Not On The Same Planet

Greetings Me Droogs N Droogettes!

Well, Good to Know that The Lord High (emphasis on high) Emperor, King Joseph Biden the First, Kidsniffer Extraordinaire, Protector of the Realm, Coverer of Wayward Sons, Thrall to the Chinese and general Malarkey Marker, has issued His Decree to His subjects about the possessions of weapons in His Realm:

My only question is do these people really live in the same reality as us?
Obviously not.
ZMan always uses the term “Cloud People” and “Dirt People”.  He’s pretty spot on.  I don’t always agree with his analysis, but the Cloud People Metaphor is dead-on IMO.  There’s even a Star Trek episode “The Cloud Minders”… rather cheesy, but prophetic in many respects…

A Floating City, filled with the Leadership and Elites, who have the “Troglytes” as their laborers in the dirt, providing all the nice stuff for the Elites, and are kept from being in the high life of the floating City… no extreme luxury for the Trogs… and tell me how this isn’t indicative of our current extreme social and financial stratification?
The very fact that Slo has –no- fucking clue as to what the Colonists had for firepower… I mean Jeebus… the Brits were on their way to collect the powder at Concord… specifically it was an “arms cache” consisting of privately owned cannons.  Meaning that the Colonists had their own artillery.  Now, going by the ‘strictly interpreted weapons of the time’, i.e. You can own the same shit the Colonists did, albeit updated to modern specifications, well… that leaves the DotGov in a bit of a Pickle.

Or “Puckle” as it may be…The 1718 Puckle Gun was an Early Version (flintlock no less) of a Gatling Cannon… reason I call it a cannon was the bore on this thing was 32mm… THAT is a big fuggin’ round

So, a 7 to 11 round Magazine, semi-auto Cannon, 32mm…
And then, as to the “No ‘Assault Weapons’ back then, I introduce The Kalthoff Repeater.

The Kalthoff repeater was a type of repeating firearm that was designed by members of the Kalthoff family around 1630.  1630 is when it was invented.  It had, depending on the model, between various one, the first being capable of holding between 8 to 10 shots, with a later Model being patented in 1641 with a removable magazine capable of 30 rounds of ammunition

So much for the utter bullshit of ‘they didn’t have those back then!’
In fact I read somewhere that Jefferson had one of these, or something similar.  Now, granted, they weren’t common so to speak, as they were even back then expensive.  BUT nonetheless, if’n a Militiaman had the scratch, he could have had an 1700’s version of an AR.

Fucking revisionist historians man, and lack of education.  Dumbfucks.

Nevermind that the Artillery in Question that the Colonials possessed were Field Guns:

Field guns, were lightweight, mobile pieces firing solid shot, grapeshot and canister in a fairly flat trajectory, could tear large holes in the Redcoat infantry ranks.  No wonder the Brits wanted to confiscate them Aye?

So… now having gone over this, This means that by Our Lords and Masters ways of thinking (or lack that thereof) We’re to be allowed the same modern equivalent of what the Colonial Militia -might- be capable of fielding.  

So that means the modern day equivalents of these, that by their own definitions we can have would be:For the Puckle Gun, The GAU-8 Avenger 30mm Cannon:

For the Kalthoff Repeater, ANY and all Modern 30 Round Capacity Rifles, to include the M-4

And for Field Artillery, the M777 UFH (Ultra-lightweight Field Howitzer) 155mm Lightweight Towed Artillery will do juuuuuust fine.

Now that we’ve essentially disassembled their arguments, I personally think they need to shut the fuck up and sit the fuck down.  The Second Amendment wasn’t aimed at limiting the possession of firepower, but to provide a tool for limit the government from overreaching and imposing it’s illegal will on the People.

Uneducated Dolts.
Be Careful what you say that we can have.

Because eventually we’re going to hold you to it
I personally would love to see one of the larger Gun Rights Advocates try and push that argument in a Courtroom setting.  Seeing that the Politicos constantly harp on how “They didn’t have that back then!” and “They never intended!”  All of it completely and verifiable historically bullshit.

They even had laws in many areas that you absolutely positively needed to own a weapon in one form or another.  And if you were too poor, they’d let you pay over time to the town which would buy you a piece. Had to because of hostile Indians… sorry ‘native ‘Muricans’… might come out of the woodline to start killing locals… which kinda describes how it is with the feral niggers of BLM and AntiFa running around loose.

I mean I sure as hell would like to be able to drop some 155mm DPIC-M on them at a distance as opposed to having to hit ’em up close and personal.

Jes’ Sayin’

Guess all that “Edjamahcation’ at Harvard and whatnot overlooks real history for them Elites Aye?
So More Later I Remain The Intrepid Reporter
Big Country

Liked it? Take a second to support BigCountryExpat on Patreon!

By BigCountryExpat

Fuck you if you can't take a joke. No one gets out alive so eat me.

8 comments

  1. You’re spot on Biggie, the whole argument is null and void. The 2nd isn’t about restricting WE THE PEOPLE. Read it, out loud, slowly… the rights of the people, shall not be infringed. It is, as you said:
    “for limit the government from overreaching and imposing it’s illegal will on the People.”
    It limits the Government from placing restrictions on the people. It does not limit what the people can have. Never did, never has, never will.
    Engaging in debate about assault weapons and pistol grips and barrel lengths is pointless and entertains, thereby validating, their argument. Don’t do it. Don’t fall into the trap. Very simply explain the 2nd ammendment limits the actions the government can take, not the people. Therefore the whole debate about what WE THE PEOPLE should and should not have is moot. The rights of the people, shall not be infringed (by the goobermint). It says so in plain english, just read it.

  2. Then there is US vs Miller.
    “U.S. Supreme Court
    United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)
    United States v. Miller

    No. 696

    Argued March 30, 1939

    Decided May 15, 1939

    307 U.S. 174

    Syllabus

    The National Firearms Act, as applied to one indicted for transporting in interstate commerce a 12-gauge shotgun with a barrel less than 18 inches long without having registered it and without having in his possession a stamp-affixed written order for it, as required by the Act, held:

    1. Not unconstitutional as an invasion of the reserved powers of the States. Citing Sonzinsky v. United States, 300 U. S. 506, and Narcotic Act cases. P. 307 U. S. 177.

    2. Not violative of the Second Amendment of the Federal Constitution. P. 307 U. S. 178.

    The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.”

    Effing right. If the US Army uses it the citizen can own it. That now includes shotguns with barrels less than 18 inches and select fire anything.

  3. ” the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
    Pretty much says there ain’t no limits, Joe Chi Minh.
    Learn to fucking read you illegitimate, lying piece of dog shit.

  4. Airbust 155mm now we are talking! Why litter your lawn with 100’s of small caliber casings that are going to give you hell next time you mow the lawn when you can use just one big one. Environmentally friendly too, saves resources.

  5. GAU-8 has GOT to be my favorite! So sweet, they built a Warthog around it just so they could fly it around to show it off.
    If the Constitution isn’t written in stone, then what the fuck it is!?

  6. “You can’t yell ‘fire’ in a crowded movie theatre.” FALSE.

    You can yell “fire” in a movie theatre. You have that right. What you can’t do is use your right to recklessly endanger people. If you do, you will be prosecuted.

    What the government seeks to do with gun control is require everyone to wear a muzzle into the movie theatre.

  7. Wrong post but, you said princess d. Got wacked. New ungrateful cunt is gonna Get a lead injection thanks to Oprah. Now can’t travel cus she is preggo. U smart. Me listen and follow. Good shit bro

Leave a Reply to Cowboy Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *