Democrats Finally Fly Their Gun-Control Fascist Freak Flag in the Open

  
Via:  badfish-hd-h-u  •  one month ago  •  211 comments

Democrats Finally Fly Their Gun-Control Fascist Freak Flag in the Open

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


In all of the decades that the modern version of the contentious debate in America over guns, freedom, and the Second Amendment has been going on, the gun-control advocates have repeatedly assured gun owners of one thing: they don't want to take our guns away from us.

My, what a difference one presidential primary full of unabashed Democratic statists makes.

After years of being told that we are paranoid for saying that the anti-gun Left wants to confiscate our weapons, the anti-gun Left is letting us know in no uncertain terms that they want to confiscate our weapons.

Loudest among them is Robert Francis "Horse Mouth" O'Rourke who, seeing his relevance as a candidate dwindling by the hour, has decided to go all-in on making a pitch for being America's gun-grabber-in-chief:

This Soviet turn marks a departure for Beto in a couple of ways.



Beto O'Rourke Verified account   @ BetoORourke

Follow Follow   @ BetoORourke





More






Hell yes, we're going to take your AR-15. Buy your shirt now: https:// store.betoorourke.com/hell-yes-were- going-to-unisex-womens-styles/  


320

Last year, when the only constituency he was trying to woo consisted of residents of the great state of Texas, O'Rourke was   still paying lip service to being a supporter   of legal gun owners.

So much for that.

Vox Confirms That, Yes, They Do Want to Take Our Guns


As recently as a few weeks ago, Beto was talking about a federal "buy-back" of AR-15s. Yes, that's euphemistic garbage -- the government can't buy back something it never owned in the first place. It's semantic whitewashing of what the program really would be: a huge first step to federal gun confiscation.


As of Friday, Cory Booker was still pretending a bit, but tipping the Democrats' hands nonetheless:

So...it's a mandatory surrendering of the guns to the federal government that will no doubt be unpopular with 99.9999999999% of the people it targets and we're supposed to believe that there will be no heavy-handed enforcement by the feds.

Has this clown even met the Internal Revenue Service?

Matt Damon Calls for Confiscation of Guns in U.S.


Kamala Harris got out in front of everything earlier in the year when she promised that she would almost immediately become an executive-action nightmare  on gun control if Congress didn't give her what she wanted.

While the Democrats keep referring to the AR-15 specifically, they also repeatedly use the phrase "weapons of war," which puts the slippery in "slippery slope."

"Weapons of war" is a catch-all that can also refer to sidearms, knives, and anything else ever used in a battle. They used to use rocks back in the catapult days, you know.

They naturally dismiss this idea as just more paranoia, even as they work to prove that none of us are actually paranoid.

Even -- let's just pretend for a moment -- if they were sincere and didn't intend to come after all firearms, when has the federal government ever shown restraint in matters like this? Give the bureaucratic behemoth an inch and it will immediately seek ways to take every mile on Earth.

The obvious takeaway from all of this is that we were right all along about the Democrats' intentions, which provides a perfect example for future debates when they're pretending to be anything other than what they truly are: Soviet-esque control-freak statists.

Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
Find text within the comments Find 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
1  seeder  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh    one month ago

Gun confiscation brings voters out of the wood work. Good luck with that!

512

 
 
 
r.t..b...
1.1  r.t..b...  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @1    one month ago
Gun confiscation brings voters out of the wood work.

Not confiscation, Fish, but acknowledging the simple and irrefutable fact that a vast majority of voters favor comprehensive background checks. The blowback from the stale 'slippery-slope' argument is what is bringing voters out of the woodwork. It's just a matter of time before the next mass murder and people are sick and tired of inaction. The 2nd Amendment will be with us forever, as it should, but there are realistic, common sense restrictions that can be enacted that will still protect those rights while offering more protection to our citizenry. Reasonable and thoughtful dialogue rather than demagoguery is essential, and that holds true for both sides of the debate.

Is the status quo acceptable? I cannot imagine anyone accepting such a premise.

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
1.1.1  Dean Moriarty  replied to  r.t..b... @1.1    one month ago

It’s more than background checks. Even Biden who some wrongly consider to be a moderate is in favor of banning some of our most useful weapons we might someday need to overthrow a tyrannical government. 

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/12/biden-assault-weapons-ban-op-ed-1458151

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.1.2  JohnRussell  replied to  r.t..b... @1.1    one month ago

Confiscation is a non starter.  With millions of Ar-15's in the public, confiscation would require house to house searches, and there is no way that will happen in the US. 

It may be though that a ban on sales of the assault rifles and their ammunition would save some lives. Many of the mass killers seem to have recently bought their murder weapon. Maybe it is because those who have had the guns for years are not the type to be mass shooters. I dont know, but there is some reason why many of the shooters have a new or relatively new gun. 

Ban the sale of these weapons and the ammo and mass shootings might be less frequent. 

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
1.1.3  seeder  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  Dean Moriarty @1.1.1    one month ago

Our founding fathers were clear. The purpose of the 2nd amendment is to allow the people to dispose of tyrannical governments.

It's our insurance program and big government has wanted to take it away from us since our inception. It's the nature of the beast, that's why we fight for a limited government.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
1.1.4  r.t..b...  replied to  Dean Moriarty @1.1.1    one month ago
we might someday need to overthrow a tyrannical government.

Another argument bandied about that is perhaps the most insidious of all. Should we ever come to the day when citizens are armed in the streets against our government, that will be the day when the America we all cherish has long since disappeared.  It is a specious and paranoid argument at best...and does nothing but take away from the serious debate that we should be having. 

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
1.1.5  seeder  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  r.t..b... @1.1.4    one month ago

It's the argument many of our founding fathers made and it is what has made this the most successful Constitutional republic in history. The people have the power to dissemble our own government at any time.

It works.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
1.1.6  r.t..b...  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @1.1.5    one month ago
It's the argument many of our founding fathers made and it is what has made this the most successful Constitutional republic in history.

Agreed. In their wisdom, they also gave us the mechanisms to address issues that they had no idea would arise in the future. Again I ask if the status quo is acceptable...retrospectively in the eyes of our Founding Fathers or presently in the situation where we see innocents routinely murdered. I would argue neither could reasonably accept it. Let us work together to address the problem in a sense of cooperation and compromise, just as those that began this great experiment would hope their efforts would inspire future generations to follow their example.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.1.7  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Dean Moriarty @1.1.1    one month ago

Dean,

He is a moderate. We have had limitations before, like the Brady Bill and the assault weapons bill. Our government didn't become tyrannical. 

The keyword is limitations. Not the removal of all guns. Biden has never suggested that.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.1.8  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @1.1.3    one month ago

The issue our founding fathers had were far more complex. The Federalist and the anti-federalists viewed militias in very different ways. 

http://www.madisonbrigade.com/library_bor.htm

It is an interesting read but I doubt anyone will. 

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
1.1.9  seeder  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.1.7    one month ago

It doesn't matter because Biden's debate performance was so awful he's dropping like a turd in a public pool.

Even the lefty friendly media is questioning his mental and physical capacity for office. It's looking like it's nursing home time for Ole Joe.

The guy thinks he's running against President Bernie Sanders .

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.1.10  JohnRussell  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.1.7    one month ago

Background checks might stop a few random shootings, but by no means all or even most.   We have to go farther than that. 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
1.1.11  Greg Jones  replied to  r.t..b... @1.1    one month ago

The gun grabbers always go loud and vocal about "doing something", to score political points. "Comprehensive"

gun checks will not stop anyone intent on committing a mass shooting, and there is no way to monitor or police

private sales and trades of firearms between individuals, be they good guys or common criminals. Criminals and the

criminally insane don't obtain guns legally

 
 
 
Heartland American
1.1.12  Heartland American  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.2    one month ago

I like the Texas state legislator who tweeted “my AR is ready for you Beto”

 
 
 
TTGA
1.1.13  TTGA  replied to  r.t..b... @1.1.6    one month ago
Let us work together to address the problem in a sense of cooperation and compromise,

rt.b,, why is it that we never seem to compromise away from more restrictions?  Each compromise seems to end up as the starting point for the next one.  It never stops.  This is called incrementalism, and it means "We won't start the confiscation with this compromise.  We'll wait a while and do it slowly. In the end, the result will be the same; you will have lost your power to resist us"..  Chairman Mao said that it would happen if you just put all of the guns in the hands of the party and the government.. 

Gun grabbers have shown by their constant "compromises" that they cannot be trusted under any circumstances.  Their objective is domination, their means is disarmament of the population.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
1.1.14  Jack_TX  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @1.1.9    one month ago
It doesn't matter because Biden's debate performance was so awful he's dropping like a turd in a public pool.

Keep in mind, "support" at this stage is built on pandering to the batshit extremes of the party.  Joe's primary appeal to those Democrats is that he has the most realistic chance of beating Trump.  Any time he looks less likely to be able to do that, he loses ground to the angry nutjobs.

 
 
 
squiggy
1.1.15  squiggy  replied to  r.t..b... @1.1.4    one month ago

“It is a specious and paranoid argument at best...”

You can say that about ‘shall not be infringed’ too but it’s there and that’s the standard. Is anybody back in for ‘stop and frisk’ - the common sense approach to separating guns from the suspicious?

 
 
 
Greg Jones
1.1.16  Greg Jones  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.1.8    one month ago

Very interesting article, a long read.

Therefore, even if the opening words of the Amendment, "A well regulated militia…" somehow would be interpreted as strictly limiting "the right of the people to keep…arms"; nevertheless, a properly functioning militia fundamentally presupposes that the individual citizen be allowed to keep, practice, and train himself in the use of firearms.

This was also interesting.

"The 'militia' was the entire adult male citizenry, who were not simply allowed to keep their own arms, but affirmatively required to do so.… With slight variations, the different colonies imposed a duty to keep arms and to muster occasionally for drill upon virtually every able-bodied white man between the age of majority and a designated cut-off age. Moreover, the duty to keep arms applied to every household, not just to those containing persons subject to militia service. Thus the over-aged and seamen, who were exempt from militia service, were required to keep arms for law enforcement and for the defense of their homes."

 
 
 
squiggy
1.1.17  squiggy  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.1.8    one month ago

“...but I doubt anyone will.”

... and we’re right back in the weeds. Nothing about ‘shall not be infringed’ is ambiguous.

 
 
 
TTGA
1.1.18  TTGA  replied to  Greg Jones @1.1.11    one month ago
"Comprehensive"

gun checks will not stop anyone intent on committing a mass shooting, and there is no way to monitor or police

private sales and trades of firearms between individuals, be they good guys or common criminals.

Greg, that just shows us where their next "compromise" will be.  They will need a list of all gun owners and what they have in order to make the "comprehensive" background checks work.  The gun grabbers have been working on that one for decades.  Then they'll know where to send their jack booted thugs when confiscation time comes around.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
1.1.19  Jack_TX  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.2    one month ago
Confiscation is a non starter.  With millions of Ar-15's in the public, confiscation would require house to house searches, and there is no way that will happen in the US.

Confiscation will start a civil war.  We'll have Ruby Ridge replayed every week. 

 
 
 
r.t..b...
1.1.20  r.t..b...  replied to  TTGA @1.1.13    one month ago
Chairman Mao said that it would happen if you just put all of the guns in the hands of the party and the government.. 

As previously stated, if the Mao doctrine should ever apply to our freedoms here, we have long since lost our way. I have never advocated against the basic tenets of the 2nd Amendment and believe it is an integral part of the fabric of our Republic. That being said, and in believing in all aspects of our Republic, we have the ability to address wrongs that other systems saw as a threat. A 'gun grabber' I am not, and cannot speak to, nor endorse any candidate's partisan rhetoric. I simply am willing to acknowledge we have an issue with gun violence in this country. Disarmament may play to some, but I just want my family to enjoy an outing to the theater, the mall, a concert, or attending a place of worship as I choose without fear of becoming another random victim. This should not be mutually exclusive all-or-nothing discussion.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.21  Dulay  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @1.1.5    one month ago
It's the argument many of our founding fathers made and it is what has made this the most successful Constitutional republic in history. The people have the power to dissemble our own government at any time. It works.

An argument that ALWAYS included the insistence that the US would never have a standing army large enough to defeat an armed militia. That was another assumption by the founders that proved to be naïve. 

 
 
 
r.t..b...
1.1.22  r.t..b...  replied to  squiggy @1.1.17    one month ago
Nothing about ‘shall not be infringed’ is ambiguous

Not ambiguous, but amendable to fit the times. If you hold the Bill of Rights to be an immutable standard, then women and blacks would still be denied their right to vote. We have the mechanisms in place. If we have the will is the discussion that is required. Given the discourse here, I would think not...but the majority of our citizenry agrees it should be one to be had at the very least. Out for the day...thanks all for letting this lonely voice his say his piece without rancor.                      Peace, all.

 
 
 
Ronin2
1.1.23  Ronin2  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.2    one month ago

Ban the ammo? What are you going to do ban all types of it?

https://www.ammoforsale.com/ammo-ar15

Few firearms can be described as truly revolutionary and even fewer revolutionary firearms become one of the best rifles in the world, with dozens of military forces around the globe using variations of the same design. One such firearm is the AR15, which was developed in the late 1950s and early 1960s as the new rifle for the United States military, replacing the M1 and M14 rifles, both of which fired 30 caliber bullets. The AR15 was chambered with a new type of ammo, called 223 Remington or 5.56 NATO .

Much lighter than the rifles it replaced, the AR15 soon became the top rifle choice for U.S. forces and their allies. It was also very popular among civilian shooters in the 1970s and 80s, although its popularity exploded after the expiration of the 2004 assault weapon ban.

Most AR15s fire 223 Remington or 5.56 NATO ammo, although AR15s have been chambered with a number of other ammunition types, including 22 long rifle, 204 Ruger, 6.5 Grendel, 6.8 SPC, 300 AAC Blackout, and 458 SOCOM. AR15s can also shoot pistol ammo, such as 9 mm, 40 Smith & Wesson, and 45 ACP.

The best ammo for an AR15 depends on the type of chamber the rifle has. Some AR15s are chambered for 223 Remington, and should only be used shoot 223 Remington ammo. Other AR15s have 5.56 mm NATO chambers, and they can safely shoot 223 Remington as well as 5.56 NATO ammo. Ammo selection for an AR15 also depends on twist rate, because faster twist rates such as 1/7 are capable of firing bullets up to 77 grains, while slower twist such as 1/12 can only stabilize lighter bullets, such as 55 grain FMJ. For general shooting with an AR15, FMJ ammo is a good choice, while hollowpoint ammo is better for home defense and long-range shooting.

Are you going to ban reloaders as well? How about 3-d printers which can be used to make parts for weapons?

All your precious banning would do is create a spike in sales of guns and ammunition that would make Obama jealous. Then after the ban went into affect it would create a black market for the guns, parts, and ammunition.

  Ban the sale of these weapons and the ammo and mass shootings might be less frequent. 

You want to make a bet about that?

 
 
 
XDm9mm
1.1.24  XDm9mm  replied to  r.t..b... @1.1.4    one month ago
Another argument bandied about that is perhaps the most insidious of all. Should we ever come to the day when citizens are armed in the streets against our government, that will be the day when the America we all cherish has long since disappeared.  It is a specious and paranoid argument at best...and does nothing but take away from the serious debate that we should be having. 

That's what many also thought when we fought the Revolution.   

If it ever came to the need for the people to rise up against a despotic tyrannical government, the America we cherished has already been lost, and the people rising up trying to restore it will be the patriots.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
1.1.25  XDm9mm  replied to  TTGA @1.1.13    one month ago
Their objective is domination, their means is disarmament of the population

It's the only way they have to make the people subservient  to the government.

 
 
 
Tacos!
1.1.26  Tacos!  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.1.8    one month ago

Great link. Long yes, but very informative. Thank you.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
1.1.27  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  r.t..b... @1.1    one month ago
Not confiscation, Fish, but acknowledging the simple and irrefutable fact that a vast majority of voters favor comprehensive background checks.

Ok.  Great.  Now what are you proposing to check on the criminal side of those who possess firearms?

 
 
 
cjcold
1.1.28  cjcold  replied to  squiggy @1.1.17    one month ago

Most of what the founders wrote was extremely ambiguous. 

One might think that they wanted a little flexibility for future changes.

 
 
 
TTGA
1.1.29  TTGA  replied to  r.t..b... @1.1.4    one month ago
Should we ever come to the day when citizens are armed in the streets against our government, that will be the day when the America we all cherish has long since disappeared. 

It's already disappearing and, every time we mention it, all we get back is, "Oh, so you want to go back to the 50's , do you?"

If that's what it takes to make the country livable again, YES, the 50's were just fine.

 
 
 
TTGA
1.1.30  TTGA  replied to  r.t..b... @1.1.20    one month ago
I have never advocated against the basic tenets of the 2nd Amendment and believe it is an integral part of the fabric of our Republic.

Of course. How could I not have understood it. We have the right to arm ourselves to resist a tyrannical government (defined as one that attempts to disarm the citizenry), but only if the government approves.  You do understand, don't you, that one of the basic tenets of the 2nd Amendment is that we have the power to arm ourselves as we wish, whether the  government functionaries approve or not.  Government is like fire; it is a useful servant as long as it is kept under TIGHT control.  If that control is loosened, government becomes an enemy of the people since the desires of the governors are not the same as those of the common people.  Guns don't need to be controlled, GOVERNMENT needs to be controlled.  Unrestrained government is far more dangerous that allowing the people to have whatever arms they feel that they need.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.1.31  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @1.1.9    one month ago
It doesn't matter because Biden's debate performance was so awful he's dropping like a turd in a public pool.

You are so totally wrong. Let me show you:

512

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/democratic-debate-september-poll/

This is a case of your wishful thinking. 

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
1.1.32  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Dean Moriarty @1.1.1    one month ago

 banning some of our most useful weapons we might someday need to overthrow a tyrannical government. 

Do you really believe that the "tyrannical government" won't fight back using the military and civilian agencies which have more fire power than those who attempt the overthrow?  

 
 
 
Ronin2
1.1.33  Ronin2  replied to  Dulay @1.1.21    one month ago

You are making the very bad assumption that the US Military would side with the US government. Ask the military to act against US citizens and find out how fast it fractures; either refusing to act- or joining the resistance.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
1.1.34  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @1.1.32    one month ago

Silly argument. Do you have any more game this thing is my guess and you probably don’t know that real Americans are never going to put up with that bullshit and that’s why we’re keeping our guns

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.35  Dulay  replied to  Ronin2 @1.1.33    one month ago
You are making the very bad assumption that the US Military would side with the US government.

I made no such assumption. Strawman. 

Ask the military to act against US citizens and find out how fast it fractures; either refusing to act- or joining the resistance.

I watched the actions of the National Guard during Katrina. They were pretty quick to point their weapons at desperate unarmed US citizens. It took orders from Gen. Honore to nip that bullshit in the bud. 

BTFW, how about you ask the 82nd Airborne if they can handle an insurgency. 

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
1.1.36  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @1.1.32    one month ago
Do you really believe that the "tyrannical government" won't fight back using the military and civilian agencies which have more fire power than those who attempt the overthrow?

the overwhelmingly vast majority of military and police are rightwing gun nuts and will not follow orders to disarm the public.  if you believe they will?   good fukin luck with that... LOL

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.37  Tessylo  replied to  Heartland American @1.1.12    one month ago

'I like the Texas state legislator who tweeted “my AR is ready for you Beto”

Why did you like that?  

Sounds like an outright death threat to me.  

 
 
 
Ronin2
1.1.38  Ronin2  replied to  Dulay @1.1.35    one month ago
I watched the actions of the National Guard during Katrina. They were pretty quick to point their weapons at desperate unarmed US citizens. It took orders from Gen. Honore to nip that bullshit in the bud. 

Yes, the National Guard was tyrannical during Katrina./S

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/aug/16/hurricane-katrina-new-orleans-looting-violence-misleading-reports

BTFW, how about you ask the 82nd Airborne if they can handle an insurgency. 

Are you talking about how they handled insurgency in Iraq? If you can't tell the difference between being in a foreign country fighting terrorists, and fighting US citizens on home soil- then you are truly deluded.

https://archive.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=18439

Or do you mean from their time in New Orleans. Which they did not put down an insurgency. They restored ordered, conducted rescues, and evacuations.

https://www.uso.org/stories/2034-8-things-you-need-to-know-about-the-army-s-82nd-airborne-division-on-its-birthday

In the wake of Hurricane Katrina in 2005 , units from the 82nd Airborne Division arrived in New Orleans just seven hours after receiving orders. In the days following the catastrophic storm, the 82nd expedited evacuations, performed search-and-rescue operations and helped kept order within the city, among a slew of other operations.

http://www.dodlive.mil/2015/08/29/10-years-later-katrina-rescuers-reflect-on-relief-efforts/

I know several members of the military- both former and current. Any President foolish enough to order them to conduct operations against US citizens would find out they are loyal to the US Constitution; not any President.

 
 
 
Ronin2
1.1.39  Ronin2  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.37    one month ago

It is not a threat, it is a promise.

https://www.lmtonline.com/news/politics/texas/article/Texas-Republican-lawmaker-to-Beto-O-Rourke-14436558.php

Cain defended his tweet, saying it was fashioned as a modern-day “Come and Take It” slogan — a hallmark Texas phrase popularized in 1835 during the Texas Revolution . At the time, the phrase concerned a cannon gifted to Texans by Mexican soldiers. The Mexican Army later wanted the cannon back, but the Texans refused, as they wanted it to defend themselves against a particular Mexican general. The phrase, and an image of a cannon, then flew on a flag which has since become a symbol of Texan independence and defiance.

https://www.npr.org/2016/10/02/495976187/for-sale-a-texan-symbol-of-defiance

Beto is safe so long as he doesn't try to physically act on his stupid promise of stripping AR-15's from lawful gun owners by force.

 

 
 
 
gooseisgone
1.1.40  gooseisgone  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.10    one month ago
Background checks might stop a few random shootings

Are you ready to support "all" student violence or perceived violence be reported to the police and entered in to the background check data base, if it's found that the school administrators failed to do so they could be held liable for acts the student does in the future. 

Any military dishonorable discharge information should also go into the background check system.  All government systems need to report and talk to each other during background checks. We have had the so-called assault weapons(scary looking) bans and it did nothing.  I feel red flag laws overstep our right of being innocent until proven guilty, but if someone demonstrates this behavior as a teen and its in the record it may solve problems down the road.

 
 
 
Krishna
1.1.41  Krishna  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @1.1.32    one month ago
Do you really believe that the "tyrannical government" won't fight back using the military and civilian agencies which have more fire power than those who attempt the overthrow?  

If someone spends enough time on Alex Jones ' site-- or david Duke-- or Stormfront....they'll believe anything is possible!

 
 
 
MUVA
1.1.42  MUVA  replied to  Krishna @1.1.41    one month ago

I have never heard of storm front  or knew David Duke had a web site and wouldn't in a million years give Alex Jones site the click.If I were you I would stay away from those sites if they are effecting you jut my personal opinion.  

 
 
 
Don Overton
1.1.43  Don Overton  replied to  Heartland American @1.1.12    one month ago

Why, are you that blood thirsty that you approve of threats

 
 
 
Don Overton
1.1.44  Don Overton  replied to  Greg Jones @1.1.11    one month ago

Why is it that you just mouth what others have said and never have anything original and useful

 
 
 
Don Overton
1.1.45  Don Overton  replied to  TTGA @1.1.13    one month ago

Name the gun grabbers.  Now name those who are more open to compromise and reality.

 
 
 
Don Overton
1.1.46  Don Overton  replied to  Dean Moriarty @1.1.1    one month ago

that comment is nothing more than than pure bullshit.  No one with any intellectual function uses that excuse any more, Good Lord

 
 
 
Don Overton
1.1.47  Don Overton  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @1.1.3    one month ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Don Overton
1.1.48  Don Overton  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.1.31    one month ago

Amen

 
 
 
Don Overton
1.1.49  Don Overton  replied to  Freedom Warrior @1.1.34    one month ago

Your silly argument is just that silly

 
 
 
Don Overton
1.1.50  Don Overton  replied to  Krishna @1.1.41    one month ago

You can tell which people do by some of the comments on this posting.

 
 
 
Don Overton
1.1.51  Don Overton  replied to  Ronin2 @1.1.39    one month ago

No matter how he cuts it is was a threat

 
 
 
squiggy
1.2  squiggy  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @1    one month ago

With each shooting crime, the abolitionist wolves emerge in their common-sense sheepskin. Each and every time, gun owners are expected to surrender something.

There may even be some things I’d be willing to put on the altar but it’s not going to happen until I see some real common sense and a willingness of theirs to understand the current cesspool of gun rules and offer their surrender of rights for security.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
1.3  Greg Jones  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @1    one month ago

....small arms dealer...jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif .                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     

 
 
 
devangelical
1.4  devangelical  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @1    one month ago

as a western liberal, I don't agree with beto. a buy back program would be a waste of taxpayer money. instead move assault style weapons to the ATF machine gun licensing category with the accompanying stringent federal background checks. use the gun registrations of these weapons already purchased to require a yearly licensing tax stamp to possess them with that money going to the ATF for enforcement, a gun victims compensation fund, and the treasury. create mandatory minimum federal prison sentences and asset seizure for unregistered possession, altering assault type weapons to full automatic, undocumented transfers from the original owners of record, selling to known mental patients or those in possession, and past/present felons in possession. impose a stiff federal tax on their commonly used ammunition. outlaw these weapons for hunting and open carry displays. place a federal bounty on the non-compliant. remove the tax exempt status of the NRA and tax them as a business for profit. hit assault type weapon owners where it hurts the most, their wallets. want to be a camo wearing super patriot militia fucktard? cool. break out the checkbook and step up to the pump.

 
 
 
dave-2693993
1.4.1  dave-2693993  replied to  devangelical @1.4    one month ago

That is a pretty good idea.

Admittedly, I am not much in to semi autos except for .22 rim fires.

But I have a soft spot for M14s and FN Fal's. The para model in particular.

My state doesn't allow either.

But under such a program as you suggested and if I decided to get one, either or both on a personal level, I think the rigors of the program you mentioned would be valid. 

 
 
 
MUVA
1.4.2  MUVA  replied to  devangelical @1.4    one month ago

Yes a tax will solve every problem. 

 
 
 
devangelical
1.4.3  devangelical  replied to  dave-2693993 @1.4.1    one month ago
But I have a soft spot for M14s and FN Fal's. The para model in particular.

meh. I'd like a truckload of shoulder fired stingers handy when certain private jets were flocking into Aspen, Vail, or Palm Springs. talk about a non-taxpayer funded economic stimulus program. /s

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
1.4.4  Freedom Warrior  replied to  devangelical @1.4.3    one month ago

No match for our strategically coordinated drones. 

 
 
 
Krishna
1.4.5  Krishna  replied to  devangelical @1.4.3    one month ago

The Second Amendment isn't specific enough.

We should have the freedom to possess strategeic (relatively small) nuclear weapons (after all, those might be necessary to defend ourselves when the upcoming clampdown by the government on us freedom loving citizens begins...)

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
2  Freedom Warrior    one month ago

Now you have the Dem strategists out there jumping on the bandwagon to remind O'Dork he's not supposed to let the cat out of the bag.

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
2.1  seeder  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  Freedom Warrior @2    one month ago

The reality is no one is giving up their guns. It's a mythical pipe dream and electoral disaster for democrats.

512

 
 
 
charger 383
2.1.1  charger 383  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @2.1    one month ago

I have one like that

 
 
 
Don Overton
2.2  Don Overton  replied to  Freedom Warrior @2    one month ago

Prove it, which you know you can't.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
2.2.1  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Don Overton @2.2    one month ago

That’s a bizarre post

 
 
 
Nerm_L
3  Nerm_L    one month ago

Out of 300 million firearms in the United States, only 10 million are AR-15 style rifles.  These things aren't as popular as gun advocates would have us believe.  Even confiscating these rifles would have little impact on the number of firearms in the US.  And confiscation wouldn't significantly lower the number of mass shootings, either.

If the United States applied military restrictions on civilian firearms by banning soft point and hollow point bullets, these AR-15 style rifles would become even more unpopular.  It's not just the rifle; it's the ammunition, too.

 As usual the political arguments are over nothing of importance.  The problem isn't weapons of war available to the public; the real problem is the availability of ammunition that is banned for military use.  Use of soft point and hollow point bullets is a war crime.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
3.1  r.t..b...  replied to  Nerm_L @3    one month ago
only 10 million are AR-15 style rifles.

A rather frightening number, but let's say we grandfather them in. Ban the manufacture and sales going forward and if the number is as insignificant as you claim, it should not be a hardship for those that clamor for their 'black guns', as so many options will will still be attainable. It may or may not immediately impact the carnage, but it seems like a reasonable restriction. If you feel the need to shoot one, go to a range and rent one out from a licensed and regulated provider. 

 
 
 
Nerm_L
3.1.1  Nerm_L  replied to  r.t..b... @3.1    one month ago
A rather frightening number, but let's say we grandfather them in. Ban the manufacture and sales going forward and if the number is as insignificant as you claim, it should not be a hardship for those that clamor for their 'black guns', as so many options will will still be attainable. It may or may not immediately impact the carnage, but it seems like a reasonable restriction. If you feel the need to shoot one, go to a range and rent one out from a licensed and regulated provider. 

Ban what?  The mechanism can be mounted in a traditional stock with a 10 round tubular magazine.  It would still be the same rifle, it would only look different.  

You want to have an immediate impact?  Embargo foreign manufactured firearms.  Almost 20 pct of firearms sold in the US are imported.  A President can impose tariffs and embargo imports; there isn't any need for Congress and there isn't anything the NRA can do to stop it.  Of course, an embargo means law enforcement and the military won't be allowed to import those firearms, too.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
3.1.2  Greg Jones  replied to  r.t..b... @3.1    one month ago

Stopping the manufacture and sale of such weapons won't make any difference. The criminals will still have theirs,and the country has thousand of miles of unprotected borders and coasts that would be breached by smugglers

Not to mention all the handguns, rifles, and shotguns still being allowed

 
 
 
Nerm_L
3.1.3  Nerm_L  replied to  Greg Jones @3.1.2    one month ago
Stopping the manufacture and sale of such weapons won't make any difference. The criminals will still have theirs,and the country has thousand of miles of unprotected borders and coasts that would be breached by smugglers Not to mention all the handguns, rifles, and shotguns still being allowed

Banning AR-15 style rifles won't make any difference for gun advocates, either.  These rifles aren't that popular anyway.  So, a ban won't really take anything of importance away and won't significantly reduce mass shootings.  Everyone is arguing about nothing.  But that's really what politics is all about.

Any weapon will be effective against unarmed targets caught off-guard.  Knitting needles would be just as dangerous as anything else.

And don't ignore that law enforcement is showing people how to use these firearms.  Point and fire until the magazine is empty then load another.  The good guys with guns are training the bad guys how to use firearms to threaten people and how to cause the most harm against unarmed targets.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
3.1.4  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  r.t..b... @3.1    one month ago
A rather frightening number, but let's say we grandfather them in. Ban the manufacture and sales going forward and if the number is as insignificant as you claim,

So you are recommending you ban the manufacture of ALL .22 caliber rifles?  Or just the ones that scare YOU?

 
 
 
Nerm_L
3.1.5  Nerm_L  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.1.4    one month ago
So you are recommending you ban the manufacture of ALL .22 caliber rifles?  Or just the ones that scare YOU?

Sure, when the dim wittery is exposed as indefensible them move the goal posts.

Restricting bullet weights, muzzle velocities, and chamber pressures won't affect .22 rifles or handguns.  If people want .223, fine.  Outlawing 5.56 NATO won't take any guns away from anybody.  And restricting civilian ammunition to M193 standards won't take away anyone's guns, either.  If M193 is good enough for the military then its certainly adequate for civilian use.

People don't kill people and guns don't kill people.  It's the combination of bullet and ballistic energy that kills people.  An AR-15 is like a Chevy Vega with an Packard V-1650 Merlin under the hood; a piece of shit with a big engine.  The 2nd amendment wasn't intended to protect stupidity.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
3.1.6  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Nerm_L @3.1.5    one month ago
People don't kill people and guns don't kill people. It's the combination of bullet and ballistic energy that kills people.  

That has to be THE DUMBEST thing I've heard today.  A firearm, just like that Chevy Vega you mentioned, won't do a damn thing until somebody does something with it.  The threat isn't the weapon (or car).  It's that dumbass that is controlling that inanimate object that is the threat.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
3.1.7  Nerm_L  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.1.6    one month ago
That has to be THE DUMBEST thing I've heard today.  A firearm, just like that Chevy Vega you mentioned, won't do a damn thing until somebody does something with it.  The threat isn't the weapon (or car).  It's that dumbass that is controlling that inanimate object that is the threat.

So, why are you advocating for ammunition that cause the most horrendous wounds?  Apparently none of this is about firearms; it's really about the ability to inflict the most pain and suffering.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
3.1.8  Jack_TX  replied to  Nerm_L @3.1.5    one month ago
The 2nd amendment wasn't intended to protect stupidity.

No, that was the First Amendment.

 
 
 
Krishna
3.1.9  Krishna  replied to  Nerm_L @3.1.5    one month ago
An AR-15 is like a Chevy Vega with an Packard V-1650 Merlin under the hood; a piece of shit with a big engine.

Well you do need a license to drive-- although not to use a gun.

 
 
 
Krishna
3.1.10  Krishna  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.1.6    one month ago
That has to be THE DUMBEST thing I've heard today.

Well obviously you just logged on to NT a few minutes ago!

Stick around for another 5-10 minutes--- you'll experience people trying to pack an amazing amount of stupidity into the shortest comments possible!

(Of course its not just NT-- it the general modus operandi on all social media).

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
3.1.11  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Nerm_L @3.1.7    one month ago
So, why are you advocating for ammunition that cause the most horrendous wounds? 

Why are you railing against an inanimate object.  The ammunition, like the weapon won't do a damn thing until somebody does something with it.  

And since you are so worried about the ammunition, show me 1 that won't penetrate the human body and cause damage?  

You are worried about the wrong thing.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
3.1.12  Nerm_L  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.1.11    one month ago
Why are you railing against an inanimate object.  The ammunition, like the weapon won't do a damn thing until somebody does something with it.  

And since you are so worried about the ammunition, show me 1 that won't penetrate the human body and cause damage?  

You are worried about the wrong thing.

Inanimate objects do not have any rights.  The 2nd amendment doesn't provide any rights for firearms, ammunition, or any other inanimate objects.

If we can claim ticks and mosquitoes are threats that need to be controlled then we can certainly make the same claim about inanimate objects.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
3.1.13  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Nerm_L @3.1.12    one month ago
The 2nd amendment doesn't provide any rights for firearms, ammunition, or any other inanimate objects.

And you are still going after the inanimate object because.....  Oh that's right.  Because that would be easier than trying to resolve the real problem.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
3.1.14  Nerm_L  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.1.13    one month ago
And you are still going after the inanimate object because..... 

Correct.  Inanimate objects cannot control themselves; that requires people.  And when people refuse to control the inanimate objects they own then it becomes necessary to either force people to control their inanimate objects or take the objects away.

That's a lesson toddlers must learn.  Why is it so difficult for adults?

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
3.1.15  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Nerm_L @3.1.14    one month ago

You spent all that time typing just to say, "I'm afraid to deal with the real problem".

 
 
 
Nerm_L
3.1.16  Nerm_L  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.1.15    one month ago
You spent all that time typing just to say, "I'm afraid to deal with the real problem".

And what is the real problem?

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
3.1.17  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Nerm_L @3.1.16    one month ago

The person. 

 
 
 
Nerm_L
3.1.18  Nerm_L  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.1.17    one month ago
The person. 

And restricting access to firearms is a regulation on the person, isn't it?  A gun ban isn't about making guns safer; a gun ban is about making people safer.  Since the people who own guns are using guns in an incompetent, irresponsible, and unsafe manner then its necessary to take the guns away; that's no different than not allowing toddlers to play with pointed scissors.  There are simply too many gun owners who are too immature to have guns.

By being obstinate and refusing to address the problem of the person, gun advocates are turning owning an AR-15 or AK-47 style firearm into a red flag that needs intervention by law enforcement.  Alexis Wilson was arrested for making threatening comments in private while owning an AK-47.  Wilson hadn't actually committed any crime; Wilson was arrested to prevent a shooting that might never have happened anyway.  

 
 
 
XDm9mm
3.2  XDm9mm  replied to  Nerm_L @3    one month ago
If the United States applied military restrictions on civilian firearms by banning soft point and hollow point bullets, these AR-15 style rifles would become even more unpopular.

Maybe knowledge of your talking point would assist you Nerm_L.   I know no one that uses "soft point and hollow point bullets", in their AR-15 style rifles.  Some coyote and other varmint hunters might, but not in general use.   The vast majority of ammo you'll find is what is known as 'green tip' or essentially military type ammo.  

 
 
 
Nerm_L
3.2.1  Nerm_L  replied to  XDm9mm @3.2    one month ago
Maybe knowledge of your talking point would assist you Nerm_L.   I know no one that uses "soft point and hollow point bullets", in their AR-15 style rifles.  Some coyote and other varmint hunters might, but not in general use.   The vast majority of ammo you'll find is what is known as 'green tip' or essentially military type ammo.

M193 and M855 military projectiles are lead core and fully jacketed.  The green tip is painted on the projectile to indicate it is a 62gr M855 rather than a 55gr M193.   An XM designation on ammunition means the cartridge does not conform to military specifications.  'Essentially' military rounds doesn't mean they conform to military specifications.

Steel tip, steel core, and frangible projectiles shouldn't be available for civilian use.  And civilians certainly don't need tracer or fletchette rounds.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
3.2.2  Nerm_L  replied to  XDm9mm @3.2    one month ago
Maybe knowledge of your talking point would assist you Nerm_L.   I know no one that uses "soft point and hollow point bullets", in their AR-15 style rifles.  Some coyote and other varmint hunters might, but not in general use.   The vast majority of ammo you'll find is what is known as 'green tip' or essentially military type ammo.  

The Marines' M855A1 copper bottom bullet might be acceptable if it would eliminate the snowstorm of lead exuded from the base of the bullet.  However, a civilian version shouldn't have an AP tip.

You do realize the AR-15 was originally designed for people who don't know how to shoot?  Haven't you noticed the high profile mass shootings have been perpetrated by girlie men?

 
 
 
charger 383
3.2.3  charger 383  replied to  Nerm_L @3.2.1    one month ago

"tracer or fletchette rounds."

don't matter if you think we need them or not, we have them.  There is way more stuff out there than some think.  

and if somebody does not want me to have it, that is all the more reason to have it

 
 
 
Nerm_L
3.2.4  Nerm_L  replied to  charger 383 @3.2.3    one month ago
and if somebody does not want me to have it, that is all the more reason to have it

Naturally.  And there are those who think that if someone wants to have it, that's all the more reason to ban it.

Fortunately both will be disappointed.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
3.2.5  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Nerm_L @3.2.1    one month ago
M193 and M855 military projectiles are lead core and fully jacketed.  

Those munitions are already restricted use.  But don't let a fact like that stop you.

The green tip is painted on the projectile to indicate it is a 62gr M855 rather than a 55gr M193.   

You, apparently have no military experience.  There is a reason the tip is painted but, no, it's not to indicate that.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
3.2.6  Nerm_L  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.2.5    one month ago
Those munitions are already restricted use.  But don't let a fact like that stop you.

Where are lead core, jacketed bullets restricted?

You, apparently have no military experience.  There is a reason the tip is painted but, no, it's not to indicate that.

A green tip indicates heavy ball ammo for .223 or 5.56 (M855).  For .308 or 7.62 the green tip indicates a duplex cartridge (M198) which is still a heavy ball round.

Maybe a review of FM 4-30.13 would be helpful.

 
 
 
Don Overton
3.2.7  Don Overton  replied to  charger 383 @3.2.3    one month ago

In my collection I've a  box of 22 tracers rounds.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
4  Perrie Halpern R.A.    one month ago

I have a question. Did you even watch the debates or are you just repeating a right source talking point?

Biden never said a thing about taking away people's guns. In fact, several of the potential democrats didn't agree with Beto et al. 

So hardly the Dems flying their freaky flag. 

 
 
 
Heartland American
4.1  Heartland American  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @4    one month ago

We the people will hide/bury our guns rather than give them up to any government. Passive non compliance as resistance.  

 
 
 
Greg Jones
4.2  Greg Jones  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @4    one month ago

I think the talk is about wacko Beato

 
 
 
CometRider
4.3  CometRider  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @4    one month ago
In fact, several of the potential democrats didn't agree with Beto et al. 

All the Dems on stage in the last debates were praising Beto

 
 
 
TTGA
4.4  TTGA  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @4    one month ago
So hardly the Dems flying their freaky flag. 

Guess again Perrie.  The rest are just smart enough to keep their heads down and their mouths shut.  That way Beto takes the heat and they look reasonable. They are not reasonable, nor are they honest.  What they say doesn't really matter.  Left wing politicians CANNOT be trusted under any circumstances.  For that matter, NO professional politician can be trusted.  Their level of honesty and reliability is somewhat lower than that of a pimp and just barely above that of a used car salesman.  They make a non politician like Trump look like a saint by comparison.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
4.4.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  TTGA @4.4    one month ago

Dems like Biden will say or do whatever the left wing zealots in their party demand.. He's not a moderate, he's a puppet willing to say whatever works for him politically in the moment.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
4.4.2  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  TTGA @4.4    one month ago
Guess again Perrie.  The rest are just smart enough to keep their heads down and their mouths shut. 

Why assume that? Why engage in all this double talk in what we are too believe and not to believe. Why not just listen? Why assume? Biden is hardly left-wing. So were a few of the others up there. And why assume they are being dishonest? Why point fingers when it's so easy to point fingers back?

 
 
 
Tacos!
4.4.3  Tacos!  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @4.4.2    one month ago
And why assume they are being dishonest?

We have seen a number of politicians - particularly Democrats - apologizing for things they said or positions they advocated just a few years ago. Several of these people were on that stage the other night. I have to say I don't trust them either. When the heat is on and they're trying to get elected, it's clear to me that they will say whatever they think they need to say to get elected. I have no idea what they really believe in.

 
 
 
Dulay
4.4.4  Dulay  replied to  TTGA @4.4    one month ago
They make a non politician like Trump look like a saint by comparison.

Trump admitted to being a politician. How many years does Trump have to be in politics before you do? 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
4.4.5  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Tacos! @4.4.3    one month ago
We have seen a number of politicians - particularly Democrats

You are kidding, right? We have a President who can't find the truth on a daily basis. Are you OK with it when it comes from your party? 

Here is a fact. Politicians lie, but some politicians are liars. I don't see any difference between the parties when it comes to lying. I judge the individual.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
4.4.6  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @4.4.5    one month ago

A totally , provably wrong comparison and unadmitted deniability ability.

Diss ability is proven EVERY DAMN DAY, by our LIAR in Chief, and his defenders who Believe Diss Belief

 
 
 
Dulay
4.4.7  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @4.4.3    one month ago
We have seen a number of politicians - particularly Democrats - apologizing for things they said or positions they advocated just a few years ago.

That beats the hell out of being incapable of listening, learning and admitting when you were wrong. 

Oh and BTFW, Trump changes his position so often, sometimes within an hour's time,  that it's impossible to know where the fuck he is on an issue from minute to minute. What's even worse is that he denies that he's flip flopped and never gives a reason for changing direction. Trump has no policy compass and is more moved by Fox and Friends than the needs of the country as a whole. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
4.4.8  Tacos!  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @4.4.5    one month ago
We have a President

Trump has nothing to do with anything I said about the Democrats.

can't find the truth on a daily basis

That may be, but I don't have the sense that he is lying about the things he believes in. There is plenty to criticize with Trump, but I have a much stronger sense that he really believes the things he says. Where a candidate stands on the major issues is what really matters. What he remembers or will admit to about 9/11, his crowd size, who he slept with 15 years ago, or who took a sharpie to a weather map is pretty unimportant by comparison.

Do you have any doubt, for example that Trump wants to do something about the border? Do you doubt he wants improve our trade position with many nations, especially China? You can go from one issue to another and you know what Trump really wants to do. With these Democrats, they can say one thing today and be apologizing for it tomorrow. Trump doesn't apologize because he meant it when he said it.

You may not like him, but you know where you stand.

 
 
 
Tacos!
4.4.9  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @4.4.7    one month ago
admitting when you were wrong

Don't kid yourself. Those liars don't think they were wrong. Ever.

 
 
 
Dulay
4.4.10  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @4.4.9    one month ago
Don't kid yourself. Those liars don't think they were wrong. Ever.

So Trump gets a pass because he 'meant it when he said it' but Democrats are liars? That drips with hypocrisy. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
4.4.11  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @4.4.10    one month ago
So Trump gets a pass

Where did I say he gets a pass for anything? Maybe try going back to my original comment in this thread @4.4.3. It's not about Trump nor was I responding to a comment about Trump. The conversation is about Democrats, not Trump.

 
 
 
Dulay
4.4.12  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @4.4.11    one month ago
Where did I say he gets a pass for anything?

4.4.8:

That may be, but I don't have the sense that he is lying about the things he believes in. There is plenty to criticize with Trump, but I have a much stronger sense that he really believes the things he says.

That was you right? Sure looks like you're giving Trump a pass to me. 

 Maybe try going back to my original comment in this thread @4.4.3. It's not about Trump nor was I responding to a comment about Trump. The conversation is about Democrats, not Trump.

Maybe you should go back and read your 4.4.8 comment because that sure as fuck WAS about Trump.

Trump believes what he says so he's not lying, Democrats will say anything to get elected and they have the audacity to apologize.

Ridiculous sycophancy.  

 
 
 
Krishna
4.4.13  Krishna  replied to  Tacos! @4.4.8    one month ago
There is plenty to criticize with Trump, but I have a much stronger sense that he really believes the things he says.

Well, given how often he changes his opinion-- on so many things...if you're right about that, then he changes what he believes many times a day! 
(A sure sign of mental instability-- but that's pretty obvious).

 
 
 
Tacos!
4.4.14  Tacos!  replied to  Krishna @4.4.13    one month ago
given how often he changes his opinion-- on so many things

Like what are you thinking of, for example?

 
 
 
Don Overton
4.4.15  Don Overton  replied to  Tacos! @4.4.9    one month ago

Just like all the GOP

 
 
 
Don Overton
4.4.16  Don Overton  replied to  Tacos! @4.4.14    one month ago

Here ya go Taco

this is just one of the latest, [ Deleted ]

[ ]

 
 
 
Tacos!
4.4.17  Tacos!  replied to  Don Overton @4.4.16    one month ago

That's not a very good example. Perhaps you haven't understood the comments thus far.

 
 
 
TTGA
4.4.18  TTGA  replied to  Dulay @4.4.4    one month ago
Trump admitted to being a politician.

I believe the term I used was "professional politician".  Trump is an amateur, meaning that he's not experienced at hiding what he thinks.

 
 
 
TTGA
4.4.19  TTGA  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @4.4.5    one month ago
Politicians lie, but some politicians are liars.

Not quite correct Perrie.  It should read "Politicians lie, but ALL professional politicians are liars"

We have a President who can't find the truth on a daily basis. Are you OK with it when it comes from your party? 

Hmmmm, whatever happened to that "Independent" label?  That sounds like standard Democrat talking points to me.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
4.4.20  igknorantzrulz  replied to  TTGA @4.4.19    one month ago

Hmmmm, whatever happened to that "Independent" label?  That sounds like standard Democrat talking points to me.

the TRUTH is the

TRUTH

it requires not an R or an ID 

 
 
 
TTGA
4.4.21  TTGA  replied to  igknorantzrulz @4.4.20    one month ago
the TRUTH is the

TRUTH

it requires not an R or an ID

When you find the truth, let me know.  You ain't found it yet.

 
 
 
Dulay
4.4.22  Dulay  replied to  TTGA @4.4.18    one month ago
I believe the term I used was "professional politician". 

Actually, in relation to Trump, the term you used was 'non-politician'. 

Trump is an amateur, meaning that he's not experienced at hiding what he thinks.

So since you insist the Trump is an 'amateur', what is Trump's current 'profession'? 

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
5  Freedom Warrior    one month ago

The article is correct to point out that while there are Dems who obvioulsy recognize the contentiousness of the gun confiscation issue and thus are hesitant to demagogue it as Beto did but nevertheless would likely swing toward more and more methods of infringing on 2nd Amendment rights.

They simply can't nor should they trust a potentially tyranical government in the hands of socialist wackos, one of which will likely be nominated for president next year. They simply have never exercised reasonable limits to their power.

So all this we aren't coming for your guns (at least at this very minute) is a fucking fantasy. Many so called moderates and a contingent of feminized males appear to be falling for the ruse in any event which is another good reason not to trust any of the Dem messaging.

 
 
 
Don Overton
5.1  Don Overton  replied to  Freedom Warrior @5    one month ago

It's very obvious you use socialist as an attack point but have no clue what it really means

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
5.1.1  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Don Overton @5.1    one month ago

 It’s also very obvious that I’m an expert on the topic and threaten those who get defensive about left wing wackos 

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
6  seeder  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh    one month ago

I don't think Joe is going to save our guns because he won't be the nominee.

512

 
 
 
Raven Wing
6.1  Raven Wing  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @6    one month ago

Why are you spamming articles with this kind of crap. 

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
6.1.1  seeder  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  Raven Wing @6.1    one month ago

It's my seed, either comment on the topic or post a good meme.

 
 
 
Raven Wing
6.1.2  Raven Wing  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @6.1.1    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
KDMichigan
6.1.3  KDMichigan  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @6.1.1    one month ago

Good enough for triggers?

256

What is he doing?

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
6.1.4  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  KDMichigan @6.1.3    one month ago

Yawn.

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
6.1.5  seeder  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @6.1.4    one month ago

Please stay on topic or post a related meme. 

Your lack of sleep is off topic.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
6.1.6  igknorantzrulz  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @6.1.5    one month ago

Your lack of sleep is off topic.

your pulling of FALSE FIRE ALARMS

is Alarming. Talk about exaggerating what the meaning of what ONE D Candidate did, in my opinion stupidly suggest, only to later walk it back, is just false flaming of pseudo outrage, over that which some might know is just red meat, to toss to shallow thinking peoples, who obviously slip and break their damn hips on every slippery pitch ever thrown their wayside.

yawn

yawn again,

as your anti cogent thought and distraught thought process ,

where as you might sooth insecurities by ryling up others with similar insecurities 

just might show Y, 

guns are needed so badly in keeping one and some to feel safe, but your choice of posts, bear weight , as to the opposite of anyone feeling safe about ones self

awareness,   as some actually are aware

 
 
 
JBB
6.1.7  JBB  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @6.1.5    one month ago

Holy Roid Rage Bat Fish...

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
6.1.8  seeder  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  JBB @6.1.7    one month ago

The only one raging here is JBB.

I'm having fun......

 
 
 
Don Overton
6.1.9  Don Overton  replied to  Raven Wing @6.1    one month ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Tacos!
6.1.10  Tacos!  replied to  Don Overton @6.1.9    one month ago
not spam comments , which is nothing more than trolling

Oh . . . the irony. jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Heartland American
6.1.12  Heartland American  replied to  JBB @6.1.7    one month ago

I thought his response was perfect! 👏

 
 
 
squiggy
7  squiggy    one month ago

Veto Beto.

 
 
 
charger 383
7.1  charger 383  replied to  squiggy @7    one month ago

you are far too nice

 
 
 
charger 383
8  charger 383    one month ago

Are they going to ban citizens from owning lathes, milling machines, or the semi or full auto CNC machines?

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
9  igknorantzrulz    one month ago

a candidate, a veteran from Texas yet , who was underachieving has the right believing he could come and take legal weaponry away from they...

so, you tell me who would be the chump, those who believe him,

or those who believe Trump ?

 
 
 
charger 383
10  charger 383    one month ago

If somebody does not want me to have something, that is a good reason for me wanting to have it, that goes for many things besides guns 

 
 
 
Dulay
10.1  Dulay  replied to  charger 383 @10    one month ago

I wonder if that would work on the anti-choice crowd. 

 
 
 
charger 383
10.1.1  charger 383  replied to  Dulay @10.1    one month ago

I hope it would.  I am a very strong supporter of both right to choose and gun rights. I know those circles don't intersect for many and I just don't understand that.  How is either one of them just my business and the other everybody gets involved?    

 
 
 
Dulay
10.1.2  Dulay  replied to  charger 383 @10.1.1    one month ago
I know those circles don't intersect for many and I just don't understand that. 

They DO intersect, albeit hypocritically. If the GOP is to be believed, Pro-2nd supporters seem to be Anti-choice. 

How is either one of them just my business and the other everybody gets involved?    

Ironically, just about every local, state and Federal legislature has passed limits on choice while adamantly refusing to passing any limitations on access to guns.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
10.1.3  Tessylo  replied to  Dulay @10.1.2    one month ago
'I know those circles don't intersect for many and I just don't understand that.'
'They DO intersect, albeit hypocritically. If the GOP is to be believed, Pro-2nd supporters seem to be Anti-choice.' 
'How is either one of them just my business and the other everybody gets involved?' 
'Ironically, just about every local, state and Federal legislature has passed limits on choice while adamantly refusing to passing any limitations on access to guns.'  

jrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Jack_TX
10.1.4  Jack_TX  replied to  Dulay @10.1.2    one month ago
If the GOP is to be believed, Pro-2nd supporters seem to be Anti-choice. 

There is a high correlation, to be sure.

Ironically, just about every local, state and Federal legislature has passed limits on choice while adamantly refusing to passing any limitations on access to guns.

To be fair, firearms are an enumerated right in the US Constitution.  Any time you're dealing with the phrase "shall not be infringed" in the Constitution, limitation becomes much easier said than done.

For the record, I support sensible, moderate, intelligent gun regulation.  I'm just realistic about how difficult it actually is to do.

 
 
 
Dulay
10.1.5  Dulay  replied to  Jack_TX @10.1.4    one month ago
Any time you're dealing with the phrase "shall not be infringed" in the Constitution, limitation becomes much easier said than done.

Though it HAS already been done, at least the assault weapons ban. The background check expansion should be an easy lift. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
10.1.6  Jack_TX  replied to  Dulay @10.1.5    one month ago
Though it HAS already been done, at least the assault weapons ban.

I think of it more along the lines of the regulations governing machine guns, RPGs, tanks, grenades, etc.

The background check expansion should be an easy lift. 

I would opt for a standing license, kinda like the standing TSA security approval we have now.  A lot of these guys are collectors with dozens of guns they buy and sell the way collectors of stuff do.  Issue those guys a license and let them go about their business.  

 
 
 
Krishna
10.1.7  Krishna  replied to  charger 383 @10.1.1    one month ago
I hope it would.  I am a very strong supporter of both right to choose and gun rights. I know those circles don't intersect for many and I just don't understand that.

In the traditional system of Democrats and Republicans (and also Conservatives and Liberals) a person wouldn't be for both l l l  or against both.

However being for both (right to choose and gun rights) is consistent with another political POV-- Libertarianism.

On some issues Libertarians take what would be considered a typical "conservative position"-- but on other issues they take what would be considered a typical "liberal position". What's their core value-- the power of they individual-- they don't want no gov't making them do...anything!

 
 
 
dave-2693993
10.1.8  dave-2693993  replied to  Krishna @10.1.7    one month ago
or against both.

I sure as hell can be against both of the rat bastards.

It is past the time for the politicos to wake up and smell the coffee.

 
 
 
Dulay
10.1.9  Dulay  replied to  Jack_TX @10.1.6    one month ago
I think of it more along the lines of the regulations governing machine guns, RPGs, tanks, grenades, etc.

I'm pretty sure that all of those are already regulated. 

I would opt for a standing license, kinda like the standing TSA security approval we have now.  A lot of these guys are collectors with dozens of guns they buy and sell the way collectors of stuff do.  Issue those guys a license and let them go about their business.  

There is already a FFL for collectors. The difference would be that they would be required to run background checks for all sales, wherever they occur. It's not like a FFL breaks the bank, especially for those that sell collectable weapons as a business. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
10.1.10  Jack_TX  replied to  Dulay @10.1.9    one month ago
I'm pretty sure that all of those are already regulated. 

That's the point.  Precedent already exists.  Simply put AK47s and AR15s in that category.

There is already a FFL for collectors. The difference would be that they would be required to run background checks for all sales, wherever they occur. It's not like a FFL breaks the bank, especially for those that sell collectable weapons as a business.

Instead of a background check every time, a person with a license would be considered pre-certified.  A person without a license can't buy.  That way we know the vetting has been done properly and we're not overly burdening law-abiding citizens.

 
 
 
Dulay
10.1.11  Dulay  replied to  Jack_TX @10.1.10    one month ago
Instead of a background check every time, a person with a license would be considered pre-certified.  A person without a license can't buy.  That way we know the vetting has been done properly and we're not overly burdening law-abiding citizens.

As long as any criminal activity would revoke that certification immediately, pending litigation, I think that would work. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
10.1.12  Jack_TX  replied to  Dulay @10.1.11    one month ago
As long as any criminal activity would revoke that certification immediately, pending litigation, I think that would work. 

Well....depends on the definition of "criminal activity".  We're not revoking it over speeding tickets or filing your taxes on April 23rd or anything like that.  I don't suppose that's what you mean, but it doesn't hurt to clarify.    But yeah, actual criminal activity would definitely result in revocation.

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
11  The Magic Eight Ball    one month ago

I say bring it on.... and pack a lunch.

it will be the longest day ever recorded in history.

 
 
 
charger 383
11.1  charger 383  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @11    one month ago

If the gun grabbers start early, we will be victorious by mid afternoon, they have no idea what they would be up against.  

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
11.1.1  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  charger 383 @11.1    one month ago

first they have to find enough stupid fuks to even try.   the police will not follow those orders

there is no way to legally disarm the public via executive action and our military will remove any president who even tries.

but if they are dumb enough to try we will cure the lunatic left problem in full.

I seriously hope they are that stupid.

 
 
 
charger 383
11.1.2  charger 383  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @11.1.1    one month ago

I think most of the police are going to be on the good guy's side, that's us. Police officers, military  and retired police and military  have lots of guns, they won't want to give up.  They both love having guns. . 

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
11.1.3  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  charger 383 @11.1.2    one month ago

I know more than a few cops and military personel... they all say "no way in hell" 

we all will remove the anti-second amendment politicians first

besides that, many state govts will not allow that kind of bs either.

all civil wars start in the courts 

this whole subject is nothing more than a liberal wet dream that will never see the light of day.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
11.1.4  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  charger 383 @11.1    one month ago

You are kind of jumping the gun. We have candidates who are saying that and others who are not. I am waiting to see how this shakes out. 

 
 
 
Don Overton
11.1.5  Don Overton  replied to  charger 383 @11.1    one month ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Don Overton
11.1.6  Don Overton  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @11.1.3    one month ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
squiggy
11.2  squiggy  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @11    one month ago

What bothers me is the constant chihuahua attack.

 
 
 
Don Overton
11.3  Don Overton  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @11    one month ago

foolish foolishness

 
 
 
bbl-1
12  bbl-1    one month ago

Do not understand why Americans feel the need or necessity to possess a firearm such as the one I was given in Vietnam.  An M-16.

Trump and the right wing admires Putin, apparently.  In Putin's Russia there isn't any private ownership of weapons for the general populace.  Something else is going on here with the weapons.  What and why? 

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
12.1  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  bbl-1 @12    one month ago
Do not understand why Americans feel the need or necessity to possess a firearm such as the one I was given in Vietnam.  An M-16.

you also do not understand that an ar15 is not an m16

the less you know the less you understand.

 
 
 
Tacos!
12.1.1  Tacos!  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @12.1    one month ago
you also do not understand that an ar15 is not an m16

To be fair, they aren't very different. They are damned near the same weapon. The AR-15 is semi-auto only. That's the only difference that really matters.

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
12.1.2  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Tacos! @12.1.1    one month ago
The AR-15 is semi-auto only  That's the only difference that really matters.

no shit?  LOL   try explaining that to bbl.

with me, you are just preaching to the choir as I'm very familiar with both weapons.

 
 
 
bbl-1
12.1.3  bbl-1  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @12.1.2    one month ago

5.56mm round.  Or .223 caliber.  5600 fpm  muzzle velocity.

Get off my case.

 
 
 
bbl-1
12.1.4  bbl-1  replied to  bbl-1 @12.1.3    one month ago

error.  5600 fps.

 
 
 
squiggy
12.1.5  squiggy  replied to  bbl-1 @12.1.4    one month ago
error.  5600 fps.

You're not really an expert, are you?

 
 
 
Don Overton
12.1.6  Don Overton  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @12.1.2    one month ago

Sure

 
 
 
Don Overton
12.1.7  Don Overton  replied to  squiggy @12.1.5    one month ago

Neither are you

 
 
 
bbl-1
12.1.8  bbl-1  replied to  squiggy @12.1.5    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
bbl-1
12.1.9  bbl-1  replied to  squiggy @12.1.5    one month ago

And this.  Fpm.  Fps.  Do you know?

 
 
 
dave-2693993
12.1.10  dave-2693993  replied to  bbl-1 @12.1.4    one month ago
5600 fps.

Nup.

I doubt there is a barrel on the planet that would sustain that.

 
 
 
bbl-1
12.1.11  bbl-1  replied to  dave-2693993 @12.1.10    one month ago

You are correct.  I apologize.  Muzzle velocity is 3150 fps.  What the heck was I thinking?

 
 
 
squiggy
12.1.12  squiggy  replied to  bbl-1 @12.1.11    one month ago

You were presenting your experienced self as an an expert to persuade the uninformed. 

 
 
 
dave-2693993
12.1.13  dave-2693993  replied to  bbl-1 @12.1.11    one month ago

There you go. That's more like it.

More in line with my .264.

 
 
 
bbl-1
12.1.14  bbl-1  replied to  squiggy @12.1.5    one month ago

fu

forever ubiquitous.  ? ?  Deleted?  And the reasoning would be...…?

 
 
 
Tacos!
12.2  Tacos!  replied to  bbl-1 @12    one month ago
Do not understand why Americans feel the need or necessity to possess a firearm such as the one I was given in Vietnam.  An M-16.

I think there can be a lot of reasons. It depends on a person's situation, experience, and intended usage. One thing I am pretty confident in, though, is that something like 99.99% of owners aren't buying the weapon to commit murder.

 
 
 
squiggy
12.3  squiggy  replied to  bbl-1 @12    one month ago

“In Putin's Russia there isn't any private ownership of weapons for the general populace.”

And how is that working out for the disenchanted? You just put the whole thirty rounds in one foot.

 
 
 
bbl-1
12.3.1  bbl-1  replied to  squiggy @12.3    one month ago

Am sure you are aware that your reply to me was not only absurd, it was and remains absurd.

 
 
 
KDMichigan
12.4  KDMichigan  replied to  bbl-1 @12    one month ago
such as the one I was given in Vietnam.  An M-16.

You can have your so called fake M-16  AR band. Just leave me my Winchester 1907, That makes the AR look like a pellet gun.

 
 
 
charger 383
13  charger 383    one month ago

I can not figure out how some think citizens should not have the civilian version of the rifle they or their fathers carried into battle for our country.  That just ain't right. If they carried it into battle for our country why shouldn't they or the children they fought to protect be denied? 

 
 
 
JBB
13.1  JBB  replied to  charger 383 @13    one month ago

By that logic citizens should also be able to own cannons, rocket launchers and hand grenades...

 
 
 
Tacos!
13.1.1  Tacos!  replied to  JBB @13.1    one month ago
By that logic citizens should also be able to own cannons, rocket launchers and hand grenades...

They can. It's expensive and there are certain requirements, but you can definitely own those things.

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
13.1.2  Dean Moriarty  replied to  JBB @13.1    one month ago

Yes and cannons and war ships were privately owned at the founding of the country too. https://www.usni.org/magazines/naval-history-magazine/2014/march/yes-privateers-mattered

 
 
 
squiggy
13.1.3  squiggy  replied to  JBB @13.1    one month ago

In Caetano v Massachusetts, an electric stun gun is protected under 2a as an evolution of BEARABLE arms. A term that should be a reasonable limit to all.

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
13.1.4  seeder  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  Dean Moriarty @13.1.2    one month ago

You can buy a tank on ebay.

 
 
 
Don Overton
13.1.5  Don Overton  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @13.1.4    one month ago

which one and how workable

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
13.1.6  Dean Moriarty  replied to  Don Overton @13.1.5    one month ago

Check this out. 

"But is it legal? And can anybody just up and buy something with the insane firepower of a tank or grenade launcher? According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, yes, totally legal." 

https://www.dailydot.com/unclick/operational-tank-for-sale-armslist/

 
 
 
TTGA
13.1.7  TTGA  replied to  Don Overton @13.1.5    one month ago
which one and how workable

The one shown on the website Dean posted looks like an M-60.  There's one not far away from where I live, although it's not privately owned.  It's outside the VFW post in a nearby town and is an M-48 Patton (medium tank used largely by Marines in Vietnam).  I believe that the .50 BMG (M-2 Model) has been removed and replaced with a dummy barrel;  the breechblock has been removed from the 90mm main battery and is stored in a safe with the .50. If they were reinstalled, it would be fully functional.  They  used to give local kids rides around the grounds on the 4th of July.  They wanted to use it for parades in the area but the treads tend to tear up the pavement on the roads something fierce.  You can buy one just like it if you go to the right place.  If the weapons are installed, it rates as a destructive device.  If the armament is removed, it's just like buying any other tracked vehicle such as a bulldozer.  Aside from licensing costs and paperwork to be done, the ammo for the main battery costs about  $500 per round and the .50 BMG ammo costs about $15 per round.  Not a poor man's hobby.

256

.

 
 
 
Krishna
13.2  Krishna  replied to  charger 383 @13    one month ago
If they carried it into battle for our country why shouldn't they or the children they fought to protect be denied? 

Of course during WWII some airmen carried "Fat Man" into battle over Japan . . . 

320

 
 
 
Heartland American
14  Heartland American    one month ago

...A t the Democratic-primary debate in Houston last night, Beto O’Rourke formally killed off one of the gun-control movement’s favorite taunts: The famous “Nobody is coming for your guns,  wingnut .” Asked bluntly whether he was proposing confiscation, O’Rourke abandoned the disingenuous euphemisms that have hitherto marked his descent into extremism, and confirmed as plainly as can be that he was. “Hell yes,” he said, “we’re going to take your AR-15.”

O’Rourke’s plan has been endorsed in full by Cory Booker and Kamala Harris, and is now insinuating its way into the manifestos of gun-control groups nationwide. Presumably, this was O’Rourke’s intention. But he — and his party — would do well to remember that there is a vast gap between the one-upmanship and playacting that is  de rigueur  during primary season, and the harsh reality on the ground. Prohibition has never been well received in America, and guns have proven no exception to that rule. In New York, Connecticut, and New Jersey, attempts at the confiscation of “high capacity” magazines and the registration of “assault weapons” have both fallen embarrassingly flat — to the point that the police have simply refused to aid enforcement or to prosecute the dissenters. Does Beto, who must know this, expect the result to be different in Texas, Wyoming, or Florida? Earlier this week, the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives was unable to marshal enough votes to pass a ban on the sale of “assault weapons” — let alone to mount a confiscation drive. Sorry, Robert Francis. That dog ain’t gonna hunt.

And nor should it, for O’Rourke’s policy is spectacularly unconstitutional. The AR-15 is the most popular rifle in America by a considerable margin, and is therefore clearly protected by the “in common use” standard that was laid out in  D.C. v. Heller . Put as baldly as possible, confiscation is not a program that the federal government is permitted to adopt.... https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/09/yes-they-are-coming-for-your-guns/

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
15  The Magic Eight Ball    one month ago
Give the bureaucratic behemoth an inch and it will immediately seek ways to take every mile on Earth.

 building a path stone by stone over time while denying the path exists is straight out of the soviet playbook

512

 
 
 
Don Overton
15.1  Don Overton  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @15    one month ago

Yet the GOP would take away everything if they were allowed to.  

 
 
 
Krishna
15.2  Krishna  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @15    one month ago

Carrying guns because of not trusting democrats?

Sounds like this is advocating shooting Democrats (why can't you just kill them with a large sword...or even a knife?)

 
 
 
Jack_TX
15.2.1  Jack_TX  replied to  Krishna @15.2    one month ago
(why can't you just kill them with a large sword...or even a knife?)

Or just shout at them loudly and send them sprinting for their therapists and anti-anxiety medication.

 
 
 
jungkonservativ111
15.3  jungkonservativ111  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @15    one month ago

Even liberal jesus told his disciples tonstay armed

Luke 22:36-38

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
15.3.1  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  jungkonservativ111 @15.3    one month ago

“Lord, should we strike with our swords?”50 And one of them struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his right ear. 51 But Jesus answered, “No more of this!” And he touched the man’s ear and healed him. 52 Then Jesus said to the chief priests, the officers of the temple guard, and the elders, who had come for him, “Am I leading a rebellion, that you have come with swords and clubs?" Luke 22:49-52

Seems like Jesus wanted his followers to be armed but not to use the weapons. Perhaps this was his way of showing that he was going willingly. Had they not been commanded to be armed it may have seemed he was only allowing himself to be arrested because they had no means to fight back. It also seems that his actions there was more a test of faith, to have the ability to fight back, but choosing peace instead even when others slap you in the face or arrest you. The other problem with his believers today taking the advice to sell their cloaks and buy their AR-15 "swords" is that they don't have Jesus by their side able to heal any of the damage they cause.

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
16  The Magic Eight Ball    one month ago

if healthcare is a "right" and everyone is entitled to it at taxpayer expense. 

we should treat all rights equally.  Meaning, the govt owes everyone at least one gun at taxpayer expense.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
17  Freedom Warrior    one month ago

Here's the best way to know if you need a gun.

If the government says ....     

"You Don't Need a Gun"

 
 
 
Krishna
17.1  Krishna  replied to  Freedom Warrior @17    one month ago
the government says ....      "You Don't Need a Gun"

Link?

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
17.1.1  seeder  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  Krishna @17.1    one month ago

Links will cost you $19.99

or you could google it for free.

 
 
 
jungkonservativ111
17.1.2  jungkonservativ111  replied to  Krishna @17.1    one month ago

Ask the Native Americans about that. 

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
17.1.3  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Krishna @17.1    one month ago

Go fish 

 
 
 
Krishna
18  Krishna    one month ago

Democrats Finally Fly Their Gun-Control Fascist Freak Flag In The Open

Not wanting to be outdone by the Democrats-- the Republicans have also begun to fly their Gun-Control Fascist Freak Flag as well:

Missouri Lawmaker Proposes Bill That Would Require Every State Resident to Own An AR-15

Missouri State Rep. Andrew McDaniel (R) this week introduced the "McDaniel Militia Act," which declares that "every resident of this state shall own at least one AR-15." The bill defines "residents" as those between the ages of 18-35 "who is not prohibited by law or court order from possessing a firearm."

Under the bill, state residents are given one year to purchase an AR-15 if they do not already own one.

320

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
18.1  seeder  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  Krishna @18    one month ago

384

 
 
 
Heartland American
19  Heartland American    one month ago

Female Gun Owner to O'Rourke on Confiscating AR-15s: 'Hell No, You're Not'

A female gun owner confronted Democratic presidential candidate Beto O'Rourke on Thursday about his gun confiscation proposal, telling him she was there to say, "Hell no, you're not."

Lauren Boebert, a mother of four and restaurant owner, told O'Rourke she drove down to Aurora from Rifle, Colo., to let him know she was one of the "gun-owning Americans" who heard his comment during last week's presidential debate about confiscating AR-15s , the most popular rifle in America... https://www.google.com/amp/s/freebeacon.com/politics/female-gun-owner-to-orourke-on-confiscating-ar-15s-hell-no-youre-not/amp/

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online


Tacos!
FLYNAVY1


27 visitors