Ryan Albert: I’m the victim here!!!

lawsuitIn a whining opinion piece in the Washington Post yesterday, a “protester” named Ryan Albert sniveled that he publicly posted his opinion that he doesn’t “want military-grade weapons in [his] town” and is now getting sued merely for expressing his opinion. Before I fisk this particular piece of written dreck, I want to note the irony of someone who is complaining about being rightfully sued for abusing his First Amendment right in order to defame another human being and endanger his livelihood and his family, claiming to be a victim in this scenario.

Apparently, bullies don’t like it when their victims fight back. Well, a fight they got, and now they’re publicly whining about it.

I grew up shooting shotguns and rifles with my grandfather in rural Georgia. He would take this city boy out to the farm that has been in my family for more than 150 years. He would teach me how to safely load, discharge and clean the weapons.

Congratulations, so have many others. This does not give you credibility when talking about firearms – a subject about which you know about as much as I know about neurosurgery.

I understand why people want firearms and I believe there are reasons to own hunting rifles, shotguns and, with proper training, handguns for self-defense.

It’s called the Second Amendment. It has nothing to do with what you believe. It is clear why the Founders ensured that We the People retain the right to keep and bear arms. If you are confused, may I point you to Federalist 28?

If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.

Ryan then continues, as if his beliefs are somehow legally applicable to others.

I do not believe, however, that there is any legitimate reason for ordinary citizens to own military-grade weapons or use suppressors (better known as silencers by many among us). Yet these are somehow legal to be bought and to own.

The “legitimate reason” is enshrined in the Constitution. It has nothing to do with what Ryan believes, but apparently he considers his puny little, uninformed belief system more important than the actual, legal rights of other people.

FACT: selling sound suppressors is legal in Virginia.

FACT: what Ryan calls “military-grade weapons,” as he nervously clutches his pearls in despair, are regular, semi-automatic rifles that just look scary. Not to mention that historically, the citizens had better and more advanced firearms than the military, and it was the military that was catching up prior to the implementation of major gun control laws. But Ryan is both historically ignorant and arrogant enough to think that his ignorance on the subject should be the arbiter of others’ rights.

It is because of these beliefs that I posted on Facebook my opposition to Broadstone Security’s Nova Armory opening in Arlington County. The owner opened an online store that sells variants of AK-47s, AR-15s and other semiautomatic weapons, short-barreled rifles and silencers. Those weapons belong in the hands of our trained law enforcement and military personnel. An AR-15 makes a lousy self-defense weapon unless you are worried about guerillas invading your home from a distant ridge.

Because I expressed these beliefs in two Facebook posts, I have been named as a defendant in a frivolous lawsuit that seems designed to intimidate me and 63 of my neighbors and state legislators into silence.

The AR-15 makes a “lousy self defense weapon,” eh? I guess those days on grandpa’s farm didn’t teach Ryan much.

At least one expert prefers the AR as his weapon of choice for self defense.

I guess this homeowner thinks his AR was pretty lousy in preventing a home invasion.

And maybe this tax preparation business considers an AR an unlikely self defense weapon as well.

And yes, an AR is a terrible self defense weapon, especially, when merely brandished to scare the intruder away!

In other words, Ryan, you’re a moron.

Here’s what Ryan just doesn’t seem to understand. He can believe anything he wants, including that the sky is yellow, and as long as he doesn’t try to impose those beliefs on others, he will merely be mocked and ignored by all but the most catatonically stupid.

No, Ryan – your beliefs are not what spurred this suit.

No, Ryan – your posting them publicly on Facebook did not spur this suit.

No, Ryan – your beliefs are not a legal basis for a LEGITIMATE business to be bullied out of existence.

No, Ryan – your ignorance about what types of weapons law-abiding citizens should or should not have, has nothing to do with the law, and your intimidation tactics – as well as those of the legislators in question who colluded and conspired to bully the store’s landlord, and who tried to use their authority as government officials to bully a legitimate business out of existence – are not covered by the First Amendment.

In most states, a blatantly abusive lawsuit would be illegal. The irony is not lost that I can be sued for exercising my First Amendment rights while the owner of a gun store cannot be sued for negligence even if he knowingly sells a weapon to a mentally unstable customer who will later use it to murder innocents.

Is Ryan implying that Dennis Pratte knowingly sold weapons to prohibited persons? Prove it, or shut the fuck up, Ryan, because libelous statements are not helping your cause. And, by the way, you pernicious wart on the ass of everything that is decent, a gun store owner can be prosecuted for knowingly selling firearms to prohibited persons, and that crime is currently punishable by up to 10 years in prison.

My constitutionally established right to freedom of speech and right to assemble have been directly attacked. I must decide whether to surrender and be silent or endanger my welfare and that of my family. And that is before we consider that my rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are threatened every day by the presence of military-grade weapons in the hands of untrained or, in a worst-case scenario, violent people.

Your rights stop where others rights begin, Ryan. Your right to speak freely does not include libel. It does not include defamation. It does not include threats and intimidation. I’m going to quote attorney Daniel Hawes here, so you can better understand what this lawsuit references.

Simply put, free speech begins and ends with speech. When you take active steps to put someone out of business, that’s a crime in Virginia, even if you do it mainly by the use of words. That goes beyond “free speech”. If I can make an analogy, the fact that, in Virginia, I’ve got a perfect right to strap on a gun and walk around in public with it doesn’t give me the right to pull it out and shoot someone I don’t like. There is a point at which the privileged conduct stops and wrongful action begins. These people are not “random protesters” – they’re not protesters at all – they’re people who have communicated among themselves to effect an unlawful purpose using unlawful means. NoVa Armory is not a governmental agency, and a letter to its landlord is not “petitioning the government for a redress of grievances”. Trying to shut down that business is not an exercise in free speech.

The unlawful acts include defamation, calling NoVa Armory’s manager “gun-slinger Denny” and accusing him of being a terrorist, a liar, and a person who would sell guns to “those people” who live on the other side of the Anacostia river thereby promoting an illegal “black” market in guns and drugs. But it’s not a suit for defamation, it’s a suit for unlawfully conspiring to injure NoVa Armory in its trade or business in violation of Va. Code sections 18.2-499 and 18.2-500.

I’m assuming, Ryan, that you’re literate enough to read the lawsuit that was filed. You might want to do so before publicly whining about your beliefs being threatened. It’s not your beliefs, but your actions that caused harm to another human being, that have you named as a defendant in this suit, despite your continued efforts to pretend that you’re a victim in this scenario.

It saddens me that we live in the only industrialized country with gun-death rates equal to or greater than those of many developing countries. It saddens me that somewhere along the way, we forgot that all of our rights matter, not just those of people who want to make money by selling military-grade weapons. And it saddens me that we are being silenced into not expressing our beliefs and opposition for fear of being financially attacked, vilified and threatened by a minority of armed and aggressive neighbors.

It saddens me that in this day and age, ostensible adults 1) think that their beliefs trump others’ rights and b) think harassment and intimidation are legitimate forms of self expression.

57 responses

  1. What a panty wetting idiot. I hope the jury in the lawsuit jams it so far up his ass he can’t talk. And then break it off. It’s too bad that vermin like this can’t be given what they really deserve.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. sounds like he wasn’t bitch-slapped enough earlier in life

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Can someone define for me just HOW wee Ryan’s rights have been impinged, and he or his family directly threatened in any way? Any conceivable way, at all??

    This appears to be the ploy of another attention whore who twists things to suit himself and get the massive dose of attention and instant spotlight fame that he’s been drooling over for some time.

    Since no one is forcing wee Ryan or his family to own or use weapons of any kind, what is his real issue, beyond being an attention whore?

    Liked by 3 people

    1. Basically since he doesn’t trust himself with firearms, he doesn’t trust anyone else with a firearm (since he is clearly of the superior set who know how to use a firearm and choose not to own one. Anyone who doesn’t agree is an idiot and is a threat to his life.).

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Basically since he doesn’t trust himself with firearms, he doesn’t trust anyone else with a firearm

        Methinks the shithead doth project too much.

        Like

      2. Maybe if wee Ryan spent some time getting to know his neighbors and local law enforcement a little better, he’d feel less threatened by a legitimate business owner who sells a legitimate product.

        The upshot of it is that no one is forcing wee Ryan (and I do mean ‘wee’) to even look at a weapon of any kind. I think he’s just doing this to get attention so that he can be a victim. He’s an idiot. He needs to be in a safer place, like maybe a locked ward that he can leave with someone to accompany him through the dangers of the real world outside his doors.

        I just cannot stand people like him. Icckkkk! My tolerance level has been dropping rapidly.

        Liked by 1 person

  4. I hate to break it to Mr. Ryan, but the high violent crime rates generally come from cities with liberal, anti-gun politicians running the show.

    If he was REALLY worried about violent crime, wouldn’t he be addressing the root causes of those crimes, rather than a tool used by some of them but used an order of magnitude more to defend themselves.

    Yes, Mr. Ryan…even the AR-15.

    Liked by 2 people

  5. So Ryan’s getting sued for bullying. Hahahahahahahahahaha!

    Act like a willfully ignorant asshole, get treated like a willfully ignorant asshole. Sounds right to me.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Making comments like he has, after being served with a lawsuit, will probably make his counsel quite angry. Not a good place to be with counsel.

    Liked by 3 people

  7. Preach Sister!
    This proposed rule regarding gun manufacturers liability is bunk. Did a bullet come out of the barrel when you pulled the trigger? Yes? Well then, lawsuit dismissed.

    Like

  8. Can we get a GoFundMe page started, to give this pussy his lunch money back? Dear god, these tools are easy to fisk…..and Nicki does it with supernatural sangfroid.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. “supernatural sangfroid” – I think I just got a lexicon boner!😉

      Liked by 1 person

  9. Ryan Albert probably has a below-average sized penis and no scrotum. He also is obviously a below-averaged intellect.

    This is called free speech. But notice I didn’t try to destroy Ryan’s ability to conduct free commerce or cast aspersions to his character.

    The former is Constitutionally protected behavior. The latter is a crime in Virginia.

    Figure it out yet, genius…or do you require visuals made by crayon?

    Dumbass.

    -Jim

    Liked by 1 person

  10. I would like to skip over the primary source of his fear, and look at the secondary source of his fear. In doing so, I hope to clarify for all that his objections are merely knee-jerk reactions, and not well-grounded.

    He states there is no legitimate reason for ordinary citizens to “use suppressors (better known as silencers by many among us).”

    How about these as a legitimate reason: hearing protection and noise reduction?

    I really don’t feel like providing the google links, here. Anyone who cares to find the truth can do that; the people who don’t care probably don’t read the blog.

    I’m not sure if he would accept that evidence in other countries is all in favor of using suppressors, anyway, or that suppressors have not been a factor in crime in the US, EVER. So, I just post this here to say that beyond the primary defense against his behavior (don’t be a butt head) and the secondary defense (2nd Amendment), there is a third: use hearing protection.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Many of those “other countries” don’t restrict–oh hell no!–they require the use of suppressors…once you jump through all the bullcrap hoops you need to jump through to be “allowed” to own and operate a firearm in the first place.

      Liked by 4 people

  11. So this micro-genitaled shitweasel doesn’t like “military-grade” weapons in his vicinity ??

    Might I point out that Arlington, Virginia holds an Army Fort (Ft. Meyer), a Marine Base (Henderson Hall), the frigging PENTAGON, plus several Federal Agency HQs, ALL of which have armories chock-full of “military grade” weapons. Hell, Fort Meyer has indirect fire weapons. . . .

    And we won’t even point out what the Secret Service carries whenever they convoy through Arlington, surrounding our self-proclaimed God-King. . .

    Liked by 2 people

    1. You left out the Navy base at Newport News and the Naval Station at Little Creek. Lots of hardcore weapons there! Lots of them.

      Like

      1. Well that’s like 3-4 hours away from Arlington, but yeah.

        Like

      2. I was just looking in Arlington. Heck, go just north of the county line, and you’re practically in the CIA’s parking lot. I can just imagine the toys THEY have there. . .

        Like

    2. Yes, but those are in the hands of the Anointed Minions of the Holy State and thus are good guns as opposed to the evil guns in the hands of the unruly serfs it apparently thinks we are.

      Liked by 1 person

  12. I live in a pretty quiet neighborhood. When school is out in the summer, the kids run around like mad things until dark. Parents keep eagle eyes on the kids. I’m not the only retiree on my block. I have a neighbor who mows lawns for several of us and shovels the snow off my front steps if I don’t get to it before it gets too deep. The crime rate here is low and the local police are good people. Even though I can have a gun if I really, really want one, I’m more inclined to get pepper spray to stop carjackers in other areas IF I NEED IT. But as it is, no one is telling me I have to do this or that. It’s up to me.

    This idiot Ryan’s attitude appears to be that he thinks he has to own a gun just because a gun shop opened up somewhere within 100 miles of him. (I know, I’m exaggerating.) That doesn’t make any sense, but since I used to go foxhunting through the Pohick Valley, out west of Fairfax near Clifton and Centreville, he is probably also one of those people who think that any kind of sport in a natural area, such as gun or bow hunting, or foxhunting, should be brought to a screeching halt so that housing developments can pollute the place instead.

    People like this never let you rebut their arguments, so I’m glad he’s being sued. And I don’t normally say that about anyone.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. “he thinks he has to own a gun just because a gun shop opened up somewhere within 100 miles of him.”

      To be fair, I tend to think that way. [grin]

      Liked by 2 people

  13. Once again, If I hadn’t been around this type of idiot for long enough, I wouldn’t believe this was real. I mean, consider just how ridiculous the entire premise of this guys thought process is.

    I used to shoot guns with my grandpa, so I am manly. I just don’t like guns. Therefore nobody should like guns, and by G-d, absolutely not a single solitary person has any business even thinking about owning one of those big scary black guns like the military has. They don’t have any use for self defense, and I say so. And a whole bunch of my friends say so too, so you are wrong.

    I have first amendment rights, but I am getting sued, just for talking. I only said nobody needed a military gun. And that I am being unfairly attacked for expressing my rights. I have to decide if I should be silent and endanger my family or speak and endanger my welfare.

    Everyone here knows just how stupid this guy is and how much of an ass he is for attacking this man’s livelyhood, just because he didn’t like his product. Would it be alright if the guy had started a sex toy shop? Would he have been threatened by dildos and butt plugs? Wouldn’t that have been more of a threat to the morals of the children to have to walk by and see that, instead of guns and targets, perhaps even a cleaning kit?

    The thing that scares me is that people like this not only are allowed to breed, but actually are able to find someone that will give them a job.

    Liked by 1 person

  14. 1. Federalist Papers are not the Constitution
    2. Too many people with mental health problems have access to firearms
    3. “A well regulated militia…” That’s the National Guard! Not moron gun-nuts, right-wing extremists/”sovereign citizens” (of whom, mNy can’t see their toes…
    4. With every right or perceived right comes responsibility
    5. One person’s rights do not take precedence over another’s rights
    6. There are 9 other amendments that comprise the Bill of Rights and a total of 27 amendments, so why the obsession over a measily one that was intended to stand up a militia to defend against insurrection, European foes of the time, and the “savages”

    -retired combat vet — 82d ABN & 1Bn/1st SFG (A); firearms owner, hunter, biker, hiker, survivalist

    Like

    1. 1) Federalist Papers are not the Constitution

      No, but they do reveal the founders intent vis-a-vis the right to keep and bear arms. Moron.

      2) Too many people with mental health problems have access to firearms

      What does that have to do with the issue at hand?

      3) “A well regulated militia…” That’s the National Guard! Not moron gun-nuts, right-wing extremists/”sovereign citizens” (of whom, mNy can’t see their toes…

      So when the founders wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, they intended it to be for the National Guard, which was established in 1903, you fucking idiot?

      4) With every right or perceived right comes responsibility

      Congrats! You’ve watched Spider-Man. What’s your point?

      5) One person’s rights do not take precedence over another’s rights

      That’s the basic premise of a right. What’s your point, moron?

      6) There are 9 other amendments that comprise the Bill of Rights and a total of 27 amendments, so why the obsession over a measily one that was intended to stand up a militia to defend against insurrection, European foes of the time, and the “savages”

      Because morons such as you don’t seem to get the concept of a right as it pertains to that particular amendment.

      retired combat vet — 82d ABN & 1Bn/1st SFG (A); firearms owner, hunter, biker, hiker, survivalist

      Still doesn’t give you cred, especially given the drivel you’ve just spewed.

      Liked by 3 people

    2. “1. Federalist Papers are not the Constitution.” This is certainly the case. However, they are excellent documents for determining context.

      “2. Too many people with mental health problems have access to firearms” Well, I suppose the argument could be made that ONE is too many. However, having mental health problems is not just cause for denying a person their civil rights, and that’s black letter law. ONLY in the case where an individual is determined to be at risk to themselves or others is it justified as well as legal to deprive them of their liberty. There are specific procedures in place for that. They need to be tuned, but that’s a national health issue, not a 2nd Amendment issue.

      “3. “A well regulated militia…” That’s the National Guard!…” No, it isn’t the National Guard. I don’t know who told you this, but they weren’t interested in providing you with truth. If you want to discover for yourself, just type “National Guard equals militia” into google. Members of the National Guard are also members of the Reserves since 1940, and it’s in that capacity that they sent my son and the rest of his Georgia Army National Guard Unit to Afghanistan in 2013 and why, after mostly fixed him after the bad guys blew the $#!# out of him with a 155 , he was retired from the US Army.

      “4. With every right or perceived right comes responsibility” Okay. What’s your point?

      “5. One person’s rights do not take precedence over another’s rights” That’s worth talking about, but how do you apply that in this case?

      “6. There are 9 other amendments that comprise the Bill of Rights and a total of 27 amendments, so why the obsession over a measily …” I’m not going to grant you the use of the term ‘obsession,’ but I will ignore the term, and answer “WHY ARE WE TALKING ABOUT IT SO MUCH?” It’s because THAT amendment is the one under attack. It’s also because the Second Amendment is the basis for preventing tyrants from infringing on the rest of the Constitution.

      Liked by 3 people

      1. Wow, Pat – it’s like we were sharing a brain! LOL

        Like

    3. 3. It is “the right of the people”, not a right of the militia.

      “well regulated” applies to the militia, not “the right of the people”.

      Membership in a militia is neither a requirement nor a prerequisite to exercise the Right, through simple grammar, history, legal precedent or intent of the authors.

      http://www.libertygunrights.com/4pg2A%20Diagram.pdf

      http://www.largo.org/literary.html

      http://www.constitution.org/mil/embar2nd.htm

      http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa46.htm

      P.S. The militia still very much exists.
      https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311

      When called up, you can regulate the hell out of it. (And we do so.)

      Also, SCOTUS has a 240-year history of defining it as an individual Right.

      http://www.davekopel.org/2A/LawRev/35FinalPartOne.htm

      5. My exercise of the Second Amendment does not interfere with ANY of your Rights.

      6. Because we don’t want you to ruin our ability to do so. (The need still exists, whether you acknowledge it or not.)

      Liked by 3 people

    4. Lastly, your obvious reference to your veteran status is a clear attempt to use the Appeal to Authority Fallacy, especially odious when you patently claim yourself as the ‘authority’.

      Get bent, Fascist.

      Liked by 4 people

      1. The argumentum ad verecundiam wasn’t his only problem. He also couldn’t make an argumant without personally insulting those he expects to take him seriously.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. *Argument

          Like

    5. After this the only thing left is to tell Trent he is so full of shit, his ears are gushing raw sewage.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. I think he might be afraid to come back now.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Gee…can’t suck up a few (richly deserved) “moron”s? And he claims to be SFG? And a survivalist? He couldn’t survive an assault by a fire team of dustbunnies!

          Liked by 2 people

    6. Trent, you’re either lying about your points so as to go trolling, or you’re so ignorant of what you’re talking about you’re lying about being a veteran. Either way you’re nothing but a fucking liar. But let me address a couple of your points anyway.

      1) No, the Federalist papers are not the Constitution. But along with the Anti-Federalist Papers and the Declaration of Independence they combine to give excellent insight into the intentions of the founding fathers.
      3) As others have pointed out, the right is that of ‘the people’ rather than the state, and ‘well regulated’ refers to the militia. You can look the definition of ‘militia’ as meant at the time of writing the Bill of Rights, and also as it is meant today. To make things brief, the founders weren’t referring to a Federal State sponsored military organization in reference to militia, so the National Guard doesn’t meet their definition.
      5) Since you acknowledge that your rights don’t trump mine, quit trying to infringe on mine. You, and every other cocksucker that keeps trying to restrict our rights need a good lesson in the US Constitution.
      6) Not sure I would categorize defense of our rights as ‘obsession’, but in those areas where someone like wee Ryan wants to restrict my rights I’ll damn sure speak out about it. After Charli Hebdo I wrote about the 1st Amendment. I’ve written about the 2nd and 4th as well. That you don’t happen to listen isn’t my fault. Nor does that blame fall to anyone but YOU.

      Not-a-vet, but I am the grandson of one who jumped with the 517 in WWII; firearms owner, law enforcement dispatcher.

      Liked by 3 people

    7. Aw, what the hell, as long as we are piling on… 🙂

      2) So? How does someone else’s mental illness justify infringing on my rights? They are called individual rights for a reason. Someone might forfeit his rights by abusing them (which, oh by the way, merely being mentally ill wouldn’t qualify, unless he did something)…but he cannot forfeit MY rights by doing so. Nor yours nor anyone else’s.

      6) If anyone is obsessed it’s wee Ryan; we’re just responding. We’ll quit responding when he quits trying to piss all over us. Quite frankly we’ve been models of restraint compared to what little shits like him actually deserve.

      Liked by 2 people

    8. As a veteran in good standing, of the 82nd “All American” Airborne Division…..we’d like to publicly disavow “Trent”. Presuming he’s not a pansy-assed, pasty-faced poster of course….

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Ive certainly noticed there seem to be millions of LRRPs and Ex-Seals out there too…

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Yeah, nobody ever poses as a mechanic or finance clerk. Always a secret squirrel commando….

          Liked by 1 person

        2. Hey I have eighty seven flawless years in the motor pool, working on stealth Abrams tanks!!!

          /bullshit.

          Liked by 3 people

        3. Hey, go big or go home, right?

          Liked by 1 person

        1. Given that he’d probably fold under a killer assault dust bunny attack…I agree.

          Liked by 1 person

        2. That’s my vote too. Especially since he doesn’t provide enough information to disprove anything, which is by design. If he was in the 82nd, I suspect he was some admin puke who experienced some incoming fire somewhere without ever leaving the compound, but was never in a real firefight. However, that won’t stop him from touting his “combat” experience every chance he gets.

          It’s amusing how few documented combat arms veterans are as anti-gun as this turdnugget. Most I’ve talked to (hundreds at least) seem to take issue with being trusted with weapons in a war zone, but suddenly being unworthy of such things when they get out.

          Liked by 2 people

        3. It’s amusing how few documented combat arms veterans are as anti-gun as this turdnugget.

          Yep….I’ve run across….zero.

          Like

        4. I do know one throroughly pro-gun vet who claims a large percentage of E1s shouldn’t be trusted with firearms. I guess she saw too many people in uniform who should have been in jail instead.

          Like

  15. Nicki, you type faster than I do. It’s not fair; you’re getting all the meat!

    Like

    1. Awwwww! Don’t let that stop you, Pat! Have at it!

      Liked by 1 person

  16. This guy is an idiot, plain and simple. Here’s just one of many examples why:

    “An AR-15 makes a lousy self-defense weapon unless you are worried about guerillas(sic) invading your home from a distant ridge.”

    http://www.military.com/video/guns/rifles/kid-shoots-burglar-with-dads-ar-15/2086401790001>I give you this. If a 15 year old can do it, I can.

    Here’s another: “My constitutionally established right to freedom of speech and right to assemble have been directly attacked.”

    He doesn’t want his 1st amendment limited. But he wants to impose his arbitrary limitations on everyone else’s 2nd amendment. Got it.

    I got bored with him at that point and moved on.

    Liked by 2 people

  17. So, what happens to those people on the list that DO NOT respond to the lawsuit? Default judgment?

    And, will those State Delegates have criminal charges pressed for Official Oppression?

    Like

  18. I have heard it explained before that well regulated meant well appointed, or well equipped, like in having a bug out bag that was packed with everything you needed.
    Therefore, well regulated would mean that part of being in the defacto militia meant that you had to have your own weapon. Made complete sense to me, but then I tend to be a simple man.

    Like

    1. Paul (Drak Bibliophile) Howard

      I thought “Well-Regulated” also has an element of “Well-Organized”.

      As in, “we regularly practice together”, “we know where to meet up with others”, “we know who is in command”, etc.

      Like

      1. In the times when the Constitution was written, it meant “well-trained.”

        Like

  19. […] Ryan Albert: I’m the victim here!!! […]

    Like

  20. You lost me at the Military grade weapons.

    I’m active duty Army, I own an AR15, and it’s not the same thing. Different parts, different rates of fire, the parts from my issued M4 wouldn’t work in my AR. The same goes for the “AK-47″… Yeah none of the ones you can buy are full Auto, so it’s not an AK47.

    So you’re a croc-of-shit liar and are clueless about what you are mentioning.

    Like

    1. To whom are you talking, exactly? You do understand that this is a fisk, right?

      Like

  21. Man up Ryan. Don’t be such a crybaby. You would probably wet your panties if you could see the contents of my gun safe and the amount of ammo I have on the shelves. Like the tee shirt states, “Black Rifles Matter.”

    Like

%d bloggers like this: