The Right to Facts

andrewblogstoomuch:

You did it! Congratulations! This is the most offensive thing I’ve ever seen in person. Good job SUV in North Adams!

Thats pretty much the difference between a so-called “assault riffle” and a semi-automatic rifle. One just is black and looks scary. There are other minor differences, but mostly it just “looks” more dangerous to non-gun enthusiasts.

andrewblogstoomuch:

You did it! Congratulations! This is the most offensive thing I’ve ever seen in person. Good job SUV in North Adams!

Thats pretty much the difference between a so-called “assault riffle” and a semi-automatic rifle. One just is black and looks scary. There are other minor differences, but mostly it just “looks” more dangerous to non-gun enthusiasts.

So apparently…

fandomsandconservativelogic:

If you make abortion illegal, women will go to back alleys and more women will be hurt.

Yet if you make guns illegal, all gun crime will be eliminated and no school shooting or other violent event will happen ever.

Obviously.

So is the arguments of liberals..

The truth is, economic law dictates that prohibition of ANYTHING leads to some form of black market, some bigger than others depending on demand. For example, during alcohol prohibition, the black market was HUGE, and today the marijuana black market is pretty large. Relatively, the meth and medical black markets are smaller, but they still exist.

Ban guns = black market

Ban abortion = black market

Which would be bigger isn’t really known, but they would both exist.

So why ban abortion and keep guns legal? Well, it is because gun ownership alone is not a violent or offensive act, and violates no ones rights. If you use that gun to murder someone… then yeah, you violate someones right to life, YOU commit a murder, not the gun being owned. Abortion, however, violates the fundamental right to life. In an abortion, a person loses their life at the hand of another. It is an act, a verb, that takes away the life of an American. And a society should not accept an act that violates another person’s right to life, such is the way of murder.

So when I say I think abortion should be banned, I am not saying that I want to put women in danger by forcing them to get black market abortions. I am saying that I will not accept an act of violating the First Fundamental Right as an okay practice in our society.

(via tumbleweeddreams)

goodetogo:

fuck-liberal-morons:

goodetogo:

fuck-liberal-morons:

goodetogo:

fuck-liberal-morons:

goodetogo:

the-forward-observer:

old-prepper:

takingbackmyfirstamendmentrights:

No, we gave the government privilege to exist. They haven’t the right to do so, and we can revoke that privilege if necessary.
Personally, I think it’s necessary.

The time has come!

I could not agree more.

look up the third amendment and what it says about treason.y’all a bunch of traitors.

What does the limiting the quartering of soldiers have to do with treason? You supposedly took an oath to defend the CONSTITUTION against all enemies foreign and domestic. The government is not the constitution. Rather the constitution’s very purpose is to restrain the government. Nothing in the bill of rights limits individual freedom but rather protects it…

you must not have read section 3 of the third amendment.
to levy war against the government is treason. according to the constitution i swore to uphold.
in other words, when the racist hillbillies with ar-15s decide they want to over throw the government, i’ll be there to kill them. that’s the domestic enemy. that’s treason. and that’s what you hicks are suggesting as a course of action.

What about when they are unarmed? Are you ready to fire on unarmed civilians?

no. if you’re helping the enemy that is trying to overthrow our democratically elected government, you will be executed. that’s also in the third amendment.
isn’t constitutional knowledge FUN? i bet you stopped reading after the second amendment, huh?

So go execute the muslim brotherhood who obama is providing weapons to.

if i were deployed in that area and got into a fire fight with those people i would indeed kill them.
but i don’t see a point to this response.
do you usually just throw out buzzwords you heard on fox news?
“OBAMA! MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD! WEAPONS! ARMING!
yeah.. take that liberals. try to argue with that logic.”

You must not have read the constitution at all.
The third amendment in its entirety:

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Nothing in there about treason and most certainly not execution. Just property rights.
What you ARE referring to, if you took the time to read the document that you took an oath to protect, is Article III, Section 3, which reads:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Nothing in this part about being specifically executed in aiding the enemy, that is proscribed by law, not the constitution. It does however define treason in the way you did, kinda. Levying war is another way to say war is declared through legislative power (IE a state congress voting). Moreover, aiding in the enemies is a more broad definition. It could be aiding Germany in the 1940s get their hands on the Manhattan Project, or giving Al Queda intel on how to invade the homeland.
It does not particularly pertain to the people of the United States, taking up arms to defend their rights. One of the greatest examples of what this is can be found in the preamble of the Declaration of Independence:

…to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it and to institute new Government…

I could go on, but I tink I’ve said enough. In short, in a liberty model of government, the government receives its legitimacy from from the consent of the governed. We make up the constitution, and when our government turns on us or goes where we don’t want it, we have a right to turn on it and abolish it, wither through a constitutional convention, or revolution.
This video talk on the theory of constitutional revolution:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8oMrf6Dq7UA

goodetogo:

fuck-liberal-morons:

goodetogo:

fuck-liberal-morons:

goodetogo:

fuck-liberal-morons:

goodetogo:

the-forward-observer:

old-prepper:

takingbackmyfirstamendmentrights:

No, we gave the government privilege to exist. They haven’t the right to do so, and we can revoke that privilege if necessary.

Personally, I think it’s necessary.

The time has come!

I could not agree more.

look up the third amendment and what it says about treason.
y’all a bunch of traitors.

What does the limiting the quartering of soldiers have to do with treason? You supposedly took an oath to defend the CONSTITUTION against all enemies foreign and domestic. The government is not the constitution. Rather the constitution’s very purpose is to restrain the government. Nothing in the bill of rights limits individual freedom but rather protects it…

you must not have read section 3 of the third amendment.

to levy war against the government is treason. according to the constitution i swore to uphold.

in other words, when the racist hillbillies with ar-15s decide they want to over throw the government, i’ll be there to kill them. that’s the domestic enemy. that’s treason. and that’s what you hicks are suggesting as a course of action.

What about when they are unarmed? Are you ready to fire on unarmed civilians?

no. if you’re helping the enemy that is trying to overthrow our democratically elected government, you will be executed. that’s also in the third amendment.

isn’t constitutional knowledge FUN? i bet you stopped reading after the second amendment, huh?

So go execute the muslim brotherhood who obama is providing weapons to.

if i were deployed in that area and got into a fire fight with those people i would indeed kill them.

but i don’t see a point to this response.

do you usually just throw out buzzwords you heard on fox news?

“OBAMA! MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD! WEAPONS! ARMING!

yeah.. take that liberals. try to argue with that logic.”

You must not have read the constitution at all.

The third amendment in its entirety:

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Nothing in there about treason and most certainly not execution. Just property rights.

What you ARE referring to, if you took the time to read the document that you took an oath to protect, is Article III, Section 3, which reads:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Nothing in this part about being specifically executed in aiding the enemy, that is proscribed by law, not the constitution. It does however define treason in the way you did, kinda. Levying war is another way to say war is declared through legislative power (IE a state congress voting). Moreover, aiding in the enemies is a more broad definition. It could be aiding Germany in the 1940s get their hands on the Manhattan Project, or giving Al Queda intel on how to invade the homeland.

It does not particularly pertain to the people of the United States, taking up arms to defend their rights. One of the greatest examples of what this is can be found in the preamble of the Declaration of Independence:

…to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it and to institute new Government…

I could go on, but I tink I’ve said enough. In short, in a liberty model of government, the government receives its legitimacy from from the consent of the governed. We make up the constitution, and when our government turns on us or goes where we don’t want it, we have a right to turn on it and abolish it, wither through a constitutional convention, or revolution.

This video talk on the theory of constitutional revolution:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8oMrf6Dq7UA

(Source: snakesonyellowfabric)

unsubstantiatedrumors:

thearmedgentleman:

maxlibertarios:

pescaraforpresident:

rtamerica:

California beating highlights distrust of police

Why do I stay here?

“it’s the few bad apples in law enforcement that give the other five percent a bad name.”

The only gun control I support is the disarmament of the Police.

“The cops are just another gang”

I can’t wait until someone shoots a cop who’s in the process of beating someone to death. I’d like to see how that went down in court.

Plummer v. State

(via lee-enfeel)