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

[Uncensored2008]

Well, good luck with your treason.

Not me promising un-Constitutional practices.

Like infringing the right to keep and bear arms?

Wage war on the Constitution, get shot.

That's just how it works traitor.

 

[cnm]

Well, good luck with that traitor.

You're the one promising unConstitutional practices.

 

[cnm]

Oh yes it is.

Obeying laws deemed Constitutional is unconstitutional? Well, ok, in Cracker land, true, fair enough, you got me. No doubt the South has riz agin.

 

[cnm]

Like infringing the right to keep and bear arms?

Your right is already infringed and deemed to be Constitutional. Who've you shot over it? Shooting your mouth off doesn't count.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Oh yes it is.

Obeying laws deemed Constitutional is unconstitutional? Well, ok, in Cracker land, true, fair enough, you got me. No doubt the South has riz agin.

What laws is it you're claiming are Constitutional?

PS: FYI: All bets are off in Cracker Land.

Yeah, true story. Go 'on down there to da river and look in, boy. See what pops up atcha.

Probably a Gator snappenin' on your head. The guy that works with me fed a gator to his kids for lunch the other day.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

"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

I reckon they’re fine whether you turn it in peacefully or not. From your cold, dead hands maybe?

Or from theirs.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Pass a law to enslave your black neighbors to test that theory out, traitor.

An old American tradition, fer shure.

Give it a shot Comrade

 

[Sun Devil 92]

So you intend to shoot police officers ?

Only if they draw their weapons to enforce something that is unconstitutional.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Well, good luck with that traitor.

You're the one promising unConstitutional practices.

Which ones are those Comrade?

You seek to crush the Bill of Rights, an act of treason. What have I said against the Constitution?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Like infringing the right to keep and bear arms?

Your right is already infringed and deemed to be Constitutional. Who've you shot over it? Shooting your mouth off doesn't count.

Again Comrade, getting Stormtroopers to kick in doors to strip Americans of civil rights is the primary dream of you Stalinist democrats. But this ain't Nazi Germany and try as you might, you're not Adolf Hitler.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

So you intend to shoot police officers ?

People rightly defend themselves against armed robbers. Most police would refuse to become criminals.

Well, all police are criminals against natural law, but within the context you're suggesting, I certainly hope you're right, but I'm not so sure. I think things would have to get pretty bad for them to stand up. If their masters said "go round up all the children and bring them to work camps" I believe many would take a stand, but tyranny doesn't usually work like that. It's more of a step-wise, tip-toe effect.

But if they said "Go get their guns, not ALL of them, just those really dangerous ones that they don't need for hunting and stuff" I think these guys will come and take them. My view can be skewed because I'm from NYC, I don't know. I have this notion that cops in more gun-friendly areas would be more likely to stand up, but it's just a guess.

Disagree that police are criminals against natural law. Except maybe in NYC.
Agree with your comment about tyranny.
About - Oath Keepers

I love what the oath keepers are trying to do, but the Constitution itself condones violation of natural law (ironically, considering who wrote it) because it asserts an inequality of rights. “Congress shall have power...” that other individuals don’t have.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I love what the oath keepers are trying to do, but the Constitution itself condones violation of natural law (ironically, considering who wrote it) because it asserts an inequality of rights. “Congress shall have power...” that other individuals don’t have.

That is how a republic works.

We the people impart a small portion of our authority in elected representatives.

Mob rule is no answer.

 

[francoHFW]

Ban AR-15's.

They are coming TO TAKE OUR GUNS!!!!

Get a grip.

Maybe you Stalinists ought to stop SAYING you're coming to take our guns?




I mean, we know you're liars and all, but you're hatred of civil rights makes us tend to more believe you on this one...

You only see that on Fox, super dupe.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

I love what the oath keepers are trying to do, but the Constitution itself condones violation of natural law (ironically, considering who wrote it) because it asserts an inequality of rights. “Congress shall have power...” that other individuals don’t have.

That is how a republic works.

We the people impart a small portion of our authority in elected representatives.

Mob rule is no answer.

I’m not saying what’s an answer, only what isn’t. If we actually imparted a small portion of our authority, then government could never have rights and powers that we don’t. But of course, they claim to have precisely that. In fact, that’s what makes them government - the “right” to do things that other people don’t have a right to do. And what do we call things that people don’t have a right to do? We call them wrongs, immoral acts, violations of rights.

For this reason, governmental authority is inherently immoral. If it were moral, it would no longer be government, because it would be indistinguishable from any other group of individuals.

 

[BlackSand]

Really? What if someone thinks he has the right to drive any way and any where he likes and hits you doing 100 mph?
Might that not stop you from getting where you're going?

What if rainbows really had a pot of gold at the end of them?

Some people may require laws to understand the difference between productive and counter productive actions.
You may be one of those people ... That's no concern of mine.

.​

 

[Uncensored2008]

I’m not saying what’s an answer, only what isn’t. If we actually imparted a small portion of our authority, then government could never have rights and powers that we don’t.

Let's explore that idea.

Each person in a 20 member community imparts a small portion of their wealth to the government. Each has 5 cents and imparts 1 cent to the government.

The government now has 20 cents to the 4 cents the members have.

Because the whole POINT of forming a government is to provide the strength of community, it is axiomatic that the government will have more power than any single individual.

But of course, they claim to have precisely that. In fact, that’s what makes them government - the “right” to do things that other people don’t have a right to do. And what do we call things that people don’t have a right to do? We call them wrongs, immoral acts, violations of rights.

We call them torts.

Congress has the right to pass laws on behalf of those who elect them, individuals do not. Because should each individual try and pass laws, no one will pay head and there will be chaos, anarchy.

For this reason, governmental authority is inherently immoral. If it were moral, it would no longer be government, because it would be indistinguishable from any other group of individuals.

Utter nonsense. Governments are formed among men to secure the blessings of liberty for them and their families.

We must have a system of justice to resolve disputes in a fair and judicious manner. We must establish the parameters of trade so that theft and fraud are not rampant. We must provide for the comment defense.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Kill a commie for mommy.

 

[grainbely]

It may be a bar on Congress but is definitely not a total bar on federal legislation.

Congress is the only federal body that has the authority to engage in legislation.

View attachment 191885

I'll rephrase for you, it may limit congress but doesn't block entirely.

 

[Rustic]

"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

When they did that with the Thompson in mind, it took about 10 years to really see any affect. You people seem to think it would fail because it doesn't work over night. It's a very long haul. It works but it takes a decade or more. One of the things that the 1934 law did was outlawed the sale of even the existing Thompsons without an FFL license. That means that those that owned them could continue to own them but they could not transfer them. Not even in death. It wasn't until about a decade did any reduction start happening. The Bad guys would get caught with them, lose them and not have any way to replace them since they couldn't even steal them after about a decade. The ones that had them guarded them religiously knowing if they didn't the Feds would come and take them. Sooner or later, all the Thompsons ended up either in Collectors hands or melted down. And anyone in good standings could become a collector and get the proper FFL license. Criminals couldn't. Part of that FFL License is proper security of the weapon which stopped the criminals cold from stealing those weapons. it works. If they do elevate the ARs to FFL status, you can still own them, fire them, transport them as long as you have the proper FFL License, have a Gun Vault that locks and can pass an easy to pass Firearms Check. I passed on myself. It's easy. You can't have any current restraining orders for violence, you can't be a convicted ex felon, no convictions of any violence even misdemenors, not under a doctors care for a violent nature and pony up with 200 bucks.

With that in mind, if you can't qualify to pass a FFL firearms license test now even though you haven't applied then you probably shouldn't have firearms now. With that Firearms license, you can also own a full blown M-16-A-1 full auto if you have the money. In fact, it more of you were to push to go that route, the price of the M-16 would plummet. There are millions of those out there but the cost is artificially inflated to at least 15,000 per copy. You could get military Surplus M-16s all day long and recondition them. You could buy parts and build your own at a reasonable cost for no more than that of a really good military grade AR-15 (about 1500 bucks). The M-16 doesn't cost any more to make than the Military Grade AR-15 (sometimes called Match Grade) to make. But you are your worst enemy.

Lol
The second amendments worst enemy is anti-gun nutters like yourself...

 

[Rustic]

Ban AR-15's.

They are coming TO TAKE OUR GUNS!!!!

Get a grip.

ARs are just sporting rifles, nothing more nothing less