Armed IRS Agents Raid Gun Store

[Cowabung-Gal]

X2aXWKVPeyg

https://www.sportskeeda.com/pop-culture/why-armed-irs-agents-raid-gun-store-great-falls-soviet-style-intimidation-raid-sparks-outrage

Every day we find more reasons to despise the IRS

https://media.tenor.com/jODazXhTqw0AAAAd/the-simpsons-boo.gif

[TurtleManiac]

Joe Biden’s America.

But he’s totally not a fascist, right?

[ChosenOne]

An armed government agency cracking down on the Second Amendment? Nice. 2023 going on 1984.

[Mayhem]

An armed government agency cracking down on the Second Amendment? Nice. 2023 going on 1984.
The ratification of the Second Amendment from 2006, I will note. Besides, it says the right to bear arms. Doesn't specify WHAT arms. Your right to bear arms isn't infringed by banning assault rifles for example, you could still own handguns or shotguns for example.

[ChosenOne]

The ratification of the Second Amendment from 2006, I will note. Besides, it says the right to bear arms. Doesn't specify WHAT arms. Your right to bear arms isn't infringed by banning assault rifles for example, you could still own handguns or shotguns for example.

You think this is so funny, don't you? Can't even see the slippery slope through your childish glee. Just wait until they turn on you for whatever reason, as is inevitable.

[IMJ]

The ratification of the Second Amendment from 2006, I will note.

Please, by all means explain..... Really. I'll wait.

Besides, it says the right to bear arms. Doesn't specify WHAT arms. Your right to bear arms isn't infringed by banning assault rifles for example, you could still own handguns or shotguns for example.

That's your hollow-man positioning. Conversely, it doesn't specify what arms and therefore all arms can be owned on the initial definition.

You know, these debates from anti-constitutional fools, especially non-Americans, really doesn't matter. Because repeatedly, one after the other over the years the 2nd amendment is challenged and courts wisely uphold it, over and over and over. It isn't going anywhere. It's just a talking point for politicians to rile up their sheep constituency. And when I read your posts, it's evidence that it works.

And let me guess, you - angry ninja turtles guy doing nothing - are smarter and wiser than every American judge who has repeatedly upheld a rule that granted absolute liberty to the greatest country on Earth? Right? You can't even bring yourself to formulate opinions based on reality and necessity and fact. You just formulate them based on your vitriolic feels or medicated mental algebra. That is why all people's opinions don't actually need to be respected - that's just what you tell children in 5th grade to keep them from fighting.

[Mayhem]

Blimey that's a lot of spleen venting, you obviously have nothing better to do that furiously type out on a keyboard how everyone who doesn't think the same as you is completely wrong. Unlike you, I'm at least willing to change or mould my position based on different evidence or changes in the status quo.

And I have enough of my time taken up with work and my daughter to warrant wasting my time here occasionally...

Please, by all means explain..... Really. I'll wait.

I got the year slightly out, it was 2008

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

The Supreme Court, only by 5 to 4, ratified that the wording on the Second Amendment did mean that all citizens, not just those in a militia, had the right to bear arms. If you weren't aware of this court case and ruling, you must have been in a bunker furiously polishing your penis extensions like crazy...

But the Founding Fathers obviously had no idea where firearms development would go in hundreds of years time, so why would there be a provision to restrict anything they couldn't possibly conceive in the wording of the Amendment itself? That's what laws are for. Like making sure people who want to buy firearms are allowed to, that isn't in the Amendment.

I can't see any reason why pretty much anyone in the public would need to own an assault rifle, please explain to me your thoughts on why they need to. If any of it does include "but but the Government, must fight back if they rise up" then frankly you're delusional. No Government in the western world would dare do anything that threatens such a response.

[ChosenOne]

You project uour motivations on others so hard, you even conveniently "forgot" about the glimpses of true civil rights-stomping fascism we saw from governments worldwide during the pandemic. If your time's so precious, by all means don't waste it on "educating" us.

[IMJ]

You project uour motivations on others so hard, you even conveniently "forgot" about the glimpses of true civil rights-stomping fascism we saw from governments worldwide during the pandemic. If your time's so precious, by all means don't waste it on "educating" us.

Yup. And that's why I baited that goof @$$ into his explanation. In all of his quickly Googled wisdom, he couldn't cite the year correctly and in the end his explanation proved that his "ratification" example actually served continued gun ownership and he had to rely on a point retraction to twist it back to "gun control".

Guy isn't even an American and isn't citing the legal actions correctly either in premise or in year but we are having a discussing with this goof @$$ as if he is a peer on the issues.

And that's the problem with these conversations. The internet equalizes everyone because it's just words, but I've said it before and I'll say it again - if you saw even half the people you were interacting with the credibility would drop immediately to "why am I even discussing this with this guy". :roll:

Once again, in the end you have a bunch of mostly childlike-minds who hear about an issue and then make some quick heuristic decision that says "that's bad, I am against that" and they feel better about themselves now suddenly having an "identity". It's like that kid in school you new who one year was just a kid but then came back from Summer vacation and identified himself everywhere he went as "a gamer" or something like that. Suddenly this kid found some BS identity to push on people and it made him feel like "something"

See, I give these examples as evidence of the people out creating problems and making strawman arguments and so on. It paints a picture of who everyone is really dealing with. A bunch of people who grabbed onto "virtue signaling" identities at the lowest of levels - which is wordplay about policy that they don't understand and evaluate - as peasant thinkers.

See how that all comes together? And somewhere, someone is reading everything I wrote and internally they are panicking because they know it's 100% true as they bug up knowing that people have them openly known for all of their BS. Rage, rage peasant @$$holes - no matter what the courts and real thinkers keep holding up the rulings. Over and over. But you must be smarter than them, right? Mayhem, foreign "American critic" who twists arguments and makes non-points - he's smarter than every American judge, even liberal ones.

I can't see any reason why pretty much anyone in the public would need to own an assault rifle, please explain to me your thoughts on why they need to

I could address your question on it's own merits, but I don't need to. I also didn't need a ZL1, but I had one. Because America doesn't have to revolve around need when we have a system (capitalism) that is so effective and so efficient that most of the needs that persist are born of individually created problems. But that is Masters level intellectualism. I honesty have zero expectations that you'll grasp it, and I've spent enough time walking people like you through it only to have you use childish circular logic in order to complete your claim. It's very simple. You are wrong and your opinions don't need to be respected because the entire foundational premise of your nonsense is wrong - the only need for your opinions is to tolerate them which means not complaining about you to a mod like a child. But that's more intellectualism I'm sure you won't grasp.

If you had a modicum of integrity about you, then you'd read what I just said about "capitalism" and it would utterly change your bull$#!( perception to it's very core, but it's so far beyond you that it doesn't matter. You're just another guy on the Technodrome forums spouting strong, disconnected, fringe opinions. Peasant thinkers, the life angry and the jealous draw people into "need" arguments.

"Why does he need that car?" is nothing more than the statement of the uneducated enraged person who is trying not to boil over from the life-anger over their needed "win".
"I can't afford a Zl1, but I want one, so why does he need one?"
"I am terrified of life and someone might have an assault rifle and I can't compute that, so why does he need one?"
"I like G.I. Joe but can't find Snake Eyes, but he got one and why does he need that?"
"I am so self-centered in my point of view that I can't conceive of life events unfolding in any other way than what I've seen so far, so why does anyone need an assault rilfe?"

See, it's all the same peasant-thinking. But people here don't want to accept that because they are guilty of it themselves. And the only thing worse than having something the peasant thinker wants or is afraid of, is pointing out to the peasant thinker that they are one of them. But it's all the same. Societies f'n children. It's why you've been pointed at the enemy by the feudal lords for centuries and you don't even know it.

The only concession you are getting from me is if you made it through that wall of text. But that's it.

[Coola Yagami]

So what exactly did the IRS need so badly that they not only send actual guys after them, but armed guys at that? The hell kind of tax evasion was that guy doing?

[Cowabung-Gal]

So what exactly did the IRS need so badly that they not only send actual guys after them, but armed guys at that? The hell kind of tax evasion was that guy doing?

I’m starting to think we never did win the Revolutionary War. We still have men with guns on our doorsteps demanding taxes.

[Mayhem]

Yup. And that's why I baited that goof @$$ into his explanation. In all of his quickly Googled wisdom, he couldn't cite the year correctly and in the end his explanation proved that his "ratification" example actually served continued gun ownership and he had to rely on a point retraction to twist it back to "gun control".

Well I’m sure you get everything right first time, never have to look anything up because you remember it perfectly. Jeez, if you’re into that sort of dismissing, there’s no hope. I remembered the ruling, I followed it on the news at the time, you didn’t even do that. It was over 15 years ago, so apologies oh great one for being slightly out on the year. Point still stands on what I was making, that it took this ruling to end (or not end really) the legal dispute about what the wording of the Second Amendment meant.

I have a Masters and an IQ higher than yours so **** off there. Politely. If you can name call, then so can I.

And I think the last few posts are total evidence why so many people have left this place because all the right wing Trump lovers just shouted them down to death. When Leo left, that was your warning shot, but nope, it’s just turning into a Trump wank echo chamber now how the liberals are the new evil…

Btw I have fired assault rifles when I have visited the US. Done some range shooting. Used to do it here in the UK as well, when younger too, pistols and shotguns. Was brought up to respect firearms and use them properly. Having said all that, outside of the military, I still can’t see why an ordinary member of the public would have an actual use or real life need for an assault rifle over some other weapon. So I will rephrase that part to be answered slightly. Why an assault rifle instead of another weapon?

[ChosenOne]

Why did you bring up Trump? TDS much?

You call Leo vanishing a warning shot, I call it the air around here becoming breathable. Tomayto, alcoholic brain damaged tomatoh.

[Coola Yagami]

how the liberals are the new evil…



Least you got that part right.


Why did you bring up Trump? TDS much?

You call Leo vanishing a warning shot, I call it the air around here becoming breathable. Tomayto, alcoholic brain damaged tomatoh.

Naw Leo was able to see things from both sides and had some very entertaining posts breaking things down. He has a clearer view about a lot of things since he actually leaves the house more than most people that post here.

His posts are missed, and the forum getting to the point where even he can't stand it anymore is not a good look.

[ChosenOne]

We'll just have to agree to disagree on that. I'm surprised he even stuck around so long given there's no beer on tap here. And it’s not like there aren't others trying to fill his position as resident raving loony...

[Coola Yagami]

We'll just have to agree to disagree on that. I'm surprised he even stuck around so long given there's no beer on tap here. And it’s not like there aren't others trying to fill his position as resident raving loony...

He's not even a beer guy.

[ChosenOne]

He's not even a beer guy.

Huh. Too mild, I guess.

Like I said, let's just agree to disagree and stay on topic. Bad enough Trump was dragged into this.

[Andrew NDB]

Btw I have fired assault rifles when I have visited the US.

Joke's on you -- there's no such thing.

[ChosenOne]

Joke's on you -- there's no such thing.

You wouldn't know them, they're from Canada.

[Bahamut810]

But the Founding Fathers obviously had no idea where firearms development would go in hundreds of years time, so why would there be a provision to restrict anything they couldn't possibly conceive in the wording of the Amendment itself? That's what laws are for. Like making sure people who want to buy firearms are allowed to, that isn't in the Amendment.

Are you suggesting that intelligent and educated men who founded our country had no idea that technology advances? They may not have know *how* (mechanically) it would get better but they absolutely knew that people keep working on better ways to defend ourselves (and fight in wars) so our knowledge of arms would only get better in time.

I can't see any reason why pretty much anyone in the public would need to own an assault rifle, please explain to me your thoughts on why they need to. If any of it does include "but but the Government, must fight back if they rise up" then frankly you're delusional. No Government in the western world would dare do anything that threatens such a response.

People would need to own an assault rifle to protect themselves from enemies both foreign and domestic. Its right in the amendment. That does very specifically include the government with the entire revolutionary war thing that happened considering in the wording they said a militia (a group of able bodied men who protected their communities) being necessary for the security of a free state (opposed to one that takes a citizens rights away). Its interesting you say that they wouldn't dare take away 1st amendment rights which would be due to the 2nd amendment. This means its working as intended.


Why an assault rifle instead of another weapon?

Other then above? They wanted one, and legally acquired it (aka didn't steal it). If they are not harming anyone and only defending themselves and their property with it, why are you trying to stop them?

[Mayhem]

Joke's on you -- there's no such thing.
So how would you describe an M16, AK47, and the Tavor? Because they are certainly described as assault rifles on the website of the place in question (for the record, Battlefield Vegas in Clark County).

Other then above? They wanted one, and legally acquired it (aka didn't steal it). If they are not harming anyone and only defending themselves and their property with it, why are you trying to stop them?
Aside from the fact the majority of mass shootings occur with them… I’d like a nuclear bomb to defend my home and myself, why are you trying to stop me?

Yes I know that’s ludicrously over the top but it’s the same phrasing and reasoning you are using here.

[Bahamut810]

Aside from the fact the majority of mass shootings occur with them… I’d like a nuclear bomb to defend my home and myself, why are you trying to stop me?

Yes I know that’s ludicrously over the top but it’s the same phrasing and reasoning you are using here.

Negative. Handguns are used in the majority of "mass shootings", while long rifles can be more effective. This is on the flipside of the fact that defensive uses of firearms of all kinds completely eclipse illegal uses of firearms...its estimated that there are 500k~2M defensive uses of fire arms a year.

I might give you a bit of leeway in the area of nuclear weapons, more for the reason that improper upkeep of the weapons would damage public and private property as much as anything else.

[ChosenOne]

I’d like a nuclear bomb to defend my home and myself, why are you trying to stop me?

Apples and oranges. That’s not what nukes are made for.

[Bahamut810]

Apples and oranges. That’s not what nukes are made for.

I don't think its too unfair. At this point in our world (and since the end of WWII), nuclear weapons are a defensive weapon. Nuclear deterrence is a valid strategy to stop aggressive nations from using these weapons that cause generations of damage. There are times it almost hasn't worked, but at the end of the day world leaders are very reluctant to press the button when they know that that button is going to be pressed in their direction within a few minutes.

This is the same thing that firearms are, and why 2A is so important. Deterrence. Like Mayhem said, the US government has to be careful when they start sh***ng on peoples rights because we have the right to protect ourselves from people who would threaten a free state. If citizens (aka the military, aka "the people" paid to fight by the government) are allowed to be armed to protect us from threats foreign then citizens (aka "the people") should have the same access to protect us from threats domestic.

Do I want that conflict to happen? No. 100% no. However, that is the reason the second amendment exists.

[Andrew NDB]

This is the same thing that firearms are, and why 2A is so important. Deterrence. Like Mayhem said, the US government has to be careful when they start sh***ng on peoples rights because we have the right to protect ourselves from people who would threaten a free state. If citizens (aka the military, aka "the people" paid to fight by the government) are allowed to be armed to protect us from threats foreign then citizens (aka "the people") should have the same access to protect us from threats domestic.

Correct. To protect against government tyranny. And the counter-argument from the left is always, "What, you think your AR-15 (or _______ fill in the blank gun) is going to help you defeat the government/military? ROTFLOL!!!! They've got jetfighters and tanks and nukes!" and these people are always sorely missing the point. The point is not that armed citizens would have a chance against a full-on offensive by the US military, the point is that the people who would be considering deploying such a full-on offensive by the military would have to think long and hard about it, because while they would ultimately win, it would be a very ugly conflict and very costly. Like, there would be hundreds and thousands of casualties, millions overall from both sides, in a way that a completely disarmed populace would not yield. So a relatively unfettered 2A is a deterrent in that way. The same argument for if a foreign government wanted to put boots on the ground here in the United States. Could they do it? Maybe, but their troops might just be parachuting into the wrong neighborhood and they wouldn't just have to worry about the soldiers, if you catch my drift, so maybe they think twice about doing it at all. Plus the very simple and fundamental ability to protect your family and at least give them a fighting chance if push ever comes to shove. As opposed to just, you know, laying down and letting whoever comes to assail you do whatever, or wait for the police (who the same side that wants to disarm the US wants to defund).

So how would you describe an M16, AK47, and the Tavor? Because they are certainly described as assault rifles on the website of the place in question (for the record, Battlefield Vegas in Clark County).

I should rephrase. Yes, there ARE assault rifles. But none of the rifles (which is really just the one) the anti-gun advocates are those.

[Coola Yagami]

Correct. To protect against government tyranny. And the counter-argument from the left is always, "What, you think your AR-15 (or _______ fill in the blank gun) is going to help you defeat the government/military? ROTFLOL!!!! They've got jetfighters and tanks and nukes!" and these people are always sorely missing the point. The point is not that armed citizens would have a chance against a full-on offensive by the US military, the point is that the people who would be considering deploying such a full-on offensive by the military would have to think long and hard about it, because while they would ultimately win, it would be a very ugly conflict and very costly. Like, there would be hundreds and thousands of casualties, millions overall from both sides, in a way that a completely disarmed populace would not yield. So a relatively unfettered 2A is a deterrent in that way. The same argument for if a foreign government wanted to put boots on the ground here in the United States. Could they do it? Maybe, but their troops might just be parachuting into the wrong neighborhood and they wouldn't just have to worry about the soldiers, if you catch my drift, so maybe they think twice about doing it at all. Plus the very simple and fundamental ability to protect your family and at least give them a fighting chance if push ever comes to shove. As opposed to just, you know, laying down and letting whoever comes to assail you do whatever, or wait for the police (who the same side that wants to disarm the US wants to defund).




Pretty much why a lot of these shootings happen in 'gun free zones', they know the risk is minimal of a random civilian being armed and shooting back.