Simple question to gun advocates

[Ray From Cleveland]

Fine, but I don't really care about those people. I am a gun owner. I'm fine with gun control measures that help public safety. I don't want to take guns away from responsible law abiding citizens.

That's all new gun laws would do.

Not really, the currant proposition is to outlaw bump stocks. That doesn't take guns away from responsible citizens. The other major issue has been for background check measures. Those don't take guns away from responsible citizens, it keeps takes them away from mentally unstable people and criminals which i'd hope you a good thing.

I actually thought we were doing that now!

If everything wasn't so political in the US, I might agree with you. But if and when Democrats regain power of the federal government, do you really trust them to determine who is mentally capable of owning a firearm and who isn't?

If we gave them that kinds of power, they would consider most people mentally unfit to own a weapon. Look at what DumBama did! He stopped people on SS who were being cared for from owning firearms; like we had so many problems with SS people robbing banks and mass killings. Or their proposal to prohibit people on the No Fly List from owning firearms. When was the last time we had a firearm incident with a person on the No Fly List?

Democrats can and will make anything political if it promotes their agenda. The bodies in Vegas weren't even cold yet before they started their anti-gun talk.

They were talking anti-gun because they want to do something. Most people who want gun control aren't doing it to line their pockets they are doing it because they truly feel like it will help make our country safer.

My Lord, they have you hook, line, and sinker, don't they? Let me explain to you what this is all about:

Democrats are control freaks. They want to manipulate every aspect of your life. They need power to do this, and their main groups of power are government dependents and victims.

So they finally are able to disarm law abiding citizens. That means the only armed people would be the police and the criminals. When you have a society of armed criminals and disarmed citizens, you create more victims--just what the Democrats want.

When it gets to that point, the disarmed victims need somebody to fight BIG CRIME. That would require a bigger government.

Democrat leaders don't care if we have guns, what they care about is that we can use those guns for self-defense. Because if we can defend ourselves, then who need Democrats?

 

[BULLDOG]

Fine, but I don't really care about those people. I am a gun owner. I'm fine with gun control measures that help public safety. I don't want to take guns away from responsible law abiding citizens.

That's all new gun laws would do.

Not really, the currant proposition is to outlaw bump stocks. That doesn't take guns away from responsible citizens. The other major issue has been for background check measures. Those don't take guns away from responsible citizens, it keeps takes them away from mentally unstable people and criminals which i'd hope you a good thing.

I actually thought we were doing that now!

If everything wasn't so political in the US, I might agree with you. But if and when Democrats regain power of the federal government, do you really trust them to determine who is mentally capable of owning a firearm and who isn't?

If we gave them that kinds of power, they would consider most people mentally unfit to own a weapon. Look at what DumBama did! He stopped people on SS who were being cared for from owning firearms; like we had so many problems with SS people robbing banks and mass killings. Or their proposal to prohibit people on the No Fly List from owning firearms. When was the last time we had a firearm incident with a person on the No Fly List?

Democrats can and will make anything political if it promotes their agenda. The bodies in Vegas weren't even cold yet before they started their anti-gun talk.

They were talking anti-gun because they want to do something. Most people who want gun control aren't doing it to line their pockets they are doing it because they truly feel like it will help make our country safer.

My Lord, they have you hook, line, and sinker, don't they? Let me explain to you what this is all about:

Democrats are control freaks. They want to manipulate every aspect of your life. They need power to do this, and their main groups of power are government dependents and victims.

So they finally are able to disarm law abiding citizens. That means the only armed people would be the police and the criminals. When you have a society of armed criminals and disarmed citizens, you create more victims--just what the Democrats want.

When it gets to that point, the disarmed victims need somebody to fight BIG CRIME. That would require a bigger government.

Democrat leaders don't care if we have guns, what they care about is that we can use those guns for self-defense. Because if we can defend ourselves, then who need Democrats?

Your song

 

[Slade3200]

Fine, but I don't really care about those people. I am a gun owner. I'm fine with gun control measures that help public safety. I don't want to take guns away from responsible law abiding citizens.

That's all new gun laws would do.

Not really, the currant proposition is to outlaw bump stocks. That doesn't take guns away from responsible citizens. The other major issue has been for background check measures. Those don't take guns away from responsible citizens, it keeps takes them away from mentally unstable people and criminals which i'd hope you a good thing.

I actually thought we were doing that now!

If everything wasn't so political in the US, I might agree with you. But if and when Democrats regain power of the federal government, do you really trust them to determine who is mentally capable of owning a firearm and who isn't?

If we gave them that kinds of power, they would consider most people mentally unfit to own a weapon. Look at what DumBama did! He stopped people on SS who were being cared for from owning firearms; like we had so many problems with SS people robbing banks and mass killings. Or their proposal to prohibit people on the No Fly List from owning firearms. When was the last time we had a firearm incident with a person on the No Fly List?

Democrats can and will make anything political if it promotes their agenda. The bodies in Vegas weren't even cold yet before they started their anti-gun talk.

They were talking anti-gun because they want to do something. Most people who want gun control aren't doing it to line their pockets they are doing it because they truly feel like it will help make our country safer.

My Lord, they have you hook, line, and sinker, don't they? Let me explain to you what this is all about:

Democrats are control freaks. They want to manipulate every aspect of your life. They need power to do this, and their main groups of power are government dependents and victims.

So they finally are able to disarm law abiding citizens. That means the only armed people would be the police and the criminals. When you have a society of armed criminals and disarmed citizens, you create more victims--just what the Democrats want.

When it gets to that point, the disarmed victims need somebody to fight BIG CRIME. That would require a bigger government.

Democrat leaders don't care if we have guns, what they care about is that we can use those guns for self-defense. Because if we can defend ourselves, then who need Democrats?

Thats a great way to demonize your political opponents and i've heard those talking points very often. I just don't agree that they are reality. I know many democrats and many gun owners and I don't know one with that agenda.

 

[westwall]

That's all new gun laws would do.

Not really, the currant proposition is to outlaw bump stocks. That doesn't take guns away from responsible citizens. The other major issue has been for background check measures. Those don't take guns away from responsible citizens, it keeps takes them away from mentally unstable people and criminals which i'd hope you a good thing.

I actually thought we were doing that now!

If everything wasn't so political in the US, I might agree with you. But if and when Democrats regain power of the federal government, do you really trust them to determine who is mentally capable of owning a firearm and who isn't?

If we gave them that kinds of power, they would consider most people mentally unfit to own a weapon. Look at what DumBama did! He stopped people on SS who were being cared for from owning firearms; like we had so many problems with SS people robbing banks and mass killings. Or their proposal to prohibit people on the No Fly List from owning firearms. When was the last time we had a firearm incident with a person on the No Fly List?

Democrats can and will make anything political if it promotes their agenda. The bodies in Vegas weren't even cold yet before they started their anti-gun talk.

They were talking anti-gun because they want to do something. Most people who want gun control aren't doing it to line their pockets they are doing it because they truly feel like it will help make our country safer.

My Lord, they have you hook, line, and sinker, don't they? Let me explain to you what this is all about:

Democrats are control freaks. They want to manipulate every aspect of your life. They need power to do this, and their main groups of power are government dependents and victims.

So they finally are able to disarm law abiding citizens. That means the only armed people would be the police and the criminals. When you have a society of armed criminals and disarmed citizens, you create more victims--just what the Democrats want.

When it gets to that point, the disarmed victims need somebody to fight BIG CRIME. That would require a bigger government.

Democrat leaders don't care if we have guns, what they care about is that we can use those guns for self-defense. Because if we can defend ourselves, then who need Democrats?

Thats a great way to demonize your political opponents and i've heard those talking points very often. I just don't agree that they are reality. I know many democrats and many gun owners and I don't know one with that agenda.

That's because you don't know any super rich people, nor do you know any politicians. That is the ultimate goal of the progressives after all. A nice compliant, unarmed, group of subjects.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

Did you support the provision that banned automatic weapons in 1986? Do you support it now? Why or why not?

Trick question...

Why?

You want to introduce the argument to pass laws that would outlaw bump stocks but let be honest to modify a Semi into a fully automatic weapon is against the law...

 

[BULLDOG]

Did you support the provision that banned automatic weapons in 1986? Do you support it now? Why or why not?

Trick question...

Why?

You want to introduce the argument to pass laws that would outlaw bump stocks but let be honest to modify a Semi into a fully automatic weapon is against the law...

Fully automatic weapons were banned because they put too many bullets out in too short of a time. Nobody has a need for that unless they are trying to kill a lot of people. It had nothing to do with the way a trigger worked, or how the next shell was put into the chamber. It was all because of the amount of led scattered out the barrell. Bump stocks advertise up to 500 rounds per minute. Nobody needs that kind of fire power unless they are in the military.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

Did you support the provision that banned automatic weapons in 1986? Do you support it now? Why or why not?

Trick question...

Why?

You want to introduce the argument to pass laws that would outlaw bump stocks but let be honest to modify a Semi into a fully automatic weapon is against the law...

Fully automatic weapons were banned because they put too many bullets out in too short of a time. Nobody has a need for that unless they are trying to kill a lot of people. It had nothing to do with the way a trigger worked, or how the next shell was put into the chamber. It was all because of the amount of led scattered out the barrell. Bump stocks advertise up to 500 rounds per minute. Nobody needs that kind of fire power unless they are in the military.

Again converting a Semi to a fully automatic weapon is against the law, so what more do you need?

 

[BULLDOG]

Did you support the provision that banned automatic weapons in 1986? Do you support it now? Why or why not?

Trick question...

Why?

You want to introduce the argument to pass laws that would outlaw bump stocks but let be honest to modify a Semi into a fully automatic weapon is against the law...

Fully automatic weapons were banned because they put too many bullets out in too short of a time. Nobody has a need for that unless they are trying to kill a lot of people. It had nothing to do with the way a trigger worked, or how the next shell was put into the chamber. It was all because of the amount of led scattered out the barrell. Bump stocks advertise up to 500 rounds per minute. Nobody needs that kind of fire power unless they are in the military.

Again converting a Semi to a fully automatic weapon is against the law, so what more do you need?

Bump stocks are legal, but they increase the rounds per minute into the fully automatic range. Are you really too dumb to see that? It has nothing to do with the configuration of the gun. It has everything to do with the rounds per minute.

 

[Slade3200]

Not really, the currant proposition is to outlaw bump stocks. That doesn't take guns away from responsible citizens. The other major issue has been for background check measures. Those don't take guns away from responsible citizens, it keeps takes them away from mentally unstable people and criminals which i'd hope you a good thing.

I actually thought we were doing that now!

If everything wasn't so political in the US, I might agree with you. But if and when Democrats regain power of the federal government, do you really trust them to determine who is mentally capable of owning a firearm and who isn't?

If we gave them that kinds of power, they would consider most people mentally unfit to own a weapon. Look at what DumBama did! He stopped people on SS who were being cared for from owning firearms; like we had so many problems with SS people robbing banks and mass killings. Or their proposal to prohibit people on the No Fly List from owning firearms. When was the last time we had a firearm incident with a person on the No Fly List?

Democrats can and will make anything political if it promotes their agenda. The bodies in Vegas weren't even cold yet before they started their anti-gun talk.

They were talking anti-gun because they want to do something. Most people who want gun control aren't doing it to line their pockets they are doing it because they truly feel like it will help make our country safer.

My Lord, they have you hook, line, and sinker, don't they? Let me explain to you what this is all about:

Democrats are control freaks. They want to manipulate every aspect of your life. They need power to do this, and their main groups of power are government dependents and victims.

So they finally are able to disarm law abiding citizens. That means the only armed people would be the police and the criminals. When you have a society of armed criminals and disarmed citizens, you create more victims--just what the Democrats want.

When it gets to that point, the disarmed victims need somebody to fight BIG CRIME. That would require a bigger government.

Democrat leaders don't care if we have guns, what they care about is that we can use those guns for self-defense. Because if we can defend ourselves, then who need Democrats?

Thats a great way to demonize your political opponents and i've heard those talking points very often. I just don't agree that they are reality. I know many democrats and many gun owners and I don't know one with that agenda.

That's because you don't know any super rich people, nor do you know any politicians. That is the ultimate goal of the progressives after all. A nice compliant, unarmed, group of subjects.

I know many very rich people and a few local politicians doesn't change the story.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

Did you support the provision that banned automatic weapons in 1986? Do you support it now? Why or why not?

Trick question...

Why?

You want to introduce the argument to pass laws that would outlaw bump stocks but let be honest to modify a Semi into a fully automatic weapon is against the law...

Fully automatic weapons were banned because they put too many bullets out in too short of a time. Nobody has a need for that unless they are trying to kill a lot of people. It had nothing to do with the way a trigger worked, or how the next shell was put into the chamber. It was all because of the amount of led scattered out the barrell. Bump stocks advertise up to 500 rounds per minute. Nobody needs that kind of fire power unless they are in the military.

Again converting a Semi to a fully automatic weapon is against the law, so what more do you need?

Bump stocks are legal, but they increase the rounds per minute into the fully automatic range. Are you really too dumb to see that? It has nothing to do with the configuration of the gun. It has everything to do with the rounds per minute.

Are you going to do this dance with me?

So you outlaw bump stocks and the next mass murder happen a what will you for?

Maybe all semi-automatic weapons?

Then another mass murder happen you can go after pump actions?

Then another mass murder happens and you go after revolvers.

Now you have all the fire arms of today time, so another mass murder happen what do you go after?

Murder is against law so tell me how do you stop this?

 

[Slade3200]

Did you support the provision that banned automatic weapons in 1986? Do you support it now? Why or why not?

Trick question...

Why?

You want to introduce the argument to pass laws that would outlaw bump stocks but let be honest to modify a Semi into a fully automatic weapon is against the law...

Fully automatic weapons were banned because they put too many bullets out in too short of a time. Nobody has a need for that unless they are trying to kill a lot of people. It had nothing to do with the way a trigger worked, or how the next shell was put into the chamber. It was all because of the amount of led scattered out the barrell. Bump stocks advertise up to 500 rounds per minute. Nobody needs that kind of fire power unless they are in the military.

Again converting a Semi to a fully automatic weapon is against the law, so what more do you need?

Bump stocks are legal, but they increase the rounds per minute into the fully automatic range. Are you really too dumb to see that? It has nothing to do with the configuration of the gun. It has everything to do with the rounds per minute.

Are you going to do this dance with me?

So you outlaw bump stocks and the next mass murder happen a what will you for?

Maybe all semi-automatic weapons?

Then another mass murder happen you can go after pump actions?

Then another mass murder happens and you go after revolvers.

Now you have all the fire arms of today time, so another mass murder happen what do you go after?

Murder is against law so tell me how do you stop this?

We can never stop murder or gun violence. We can make it harder for people to achieve mass murder by limiting their fire power. What if Uzi's were available at Walmart and that was the weapon of choice in the last dozen shootings... How many more bodies would be pilled up. Probably something comparable to Vegas. See the point yet?

 

[westwall]

I actually thought we were doing that now!

If everything wasn't so political in the US, I might agree with you. But if and when Democrats regain power of the federal government, do you really trust them to determine who is mentally capable of owning a firearm and who isn't?

If we gave them that kinds of power, they would consider most people mentally unfit to own a weapon. Look at what DumBama did! He stopped people on SS who were being cared for from owning firearms; like we had so many problems with SS people robbing banks and mass killings. Or their proposal to prohibit people on the No Fly List from owning firearms. When was the last time we had a firearm incident with a person on the No Fly List?

Democrats can and will make anything political if it promotes their agenda. The bodies in Vegas weren't even cold yet before they started their anti-gun talk.

They were talking anti-gun because they want to do something. Most people who want gun control aren't doing it to line their pockets they are doing it because they truly feel like it will help make our country safer.

My Lord, they have you hook, line, and sinker, don't they? Let me explain to you what this is all about:

Democrats are control freaks. They want to manipulate every aspect of your life. They need power to do this, and their main groups of power are government dependents and victims.

So they finally are able to disarm law abiding citizens. That means the only armed people would be the police and the criminals. When you have a society of armed criminals and disarmed citizens, you create more victims--just what the Democrats want.

When it gets to that point, the disarmed victims need somebody to fight BIG CRIME. That would require a bigger government.

Democrat leaders don't care if we have guns, what they care about is that we can use those guns for self-defense. Because if we can defend ourselves, then who need Democrats?

Thats a great way to demonize your political opponents and i've heard those talking points very often. I just don't agree that they are reality. I know many democrats and many gun owners and I don't know one with that agenda.

That's because you don't know any super rich people, nor do you know any politicians. That is the ultimate goal of the progressives after all. A nice compliant, unarmed, group of subjects.

I know many very rich people and a few local politicians doesn't change the story.

No, you don't. You don't know billionaires. They and the State and Federal politicians are those who are pushing a globalist agenda. It is they who wish to disarm the population.

 

[Clementine]

Did you support the provision that banned automatic weapons in 1986? Do you support it now? Why or why not?

Criminals were completely unaffected by those laws. Is there a big difference between someone shooting a bunch of people at once or having criminals in Chicago constantly killing people with smaller guns? The death toll in Chicago from guns is over 500 for this year. Mostly blacks being killed by other blacks. No liberals are fretting over that.

Over 3,000 were killed on 9/11 and no one used a gun. More people have been killed in terrorist attacks than by mass shooters but yet the left insisted that we allow refugees in even though 10% were likely terrorists. It's likely that the death toll from attacks will surpass all mass shootings combined but yet the only thing libs protest is guns. People's mindsets are where the danger lies, not with their choice of weapon.

It's not about keeping people safe. It's about banning guns and rendering the people helpless. Helpless against criminals who keep their weapons and helpless against politicians who seek to shred the constitution.

 

[Slade3200]

They were talking anti-gun because they want to do something. Most people who want gun control aren't doing it to line their pockets they are doing it because they truly feel like it will help make our country safer.

My Lord, they have you hook, line, and sinker, don't they? Let me explain to you what this is all about:

Democrats are control freaks. They want to manipulate every aspect of your life. They need power to do this, and their main groups of power are government dependents and victims.

So they finally are able to disarm law abiding citizens. That means the only armed people would be the police and the criminals. When you have a society of armed criminals and disarmed citizens, you create more victims--just what the Democrats want.

When it gets to that point, the disarmed victims need somebody to fight BIG CRIME. That would require a bigger government.

Democrat leaders don't care if we have guns, what they care about is that we can use those guns for self-defense. Because if we can defend ourselves, then who need Democrats?

Thats a great way to demonize your political opponents and i've heard those talking points very often. I just don't agree that they are reality. I know many democrats and many gun owners and I don't know one with that agenda.

That's because you don't know any super rich people, nor do you know any politicians. That is the ultimate goal of the progressives after all. A nice compliant, unarmed, group of subjects.

I know many very rich people and a few local politicians doesn't change the story.

No, you don't. You don't know billionaires. They and the State and Federal politicians are those who are pushing a globalist agenda. It is they who wish to disarm the population.

I know many billionaires... am very close with a family that is in Forbes top 50 richest In the world. How do you know who I know? So presumptive if you

 

[BULLDOG]

Did you support the provision that banned automatic weapons in 1986? Do you support it now? Why or why not?

Trick question...

Why?

You want to introduce the argument to pass laws that would outlaw bump stocks but let be honest to modify a Semi into a fully automatic weapon is against the law...

Fully automatic weapons were banned because they put too many bullets out in too short of a time. Nobody has a need for that unless they are trying to kill a lot of people. It had nothing to do with the way a trigger worked, or how the next shell was put into the chamber. It was all because of the amount of led scattered out the barrell. Bump stocks advertise up to 500 rounds per minute. Nobody needs that kind of fire power unless they are in the military.

Again converting a Semi to a fully automatic weapon is against the law, so what more do you need?

Bump stocks are legal, but they increase the rounds per minute into the fully automatic range. Are you really too dumb to see that? It has nothing to do with the configuration of the gun. It has everything to do with the rounds per minute.

Are you going to do this dance with me?

So you outlaw bump stocks and the next mass murder happen a what will you for?

Maybe all semi-automatic weapons?

Then another mass murder happen you can go after pump actions?

Then another mass murder happens and you go after revolvers.

Now you have all the fire arms of today time, so another mass murder happen what do you go after?

Murder is against law so tell me how do you stop this?

Show me a semiautomatic or a revolver that can fire 500 rounds per minute, and I'll go after them too. Quit being goofy.

 

[Slade3200]

Did you support the provision that banned automatic weapons in 1986? Do you support it now? Why or why not?

Criminals were completely unaffected by those laws. Is there a big difference between someone shooting a bunch of people at once or having criminals in Chicago constantly killing people with smaller guns? The death toll in Chicago from guns is over 500 for this year. Mostly blacks being killed by other blacks. No liberals are fretting over that.

Over 3,000 were killed on 9/11 and no one used a gun. More people have been killed in terrorist attacks than by mass shooters but yet the left insisted that we allow refugees in even though 10% were likely terrorists. It's likely that the death toll from attacks will surpass all mass shootings combined but yet the only thing libs protest is guns. People's mindsets are where the danger lies, not with their choice of weapon.

It's not about keeping people safe. It's about banning guns and rendering the people helpless. Helpless against criminals who keep their weapons and helpless against politicians who seek to shred the constitution.

I disagree, who from leadership is talking about banning all guns. Name some names?

 

[westwall]

Trick question...

Why?

You want to introduce the argument to pass laws that would outlaw bump stocks but let be honest to modify a Semi into a fully automatic weapon is against the law...

Fully automatic weapons were banned because they put too many bullets out in too short of a time. Nobody has a need for that unless they are trying to kill a lot of people. It had nothing to do with the way a trigger worked, or how the next shell was put into the chamber. It was all because of the amount of led scattered out the barrell. Bump stocks advertise up to 500 rounds per minute. Nobody needs that kind of fire power unless they are in the military.

Again converting a Semi to a fully automatic weapon is against the law, so what more do you need?

Bump stocks are legal, but they increase the rounds per minute into the fully automatic range. Are you really too dumb to see that? It has nothing to do with the configuration of the gun. It has everything to do with the rounds per minute.

Are you going to do this dance with me?

So you outlaw bump stocks and the next mass murder happen a what will you for?

Maybe all semi-automatic weapons?

Then another mass murder happen you can go after pump actions?

Then another mass murder happens and you go after revolvers.

Now you have all the fire arms of today time, so another mass murder happen what do you go after?

Murder is against law so tell me how do you stop this?

We can never stop murder or gun violence. We can make it harder for people to achieve mass murder by limiting their fire power. What if Uzi's were available at Walmart and that was the weapon of choice in the last dozen shootings... How many more bodies would be pilled up. Probably something comparable to Vegas. See the point yet?

If you admit that we can't prevent it, and you acknowledge that bad people will always be able to get the guns they want, what makes you think they won't just get them? Here is an Israeli woman with an M-16.

Here are some more...

Or how about at the beach?

The Israeli's have figured out that gun control doesn't work. So have MORE people carrying guns and they will be able to stop the bad actors before they are able to kill a lot of people.

That is the reality.

 

[Papageorgio]

I’m all for banning bump stocks and the Republicans need to ban them. The Obama administration should never have allowed them to be legalized. The GOP House and Senate need to ban them and use it as leverage for reconciliation.

 

[westwall]

Trick question...

Why?

You want to introduce the argument to pass laws that would outlaw bump stocks but let be honest to modify a Semi into a fully automatic weapon is against the law...

Fully automatic weapons were banned because they put too many bullets out in too short of a time. Nobody has a need for that unless they are trying to kill a lot of people. It had nothing to do with the way a trigger worked, or how the next shell was put into the chamber. It was all because of the amount of led scattered out the barrell. Bump stocks advertise up to 500 rounds per minute. Nobody needs that kind of fire power unless they are in the military.

Again converting a Semi to a fully automatic weapon is against the law, so what more do you need?

Bump stocks are legal, but they increase the rounds per minute into the fully automatic range. Are you really too dumb to see that? It has nothing to do with the configuration of the gun. It has everything to do with the rounds per minute.

Are you going to do this dance with me?

So you outlaw bump stocks and the next mass murder happen a what will you for?

Maybe all semi-automatic weapons?

Then another mass murder happen you can go after pump actions?

Then another mass murder happens and you go after revolvers.

Now you have all the fire arms of today time, so another mass murder happen what do you go after?

Murder is against law so tell me how do you stop this?

Show me a semiautomatic or a revolver that can fire 500 rounds per minute, and I'll go after them too. Quit being goofy.

Who cares. Fully automatic fire is for suppressive fire which you would know if you weren't an ignorant twerp. Suppressive fire keeps peoples heads down because it is inaccurate as hell, but it is loud. It is great that the asshole in Vegas was using a bump fire stock. It prevented him from killing more people.

 

[westwall]

My Lord, they have you hook, line, and sinker, don't they? Let me explain to you what this is all about:

Democrats are control freaks. They want to manipulate every aspect of your life. They need power to do this, and their main groups of power are government dependents and victims.

So they finally are able to disarm law abiding citizens. That means the only armed people would be the police and the criminals. When you have a society of armed criminals and disarmed citizens, you create more victims--just what the Democrats want.

When it gets to that point, the disarmed victims need somebody to fight BIG CRIME. That would require a bigger government.

Democrat leaders don't care if we have guns, what they care about is that we can use those guns for self-defense. Because if we can defend ourselves, then who need Democrats?

Thats a great way to demonize your political opponents and i've heard those talking points very often. I just don't agree that they are reality. I know many democrats and many gun owners and I don't know one with that agenda.

That's because you don't know any super rich people, nor do you know any politicians. That is the ultimate goal of the progressives after all. A nice compliant, unarmed, group of subjects.

I know many very rich people and a few local politicians doesn't change the story.

No, you don't. You don't know billionaires. They and the State and Federal politicians are those who are pushing a globalist agenda. It is they who wish to disarm the population.

I know many billionaires... am very close with a family that is in Forbes top 50 richest In the world. How do you know who I know? So presumptive if you

I doubt that very highly. I too know many billionaires and they don't look at the world the way normal people do. If you actually knew them you would fundamentally KNOW this.