Boulder joins the list of traitors. Massachusetts has been on it for a while.
Ruh-roh!
I’ll be the BATF and other organizations will be thrilled at more reasons to keep them around.
It’s time for combat veterans and especially wounded combat vets to speak up at these meetings and the communist attempts to overturn the constitution that they fought for and shed blood for, to uphold their military oath to support and defend the Constitution. These vets actually EARNED these rights and made it possible for every citizen to enjoy the fruits of their sacrifice, especially the ones that gave their lives. Now to have these local tyrants take their earned rights from them should cause these vets to loudly, actively rebel against these officials that also gave oaths of office to protect the constitution. The fact they actively break their oaths and illegally attempt to take rights away is treason and they should be dealt with as traitors historically have been.
They can pass laws, but who’s going to enforce them?
.... Yup ... That weapons BAN sure helped didn't it!!! ..... NOT!!!
“These are weapons of war that belong on the battlefield, and we were pleased today to see yet another court agree with that stance,” Kris Brown, co-president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said in a statement.
We are in the middle of a battlefield right now with people like you proposing denial and restriction of rights. Come and try to take them bitch!
Well maybe it’s late and maybe one too many Irish whiskeys but...
This is the battle freedom must win. At all costs. All.
Who will post a link to what a handgun can do vs the nazis?
Clarence Thomas tells Parkland survivor that the Second Amendment ‘won’t be touched’
Just hit me about how many times INjustice angered God in the Old Testament.
The cities banning the firearms believe that as more cities ban them, Congress will be forced to act to do the same.
They forget or just plain ignore American history and the lessons of Lexington and Concord. Attempting to take arms and ammunition of Colonists didn’t work out so well in the end.
Boulder? Didn’t during the Obozo years Colorado ban high cap mags, only to be ignored by nearly every county law enforcement agency? Weren’t folks supposed to turn in guns in CT during this time...and NY SAFE act?
Can’t think of a better way to get conservatives fired up to get out the vote this fall.
I guess we are headed to a showdown eventually. Leftist Government and other swamp scum will never succeed at what it dreams of doing even if they succeed at turning swaths of America into Syria and Iraq. What is really sick is that the left cannot wait for the next “Parkland”.
That's what a Hate America judge thinks.
AR-15s are not used by the military but let's be very clear about one thing ... the 2nd Amendment was specifically created to protect civilian ownership of military grade weapons. "Weapons of war."
Amendment IIA well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Here are quotes from two Democrats, before the Dem Party became the Hate America Party, that speak specifically to the premise of civilians using arms for war...
"By calling attention to 'a well regulated militia,' the 'security' of the nation, and the right of each citizen 'to keep and bear arms,' our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy. Although it is extremely unlikely that the fears of governmental tyranny which gave rise to the Second Amendment will ever be a major danger to our nation, the Amendment still remains an important declaration of our basic civilian-military relationships, in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason I believe the Second Amendment will always be important."President John F. Kennedy
---------------------------------------------------
"Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. This is not to say that firearms should not be very carefully used and that definite safety rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced. But the right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible."
Vice President and Senator Hubert H. Humphrey
The primary reason for the 2nd Amendment was to protect the citizen's right to own and use weapons of war to fight, as civilians, any threat to our sovereignty foreign or domestic.
What is starkly crystal clear is that facts, reason, logic and a decent respect for the truth no longer have meaning or respect with these high handed virtue signaling monsters.
The stage has been set for something exceedingly ugly.
Personal defense is a PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY!
If you ask the top cop in YOUR town if you should have a firearm,
MOST police chiefs — many of them control freaks and POLITICAL APPOINTEES — don’t WANT us to be in a position to defend ourselves. Sort of a perverse form of job security. Especially if their boss is a leftist idiot.
But ask MOST beat cops if you should own a firearm and - under their breath - they’ll say “yes.”
There are about 340 million of us. Based on 8 hour shifts, at any given hour, there are approximately 255,000 cops on duty. That’s one cop for every 1,400 of us. If you’re lucky, YOUR cop will show up in time to draw your outline on the pavement and load the body for the trip to the morgue.
Write this down somewhere and read it every day:
WHEN IT COMES TO YOUR IMMEDIATE PERSONAL SAFETY, YOU ARE ESSENTIALLY ON YOUR OWN!!
Don’t think so?
The courts do and here’s the proof:
(If you’re not big on reading legal opinions, skip to “DECISION” for the meat of the decision which is IDENTICAL to virtually every other case on the matter throughout the U.S.)
Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C.App. 1981)
Here’s the link to the full decision:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
I’ll save you some time. Here’s what the courts declared:
In a 4-3 decision, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed the trial courts’ dismissal of the complaints against the District of Columbia and individual members of the Metropolitan Police Department based on the public duty doctrine ruling that “[t]he duty to provide public services is owed to the public at large, and, absent a special relationship between the police and an individual, no specific legal duty exists”. The Court thus adopted the trial court’s determination that no special relationship existed between the police and appellants, and therefore no specific legal duty existed between the police and the appellants.
