2
OrangeManOffical 2 points ago +2 / -0

https://sonorandefense.com/product/hillary-for-prison/ For those that like the mag or want to see some of their other designs.

1
OrangeManOffical 1 point ago +1 / -0

Your right I'm just making sure the facts are out there. And I get that fact that in a state where it's 3 dwi/dui in say 5 years to lose your gun rights doesn't come close to the you have a mmj card so no guns for you. I agree its not fair, I just think in general people overly push the but but alcohol comparison. If alcohol was schedule 3 (or is it schedule 1, its what ever the "worst" is ) like pot currently is it wouldn't make the no guns for pot users any fairer. And I think pushing the alcohol point makes it too easy for haters to dismiss pot users as jealous or bitter.

1
OrangeManOffical 1 point ago +1 / -0

technically no, states have a definition for drunkard that prohibits firearm ownership. But to your point yes that definition is loss enough that people that are frequently dangerously drunk are not prohibited. Typically the law is in the form of X alcohol related convictions in the last Y years. Again I know very weak by comparison to you smoke after work to chill and can't own a gun now but there are limits for alcoholics too.

1
OrangeManOffical 1 point ago +1 / -0

I know its not the same but most states do have a definition of a drunkard or habitual user of alcohol that does make you ineligible to own a firearm. I get that ever for pot is too strict by comparison but states do recognize alcohol as a legal drug. If the federal drug schedule was amended to remove pot they would treat it the same as alcohol.

1
OrangeManOffical 1 point ago +1 / -0

Yup its based on the federal drug schedule that's what needs to be changed to fix this.

2
OrangeManOffical 2 points ago +2 / -0

yes, alcohol isn't on the federal drug schedule. If they take pot off the federal drug schedules you will be allowed to have both. Alphabet boys fucking up your rights again.

1
OrangeManOffical 1 point ago +1 / -0

federal law prohibiting any habitual scheduled drug user from owning a firearm, every state that has legalized pot has had a provision in the bill echoing that federal law.

2
OrangeManOffical 2 points ago +2 / -0

If you mean they have personal political beliefs everyone does to some extent but that in and of itself does not make them partisan actors. Many of them were taking selfies and officers didn't bother to arrest someone smoking a joint in the capital (I'm sure that's a violation of some rule/law), one of the officers even gave a group of people directions to Schumer's office. Are you claiming that they as a group are pro trump and trump supporter? It seems to be hard to argue they are leftist and anti trump with that behavior. And just in case you're on the it was a setup, if it was the officers weren't in on it they wouldn't behave that way with a group they were setting up.

2
OrangeManOffical 2 points ago +2 / -0

Gab is releasing a phone later this year, it may be an opportunity to get away from google and apple phones that are massive spying devices.

3
OrangeManOffical 3 points ago +4 / -1

If they impeach him they destroy his life time salary and remove his life time secret service detail and I believe but have not confirmed life time security clearance. In other words once he's out if he's not impeached he will have some inherent un-removable political power they are desperate to destroy that before they lose the window to do so.

2
OrangeManOffical 2 points ago +2 / -0

There is video of the vans being escorted to DC out there but its sloppy cell phone shot video so its not clear enough to prove what it needs to prove. Regardless without communication the public will listen to the popular will won't be their to reverse what is happening. Even the NYT article that Pelosi attempted a military coup by asking the Join Chiefs of Staff to ignore lawful orders from Trump won't make a dent.

2
OrangeManOffical 2 points ago +2 / -0

He was undermined by the Mayor of DC when she wouldn't give him the support he requested before hand and by her constant orders all summer to stand down and let protestors do their thing. His officers aren't partisan actors they don't know that they have to let one protest do its thing and bust skulls on another protest based solely on political ideology.

1
OrangeManOffical 1 point ago +1 / -0

I use Dissenter and haven't had any problems with it. I haven't installed any plugins tho so I can't give you much advise if you are going so far as to install "no script" like plugins.

3
OrangeManOffical 3 points ago +3 / -0

Pick one:

1.The vaccine is safe

2.This is not medical advice

Both statements can't coexist with out one of them having no meaning.

1
OrangeManOffical 1 point ago +1 / -0

Yes and its particularly ignorant on their part since the X ending is a Latin ending and not part of the romance languages. Lantinx is widely rejected in the Hispanic community (the words you'd use if you really wanted an "gender-less" word).

by HUNK
2
OrangeManOffical 2 points ago +2 / -0

This is absolutely correct. Some court has even found that child support paid but not through the state system was a gift and didn't count as the child support is was intended as.

by HUNK
2
OrangeManOffical 2 points ago +2 / -0

IANAL but the courts don't care if child care is actually used to care for the child, that argument will get you nothing and no where. You can and should just deny her request for the $120 she's not going to keep him home it's going to be inconvenient for her. If she wants to fight about it you can push it all the way up to the day of the court case before you relent or if you think its worth the fight you can come to court with a lawyer. But if your going to show up in court with a lawyer you need to decide before you tell her you aren't giving her the extra money and follow the lawyers instruction very carefully. In the eyes of the law its her child and you are an ATM if you doubt the truth of this research the Tender Years Doctrine.

2
OrangeManOffical 2 points ago +2 / -0

Well, of course he's not gonna go away, Mary! You give him a dollar, he's gonna assume you've got more!

2
OrangeManOffical 2 points ago +2 / -0

This is the comment I came to the comment section for, would have posted it if it was missing but you beat me to it by over 30min.

1
OrangeManOffical 1 point ago +1 / -0

that you for being with us... PA to DC is a long drive, be careful around Howard and Montgomery county MD, and on word in to DC its all speed traps, red light cameras and cops wth nothing better to do then jack people up... PA is mostly fine but watch your speed they are like GA when it comes to speed enforcement (i.e. strict)

2
OrangeManOffical 2 points ago +2 / -0

The good ones will which is more the reason to not trust the ones that are there

4
OrangeManOffical 4 points ago +4 / -0

Many of them (antifa, and blm) have already said they will be there, and the police have shown repeatedly the only people they protect is the establishment. I don't think we need to antagonize them but definitely don't trust them you are just another skull to bash or wrists to cuff to them.

2
OrangeManOffical 2 points ago +2 / -0

They don't plan to walk with antifa just dress in all black and probably masked so they can't be identified easily from video, etc. And they are still going to be moving in groups so they can defend each other if/when something happens.

5
OrangeManOffical 5 points ago +5 / -0

I can still get up for work tomorrow ... a few more refreshes won't hurt ...

view more: Next ›