Idiot Democrats are at it again

[Harpy Eagle]

IS this somehow relevant today?

Today is not Nov 8, 2017?

 

[bendog]

IS this somehow relevant today?

Today is not Nov 8, 2017?

I wasn't trying to be a smartass. Cory Booker is being a dumbass, but he'll go away. AOC is frigging nuts. I mean Trump is probably likely to get reelected, but these fools can guarantee it. I was just wondering if there was more than the usual dumbass "Free college for people who want to malinger" "No more private healthcare" "Full citizenship for all illegal aliens NOW"

 

[BlindBoo]

That will score them biggggggggg points in the next election. Everyone loves it when Democrats threaten the second amendment.

People don't like mass killings.

The ban trucks!

~~~~~~
More people are killed in auto crashes than are killed by guns...….

Cars weren't designed to kill.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

IS this somehow relevant today?

Today is not Nov 8, 2017?

I wasn't trying to be a smartass. Cory Booker is being a dumbass, but he'll go away. AOC is frigging nuts. I mean Trump is probably likely to get reelected, but these fools can guarantee it. I was just wondering if there was more than the usual dumbass "Free college for people who want to malinger" "No more private healthcare" "Full citizenship for all illegal aliens NOW"

Oh come now, it is funny as hell the OP did not see the date on this. He just got his talking points email and made the thread without looking

 

[Flash]

They are not saying that people can't have their guns

They are saying why does anyone need a weapon whose only purpose is to shoot as many rounds as possible in a short amount of time.

Do hunters really need to kill a whole herd of deer in one shooting or maybe its easier to get in as many shots before that deer bolts and you have to start the hunt over again. Darn it!

Self defense are people worried that an angry mob will charge their home and they need to get as many of them as they can


Do they really want their love one trying to shoot an automatic weapon?
It may look sexy but is it overkill

I guess if you worried that the government is coming after you then you need to get them first.

Or are they needed when the mutants come

Stephen Paddock shot more than 500 rounds

Still it doesn't affect those who already have one

AR-15 can fire 400 rounds per minute

explain who would need to shoot that many rounds granted the barrel will get hot

You are confused Moon Bat.

The Constitutional right to keep and bear arms does not have a proviso to demonstrate need. The need is already stated. "For the security of a free state".

We don't have to prove to you stupid Moon Bats if our "arms" are overkill or not. that is our business, not yours.

For a population of 330 million very few deaths occur in a year because of AR-15s or any what you dumbass anti gun nuts call "assault weapons". Many more people die being struct by lightening or drown in their backyard swimming pools.

 

[bendog]

IS this somehow relevant today?

Today is not Nov 8, 2017?

I wasn't trying to be a smartass. Cory Booker is being a dumbass, but he'll go away. AOC is frigging nuts. I mean Trump is probably likely to get reelected, but these fools can guarantee it. I was just wondering if there was more than the usual dumbass "Free college for people who want to malinger" "No more private healthcare" "Full citizenship for all illegal aliens NOW"

Oh come now, it is funny as hell the OP did not see the date on this. He just got his talking points email and made the thread without looking

I don't understand how it works for them.

 

[BlindBoo]

The Constitutional right to keep and bear arms does not have a proviso to demonstrate need. The need is already stated. "For the security of a free state".

That was the Militia. The militias were made up of citizens. There was no standing army. Hell they didn't even have jacketed bullets. Their intent was to protect the country from not only outside threats but from the threat of a standing army. They never intended for every Tom Dick and Harrett to own weapons like we have today.

Can't fix it with laws. Need to amend the Constitution.

 

[Kilroy2]

They are not saying that people can't have their guns

They are saying why does anyone need a weapon whose only purpose is to shoot as many rounds as possible in a short amount of time.

Do hunters really need to kill a whole herd of deer in one shooting or maybe its easier to get in as many shots before that deer bolts and you have to start the hunt over again. Darn it!

Self defense are people worried that an angry mob will charge their home and they need to get as many of them as they can


Do they really want their love one trying to shoot an automatic weapon?
It may look sexy but is it overkill

I guess if you worried that the government is coming after you then you need to get them first.

Or are they needed when the mutants come

Stephen Paddock shot more than 500 rounds

Still it doesn't affect those who already have one

AR-15 can fire 400 rounds per minute

explain who would need to shoot that many rounds granted the barrel will get hot

You are confused Moon Bat.

The Constitutional right to keep and bear arms does not have a proviso to demonstrate need. The need is already stated. "For the security of a free state".

We don't have to prove to you stupid Moon Bats if our "arms" are overkill or not. that is our business, not yours.

For a population of 330 million very few deaths occur in a year because of AR-15s or any what you dumbass anti gun nuts call "assault weapons". Many more people die being struct by lightening or drown in their backyard swimming pools.

The security of a free state -

That why we have a trained military and that is why the state develops a military. There was a time when volunteers were needed but militia was needed

If you have a gun does that mean that you joined the military

They are not saying that people can't have their guns

They are saying why does anyone need a weapon whose only purpose is to shoot as many rounds as possible in a short amount of time.

Do hunters really need to kill a whole herd of deer in one shooting or maybe its easier to get in as many shots before that deer bolts and you have to start the hunt over again. Darn it!

Self defense are people worried that an angry mob will charge their home and they need to get as many of them as they can


Do they really want their love one trying to shoot an automatic weapon?
It may look sexy but is it overkill

I guess if you worried that the government is coming after you then you need to get them first.

Or are they needed when the mutants come

Stephen Paddock shot more than 500 rounds

Still it doesn't affect those who already have one

AR-15 can fire 400 rounds per minute

explain who would need to shoot that many rounds granted the barrel will get hot

You are confused Moon Bat.

The Constitutional right to keep and bear arms does not have a proviso to demonstrate need. The need is already stated. "For the security of a free state".

We don't have to prove to you stupid Moon Bats if our "arms" are overkill or not. that is our business, not yours.

For a population of 330 million very few deaths occur in a year because of AR-15s or any what you dumbass anti gun nuts call "assault weapons". Many more people die being struct by lightening or drown in their backyard swimming pools.

Security of a free state

Duh that why the US has a standing army which is the strongest in the world

Do u believe with such an army that your security is at risk that u need a gun

The day when they had to call for unscripted people to fight is long gone, Now the President just declares

Send in the drones,

Obviously many have no concern with overkill that why legislation is needed

people want to shoot at tornado's because they have no concern

Its not about the number of people dying, it why do they have to die or get injured because Paddock when crazy and was able to shoot the number of people in a short span of time.

The question is why do people need to shoot hundreds of rounds in a short time and I am sure Paddock thought it was no one's business but his own

 

[JusticeHammer]

That will score them biggggggggg points in the next election. Everyone loves it when Democrats threaten the second amendment.

People don't like mass killings.

Smart people don't like stupid demoncraps.

 

[JusticeHammer]

The Constitutional right to keep and bear arms does not have a proviso to demonstrate need. The need is already stated. "For the security of a free state".

That was the Militia. The militias were made up of citizens. There was no standing army. Hell they didn't even have jacketed bullets. Their intent was to protect the country from not only outside threats but from the threat of a standing army. They never intended for every Tom Dick and Harrett to own weapons like we have today.

Can't fix it with laws. Need to amend the Constitution.

Wrong, militias were made up of citizens with their own weapons. Whe a dimwit understands history and the Constitution, they are no longer a dimwit.

 

[JusticeHammer]

We also saw Crooked Hillary ran on a platform to demonize the NRA and support an AWB, didn't we? Didn't get her very far, did it?

Well, she DID get 3 MILLION more voters than the orange blob, didn't she?...LOL

Mostly illegal votes. Thank God the electoral college worked the way intended by the founders.

 

[JusticeHammer]

Feinstein's bill will be a great way to get the NRA to, once again, pour lots of money in RE-bribing republicans in the senate.

To keep the commie left at Bay.

 

[Crepitus]

At it again, indeed. Gun bans have never been far from the surface in the minds of Democrats and other leftist fellow travelers all over the world. Some of them have learned it's not wise to admit that publicly in the United States, where too many citizens know the truth. So they seldom voice their thoughts honestly any more.

These are the freely-given opinions, mostly of people who are elected officials, with the power to help make policy and enact laws against people who disagree with them. And as you can see, they have held these opinions for many years. Does anyone think they have changed even a little bit now?

---------------------------------------------------

"Banning guns is an idea whose time has come." - then-Senator Joseph Biden; quoted by AP, 1993-11-18

"Yes, I'm denying you your rights." - Tom Bradley (Los Angeles Mayor), on constitutional rights at a "Save the Brady Bill" rally; from article by Steve Comus, Western Outdoor News, 1992-09-04

"We must be able to arrest people before they commit crimes. By registering guns and knowing who has them we can do that .... If they have guns they are pretty likely to commit a crime." - Mary Ann Carlson (Vermont state Senator)

"We need much stricter gun control, and eventually we should bar the ownership of handguns except in a few cases." - William L. Clay (US Representative, D-MO, St. Louis); "NRA-Backed Measure May Derail Brady Bill", by Robert L. Koenig, St. Louis Post Dispatch, p. 1A, 1993-05-08

"And we should - then every community in the country could then start doing major weapon sweeps and then destroying the weapons, not selling them." - Bill Clinton (US President)

"If it was up to me, no one but law enforcement officers would own handguns ...." - Richard Daley (Chicago Mayor); Federal gun legislation press conference in Washington, D.C., 1998-11-13

"You know I don't believe in people owning guns, only the police and military. And I'm going to do everything I can to disarm this state." - Michael Dukakis (Massachusetts Governor); in conversation with Mike Yacino (Massachusetts Gun Owners' Action League) and Roy Innis (Congress of Racial Equality), 1986-06-16

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them ... 'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in,' I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here." - Dianne Feinstein (US Senator, D-CA); 60 Minutes, 1995-02-05

"Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA - ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve the State". - Heinrich Himmler

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms." - Adolf Hitler; Edict of March 18, 1938.

"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal. - Janet Reno (US Attorney General), 1993-12-10

-----------------------------------------------

Keep this in mind the next time some simpering Democrat tells you, "Oh, you silly Republicans, nobody is going to take your guns away."

In fact, that's exactly what they have in mind, and always have - by their own admission.

Godwined on post 12.

 

[Crepitus]

That will score them biggggggggg points in the next election. Everyone loves it when Democrats threaten the second amendment.

People don't like mass killings.

The ban trucks!

~~~~~~
More people are killed in auto crashes than are killed by guns...….

So treat guns like cars.

 

[Flash]

That will score them biggggggggg points in the next election. Everyone loves it when Democrats threaten the second amendment.

People don't like mass killings.

The ban trucks!

~~~~~~
More people are killed in auto crashes than are killed by guns...….

So treat guns like cars.

There is no Constitutional right to drive on a public road. The people that build and operate the roads can infringe upon your rights to drive all they want. However, there is a Constitutional right to keep and bear arms and it shall not be infringed.

Do you understand the difference?

 

[Flash]

They are not saying that people can't have their guns

They are saying why does anyone need a weapon whose only purpose is to shoot as many rounds as possible in a short amount of time.

Do hunters really need to kill a whole herd of deer in one shooting or maybe its easier to get in as many shots before that deer bolts and you have to start the hunt over again. Darn it!

Self defense are people worried that an angry mob will charge their home and they need to get as many of them as they can


Do they really want their love one trying to shoot an automatic weapon?
It may look sexy but is it overkill

I guess if you worried that the government is coming after you then you need to get them first.

Or are they needed when the mutants come

Stephen Paddock shot more than 500 rounds

Still it doesn't affect those who already have one

AR-15 can fire 400 rounds per minute

explain who would need to shoot that many rounds granted the barrel will get hot

You are confused Moon Bat.

The Constitutional right to keep and bear arms does not have a proviso to demonstrate need. The need is already stated. "For the security of a free state".

We don't have to prove to you stupid Moon Bats if our "arms" are overkill or not. that is our business, not yours.

For a population of 330 million very few deaths occur in a year because of AR-15s or any what you dumbass anti gun nuts call "assault weapons". Many more people die being struct by lightening or drown in their backyard swimming pools.

The security of a free state -

That why we have a trained military and that is why the state develops a military. There was a time when volunteers were needed but militia was needed

If you have a gun does that mean that you joined the military

They are not saying that people can't have their guns

They are saying why does anyone need a weapon whose only purpose is to shoot as many rounds as possible in a short amount of time.

Do hunters really need to kill a whole herd of deer in one shooting or maybe its easier to get in as many shots before that deer bolts and you have to start the hunt over again. Darn it!

Self defense are people worried that an angry mob will charge their home and they need to get as many of them as they can


Do they really want their love one trying to shoot an automatic weapon?
It may look sexy but is it overkill

I guess if you worried that the government is coming after you then you need to get them first.

Or are they needed when the mutants come

Stephen Paddock shot more than 500 rounds

Still it doesn't affect those who already have one

AR-15 can fire 400 rounds per minute

explain who would need to shoot that many rounds granted the barrel will get hot

You are confused Moon Bat.

The Constitutional right to keep and bear arms does not have a proviso to demonstrate need. The need is already stated. "For the security of a free state".

We don't have to prove to you stupid Moon Bats if our "arms" are overkill or not. that is our business, not yours.

For a population of 330 million very few deaths occur in a year because of AR-15s or any what you dumbass anti gun nuts call "assault weapons". Many more people die being struct by lightening or drown in their backyard swimming pools.

Security of a free state

Duh that why the US has a standing army which is the strongest in the world

Do u believe with such an army that your security is at risk that u need a gun

The day when they had to call for unscripted people to fight is long gone, Now the President just declares

Send in the drones,

Obviously many have no concern with overkill that why legislation is needed

people want to shoot at tornado's because they have no concern

Its not about the number of people dying, it why do they have to die or get injured because Paddock when crazy and was able to shoot the number of people in a short span of time.

The question is why do people need to shoot hundreds of rounds in a short time and I am sure Paddock thought it was no one's business but his own

You are really confused about this, aren't you? Public school education?

The right to keep and bear arms is not a needs based Constitutional right. You don't have to prove a need to bear arms. It is your right as an American citizen. The need is stated in the Bill of Rights. Necessary for the security of a free state.

I don't give a shit if you don't think I have a need for the 29 AR-15s that I own now. It is none of your fucking business. Just mind your own business. My Liberty is none of your concern.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Those stupid Democrats are at it again.

This bill is too damn crazy to even bother comment on other than to say it is a great example of how bat shit crazy these Democrats are.

It would really help if those Liberal idiots would read the Bill of Rights. Infringement like this on the right to keep and bear arms is pretty well prohibited in the Second Amendment.


Senators Introduce Assault Weapons Ban

Senators Introduce Assault Weapons Ban

Washington—Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and a number of her colleagues today introduced the Assault Weapons Ban of 2017, a bill to ban the sale, transfer, manufacture and importation of military-style assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines.

Joining Senator Feinstein on the bill are Senators Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Tom Carper (D-Del.), Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Ben Cardin (D-Md.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Al Franken (D-Minn.), Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.) and Bob Casey (D-Pa.).

Senator Feinstein, ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, released the following statement:

“We’re introducing an updated Assault Weapons Ban for one reason: so that after every mass shooting with a military-style assault weapon, the American people will know that a tool to reduce these massacres is sitting in the Senate, ready for debate and a vote.

Key provisions

• Bans the sale, manufacture, transfer and importation of 205 military-style assault weapons by name. Owners may keep existing weapons.

• Bans any assault weapon that accepts a detachable ammunition magazine and has one or more military characteristics including a pistol grip, a forward grip, a barrel shroud, a threaded barrel or a folding or telescoping stock. Owners may keep existing weapons.

• Bans magazines and other ammunition feeding devices that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition, which allow shooters to quickly fire many rounds without needing to reload. Owners may keep existing magazines.

Other provisions:

• Requires a background check on any future sale, trade or gifting of an assault weapon covered by the bill.

• Requires that grandfathered assault weapons are stored using a secure gun storage or safety device like a trigger lock.

• Prohibits the transfer of high-capacity ammunition magazines.

• Bans bump-fire stocks and other devices that allow semi-automatic weapons to fire at fully automatic rates.

this is how gun bans really work

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Dems use guns for crimes
Reps use guns for self defense

 

[JWBooth]

That will score them biggggggggg points in the next election. Everyone loves it when Democrats threaten the second amendment.

People don't like mass killings.

End the Army, Navy, Marines, and air force. They are masters of that game

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Those stupid Democrats are at it again.

This bill is too damn crazy to even bother comment on other than to say it is a great example of how bat shit crazy these Democrats are.

It would really help if those Liberal idiots would read the Bill of Rights. Infringement like this on the right to keep and bear arms is pretty well prohibited in the Second Amendment.


Senators Introduce Assault Weapons Ban

Senators Introduce Assault Weapons Ban

Washington—Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and a number of her colleagues today introduced the Assault Weapons Ban of 2017, a bill to ban the sale, transfer, manufacture and importation of military-style assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines.

Joining Senator Feinstein on the bill are Senators Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Tom Carper (D-Del.), Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Ben Cardin (D-Md.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Al Franken (D-Minn.), Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.) and Bob Casey (D-Pa.).

Senator Feinstein, ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, released the following statement:

“We’re introducing an updated Assault Weapons Ban for one reason: so that after every mass shooting with a military-style assault weapon, the American people will know that a tool to reduce these massacres is sitting in the Senate, ready for debate and a vote.

Key provisions

• Bans the sale, manufacture, transfer and importation of 205 military-style assault weapons by name. Owners may keep existing weapons.

• Bans any assault weapon that accepts a detachable ammunition magazine and has one or more military characteristics including a pistol grip, a forward grip, a barrel shroud, a threaded barrel or a folding or telescoping stock. Owners may keep existing weapons.

• Bans magazines and other ammunition feeding devices that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition, which allow shooters to quickly fire many rounds without needing to reload. Owners may keep existing magazines.

Other provisions:

• Requires a background check on any future sale, trade or gifting of an assault weapon covered by the bill.

• Requires that grandfathered assault weapons are stored using a secure gun storage or safety device like a trigger lock.

• Prohibits the transfer of high-capacity ammunition magazines.

• Bans bump-fire stocks and other devices that allow semi-automatic weapons to fire at fully automatic rates.

The Democrats want to know who has a gun and what kind of gun.
But we have millions of people poring over our open border.
We don't know who they are. We don't know their real names.
We don't know if they are drug smugglers, criminals or terrorist.
That is the real problem that we should be working on.