Wat's Guns-N-Stuff Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Thought I’d copy this here:


Are these and similar systems covered by the 2a? Should anyone who can afford it be allowed to have one?

“Shall not be infringed”?

There are some private citizens who can afford them.

The combination of AI controlled turrets like the C-RAM and the military robotic dog are going to require a serious overhaul of the 2a


How many of these could Bezos, Musk, Zuckerberg, etc build?

How many will the FBI, CIA, ATF soon have?
 
The combination of AI controlled turrets like the C-RAM and the military robotic dog are going to require a serious overhaul of the 2a


How many of these could Bezos, Musk, Zuckerberg, etc build?

How many will the FBI, CIA, ATF soon have?
How many can they afford to lose? I already have 2 FBI drones. They wanted them back however I told them that my lawyer had them.

Funny, Esq never heard anything back from them after his FOIA request on any search warrants

20k worth ain't much to the gestapo but I have 2 brand new DJI hotrods with thermal imaging, red and ultrviolet
 
The combination of AI controlled turrets like the C-RAM and the military robotic dog are going to require a serious overhaul of the 2a


How many of these could Bezos, Musk, Zuckerberg, etc build?

How many will the FBI, CIA, ATF soon have?
Good ole 'Spot.' 'Spot' will set you back somewhere in the neighborhood of $80K for the bare bones model. A weaponized 'Spot' will be substantially more expensive. 'Spot' is not 'hardened' meaning that virtually any AP round will ruin his day also meaning that to harden 'Spot' will add even more to the price. He's susceptible to radio dead zones and/or jamming. That is not to say that 'Spot' wouldn't be a useful tool in specific situations, he would, just not as useful as some might think.
 
That alone is a major bureaucratic undertaking. I like the idea of making all taxes sales taxes however because it penalizes consumption instead of production. Then again, I wouldn't want to end up like Europe with some of their insane taxes like on new cars.
The beauty of the FairTax is that it is only on new items hence the poor pay no tax on that used car or first starter home, the tax has already been paid by someone who had the discretionary income to purchase it new.
 
Indeed. Another great selling point. The drug dealer pays his fair share too.


So does the illegal immigrant. It seems to have more equality about it.


Here's some stuff: https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/world-news/gold-dust-spewing-volcano-leaves-32631213

We need to send the Libs on a new gold rush...


The problem would be the sieving through all the other crap belched up with it, but then, I guess that's always been the rub with prospecting.
 
It needs to rain down in the form of double eagles so as to be simply a matter of picking them up.


You know, like the Europeans thought they'd find in the "New" World . . . .
 
Interesting spin-off discussion. Would the illegals be eligible for the pre-bates? And if so it is my understanding that they would either have to have a valid bank account or a physical address, making it easy to track their ass down.
 
Interesting spin-off discussion. Would the illegals be eligible for the pre-bates? And if so it is my understanding that they would either have to have a valid bank account or a physical address, making it easy to track their ass down.
You would have to register your household and, unfortunately, like the census, of course the bureaucracy would want to begin tacking "features" on to it, but in the short term, the only thing that would matter would be household.
 
If they're paying Their Fair Share like the rest of us slobs, what's the hurry to put them out?
Good question.

The problem is that the various 'safety nets' put in place for citizens has been expanded to include the illegals. Then there is the impact on housing, schools, medical, and the justice system (although some jurisdictions have gotten around that by gutting the justice system almost wholesale). The list of deficits goes on, the bottom line is that they cost more than they contribute.
 
Interesting spin-off discussion. Would the illegals be eligible for the pre-bates? And if so it is my understanding that they would either have to have a valid bank account or a physical address, making it easy to track their ass down.
Two aspects here that bother me. First, the whole right to bear arms had nothing to do with self defense or hunting. It has to do with keeping a rogue government in check. It had to do with loyalty to the Constitution and a constitutional governance. An illegal typically doesn't have such loyalties.

Second, adjacent to the first, is the issue of tracking. If the first is true, and it is, the government should have no way of knowing who has what weapons where, whether it be handguns or hand grenades. Anything that gives them more information there, or more excuse to track it, I would have to oppose.
 
The legals and less-than-legals I have talked to generally just want the opportunity to feed their families and to be left alone. Some will stay, others will go back. If they're paying into the system, it begins to balance out. At least it seems that way to me. And these people seem grateful for the opportunity, too. Wages back home are fer shit.
 
Last edited:
Broken Windows

Once you ignore the little laws, then come the fall of the big laws.

So what if the mule wants to stay and be a productive citizen after paying the cartels for passage and then bringing a load of Chinese Fentanyl with them...? They just want a better life and all we have to do is excuse a "little" lawlessness. It's the same as blocking a bridge. Right?
 

Donald Trump Shows His Fighting Ways by Whining About Every Goddamn Thing​

https://reason.com/2015/09/23/donald-trump-shows-his-fighting-ways-by/

Trump calls for the termination of the Constitution in Truth Social post​

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2022/12/03/politics/trump-constitution-truth-social
These statements only come as attacks on the Constitution if you begin with the premise that Biden was not placed in office fraudulently by the left and those opposing the will of the American people acting VERY unconstitutionally. His whole point,as ineloquent as it was stated, was that the Constitution and its rules have already been trampled and ignored by those who stole an election. Therefore those rules cannot now be applied to keep fraudulent results in place. Pretty clear if you aren't drinking CNN's poisoned Kool-Aid.
 
Indeed. Another great selling point. The drug dealer pays his fair share too.
Oh man, thanks for the hearty, early morning laugh.
It's 2024 and you guys are still debating the merits of the con that is known as the Fair Tax.
Sheez. :unsure::ROFLMAO::poop:
 
It's the Left, as represented by you, that insists that we normalize the mentally ill as not to stigmatize them.


He wasn't "free-ranging" because of the Right. Only a blithering moron would posit such a notion...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top