ANTI-GUNS group founder GUILTY of firearms charges

they are so retardedly anti they throw money at anything anti-gun even when its run by criminals
Click to expand...

No, they were tired of cleaning up the mess, and trying to do something about it.

I take it that you would rather encourage drive-by's?
 
It's all contrived! Picking on the poor under Dogs! Couldn't have happened! They have laws against that stuff in California! If he was Pink they wouldn't have pressed charges!:mad:


You all know the GangBangers are just out there trying to make a living like the rest of us poor white trailer trash! :mad: They just know how to play the system better then I do!;)
 
That wasn't funny or even cute, Wild, you're just being divisive.

Use your head, man. The article is talking about gang members. Gang members deal in drugs, murder for hire, robbery.
Click to expand...

Actually, Wild makes a valid (and accurate) point about the inconsistency of GOA. Where is the GOA? Missing in action? Why aren't they standing up for the unfettered, absolute right of the Weasel to keep and possess arms? Under the GOA's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, every restriction -- including (presumably) the statutory bar against felon possessing firearms -- is unconstitutional.

Except for poor Weasel, who seems to have been abandoned by the GOA. "No compromise", indeed. ;)
 
Poor Weezel burned his bridges behind him. Common since would dictate that you spend your time trying to take rights away and then ask for those rights, people are going to give you the finger..
 
Fremmer wrote and quoted:

That wasn't funny or even cute, Wild, you're just being divisive.

Use your head, man. The article is talking about gang members. Gang members deal in drugs, murder for hire, robbery.

Actually, Wild makes a valid (and accurate) point about the inconsistency of GOA. Where is the GOA? Missing in action? Why aren't they standing up for the unfettered, absolute right of the Weasel to keep and possess arms? Under the GOA's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, every restriction -- including (presumably) the statutory bar against felon possessing firearms -- is unconstitutional.

Except for poor Weasel, who seems to have been abandoned by the GOA. "No compromise", indeed.

-----------------

Has GOA, JPFO or ANY pro gun rights group EVER supported the "gun rights" of criminals? I didn't think so, but I might have missed somethkng along the way.
 
Has GOA, JPFO or ANY pro gun rights group EVER supported the "gun rights" of criminals? I didn't think so, but I might have missed somethkng along the way.
Click to expand...

There was this National Guardsman guy :D

Wildhaveyouhuggedyour03a3todayAlaska ™
 
This is a good example to why taxes should be lowered. Really, no matter how low taxes become, since we're dealing with politicians, there will always be money left over for things like this. First you pay taxes, then you have to fight the negative creation that the politicians have made. That's being hit twice. No, I don't like the Democrats. Is there a golden rule that says you have to pay 30% of your income in taxes? Why not 10%?
 
Has GOA, JPFO or ANY pro gun rights group EVER supported the "gun rights" of criminals? I didn't think so, but I might have missed somethkng along the way.
Click to expand...

Guess I missed it too.

To the Elmer Fudds, I guess y'all better enjoy your privilege to own a double barrel shotgun while you can. Seein as you are doing the anti's work for 'em and all.
 
Hey, taken from GOA's perspective:

Read the constitution, which states that the right of the people "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." It doesn't say, [...except for criminals, felons, or others], it says people.

Felons are people, too.

Weasel wants to know: where's the GOA?
 
Wildalaska writes:Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 9,120 Quote:
Has GOA, JPFO or ANY pro gun rights group EVER supported the "gun rights" of criminals? I didn't think so, but I might have missed something along the way.

There was this National Guardsman guy.

I cannot say for sure, but I suspect that re the Olofson case, we haven't gotten anyplace near to hearing/seeing the last of this case. We shall, of course, see about that. BTW, re your "there was this National Guardsman guy", sounds as if you are saying that pro gun organizations have been on the wrong side re previous cases. Do I understand you correctly?

Also, hadn't Weasel had "problems" with the law prior to this federal charge, it seemed as if that were the case, though perhaps not.
 
Arrellano also pleaded no contest to machine gun conversion and possessing a silencer
Click to expand...

Possessing a silencer is illegal? I'm being serious. I'm sure I read some "authoritative" piece that says theyre NOT illegal.
Anybody know for sure?
 
dreamweaver Quote:
Arrellano also pleaded no contest to machine gun conversion and possessing a silencer

Possessing a silencer is illegal? I'm being serious. I'm sure I read some "authoritative" piece that says theyre NOT illegal.
Anybody know for sure?

-----------------

Dpending on where you live, they might or might not be legal.

According to Federal Law, they are subject to registration and taxation, like automatic weapons and some other items. See National Firearmns Act of 1934.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top