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

[Darkwind]

I’m sure the Branch Davidians felt the same way…as did McVeigh, Rudolph, and the other domestic terrorists you’re trying to emulate.

Fighting to protect our rights is terrorism?

You wouldn’t call someone who blows up a building a terrorist?

Most would.

You wouldn’t call those who opened fire on ATF agents a terrorist?

Most would.

What say you?

But, you're calling us terrorists for warning you that we be refusing to comply and resisting your illegal, immoral, goose-stepping commie, bullshit confiscation. Not even close to the same thing.

But, many more will die if you commies try it. Bank on it.

Again, are McVeigh and Rudolph terrorists? A simple yes or no will suffice.

Where McVeigh and Rudolph attempting to stop a tyrannical government? A simple yes or no will suffice.

 

[007]

I’m sure the Branch Davidians felt the same way…as did McVeigh, Rudolph, and the other domestic terrorists you’re trying to emulate.

Fighting to protect our rights is terrorism?

You wouldn’t call someone who blows up a building a terrorist?

Most would.

You wouldn’t call those who opened fire on ATF agents a terrorist?

Most would.

What say you?

But, you're calling us terrorists for warning you that we be refusing to comply and resisting your illegal, immoral, goose-stepping commie, bullshit confiscation. Not even close to the same thing.

But, many more will die if you commies try it. Bank on it.

Again, are McVeigh and Rudolph terrorists? A simple yes or no will suffice.

Where McVeigh and Rudolph attempting to stop a tyrannical government? A simple yes or no will suffice.

Do you think Americans will peacefully hand over all their prized, expensive firearms without a fight? A simple yes or no will suffice.

 

[Timmy]

So you intend to shoot police officers ?

If they come after me armed themselves with deadly weapons, attempting to rob me of my rightful property, then yes, absolutely. Once they cross that line, they are no better than common criminals of the very worst sort, and there is no reason that they should expect to be treated any better.

Thanks for being honest and not beating around the bush like the OP.

I guess you can see how that Dallas guy shot those cops in response to police murdering black men (on camera) and getting away with it.

 

[francoHFW]

I’m sure the Branch Davidians felt the same way…as did McVeigh, Rudolph, and the other domestic terrorists you’re trying to emulate.

Fighting to protect our rights is terrorism?

You wouldn’t call someone who blows up a building a terrorist?

Most would.

You wouldn’t call those who opened fire on ATF agents a terrorist?

Most would.

What say you?

But, you're calling us terrorists for warning you that we be refusing to comply and resisting your illegal, immoral, goose-stepping commie, bullshit confiscation. Not even close to the same thing.

But, many more will die if you commies try it. Bank on it.

Again, are McVeigh and Rudolph terrorists? A simple yes or no will suffice.

Where McVeigh and Rudolph attempting to stop a tyrannical government? A simple yes or no will suffice.

They were brainwashed fools

 

[francoHFW]

Fighting to protect our rights is terrorism?

You wouldn’t call someone who blows up a building a terrorist?

Most would.

You wouldn’t call those who opened fire on ATF agents a terrorist?

Most would.

What say you?

But, you're calling us terrorists for warning you that we be refusing to comply and resisting your illegal, immoral, goose-stepping commie, bullshit confiscation. Not even close to the same thing.

But, many more will die if you commies try it. Bank on it.

Again, are McVeigh and Rudolph terrorists? A simple yes or no will suffice.

Where McVeigh and Rudolph attempting to stop a tyrannical government? A simple yes or no will suffice.

Do you think Americans will peacefully hand over all their prized, expensive firearms without a fight? A simple yes or no will suffice.

Hell no and no one is suggesting it except the usual brainwashed GOP doops...

 

[Doc1]

I’m sure the Branch Davidians felt the same way…as did McVeigh, Rudolph, and the other domestic terrorists you’re trying to emulate.

Fighting to protect our rights is terrorism?

You wouldn’t call someone who blows up a building a terrorist?

Most would.

You wouldn’t call those who opened fire on ATF agents a terrorist?

Most would.

What say you?

The so called pro police crowd are openly saying they would shoot police if there was some kind of machine gun roundup .

Moving the goalposts kid? The OP is about Guns . Period.

 

[Pilot1]

Even the Democrats in Congress know more gun control laws are political suicide. Look for some of the state laws recently enacted to be overturned in the courts also. ALL are unconstitutional.

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

Read the Constitution.

 

[Crixus]

"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?

In your wet dreams. Law enforcement would not go along with your lefttard bullshit.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

"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?

So you're down with the govt going all mao style and killing its own citizens over their second amendment right?

Somebody would be really stupid to lose their life over a rifle...

And you're down with the govt destroying constitutional rights and killing a law abiding citizen?

 

[LordBrownTrout]

It could be the other way around. I don't think you realize what would happen if you try to take guns from law abiding citizens.

There would be no problem taking from law abiding.

You really can't be that ignorant.

Do you not know the definition of law abiding?

Yep, and the second amendment says it's lawful for citizens to own guns. So, it would be government breaking the law trying to take guns away. There's the difference.

Machine guns are regulated. Supreme Court agrees the second has limits.

An AR 15 is not a machine gun.

 

[BlackSand]

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

They can be impeached and removed from the bench, as well as decisions vacated ...
When it is determined by Congress they are not ruling with proper regard for the Constitution ...

There are no "untouchables" in a system of checks and balances.

.​

 

[miketx]

"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

You will abide by the Laws of the United States.

Guaranteed.

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.

 

[candycorn]

Can't even call a bomber a terrorist. Sad

Don’t put words in my mouth, you hyena ******* whore.

Call us whatever the **** you. We are right and deaths will be on your hands. Zero guilt. Those who shit on our rights will knock it off or we will use deadly force. There is no compromise. **** off.

I want you commies to start some shit. I dare you to. I want all commies to meet a violent death. I lust for it.

Your “rage” is hilarious.

I ask you again, was Timothy McVeigh and Eric Rudolph terrorists?

 

[BlackSand]

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.

The point that is always missed in the attempts to ban firearms ...
Is that those attempts are focused on specific firearms or certain functions.

Certain firearm functions have multiple applications across a broad spectrum of different firearms intended for different uses.
Banning certain functions, in a sense, limits firearms outside of the desired specifications of a single firearm group one does not approve of.

On the other hand ... Limiting firearms by specific specifications individual to a certain group of firearms ...
Limits one's ability to curtail anything outside of those specific specifications.

Time is not on the side of those who desire to limit firearm capabilities (as has been demonstrated even with the Thompson).
Sure ... The Thompson was banned ... But there are firearms on the market now that come close to it's capabilities but remain outside those specifications.

The government has not ... And never will be able to ... Effectively ban adaptation and innovation.
The only way any headway could actually be made ... Would be through an outright repeal of the Second Amendment.

.​

 

[Pop23]

people coming to get your guns will be exactly like building a border wall -

AINT GONNA F'N HAPPEN.

write that ^^^^^^^^^^ down.

^^^^^^^ maybe the cutest retort by those on the left used to deflect. It's seen over and over and over.

Here's the problem with it. To accomplish the stated goal, that being to reduce death, you pretty much have to come get the guns, or admit you really don't care about the number of dead and additionally admit that you are using the dead as political pawns. And the left can't confiscate guns, because the chances that it would accomplish the goal, stop mass killings (I love it when someone posts, "but it would stop gun deaths") is roughly the same as waiting for the day pigs will grow wings and fly. So if they confiscate guns, and the mass killings continue by other means, they committed political suicide. The fact is they know this but need to put up a show, it's what they do. They take a tragic event and try to create a panic to garner votes without really having a good answer. To someone in a state of panic, any answer is a good one.

Let's start with the push to ban AR-15 style semi-automatic rifles. You need to ask the question as to what number of life's that a ban of that kind would save? It's actually impossible to know, could be a few, could be none or it could be that the ban would actually result in more lost life's. It is the unknown that the left uses to create panic within the public.

There is no evidence that, lacking an AR-15 style semi-automatic rifle, that the young Maniac in Florida wouldn't have simply brought a couple of semi-automatic pistols and accomplished the same number of deaths, maybe fewer, but maybe more. You simply cannot make a determination on whether it would be higher or lower. To do so would be speculative and no one has paranormal powers to factually make that determination.

So then, the left would have to admit that, either they need to ban semi-automatic hand guns, along with AR-Style rifles. Unless of course, they really don't care about deaths, just that they were looking to create panic and score political points from a tragic event.

I could go on with this through any number of weapons, but you get my point by now unless the whole "We must stop these killings" ploy is simply disingenuous. If it is not simply a political ploy, you must call for a total ban on guns, or nothing stops. The killings would likely still happen, just the weapon used changes, and it might be a weapon that the left would have a far harder time to demonize, cars, trucks, vans or pipes. All used in mass casualty event.

But here is what the left really banks it's arguments on. "If AR style rifles were illegal these deaths would not occur", or would be far less. Guess we need to trust those with paranormal abilities to tell us if that's true or not.

Let's take the Vegas shooting as an example, and lets, for a moment delve into the "what if's".

What if a millionaire wanted to kill 50+ people, didn't have access to AR style rifles? What evidence is there that someone, with his resources couldn't have found another method to accomplish the same body count? Maybe a greater body count? But then again, since he was unable to get hold of an AR style rifle, we wouldn't have a body count to compare his death count in the first place, would we? This is the lefts strongest argument. If we would have banned these things in the first place, these people would be alive today. Maybe so, but maybe 50+ people would be dead just walking down the street, or 100's would be dead sitting in their office. A Monster with enormous resources can accomplish incredible feats.

If the left were genuine in their beliefs, which they are not, they would have to call for a complete gun ban. The problem is, and they actually know, if they should call for it, and mass killings continued (which they likely would because we are not addressing the core issue of what turns these people into murderous Monsters in the first place) after successfully banning guns, they would look like fools and lose the very power they seek.

Rock vs. Hard Place

 

[miketx]

Can't even call a bomber a terrorist. Sad

Don’t put words in my mouth, you hyena ******* whore.

Call us whatever the **** you. We are right and deaths will be on your hands. Zero guilt. Those who shit on our rights will knock it off or we will use deadly force. There is no compromise. **** off.

I want you commies to start some shit. I dare you to. I want all commies to meet a violent death. I lust for it.

Your “rage” is hilarious.

I ask you again, was Timothy McVeigh and Eric Rudolph terrorists?

How would we know? We never met them or knew about them. Next pretend question?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I ask you again, was Timothy McVeigh and Eric Rudolph terrorists?

And, I will ask YOU again, to go **** yourself with Mao's rotted chicken dick.

Those two are not terrorists. They are mass murderers. Both they, and terrorism, are irrelevant the justified violence against shit-eating commies trying to buttfuck our rights. Violence in preservation of rights is JUSTICE.

 

[candycorn]

I ask you again, was Timothy McVeigh and Eric Rudolph terrorists?

And, I will ask YOU again, to go **** yourself with Mao's rotted chicken dick.

Those two are not terrorists. They are mass murderers. Both they, and terrorism, are irrelevant the justified violence against shit-eating commies trying to buttfuck our rights. Violence in preservation of rights is JUSTICE.

Thanks for the insight into how your “mind” works…and most of the time doesn’t.

Again, your rage is hilarious there Armstrong.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Law enforcement is no longer law enforcement when it goes against legal constitutional rights of citizens... PERIOD.

This ain't NAZI GERMANY... it's AMERICA.

And who determines that those legal constitutional rights are?

Read your question... are you serious...?

You've got to be drunk or otherwise fucked up to ask such a STUPID question.

When dealing with the legalities, it's the only question in town. Now, again, who determines those constitutional rights? Who is qualified to determine them. Who is qualified to rule on them.

 

[Pop23]

I ask you again, was Timothy McVeigh and Eric Rudolph terrorists?

And, I will ask YOU again, to go **** yourself with Mao's rotted chicken dick.

Those two are not terrorists. They are mass murderers. Both they, and terrorism, are irrelevant the justified violence against shit-eating commies trying to buttfuck our rights. Violence in preservation of rights is JUSTICE.

Thanks for the insight into how your “mind” works…and most of the time doesn’t.

Again, your rage is hilarious there Armstrong.

Do you actually think terrorism is determined by body count?