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.
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/ …
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
Who is online
91 visitors
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.
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.
We the people will hide/bury our guns rather than give them up to any government. Passive non compliance as resistance.
I think the talk is about wacko Beato
All the Dems on stage in the last debates were praising Beto
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.
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.
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?
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.
Trump admitted to being a politician. How many years does Trump have to be in politics before you do?
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.
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
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.
Trump has nothing to do with anything I said about the Democrats.
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.
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.
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.
4.4.8:
That was you right? Sure looks like you're giving Trump a pass to me.
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.
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).
Like what are you thinking of, for example?
Just like all the GOP
Here ya go Taco
this is just one of the latest, [ Deleted ]
[ ]
That's not a very good example. Perhaps you haven't understood the comments thus far.
I believe the term I used was "professional politician". Trump is an amateur, meaning that he's not experienced at hiding what he thinks.
Not quite correct Perrie. It should read "Politicians lie, but ALL professional politicians are liars"
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
When you find the truth, let me know. You ain't found it yet.
Actually, in relation to Trump, the term you used was 'non-politician'.
So since you insist the Trump is an 'amateur', what is Trump's current 'profession'?
Are they going to ban citizens from owning lathes, milling machines, or the semi or full auto CNC machines?
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 ?
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
I wonder if that would work on the anti-choice crowd.
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?
They DO intersect, albeit hypocritically. If the GOP is to be believed, Pro-2nd supporters seem to be Anti-choice.
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.
There is a high correlation, to be sure.
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.
Though it HAS already been done, at least the assault weapons ban. The background check expansion should be an easy lift.
I think of it more along the lines of the regulations governing machine guns, RPGs, tanks, grenades, etc.
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.
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!
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.
I'm pretty sure that all of those are already regulated.
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.
That's the point. Precedent already exists. Simply put AK47s and AR15s in that category.
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.
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.
I say bring it on.... and pack a lunch.
it will be the longest day ever recorded in history.
If the gun grabbers start early, we will be victorious by mid afternoon, they have no idea what they would be up against.
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.
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. .
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.
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.
[Deleted]
[Deleted]
foolish foolishness
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?
you also do not understand that an ar15 is not an m16
the less you know the less you understand.
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.
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.
5.56mm round. Or .223 caliber. 5600 fpm muzzle velocity.
Get off my case.
error. 5600 fps.
Sure
Neither are you
[deleted]
And this. Fpm. Fps. Do you know?
Nup.
I doubt there is a barrel on the planet that would sustain that.
You are correct. I apologize. Muzzle velocity is 3150 fps. What the heck was I thinking?
There you go. That's more like it.
More in line with my .264.
fu
forever ubiquitous. ? ? Deleted? And the reasoning would be...…?
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.
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.
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?
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.
Yes and cannons and war ships were privately owned at the founding of the country too.
which one and how workable
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."
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.
.
Of course during WWII some airmen carried "Fat Man" into battle over Japan . . .
...At 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....
building a path stone by stone over time while denying the path exists is straight out of the soviet playbook
Yet the GOP would take away everything if they were allowed to.
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?)
Or just shout at them loudly and send them sprinting for their therapists and anti-anxiety medication.
Even liberal jesus told his disciples tonstay armed
Luke 22:36-38
“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.
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.
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.
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...