Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: New T-shirt

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    North Richland Hills, Texas, USA
    Posts
    45

    Post imported post

    I got bored this morning and decided to do this T-shirt design I have been thinking about. I am posting a link to it here so everyone can see it, not just the Kalifornians.

    I am a former resident of the Republic of Kalifornia who still has family there that i visit from time to time. I figured this was a good way to get people to question me when I visit. It may be a bit over the top but I have always been that way when I want to say something. Seeing how to OC is difficult at best and CC is well, what it is.

    If anyone decides they want to print it up and use it for shirts, stickers or whatever, then that's great. It is by all means free to anyone. If you would like to use it as a signature graphic then let me know and I will redesign it.

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/33668550@N07/3185532706/

  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member Hawkflyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    3,315

    Post imported post

    FoGKeebler wrote:
    I got bored this morning and decided to do this T-shirt design I have been thinking about. I am posting a link to it here so everyone can see it, not just the Kalifornians.

    I am a former resident of the Republic of Kalifornia who still has family there that i visit from time to time. I figured this was a good way to get people to question me when I visit. It may be a bit over the top but I have always been that way when I want to say something. Seeing how to OC is difficult at best and CC is well, what it is.

    If anyone decides they want to print it up and use it for shirts, stickers or whatever, then that's great. It is by all means free to anyone. If you would like to use it as a signature graphic then let me know and I will redesign it.

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/33668550@N07/3185204094/
    One small criticism. The right to arms is NOT granted by the Constitution, it is RECOGNIZED by the Constitution. The right predates the Constitution and is a natural right of all persons included within the natural right to defend ones self against all foes.

    Small but important point.

    "Research has shown that a 230 grain lead pellet placed just behind the ear at 850 FPS results in a permanent cure for violent criminal behavior."
    "If you are not getting Flak, you are not over the target"
    "186,000 Miles per second! ... Not just a good idea ... It's the law!"

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    North Richland Hills, Texas, USA
    Posts
    45

    Post imported post

    This is true. But most people associate the right with the second amendment and the idea is just to provoke the conversation of the issue at which time it can clearly explained to the uninformed. Besides you would need a xxxxl shirt to state it as it exactly is. But I see your point.

    Besides, who besides me would be daring enough to broadcast to a criminal they are an easy target with one literally on their back.

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member Hawkflyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    3,315

    Post imported post

    FoGKeebler wrote:
    This is true. But most people associate the right with the second amendment and the idea is just to provoke the conversation of the issue at which time it can clearly explained to the uninformed. Besides you would need a xxxxl shirt to state it as it exactly is. But I see your point.

    Besides, who besides me would be daring enough to broadcast to a criminal they are an easy target with one literally on their back.
    Just change "Granted" to "Recognized"
    "Research has shown that a 230 grain lead pellet placed just behind the ear at 850 FPS results in a permanent cure for violent criminal behavior."
    "If you are not getting Flak, you are not over the target"
    "186,000 Miles per second! ... Not just a good idea ... It's the law!"

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    North Richland Hills, Texas, USA
    Posts
    45

    Post imported post

    Roger that. Fixed and uploaded.

    Thanks for the input

  6. #6
    Regular Member dbc3804's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Henrico, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    79

    Post imported post

    But now the link doesn't work.

  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member Hawkflyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    3,315

    Post imported post

    dbc3804 wrote:
    But now the link doesn't work.
    It always something
    "Research has shown that a 230 grain lead pellet placed just behind the ear at 850 FPS results in a permanent cure for violent criminal behavior."
    "If you are not getting Flak, you are not over the target"
    "186,000 Miles per second! ... Not just a good idea ... It's the law!"

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    North Richland Hills, Texas, USA
    Posts
    45

    Post imported post

    Well don't i look stupid

    I didn't realize that it changed. here is the new link. I'm going to edit the one in the previous post as well.

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/33668550@N07/3185532706/

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    2,615

    Post imported post

    I would suggest one for the anti-gunners to wear.

    perhaps worded as:

    Attention Criminals

    I refuse to exercise myRIGHT to bear arms as recognized by the 2nd Ammendmant of the US Constitution.

    Since I am unarmed I have chosen to give up myRIGHT not to be a victem.

    Do to me what you will.

  10. #10
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524

    Post imported post

    Hawkflyer wrote:
    FoGKeebler wrote:
    This is true. But most people associate the right with the second amendment and the idea is just to provoke the conversation of the issue at which time it can clearly explained to the uninformed. Besides you would need a xxxxl shirt to state it as it exactly is. But I see your point.

    Besides, who besides me would be daring enough to broadcast to a criminal they are an easy target with one literally on their back.
    Just change "Granted" to "Recognized"
    Better yet, change "recognized under" to "protected by".
    The thing about common sense is....it ain't too common.
    Will Rogers

  11. #11
    Founder's Club Member Hawkflyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    3,315

    Post imported post

    rodbender wrote:
    ...SNIP
    Better yet, change "recognized under" to "protected by".
    Unfortunately it protects nothing. If it did there would be no infringement. It can only recognize the right ... It is then unfortunately up to humans to stand up to protect it.
    "Research has shown that a 230 grain lead pellet placed just behind the ear at 850 FPS results in a permanent cure for violent criminal behavior."
    "If you are not getting Flak, you are not over the target"
    "186,000 Miles per second! ... Not just a good idea ... It's the law!"

  12. #12
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524

    Post imported post

    According to the founding fathers it was designed to protect. I thinkwe need to use this term, and this term only, to insure thatthat is what it is suppose to do.
    The thing about common sense is....it ain't too common.
    Will Rogers

  13. #13
    Founder's Club Member Hawkflyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    3,315

    Post imported post

    First time you have someone ignore something you have in writing and do what they darn well please, you will see what I mean. The Constitution defines a system of government that is at its best an agreement between the participants to live by certain rules. But the entire system is based on the honorable intentions of all of the participants. The paper itself protects nothing. It is just a list of things to be done or not done. It is the honor and actions of the people that protect our rights.

    "... A government of the people, by the people, and for the people..." (A. Lincoln)
    "Research has shown that a 230 grain lead pellet placed just behind the ear at 850 FPS results in a permanent cure for violent criminal behavior."
    "If you are not getting Flak, you are not over the target"
    "186,000 Miles per second! ... Not just a good idea ... It's the law!"

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,715

    Post imported post

    Take out the last line and I'd buy it if I was ever visiting Cali. I think it sounds stupid when people say that. It implies that you're helpless without a gun. Hit up the gym and take some MMA classes or something. Guns aren't the end-all, be-all ofkeeping yourself from being victimized. People not carrying have less defensive tools to use, but it doesn't automatically mean they're willing victims laying curled in the fetal position waiting for someone to rob/pillage/plunder them. Having that sort of attitude is elevating yourself into some "better than thou" class... kind of like law enforcement does, and we all know that turns people off to anything you have to say.

  15. #15
    Regular Member richarcm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    1,182

    Post imported post

    Hawkflyer wrote:
    First time you have someone ignore something you have in writing and do what they darn well please, you will see what I mean. The Constitution defines a system of government that is at its best an agreement between the participants to live by certain rules. But the entire system is based on the honorable intentions of all of the participants. The paper itself protects nothing. It is just a list of things to be done or not done. It is the honor and actions of the people that protect our rights.

    "... A government of the people, by the people, and for the people..." (A. Lincoln)
    Although you are correct your definition makes it easier for someone to rationalize an official who chooses to dismiss the Constitution on the basis of it being "flawed". Perhaps we should up the anti and create the perception of the Constitution that once existed. A Constitution that defines the limitation of the powers of government without exception. Afterall the governemnt works for us. If our officials choose to ignore their limitations set out to PROTECT us it is our duty to kick them the helens out. Just as with any contract the rules must be enforced. If we as a people choose not to enforce them then of course the contract is meaningless. We have done this to ourselves. The only way to revalidate the Constitution is to, as a people, choose to tell our officials that it will not be tolerated. The problem is that it seems that more poeple in this country would rather see it revised BY OUR GOVERNMENT than upheld.

  16. #16
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    2,615

    Post imported post

    richarcm wrote:
    Hawkflyer wrote:
    First time you have someone ignore something you have in writing and do what they darn well please, you will see what I mean. The Constitution defines a system of government that is at its best an agreement between the participants to live by certain rules. But the entire system is based on the honorable intentions of all of the participants. The paper itself protects nothing. It is just a list of things to be done or not done. It is the honor and actions of the people that protect our rights.

    "... A government of the people, by the people, and for the people..." (A. Lincoln)
    Although you are correct your definition makes it easier for someone to rationalize an official who chooses to dismiss the Constitution on the basis of it being "flawed". Perhaps we should up the anti and create the perception of the Constitution that once existed. A Constitution that defines the limitation of the powers of government without exception. Afterall the governemnt works for us. If our officials choose to ignore their limitations set out to PROTECT us it is our duty to kick them the helens out. Just as with any contract the rules must be enforced. If we as a people choose not to enforce them then of course the contract is meaningless. We have done this to ourselves. The only way to revalidate the Constitution is to, as a people, choose to tell our officials that it will not be tolerated. The problem is that it seems that more poeple in this country would rather see it revised BY OUR GOVERNMENT than upheld.
    Everyone knows that the government is suppose to be working for the people. The problem is, there's a large portion of the peoplethat have a warped idea of what the job description entails.

    They think Gu'ment job is to:

    • Make all decisions concerningtheir personal lives so they don't have to,
    • Confiscate wealth from those thatwork hardand re-distribute it to those that don't want to,
    • Protect them from their own stupidity,
    • Clean up after them.

  17. #17
    Regular Member richarcm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    1,182

    Post imported post

    Task Force 16 wrote:
    Everyone knows that the government is suppose to be working for the people. The problem is, there's a large portion of the peoplethat have a warped idea of what the job description entails.

    They think Gu'ment job is to:
    • Make all decisions concerningtheir personal lives so they don't have to,
    • Confiscate wealth from those thatwork hardand re-distribute it to those that don't want to,
    • Protect them from their own stupidity,
    • Clean up after them.
    Yes and that is because we are made up of Democrats who couldn't care any less about individual rights or the Constitution unless they benefit themselves personally, Republicans who believe that politicians who bypass the Constitution are few and are immediately punished, and a small population of libertarians/constitutionalists who are powerless by themselves in such small numbers. The media fuels this divide and naivete but ultimately it is nobody's fault but our own that Obama, DC or Chicago ban handguns. We let them.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •