crap ever put on paper?
I’m going to guess the 91 percent is those who support universal background checks. As if that somehow makes it right.
I wonder that percentage of people supported slavery 200 years ago.
On the question of Beowulf, the answer is no. It was probably written by a poet employed by nobility. It’s style fits in well with the rules of Old English poetry–rules that are complex, requiring skill to write.
Twilight? Not so much.
“Quantity has a quality all its own” – Joseph Stalin
I challenge the truthfullness of any claim that 91% of American citizens support universal background checks. Sounds like bullsh1t to me.
Well…good luck with your hunt. If you are ever in a self defense situation…will you tell the perp that he is free to rape your wife because you only have hunting firearms?
This one bears watching: He’s clearly implying that he’s willing to sell out anyone who does not possess guns for ‘hunting.’
This is the Face of the Enemy Within–the gun-owner who will happily stand by when They come for those EBRs and semi-auto pistols, as HE is a hunter and owns only ‘sporting guns’ and thus just KNOWS that he will be left alone.
This time.
The mask is simply silly. And an act of cowardice. This is the man who’d secretly turn in his EBR-owning neighbour to the Government, rest assured.
Indeed. Those like him represent the unfortunate truth that the greatest threat to America today is her own “citizens” (I use that term loosely for these types). Like I keep saying, owning a gun does make one a gun rights advocate. Sometimes they’re as much a traitor as a Brady, as in the case of this guy.
Tried to your reply above but the system would not let me. It’s funny to read ” gunshow loophole” when it’s in fact the banning of private gun sales. I can’t run a background check on a buyer as unlike a FFL dealer ( I state dealer as there are other FFL types ) I don’t have the authority or access to NCIS. The only reason the term gunshow loophole was used was to confuse the public into thinking this was all about gunshows. Just another lie
The politically correct gun owners have no idea that they are going to be the next targets of the gun control movement. There are already animal rights activists and environmentalist that do not approve of hunting. The lowly shotgun will become the next assault weapon, and revolvers will just be handguns designed to kill humans. Many of these Hunting types do not realize that the gun control movement looks down upon all firearms with disdain. As an example, take a look at the British Commonwealth. The few common citizens that owns hunting rifles and shotguns are not very popular in their own country, which used to have a hunting tradition.
Yeah I guess these guys can’t envision a day where the anti-hunting crowd teams up with the Brady.org types to turn those of us who still have our manually operated firearms into monsters for killing Bambi and Babe.
Get f***ed, “Mr Fawkes”
They already have. I can not recall the woman’s name but she helped lead the gun bans in Australia – she has stated any rifle that fires over 100 yards should be classified a sniper rifle
What this man doesn’t realize is that if all the MSRs are banned, lever and bolt guns will be next on the list. It doesn’t matter if it’s tomorrow, next year, or a hundred years from now. If one class of firearm is banned, there WILL be attempts to ban another at some point. Incrementalism is not in this man’s vocabulary.
I am a cadet at an undisclosed military college (I’d prefer to remain anonymous to avoid any repercussions on my military career) and hope to earn a commission in the United States Navy.
My webcam doesn’t work and my handwriting is illegible, so I will not use my own picture (also for anonymity reasons).
I think of the Democratic Party as too right-wing.
I oppose capital punishment.
I support labor unions.
I support public education.
I support universal healthcare.
I believe in an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense and other purposes. This includes sidearms, lever-action rifles, bolt-action rifles, pump-action shotguns, semi-automatic shotguns, semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines, short-barreled longarms, sound reducers, and automatic weapons.
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, but they do not outweigh the rights of the one.
Thanks for letting us know that you are ripe for recruitment into a seditious cabal and if you think your numerous posts on the net have not been tagged and flaged for use in your up comming security check by the very Liberals you fawn over think again
“The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, but they do not outweigh the rights of the one.”
That’s a good summary of True Liberalism. There are probably a lot more true liberals than people think, but they just aren’t well represented by Democratic leadership.
With that mishmash of political thought, some of it is not going to survive. Big government and the rewarding and encouragement of a lack of individual responsibility are not hallmarks that dovetail with firearm rights.
This. I’m always surprised (though I shouldn’t be) at the people who think we can have an all powerful government and yet not have the government disarm the people.
As a 12 year military officer (O-4), here’s a homework assignment.
Read “The 5,000 year leap” by W. Cleon Skousen. You will learn why it’s important to define your framework when you say “left-wing” or “right-wing”. Most people who use those terms don’t know what they mean, and people who claim to be one or the other are using very different definitions. Current D and R are both left-of-center from where we started.
Unfortunately, as noted by Merits and Totenglock, your professed views on personal freedoms are incompatible at a fundamental level with the policies/programs you claim to support.
Remember, remember, the sixth of November, the electoral treason and plot. I deplore the bad reasoning and the fancy deceivings that led some to vote for that snot.
I was just fine with this dude and his V-disguised opinions up until the last line.
You like the lever guns, the wheel guns, and the bolt actions- for hunting. That’s fine by me. I wouldn’t hunt anything bigger than a home invader with a .44 personally, but that’s just me. No shotguns, though?
If you support universal background checks, that’s fine, just be prepared to explain how that particular piece of feel good restriction will actually help this situation.
But when we get to this little 91% part, then I’m less interested, or convinced. And maybe a little pissed off. That’s a little too buzz-wordy for me to take as a valid opinion. I’m sure there’s some NRA members that have similar opinions, but I’m thinking they’re more than likely the 9% of that particular sum, and that’s being extremely generous.
Now, if he’d worn a Nixon mask, on the other hand…..
What he meant to say was “i support government tracking of guns through background checks on all private sales since we need more government control”….right?
I am old enough to remember when you could order any gun you wanted and ammo , rifles, pistols,shotguns, was even adds in magazines, I got a 22 pistol when i turned 21 as all you had to do was write a statement that you were 21 and not breaking any local laws…. and best yet the only CRIME was in the movies i saw ,, sure we had hot cars, girls, but no drugs that’s how America was just like in Rockwell drawing! Got my first rifle at SEARS a 1917 US Enfield for $ under 50 bucks… the 22 pistol was $18 bucks>>>>>>>WOW
another ironic hypocrite wearing a guy fawkes mask.
occupiers and anarchists dont know much about guy fawks, but i find it hilarious that they wear his face and think he represents freedom from oppression.
For one, the mask is licensed by time warner. Each purchase of a guy fawkes mask has accumulated into billions for time warner.
second, fawkes was trying to establish a theocracy…which is the opposite of a democracy and what the wearer’s of the mask claim to represent.
Hilarious.
Ill support universal background checks when they become a magical, mythological entity that can appear everywhere there is a transaction for a firearm.
Here’s a idea: Can we leave constitutional rights alone and focus on our 16 trillion dollars worth of debt?
Don’t bother posting anything on their stupid Facebook page. I posted a comment in opposition to greater gun control and it took them less than five minutes to block me from posting anything else.
You do realize that V himself would have been against background checks for buying guns, right?
The man wore a mask for a reason: He understood that being anonymous helped stymie the power of the overbearing state. background checks put an end to anonymity.
“I support government intervening unconstitutionally in all private sales and transfers of legally owned property because I’m a Statist. I’m one of the ignorant masses.”
Fixed that for ya!
+1
So I don’t have to validate the Mexican guy I sold my chainsaw to, but I should have run my father through a background check to give him my .380 after a break-in? Not in my America.
and a “Fudd”
Why are you afraid to show your face? Is there a legal reason perhaps? Are you just really ugly? Or are you just a coward? Be a man show your face and your guns.
Smells like an Anti in Pro clothing to me
Like I posted a few days ago
A Liberal with a gun will use it to oppress a Conservetive with a gun+their famly, just like their Stazzi mentors
But really this is just Agi-prop, if that kid owns any handguns he’s violating federal law
Perhaps he’s just afraid of “responsible” gun owners tracking him down and threatening to kill him, as happened to staff of the NYT. I mean just look at how rabid and hateful you are about somebody who SUPPORTS gun ownership, but wants to have a sanity check to prevent psychos from owning them – or would a ban on psychos prevent you from buying guns? Is that your problem with this guy?
Anyway, isn’t anonymous free speech a cornerstone of the constitution of this country? Why do you hate America so much?
“Anyway, isn’t the Second Amendment a cornerstone of the constitution of this country? Why do you hate America so much?”
There ya go, hmmm.
By the way, as we’ve seen from this recent debacle, antis display FAR more willingness to incite violence, endanger people, and kill those with varying opinions. Nice try though, projectionist.
I don’t care about his mask, although the character represented was against state control, not in favor of it. What’s wrong there is his lack of logic and facts. Banning private sales will only stop those people who are willing to follow the law.
Rabid and hateful isn’t how I would describe it considering how loaded both of those words are. I personally don’t foam at the mouth, thank you.
Note that he defined specifically why he owns firearms “for hunting”–not, apparently, for anything else. Also note that HE did not define why he wants background checks, you put those words in his mouth. And though it is interesting to be labeled a psycho, as it’s never happened before, I know for a fact that because of my moral and political views many people would consider me a psycho, just as religious fundamentalists would consider to be eternally damned because I see no supreme being–my owning guns and buying them without background checks does not cause YOU danger though I have no intent of harming anyone who doesn’t intend to harm me.
And how, if you will permit me, will anyone ever successfully ban “psychos” by passing a law? Are you going to regulate how people’s minds function?
Who said anything about restricting his speech? Not agreeing with someone does not have to mean you want to limit his rights.
Also, he doesn’t support gun ownership, he supports hunting gun ownership…which has nothing to do with the 2A. He also supports state intervention in a Constitutionally protected right, which is a slippery slop to inevitable corruption and de facto bans. I bet you wouldn’t like background checks to make sure you’re well enough to practice your 1A rights (hint: you’re not).
God, gain some comprehension before you come on here and spout your idiocy.
I never said he did not have the right of free speech, I just said he was a chicken shit for hiding behind a mask. Cowards have the same rights a brave men and women.
Say how do we not know that “Trevor” here is not a “rabid and hateful” psychopath or a convicted felon bared from owning guns? Perhaps it’s more then being a craven coward that keeps him from showing his face?
Anyway why don’t you want to keep guns out of the hands of those that ought not have them?
It doesn’t seem like anyone here wants to deny him his right to anonymity. But people are going to take statements like this less seriously when there isn’t a name or face attached.
There’s also bad associations with people wearing masks, even from occupy itself. Occupy Boston’s “security” wore masks because it’s easier to strong-arm and intimidate people when no one knows who you are. That’s obviously not this guy’s intention, but wearing a mask calls to mind some unfortunate associations.
“Perhaps he’s just afraid of “responsible” gun owners tracking him down and threatening to kill him, as happened to staff of the NYT.”
We only have the NYT’s word for that. Notice how none of the staff of the NYT were hunted down and killed, hmmmm?
Dear Hummmmmmer (as in slang oral sex act): Anybody who mentions hunting while discussing this topic, DOES NOT support the 2nd amendment. Hunting and sports are brought up to divide and conquer while establishing a false allegiance.
Clever, evil libtards.
TRYING to be a CLEVER TREVOR. And failing miserably.
Whoever you are, UP YOURS.
I do hate the Guy Hawkes masks, as he was a true scumbag.
Guy Fawke’s public perception in many ways changed since V for Vendetta became a movie-especially I think in America where few even know much about him.
Sorry on the name typo. Did not even notice it on my iPhone. Thanks for the correction as I missed it.
Guy FAWKES. Alias Guido Fawkes.
You guys are down on him, because he wanted to restore Vatican clergy to the British throne? JESUS.
Just kidding.
Odd that Guy Fawkes should be mentioned TODAY.
On this day (January 27th), in 1606, the trial of Guy Fawkes and his fellow conspirators began. They were executed on January 31.
At the time Parliament was having fun having Catholics tortured to death for being Catholic and killing civilians by the tens of thousands in Ireland, so I’d hesitate to call him a “true scumbag.”
He’s probably afraid someone will recognize him, and know that he doesn’t actually own any guns.
+1
I smell a hoax. The fact that he’s not showing his face makes me doubt he’s a legit gun owner. Everyone else doing those pictures is showing their face. I think its because someone would find out who he is and call him out as a phony. He could have easily done a google search for hunting firearms to spin propaganda. Or its MikeyB#s. Either way ignore the troll.
http://youtu.be/dddAi8FF3F4
Too bad 91 percent of a constitutional republic don’t get to rewrite Constitutionally-protected rights. Rights aren’t up to popular vote. Sorry, buddy, the government was set up this way to prevent a majority of idiots from turning America into a thugocracy.
Am I the only one who doesn’t understand the Guy Fawkes mask being used as a symbol to FURTHER oppression and curtail rights? Uh, think you have that backwards, pal. It’s ok, without idiots on display, how would we know who the smart ones are?
Have fun selling out true American gun owners, Trev, and falling head over heels into the government’s divide and conquer tactics. I’m sure the gov’t will never come for yours.
“Too bad 91 percent of a constitutional republic don’t get to rewrite Constitutionally-protected rights”
LOL – you really have exactly zero clue what you are talking about! Try opening any book about the constitution and see how wrong you are slick, if you can actually read.
Wow, can you be that ignorant? You have absolutely no clue what a constitutional republic is as opposed to an unhindered democracy.
Sad. Shows the unbridled idiocy at work amongst antis, as if we needed more proof.
Let me break it down…I’ll use small words.
No law can be made in opposition to the grounding principles of the Constitution. NONE. Unless formally amended, which is NOT up to popular vote.
Catch all that? Ok, go have your juice box.
So you think if 91% of the population supported an amendment then their representatives would not vote for it? I have no words for how stupid you sound.
…that’s still the representatives voting, NOT the popular vote. Since when do reps vote according to what the people want rather than their own agendas anyway? Are you kidding me? Could you POSSIBLY be this mind-numbingly stupid?
I think you know you’re wrong and just can’t admit it.
“So you think if 91% of the population supported an amendment then their representatives would not vote for it?”
Regarding the second amendment, the Constitution hasn’t changed. Until it does, the government is bound to follow it, regardless of what the people want. That’s how our system works.
“Could you POSSIBLY be this mind-numbingly stupid?”
somebody grab a body bag.
Silver just made a mess out of Hmmmmm. LMAO!!!
couldnt have responded better silver, bravo!
Small, but very important point.
Even if 91% of the public supported it, AND 91% of reps voted for it, and ammendment to the Constitution that revokes ANY of the Bill of Rights (1-10) does NOT remove that right. Those rights are inherent, unalienable, natural rights. My right to defend my self exists, with or without the Constitution.
An ammendment that revokes the 2nd simply confirms that we have a Tyrannical gov’t, and all bets are off.
An new amendment requires two thirds of the state legislatures to ratify same. That ratification requires a two thirds majority vote. Since all but a few states also have RTKBA amendments in their state constitutions, this is unlikely. It appears that the current administration is also trying to avoid another nulification crisis. Hmmmm you should look up the definition of jury nulification too, if you want to see where this argument is going.
Dude, he’s right. That’s kind of the point of the constitution.
The Bill of Rights is a written articulation and guarantee of human rights that inherent in every human being, provided that person can and will govern himself. You or your supposed “91 percent” have no right to infringe upon the rights of others, no matter what Constitution amendments you repeal or pass.
“You or your supposed “91 percent” have no right to infringe upon the rights of others, no matter what Constitution amendments you repeal or pass.”
poetically spoken and absolutely true.
that particular point has been very amusing to me in regards to obama and the anti-gun movement in this country: i dont care if your calls for gun control are popular and majority (which is a incorrect assertion in my opinion). my rights are not dictated by the majority.
the very idea of “majority rules” is among the most anti-american concepts that exists.
What is “the 91%?”
Fools who think being in a majority means they’re right. Because quantity always means quality, right? Just looks at how many people read/see Twilight.
Does that name, “the 91%,” have any particular meaning? I Googled it, but all that came up was something about a tax rate in the ’50’s.
On an unrelated note, I saw someone opine recently that given the number of copies sold, at least some of which will survive long after we’re gone, and the fact that most of the criticism of it exists only online, and those electrons will not survive long after we’re gone, it’s entirely possible that some distant future archaeologists will form the opinion that Twilight was the Beowulf of our time.
Which begs the question: When Beowulf was penned, did people think it was the dumbest, most far-fetched, fairy tale crap ever put on paper?
I’m going to guess the 91 percent is those who support universal background checks. As if that somehow makes it right.
I wonder that percentage of people supported slavery 200 years ago.
On the question of Beowulf, the answer is no. It was probably written by a poet employed by nobility. It’s style fits in well with the rules of Old English poetry–rules that are complex, requiring skill to write.
Twilight? Not so much.
“Quantity has a quality all its own” – Joseph Stalin
Some poll recently pegged “universal background check” support at 91%.
Hitler had much higher numbers, I guess that should make genocide, slavery, terror, a particularly appealing state policy
I challenge the truthfullness of any claim that 91% of American citizens support universal background checks. Sounds like bullsh1t to me.
Well…good luck with your hunt. If you are ever in a self defense situation…will you tell the perp that he is free to rape your wife because you only have hunting firearms?
Trevor chooses not to show his face, so his message should not be here with honorable Americans.
I guess I have to repeat it. Imitation is the highest form of flattery.
WTF is a .30/.30 Winchester? Is it a .30 rifle that can only handle 1/100 of a regular .30-30?
Or is the / a division sign? perhaps it is a 1″ caliber gun.
Combined with the mask, I smell someone who is pretending to own a gun.
Indeed, it’s nice to know that 91% of all gun owners think the same way he does.
This one bears watching: He’s clearly implying that he’s willing to sell out anyone who does not possess guns for ‘hunting.’
This is the Face of the Enemy Within–the gun-owner who will happily stand by when They come for those EBRs and semi-auto pistols, as HE is a hunter and owns only ‘sporting guns’ and thus just KNOWS that he will be left alone.
This time.
The mask is simply silly. And an act of cowardice. This is the man who’d secretly turn in his EBR-owning neighbour to the Government, rest assured.
Indeed. Those like him represent the unfortunate truth that the greatest threat to America today is her own “citizens” (I use that term loosely for these types). Like I keep saying, owning a gun does make one a gun rights advocate. Sometimes they’re as much a traitor as a Brady, as in the case of this guy.
Er, meant to say “does not”
Tried to your reply above but the system would not let me. It’s funny to read ” gunshow loophole” when it’s in fact the banning of private gun sales. I can’t run a background check on a buyer as unlike a FFL dealer ( I state dealer as there are other FFL types ) I don’t have the authority or access to NCIS. The only reason the term gunshow loophole was used was to confuse the public into thinking this was all about gunshows. Just another lie
The politically correct gun owners have no idea that they are going to be the next targets of the gun control movement. There are already animal rights activists and environmentalist that do not approve of hunting. The lowly shotgun will become the next assault weapon, and revolvers will just be handguns designed to kill humans. Many of these Hunting types do not realize that the gun control movement looks down upon all firearms with disdain. As an example, take a look at the British Commonwealth. The few common citizens that owns hunting rifles and shotguns are not very popular in their own country, which used to have a hunting tradition.
I agree. This is just a way to get the ball rolling
Hey genius, go re-watch V for Vendetta. V would have burned your 91% to the ground.
Better yet read the book.
I do not think that mask means what he thinks it means.
+1
Oh this is precious, someone wearing a mask now used by anarchists of a guy who wanted a theocracy to condemn individual freedoms.
Piers Morgan is that you?
Could be.
Piers? was that a lisp I just heard?
No. If it was the British Twit there would be a pile of phones he hacked into in the photo
Yeah I guess these guys can’t envision a day where the anti-hunting crowd teams up with the Brady.org types to turn those of us who still have our manually operated firearms into monsters for killing Bambi and Babe.
Get f***ed, “Mr Fawkes”
They already have. I can not recall the woman’s name but she helped lead the gun bans in Australia – she has stated any rifle that fires over 100 yards should be classified a sniper rifle
FLAME DELETED
That’s so much simpler.
What this man doesn’t realize is that if all the MSRs are banned, lever and bolt guns will be next on the list. It doesn’t matter if it’s tomorrow, next year, or a hundred years from now. If one class of firearm is banned, there WILL be attempts to ban another at some point. Incrementalism is not in this man’s vocabulary.
NRA: Membership Has Grown by 250,000 in One Month
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/01/15/nra-membership-has-grown-by-250000-in-one-month
At least he doesn’t claim to support the 2A. Sort of refreshing to see the enemies of freedom for once be honest.
Universal background checks will require registration to work. Yet you wear a mask…
I presume he is wearing a mask because he knows people will vilify him on this forum.
That mask is flippin creepy.
I am a cadet at an undisclosed military college (I’d prefer to remain anonymous to avoid any repercussions on my military career) and hope to earn a commission in the United States Navy.
My webcam doesn’t work and my handwriting is illegible, so I will not use my own picture (also for anonymity reasons).
I think of the Democratic Party as too right-wing.
I oppose capital punishment.
I support labor unions.
I support public education.
I support universal healthcare.
I believe in an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense and other purposes. This includes sidearms, lever-action rifles, bolt-action rifles, pump-action shotguns, semi-automatic shotguns, semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines, short-barreled longarms, sound reducers, and automatic weapons.
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, but they do not outweigh the rights of the one.
Thanks for letting us know that you are ripe for recruitment into a seditious cabal and if you think your numerous posts on the net have not been tagged and flaged for use in your up comming security check by the very Liberals you fawn over think again
“The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, but they do not outweigh the rights of the one.”
That’s a good summary of True Liberalism. There are probably a lot more true liberals than people think, but they just aren’t well represented by Democratic leadership.
I like it.
Echoes of Wrath of Khan, what’s not to like?
With that mishmash of political thought, some of it is not going to survive. Big government and the rewarding and encouragement of a lack of individual responsibility are not hallmarks that dovetail with firearm rights.
This. I’m always surprised (though I shouldn’t be) at the people who think we can have an all powerful government and yet not have the government disarm the people.
As a 12 year military officer (O-4), here’s a homework assignment.
Read “The 5,000 year leap” by W. Cleon Skousen. You will learn why it’s important to define your framework when you say “left-wing” or “right-wing”. Most people who use those terms don’t know what they mean, and people who claim to be one or the other are using very different definitions. Current D and R are both left-of-center from where we started.
Unfortunately, as noted by Merits and Totenglock, your professed views on personal freedoms are incompatible at a fundamental level with the policies/programs you claim to support.
He didn’t mean to write “91%.” He meant to write “91 IQ.” Hey, it’s an honest mistake.
Wait unti they try to ban his “sniper rifles”.
Trevor – show your face if you believe in something. Sally.
Remember, remember, the sixth of November, the electoral treason and plot. I deplore the bad reasoning and the fancy deceivings that led some to vote for that snot.
+googolplex
I was just fine with this dude and his V-disguised opinions up until the last line.
You like the lever guns, the wheel guns, and the bolt actions- for hunting. That’s fine by me. I wouldn’t hunt anything bigger than a home invader with a .44 personally, but that’s just me. No shotguns, though?
If you support universal background checks, that’s fine, just be prepared to explain how that particular piece of feel good restriction will actually help this situation.
But when we get to this little 91% part, then I’m less interested, or convinced. And maybe a little pissed off. That’s a little too buzz-wordy for me to take as a valid opinion. I’m sure there’s some NRA members that have similar opinions, but I’m thinking they’re more than likely the 9% of that particular sum, and that’s being extremely generous.
Now, if he’d worn a Nixon mask, on the other hand…..
Uh, I don’t think he’s actually wearing a mask.
What he meant to say was “i support government tracking of guns through background checks on all private sales since we need more government control”….right?
I am the stereotype hunter who dosnt give a $#!4 about gun control cuz my sniper rifle is safe (so sayeth the grabbers).
Thts what you relly meant right?
I’m still trying to figure out why killing animals with a .30-30 is morally A-OK, but punching holes in paper with an AR-15 makes a person a monster.
Cuz you have to kill trees to make paper? We all know trees are freakin endangered
Show your face, puss.
Wow. Really SPEAKING TRUTH TO POWER. STICKING IT TO “THE MAN.”
The guy wears a band on his right ring finger… and his name is Trevor. This should tell you something about him.
Yes it does — he found the ring in the last park he “occupied.”
I always thought that “Occupied” had something to do with airplane toilets.
Amazing how everyone else regardless of other political opinions show their faces in support of the CONSTITUTIONAL right.
Not afraid, 2A & 1A
I am old enough to remember when you could order any gun you wanted and ammo , rifles, pistols,shotguns, was even adds in magazines, I got a 22 pistol when i turned 21 as all you had to do was write a statement that you were 21 and not breaking any local laws…. and best yet the only CRIME was in the movies i saw ,, sure we had hot cars, girls, but no drugs that’s how America was just like in Rockwell drawing! Got my first rifle at SEARS a 1917 US Enfield for $ under 50 bucks… the 22 pistol was $18 bucks>>>>>>>WOW
another ironic hypocrite wearing a guy fawkes mask.
occupiers and anarchists dont know much about guy fawks, but i find it hilarious that they wear his face and think he represents freedom from oppression.
For one, the mask is licensed by time warner. Each purchase of a guy fawkes mask has accumulated into billions for time warner.
second, fawkes was trying to establish a theocracy…which is the opposite of a democracy and what the wearer’s of the mask claim to represent.
Hilarious.
Ill support universal background checks when they become a magical, mythological entity that can appear everywhere there is a transaction for a firearm.
Here’s a idea: Can we leave constitutional rights alone and focus on our 16 trillion dollars worth of debt?
sorry: Fawkes. typo
Don’t bother posting anything on their stupid Facebook page. I posted a comment in opposition to greater gun control and it took them less than five minutes to block me from posting anything else.
Dear Trevor,
You do realize that V himself would have been against background checks for buying guns, right?
The man wore a mask for a reason: He understood that being anonymous helped stymie the power of the overbearing state. background checks put an end to anonymity.
Trevor has no idea what you are talking about. He just thought the mask made him look cool. Not much thought going on with these people.
He’s the 91%? You mean, the 91% of people who never heard of Guy Fawkes before V for Vendetta?
Sounds right.
i bet he doesnt even know that V for Vendetta was a comic book nor has he actually read the comics.
Kind of defeating the purpose of the mask by saying your name in the first sentence?
So I guess he would do a background check if he wanted to sell his firearm to his brother?
What a moron.