Do Democrats REALLY Think Americans Will Turn Their Guns In Peacefully If They Pass a Law

[HereWeGoAgain]

I'll abide by the Constitution.

And the duly constituted laws passed under the aegis of the Constitution.

Guaranteed.

Make sure your coward ass is one of the people at the door.

Mind your manners in the presence of your betters, child.

Colt made the child the equal of bigger men.
Watch yourself.

Real skeered now.

If you have anything substantive to contribute to the conversation, then, by all means, feel free.

If not, go dry-hump somebody else's pants-leg, eh?

A five year old could drop your dumbass.

 

[Kondor3]

Regressive liberal ROE


1. Demand a link or an explanation of the truth they are objecting to.

2. Promptly reject all explanations as right wing lies. Smoke spin deflect

3. Ignore any facts presented.

4. Ridicule spelling and typos, punctuation.

5. Attack the person as being juvenile, ie: "are you 12 years old", question their education, intelligence, Age

6. Employ misdirection,

6a. smear people

6b. attack religion

6c. attack their rationality.

7. Lie, make false assumptions

8. Play race/gender card/misogynist card

9. Play gay/lesbian card

10. Play the Nazi/Fascist/bigot card

11. Make up stuff/So you got nothing?

12. Deny constantly

13. Reword and repeat

14. Pretending not to understand, playing ignorant/what did I lie about

15. When losing, resort to personal attacks.

16. Russia

17. Fox News/Alex Jones/Brietbart/infowars/Stormfront/Gateway/hannity

18. You can’t read.

Wow... that was fast... a ready-made (ready-to-copy-and-paste) "pat" non-answer.

If you were trying for substance, you failed.

 

[Kondor3]

And the duly constituted laws passed under the aegis of the Constitution.

Guaranteed.

Make sure your coward ass is one of the people at the door.

Mind your manners in the presence of your betters, child.

Colt made the child the equal of bigger men.
Watch yourself.

Real skeered now.

If you have anything substantive to contribute to the conversation, then, by all means, feel free.

If not, go dry-hump somebody else's pants-leg, eh?

A five year old could drop your dumbass.

You tell 'em, Princess...

 

[Uncensored2008]

Incorrect.

Law enforcement agencies will execute the laws of the United States.

In that case your point is moot, as they will not conduct the disarmament you Stalinists seek.

UNLESS you Communists are able to repeal the 2nd Amendment, which will never happen, then any "law" created that attempts to disarm the public is illegal and unconstitutional.

If that means acting against those who violate those laws, then, that's on the head of the violators, not law enforcement.

If police attempt to enforce unconstitutional laws, they are engaged in treason.

I agree that most will not betray the nation and would refuse the type of confiscation you Maoists masturbate to.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[
Oath keepers are weirdos who think they know the constitution more than anyone .

Oath Keepers are honorable people who obey the Constitution.

Unlike you Stalinist traitors.

Really ? Where in the constitution does it say crazy gangs of self righteous kooks are the deciders of what is or is not constitutional?

That’s why we have the fed court system .

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Now retard, here is what the courts said;

{
The core holding in D.C. v. Heller is that the Second Amendment is an individual right intimately tied to the natural right of self-defense.

The Scalia majority invokes much historical material to support its finding that the right to keep and bear arms belongs to individuals; more precisely, Scalia asserts in the Court's opinion that the "people" to whom the Second Amendment right is accorded are the same "people" who enjoy First and Fourth Amendment protection: "'The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning.' United States v. Sprague, 282 U. S. 716, 731 (1931); see also Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 188 (1824). Normal meaning may of course include an idiomatic meaning, but it excludes secret or technical meanings...."

With that finding as anchor, the Court ruled a total ban on operative handguns in the home is unconstitutional, as the ban runs afoul of both the self-defense purpose of the Second Amendment – a purpose not previously articulated by the Court – and the "in common use at the time" prong of the Miller decision: since handguns are in common use, their ownership is protected.

The Court applies as remedy that "[a]ssuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home." The Court, additionally, hinted that other remedy might be available in the form of eliminating the license requirement for carry in the home, but that no such relief had been requested: "Respondent conceded at oral argument that he does not 'have a problem with ... licensing' and that the District's law is permissible so long as it is 'not enforced in an arbitrary and capricious manner.' Tr. of Oral Arg. 74–75. We therefore assume that petitioners' issuance of a license will satisfy respondent’s prayer for relief and do not address the licensing requirement."}


Try again traitor.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I'll abide by the Constitution.

And the duly constituted laws passed under the aegis of the Constitution.

Guaranteed.

Make sure your coward ass is one of the people at the door.

Mind your manners in the presence of your betters, child.

Colt made the child the equal of bigger men.
Watch yourself.

Real skeered now.

If you have anything substantive to contribute to the conversation, then, by all means, feel free.

If not, go dry-hump somebody else's pants-leg, eh?

Reality;

You Stalinists think that through radical proclamations you can attract voters.

This Hitlerian demagoguery spewed by scum like Swalwell is red meat to the mindless mob. He has no more intent on attempting this sort of idiocy than you do of personally disarming your neighbor. The result would be the same in both cases.

The message of the Stalinists thus far is that if elected, they will take the taxe cut of people, because it is just crumbs and they are so much better equipped to spend peoples money that we should thank them for taking from us.

They will take our guns by force, engaging in a brutal civil war to put an end to civil rights.

They will end free speech. Any utterance against preferred classes such as homosexuals or the favored races will result in prison or worse.

It's a great platform, sure to create this "blue wave" you keep harping on.

Vote democrat: We'll crush you under the iron fist of the state!

 

[Uncensored2008]

No need.

Law enforcement agencies will ensure you comply... they won't need the military against you whackoids... you'll fold like paper.

Law "enforcement" agencies will engage in treason?

Well, Strzok and McCabe did, I suppose it's possible. But at the time they engage in treason, then they become enemy combatants and we have a duty to subdue them.

Incorrect.

Law enforcement agencies will execute the laws of the United States.

If that means acting against those who violate those laws, then, that's on the head of the violators, not law enforcement.

Keep spinning your lie scumbag, the 2nd amendment is there so we can resist illegals laws. I don't care how many insults and lies you come up with, you are still a liar, and many of us will not go quietly if you bastards try to disarm us.

Remember, the Stalinist democrats ultimately seek violence. Their ultimate goal is to turn this civil war they started into a shooting war.

But this particular salvo is just demagoguery. The Stalinist democrats are VERY much like Adolf Hitler, they use inflammatory lies to foment distrust and hatred.

Kondor is just a Brown Shirt for the democrat Kristalnacht.

 

[Timmy]

[
Oath keepers are weirdos who think they know the constitution more than anyone .

Oath Keepers are honorable people who obey the Constitution.

Unlike you Stalinist traitors.

Really ? Where in the constitution does it say crazy gangs of self righteous kooks are the deciders of what is or is not constitutional?

That’s why we have the fed court system .

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Now retard, here is what the courts said;

{
The core holding in D.C. v. Heller is that the Second Amendment is an individual right intimately tied to the natural right of self-defense.

The Scalia majority invokes much historical material to support its finding that the right to keep and bear arms belongs to individuals; more precisely, Scalia asserts in the Court's opinion that the "people" to whom the Second Amendment right is accorded are the same "people" who enjoy First and Fourth Amendment protection: "'The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning.' United States v. Sprague, 282 U. S. 716, 731 (1931); see also Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 188 (1824). Normal meaning may of course include an idiomatic meaning, but it excludes secret or technical meanings...."

With that finding as anchor, the Court ruled a total ban on operative handguns in the home is unconstitutional, as the ban runs afoul of both the self-defense purpose of the Second Amendment – a purpose not previously articulated by the Court – and the "in common use at the time" prong of the Miller decision: since handguns are in common use, their ownership is protected.

The Court applies as remedy that "[a]ssuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home." The Court, additionally, hinted that other remedy might be available in the form of eliminating the license requirement for carry in the home, but that no such relief had been requested: "Respondent conceded at oral argument that he does not 'have a problem with ... licensing' and that the District's law is permissible so long as it is 'not enforced in an arbitrary and capricious manner.' Tr. of Oral Arg. 74–75. We therefore assume that petitioners' issuance of a license will satisfy respondent’s prayer for relief and do not address the licensing requirement."}


Try again traitor.

Yes . And the courts have also found gun control laws and even certain firearm bans to be legal.

 

[Rustic]

All gun laws are unconstitutional? The amendment doesn't say what you think it says.

It says what I KNOW it says. All federal gun laws are ubconstitutional. That power is left to the states.

Either way, we willl get rid of all infringements. It is ******* OVER!! Repeal is all you motherfucking cocksuckers can expect.

Pull the glock out of your butt.

The supreme court disagrees with you. Right to bare arms is a basic right not unlimited. None of the rights are unlimited.

Progressives dont get to say what those limits are, because they stupid ******* control freaks... the stupid ass fuckers think an ar15 is an so called assault weapon.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Yes . And the courts have also found gun control laws and even certain firearm bans to be legal.

Not the one you seek.

But, we are repealing everything anyway. You deserve no less.

Soon, we will be open-carrying belt-fed full-auto support weapons because gun grabbers would not leave well enough alone.



Machine guns or Valhalla, bitches!!!

 

[skews13]

"Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell of California wants to ban assault weapons, instate a federal gun buy-back program for those who own them and criminally prosecute those who refuse to hand them over.

The representative wrote an op-ed in USA Today Thursday rolling out what he feels is the gun control policy America should adopt:"



"“Reinstating the federal assault weapons ban that was in effect from 1994 to 2004 would prohibit manufacture and sales, but it would not affect weapons already possessed. This would leave millions of assault weapons in our communities for decades to come,” Swalwell wrote.

“Instead, we should ban possession of military-style semiautomatic assault weapons, we should buy back such weapons from all who choose to abide by the law, and we should criminally prosecute any who choose to defy it by keeping their weapons.”"

Raise your hand out there if you think this would end peacefully, with law-abiding citizens simply handing over their (until that moment) legally-owned guns to a bunch of Liberals trampling on the Constitution in their continued effort to dis-arm the American people (Because you KNOW the Liberals would not stop there...)?

Yeah, that's what I thought. Not going to happen / end well....



Eric Swalwell Unloads Gun Platform Liberals Really Want

who's they?

 

[miketx]

[
Oath keepers are weirdos who think they know the constitution more than anyone .

Oath Keepers are honorable people who obey the Constitution.

Unlike you Stalinist traitors.

Really ? Where in the constitution does it say crazy gangs of self righteous kooks are the deciders of what is or is not constitutional?

That’s why we have the fed court system .

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Now retard, here is what the courts said;

{
The core holding in D.C. v. Heller is that the Second Amendment is an individual right intimately tied to the natural right of self-defense.

The Scalia majority invokes much historical material to support its finding that the right to keep and bear arms belongs to individuals; more precisely, Scalia asserts in the Court's opinion that the "people" to whom the Second Amendment right is accorded are the same "people" who enjoy First and Fourth Amendment protection: "'The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning.' United States v. Sprague, 282 U. S. 716, 731 (1931); see also Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 188 (1824). Normal meaning may of course include an idiomatic meaning, but it excludes secret or technical meanings...."

With that finding as anchor, the Court ruled a total ban on operative handguns in the home is unconstitutional, as the ban runs afoul of both the self-defense purpose of the Second Amendment – a purpose not previously articulated by the Court – and the "in common use at the time" prong of the Miller decision: since handguns are in common use, their ownership is protected.

The Court applies as remedy that "[a]ssuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home." The Court, additionally, hinted that other remedy might be available in the form of eliminating the license requirement for carry in the home, but that no such relief had been requested: "Respondent conceded at oral argument that he does not 'have a problem with ... licensing' and that the District's law is permissible so long as it is 'not enforced in an arbitrary and capricious manner.' Tr. of Oral Arg. 74–75. We therefore assume that petitioners' issuance of a license will satisfy respondent’s prayer for relief and do not address the licensing requirement."}


Try again traitor.

Yes . And the courts have also found gun control laws and even certain firearm bans to be legal.

All the bank robbers agreed they should rob the bank.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Oh, what a glorious day it will be in the VERY near future, when we are legally hauling this ***** around in public for the sole pupose of making wet-blanket leftist pajama boys crap their britches:

Can't wait.

 

[Kondor3]

...You Stalinists think that through radical proclamations you can attract voters...

Keep serving-up that tired old Kool-Aid... increasing numbers of Americans just aren't buying it anymore.

This Hitlerian demagoguery spewed by scum like Swalwell is red meat to the mindless mob. He has no more intent on attempting this sort of idiocy than you do of personally disarming your neighbor. The result would be the same in both cases....

Keep serving-up that tired old Kool-Aid... increasing numbers of Americans just aren't buying it anymroe.

...The message of the Stalinists thus far is that if elected, they will take the taxe cut of people, because it is just crumbs and they are so much better equipped to spend peoples money that we should thank them for taking from us...

Keep serving-up that tired old Kool-Aid... increasing numbers of Americans just aren't buying it anymroe.

...They will take our guns by force, engaging in a brutal civil war to put an end to civil rights...

Incorrect. They will make you obtain an owner's license and register your guns and approve transactions and require you to attend mandatory training and recertifications.

Oh, and they will limit the types of weapons that you're allowed to have; using the same laws and logic which currently prevent you from owning an M2 or M79.

And you will obey such laws.

Without the slightest hint of 'civil war'.

Guaranteed.

...They will end free speech. Any utterance against preferred classes such as homosexuals or the favored races will result in prison or worse...

Jesus-H-Christ-on-a-Crutch... put down the Kool-Aid pitcher, son... I'd say you've had enough.

...It's a great platform, sure to create this "blue wave" you keep harping on...

Nationwide standards for owner licensing and gun registration and such? You bet'cha.

...Vote democrat: We'll crush you under the iron fist of the state!

Yawn.

 

[Kondor3]

Oh, what a glorious day it will be in the VERY near future, when we are legally hauling this ***** around in public for the sole pupose of making wet-blanket leftist pajama boys crap their britches:

Can't wait.

Is there a psychiatrist in the house?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

s there a psychiatrist in the house?

Why? You need a couch? That was quick. I thought I would at least need to walk around with that thing before you shit your pants.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Makes you start to consider the Anarchy position a little less insane, doesn't it?

I am far from starting to consider Anarchy ... I have been practicing self-rule for over 10 years now.

When you stop asking for permission ...
Start doing what you know is right ...
Make an honest and beneficial attempt at improving the world around you ...
And actually succeed in doing so versus pie in the sky government controlled/administered good intentions ...


You really don't have a problem finding people that want to contribute, profit, and join in the success ...

.​

What do you "know is right"? Do you acknowledge the equality of rights of all individuals, or do some people have rights that others don't have?

I don't see how you're not moved to the anarchist position by logical necessity. If a government only acted defensively on behalf of the people, acting in perfect accord with the rights of individuals, they would be indistinguishable from any individual - so what makes them "government", and you not?

Doesn't "government" imply the right to govern? The right to make laws which others must obey under threat of punishment? Isn't this operating in excess of what the individual has the right to do?

I don't see how you're not moved to the anarchist position by logical necessity. If a government only acted defensively on behalf of the people, acting in perfect accord with the rights of individuals, they would be indistinguishable from any individual - so what makes them "government", and you not?

If the anarchist position were a "logical necessity" why are there so few self-confessed anarchists?
Where are the individuals that act in perfect accord with the rights of individuals?
A system of laws requires some sort of government. No government = no law.

Because philosophy is all but taboo in our society. Because people have been dependent on parents, teachers, and government their whole lives to do their thinking for them.

Despite that, the overwhelming majority have an innate sense of basic human rights - dont steal from or attack innocent people - and they generally operate that way in their private lives. However, they don’t make the logical connection that their support of government is inconsistent with their own sense of morality.

Political ritual pretends to launder immorality. It’s not ok for me to extort my neighbor personally under threat of violence to pay for programs I deem important, but if I pull on a lever, and a man takes an oath, and a guy in a black robe bangs a hammer on a desk, then its proper and moral, and I’m still a good person.

No. This is cognitive dissonance. Man does not have the power to make valid law which others must obey. Nature’s law is the only valid law, and nature’s law regarding human behavior is defined by morality. It is discovered by way of observing the consequences of out actions. The consequences of man’s law, when it is in violation of natural law, is slavery.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Incorrect. They will make you obtain an owner's license and register your guns and approve transactions and require you to attend mandatory training and recertifications.

Ah yes, the fantasy that you Stalinist masturbate to; your jackbooted stormtroopers will march in and end civil rights, bringing about the hell on earth you so desire.

But it's just a fantasy.

300 million fire arms in this nation. Even if every last one of the 200,000 cops decided to become traitors and wage war on their families and friends

See, despite your desires, this ain't Nazi Germany pal. We have an armed populace that is equal or exceeding in skill to the police and army.

Oh, and they will limit the types of weapons that you're allowed to have; using the same laws and logic which currently prevent you from owning an M2 or M79.

And you will obey such laws.

Without the slightest hint of 'civil war'.

Guaranteed

Yeah sploogy, you'll just command "SIT" and America will gladly relinquish all civil rights to your totalitarian rule.


IF the government were ever so stupid to do as you fantasize, it would be an instant shooting war.

You see slogans like "Come and Take it" and "Stand and Fight," but you don't grasp what they really mean.

Basically comrade, it is a vow that if the Gestapo kicks in the door of an American to disarm them, all free people in the area will respond with deadly force to repel the Gestapo.

Jesus-H-Christ-on-a-Crutch... put down the Kool-Aid pitcher, son... I'd say you've had enough.

Yep, you're insane. This ain't Australia.

But I DO strongly urge you to campaign on the promise of confiscating AR-15's.

It's a winner that will put you Maoists in power!

Nationwide standards for owner licensing and gun registration and such? You bet'cha.

Hey, you Bolshevik thugs have been really successful over the last 100 years, Why would that change?

 

[Coyote]

Ban AR-15's.

They are coming TO TAKE OUR GUNS!!!!

Get a grip.

 

[Pop23]

Ban AR-15's.

They are coming TO TAKE OUR GUNS!!!!

Get a grip.

And what exactly does banning AR-15s accomplish?

Nothing?

I see

So why ban them?