If banning rifles is a winner for democrats, why do they want to hide it from voters?

[Skull Pilot]

Because raving loonies like the OP will conflate 'assault rifles' with 'rifles'.

Hey look, he's already done it. Woo hoo.

Says the idiot who thinks adding a plastic doodad to a semiautomatic rifle magically turns that rifle into an "assault rifle"

 

[Sahba]

Picatinny rails (in lieu of Weaver rails) and a black furniture paint job make it far more 'assaultier', lol.

 

[evenflow1969]

This is the thing you anti gunners don't realize about the teenagers from Parkland..... teenagers eat tidepods, play Fortnight, and snort condoms.... Those of us who understand the history of mankind and human nature, want to protect the Bill of Rights... So, while teenagers forget, we remember....and we are going to remember in November what you want to do to our gun Rights....

This is why the gun control extremist groups are telling the gun control extremist democrats to not say they want to ban Assault rifles.......

Dem Candidate Tedra Cobb Tells Supporters She Wants ‘Assault Rifle’ Ban But ‘Cannot Say That’ in Public

Tedra Cobb, the Democratic candidate in New York's 21st Congressional District, told a group of teenage supporters that she supports a ban on certain firearms but won't say so publicly for fear of losing her election.

"When I was at this thing today, it was the first table I was at, a woman said, ‘How do you feel about assault rifles?' And I said they should be banned," Cobb can be heard saying in the video recorded by one of the attendees. "And I said, you know, people were getting up to go, to go get their lunch because it was a buffet, and I just said to her, I want you to know Cindy, I cannot say that."

When the woman pushed back on Cobb keeping quiet on how she feels about banning certain firearms, Cobb said coming out in favor of a gun ban would lead to her losing her bid against Republican incumbent Elise Stefanik.

"And she said, ‘Well, I want you to' and I said, ‘I won't win,'" Cobb said. "I said Moms Demand [Action] says, and Tricia Pleau said, ‘Do not say that you want an assault rifle ban because you will not win.'"

Tricia Pleau is a member of the New York chapter of the gun-control group Moms Demand Action.

Cobb's campaign website features a page on "Addressing Gun Violence" detailing her support for a number of gun-control measures but does not feature any language supporting a specific ban on any firearms.

Chris Martin, regional press secretary of the National Republican Congressional Committee, said Cobb's comments are disqualifying.

"Tedra Cobb knows that she's wildly out of touch with the district, so she's desperately trying to hide her liberal agenda from voters," Martin said. "First, she was forced to admit that she raised taxes over 20 times, and now she's being exposed for lying to voters about her support for an assault weapons ban and taking guns away from law-abiding citizens."

The Cobb campaign did not respond to a request for comment from the Free Beacon but did issue a statement to The Post Star.

It is n ot a winner for Dems. Only the far left thinks this way. Why do we only pay attention to the crazaies on each side? I guess the sane needs to yell as much as the loons to get noticed.

 

[cnm]

No...that is what morons like you do

Except that is what a raving loony like you did, right in your thread title.

 

[cnm]

Says the idiot who thinks adding a plastic doodad to a semiautomatic rifle magically turns that rifle into an "assault rifle"

I'm sure you believe you made a point. Well done.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

They know stating their gun control intent is not (yet) a winning proposition. They are wise to tone that down.
Never fear, they will never (as long as it's allowed) stop their march to disarm America

Remember in November....any vote for a democrat is a vote to end the 2nd Amendment....

Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are the reasons to vote for Trump....... and Ginsburg and Breyer are two reasons to vote for Republican Senators in November....

Voting either Rep or Dem will have no change to the 2nd amendment. Not one iota. You are still trying to use fear. Well fear this, the more you lie like this and try to instill fear the more common sense people will rebel against your ideals since they are based strictly on fear and hate.

Yeah protecting peoples' rights is hateful

Protecting only a handful of peoples rights while stomping all over everyone elses rights certainly is hateful. Not following ALL of the Constitution of the United States with such vigor is hateful. Allowing a Supreme Court, or any other court, to make rulings that creates new laws is hateful. We are looking for the SCOTUS to protect the Constitution of the United States and our Laws, not make new laws. That's not the Job of the President either. That's the job of Congress with the cooperation of the President. And the Congress needs to make new laws that are inside of ALL of the Constitution of the United States as well. Or amend the Constitution legally. If they can't do this without working on the fears of the people then we need to send the whole lot of them packing. If the Justices can't do their jobs (and they usually do their jobs) we need to send them packing. If the President doesn't do his job we need to send him packing. All the crying about how bad the Supreme Court has become is just a cover up to make us not look at how corrupt and mismanaged the other two branches have become.

So, keep spreading that hate. But we need to remember that a Supreme Court Justice should only rule on what is within the Whole of the Constitution of the United States and nothing more. Otherwise, they just refuse to rule if they can't. And you will notice, they are refusing to rule quite a bit these days.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

First off your fear is unfounded on just that, fear of the unknown..

It ain't a "fear". It's a fact that the dem Party wishes to ban anything that looks nasty to them. There is already a SCOTUS ruling on them though. So that will slow them down, but if you think that they don't desire the absolute disarmament of the People of the USA, then you are a fool.

If we go by the majority of the population, some gun regulation is needed. In fact it's running pretty high that more gun regulation is needed. But it runs even higher that we should have the right to own sane fire arms. The Feds can really only rule on Insane Weapons. Not common sense weapons. The Feds just don't have the right to rule on the lower forms of fire arms. But the States, Counties, Common Wealths and Municipalities do have that right. But even they can't take away the right of sane home defense firearms in the home. This is where we stand today on the various federal court rulings. I don't see any change coming even with one more republican supreme court judge being appointed since the 2nd and the 14th amendment pretty well covers it already.

We have all the gun laws we need to stop criminals..... we don't need any more.

According to the 2nd and 14th Amendment, it's not up to the Feds to make that determination. It's up to the lower governments. And it's not up to just you either. That's the beauty of the system that was setup. If you don't like the way it's set up in one state, you have the option to move to another that is more to your liking. I suggest the state of "Rough and Ready".

 

[Care4all]

This is the thing you anti gunners don't realize about the teenagers from Parkland..... teenagers eat tidepods, play Fortnight, and snort condoms.... Those of us who understand the history of mankind and human nature, want to protect the Bill of Rights... So, while teenagers forget, we remember....and we are going to remember in November what you want to do to our gun Rights....

This is why the gun control extremist groups are telling the gun control extremist democrats to not say they want to ban Assault rifles.......

Dem Candidate Tedra Cobb Tells Supporters She Wants ‘Assault Rifle’ Ban But ‘Cannot Say That’ in Public

Tedra Cobb, the Democratic candidate in New York's 21st Congressional District, told a group of teenage supporters that she supports a ban on certain firearms but won't say so publicly for fear of losing her election.

"When I was at this thing today, it was the first table I was at, a woman said, ‘How do you feel about assault rifles?' And I said they should be banned," Cobb can be heard saying in the video recorded by one of the attendees. "And I said, you know, people were getting up to go, to go get their lunch because it was a buffet, and I just said to her, I want you to know Cindy, I cannot say that."

When the woman pushed back on Cobb keeping quiet on how she feels about banning certain firearms, Cobb said coming out in favor of a gun ban would lead to her losing her bid against Republican incumbent Elise Stefanik.

"And she said, ‘Well, I want you to' and I said, ‘I won't win,'" Cobb said. "I said Moms Demand [Action] says, and Tricia Pleau said, ‘Do not say that you want an assault rifle ban because you will not win.'"

Tricia Pleau is a member of the New York chapter of the gun-control group Moms Demand Action.

Cobb's campaign website features a page on "Addressing Gun Violence" detailing her support for a number of gun-control measures but does not feature any language supporting a specific ban on any firearms.

Chris Martin, regional press secretary of the National Republican Congressional Committee, said Cobb's comments are disqualifying.

"Tedra Cobb knows that she's wildly out of touch with the district, so she's desperately trying to hide her liberal agenda from voters," Martin said. "First, she was forced to admit that she raised taxes over 20 times, and now she's being exposed for lying to voters about her support for an assault weapons ban and taking guns away from law-abiding citizens."

The Cobb campaign did not respond to a request for comment from the Free Beacon but did issue a statement to The Post Star.

why did you say simply "rifles" in your title instead of "Assault Rifles", which is what she actually said?

 

[2aguy]

This is the thing you anti gunners don't realize about the teenagers from Parkland..... teenagers eat tidepods, play Fortnight, and snort condoms.... Those of us who understand the history of mankind and human nature, want to protect the Bill of Rights... So, while teenagers forget, we remember....and we are going to remember in November what you want to do to our gun Rights....

This is why the gun control extremist groups are telling the gun control extremist democrats to not say they want to ban Assault rifles.......

Dem Candidate Tedra Cobb Tells Supporters She Wants ‘Assault Rifle’ Ban But ‘Cannot Say That’ in Public

Tedra Cobb, the Democratic candidate in New York's 21st Congressional District, told a group of teenage supporters that she supports a ban on certain firearms but won't say so publicly for fear of losing her election.

"When I was at this thing today, it was the first table I was at, a woman said, ‘How do you feel about assault rifles?' And I said they should be banned," Cobb can be heard saying in the video recorded by one of the attendees. "And I said, you know, people were getting up to go, to go get their lunch because it was a buffet, and I just said to her, I want you to know Cindy, I cannot say that."

When the woman pushed back on Cobb keeping quiet on how she feels about banning certain firearms, Cobb said coming out in favor of a gun ban would lead to her losing her bid against Republican incumbent Elise Stefanik.

"And she said, ‘Well, I want you to' and I said, ‘I won't win,'" Cobb said. "I said Moms Demand [Action] says, and Tricia Pleau said, ‘Do not say that you want an assault rifle ban because you will not win.'"

Tricia Pleau is a member of the New York chapter of the gun-control group Moms Demand Action.

Cobb's campaign website features a page on "Addressing Gun Violence" detailing her support for a number of gun-control measures but does not feature any language supporting a specific ban on any firearms.

Chris Martin, regional press secretary of the National Republican Congressional Committee, said Cobb's comments are disqualifying.

"Tedra Cobb knows that she's wildly out of touch with the district, so she's desperately trying to hide her liberal agenda from voters," Martin said. "First, she was forced to admit that she raised taxes over 20 times, and now she's being exposed for lying to voters about her support for an assault weapons ban and taking guns away from law-abiding citizens."

The Cobb campaign did not respond to a request for comment from the Free Beacon but did issue a statement to The Post Star.

why did you say simply "rifles" in your title instead of "Assault Rifles", which is what she actually said?

Because there is no such thing as an Assault rifle...... as a democrat she means AR-15 rifle....which means nothing since the AR-15 rifle is not an assault rifle.

 

[2aguy]

First off your fear is unfounded on just that, fear of the unknown..

It ain't a "fear". It's a fact that the dem Party wishes to ban anything that looks nasty to them. There is already a SCOTUS ruling on them though. So that will slow them down, but if you think that they don't desire the absolute disarmament of the People of the USA, then you are a fool.

If we go by the majority of the population, some gun regulation is needed. In fact it's running pretty high that more gun regulation is needed. But it runs even higher that we should have the right to own sane fire arms. The Feds can really only rule on Insane Weapons. Not common sense weapons. The Feds just don't have the right to rule on the lower forms of fire arms. But the States, Counties, Common Wealths and Municipalities do have that right. But even they can't take away the right of sane home defense firearms in the home. This is where we stand today on the various federal court rulings. I don't see any change coming even with one more republican supreme court judge being appointed since the 2nd and the 14th amendment pretty well covers it already.

We have all the gun laws we need to stop criminals..... we don't need any more.

According to the 2nd and 14th Amendment, it's not up to the Feds to make that determination. It's up to the lower governments. And it's not up to just you either. That's the beauty of the system that was setup. If you don't like the way it's set up in one state, you have the option to move to another that is more to your liking. I suggest the state of "Rough and Ready".

Wrong.....just like voting, owning and carrying a gun is a Right...states do not get to regulate a Right out of existence.....

 

[Daryl Hunt]

And your point is?

Raving loonies like the OP will misrepresent the Democratic Party's position at the drop of a pull through if given the slightest opportunity.

Commies want an unarmed populace.....and that is a fact.

You throw that term out pretty quick. Even without knowing the real meaning. This one time, I will try and educate you. I will use short sentences, small words and type slowly. Try and keep up.

Communism is by a book by Karl Marx. It's an idea where, outside of personal possession, no one owns anything. Everyone works. If you work, you get your fair share in order to live including housing, food, transportation. Everyone that works is a member of the government and has one vote. The Community owns everything. As a community, the Workers own everything, just not personally. While this may sound like Utopia, it never could work. Karl Marx never factored in the 7 Human Sins. It could only exist on a scale of only a couple of dozen people. Get larger than that and it would fail.

Lenin thought he could implement it on a large scale. He had to find a way to get it started. He came up with the idea that the only way that it would work is if the entire world were under the Communist Government. He came up with the Communist Manifesto. In order to make it work, he had to use Military Means to overthrow all other governments so that only one would be left and that would be his. The problem was, he never really set up a Communist Government. He set up a Oligarchy or a Monarchy similar to the one the Tsarists he replaced. But not exactly like the Romanoffs he replaced who were actually pretty good leaders. He was more like Ivan the Terrible. Lenin made the ultimate mistake many Generals make and believed they knew how to run a civilian country. As the Chilean Generals why the last time they had a Military Revolution that they promptly had a general election and the "General" elected not to run. But the Military oversaw the election to make it fair. Stalin took it many steps further. It failed because it was based on a series of lies and people feared their own Government. China is a good example these days. Or a bad one if you will. You can put the word "Communism" in the name of your Government but it's just a word with no meaning. In the end Communism is a Totalitarian Government that can never work. Putin is finding that out. But it's certainly not Socialism.

Let's go back to Karl Marx for Socialism. Remember where I talked about the Workers having one vote and the community owning everything? Socialism isn't quite as extreme as that. Under Socialism, the Community owns everything that affects the community as a whole. Things like Transportation, employment, production, education, economics and more. The Workers are from all levels of society and get the same benefits. No one is richer or better paid than anyone else is from the Janitor to the CEO. Everyone has the same benefits in housing, standard of living and even vacations. Oops, I think I just hit on the first problem and why it won't work on a large scale. Incentives. What incentive do you give someone to become a CEO when he can get the same things working as a Janitor or a Parking Lot attendant? While this might work on a very small scale, it fails in a large scale. Karl Marx had a nice well thought out thesis but that's all it was and still is. Socialism is NOT a Government. It's a Business Model and cannot be used as a Government.

Socialism is on the same scale as Capitalism which also cannot be used as a Government. Both are economic models. But if you do talk about Socialism, you also have to look at the other side of the coin, Capitalism which also can only exist as a Government in a very small scale. Capitalism is where the Businesses control everything. Capitalism is the best at only one thing, Growth, or to make money, lots of money. If you are a successful Capitalist, you can make just about as much as you are content with. Some are content with a decent living while others go for the "Gold". I hope you can see how this model can easily get out of hand without limits. "Company Store", Unsafe Working Conditions", "Corporate Welfare" and more.

Let's build the perfect or near perfect Government. We start out with a Federal Republic where you vote for representatives that represent you in a government that is far from where you live (Democracy is another failure when you get above a certain size so we borrow from it). We build in checks and balances and laws (some form of Constitution). We give more powers to the smaller forms of governments below the central government. We sprinkle in a bit of Capitalism to help it grow, we sprinkle in a bit of Socialism to control that growth to keep it healthy. Son of a Gun, I think I just created a Nation. Anyone care to tell me who else did this and when?

You need some socialism when Capitalism gets out of control to reign it in a bit. Otherwise, Capitalism will be what it usually is and become so aggressive that it will take over everything else even your forms or government. Socialism is there to check it in place by making some things owned by the Tax Payers where it affects each and every person when Capitalism has proven that it just can't do the job. Otherwise, you let Capitalism do what it does best and that it to make things grow. But it has to be a healthy growth. Just keep in mind that there can never be a real Capitalist or Socialist Government. Those are economic methods. So when you are tossing the word "Socialism" around like it's a form of Government you are just being ignorant.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

This is the thing you anti gunners don't realize about the teenagers from Parkland..... teenagers eat tidepods, play Fortnight, and snort condoms.... Those of us who understand the history of mankind and human nature, want to protect the Bill of Rights... So, while teenagers forget, we remember....and we are going to remember in November what you want to do to our gun Rights....

This is why the gun control extremist groups are telling the gun control extremist democrats to not say they want to ban Assault rifles.......

Dem Candidate Tedra Cobb Tells Supporters She Wants ‘Assault Rifle’ Ban But ‘Cannot Say That’ in Public

Tedra Cobb, the Democratic candidate in New York's 21st Congressional District, told a group of teenage supporters that she supports a ban on certain firearms but won't say so publicly for fear of losing her election.

"When I was at this thing today, it was the first table I was at, a woman said, ‘How do you feel about assault rifles?' And I said they should be banned," Cobb can be heard saying in the video recorded by one of the attendees. "And I said, you know, people were getting up to go, to go get their lunch because it was a buffet, and I just said to her, I want you to know Cindy, I cannot say that."

When the woman pushed back on Cobb keeping quiet on how she feels about banning certain firearms, Cobb said coming out in favor of a gun ban would lead to her losing her bid against Republican incumbent Elise Stefanik.

"And she said, ‘Well, I want you to' and I said, ‘I won't win,'" Cobb said. "I said Moms Demand [Action] says, and Tricia Pleau said, ‘Do not say that you want an assault rifle ban because you will not win.'"

Tricia Pleau is a member of the New York chapter of the gun-control group Moms Demand Action.

Cobb's campaign website features a page on "Addressing Gun Violence" detailing her support for a number of gun-control measures but does not feature any language supporting a specific ban on any firearms.

Chris Martin, regional press secretary of the National Republican Congressional Committee, said Cobb's comments are disqualifying.

"Tedra Cobb knows that she's wildly out of touch with the district, so she's desperately trying to hide her liberal agenda from voters," Martin said. "First, she was forced to admit that she raised taxes over 20 times, and now she's being exposed for lying to voters about her support for an assault weapons ban and taking guns away from law-abiding citizens."

The Cobb campaign did not respond to a request for comment from the Free Beacon but did issue a statement to The Post Star.

why did you say simply "rifles" in your title instead of "Assault Rifles", which is what she actually said?

Because there is no such thing as an Assault rifle...... as a democrat she means AR-15 rifle....which means nothing since the AR-15 rifle is not an assault rifle.

You back to this crap again. In combat, there is no real difference between an AR-15 and a M-16A-4. While one will have a 3 shot burst setting, it is rarely used since it just wastes ammo and the 2nd and 3rd shot goes off center. The AR-15 Model 601 was introduced to Maylasia in 1959 after the US Army turned it down as an Assault Rifle that could be used by a young, scared kid with little training. In a matter of a couple of hours of training, that kid could be pumping adrenaline, scared out of his wits with incoming fire and operate the rifle, reload, charge it and keep firing and never take his finger off the trigger or have to rotate the rifle for any reason. The USAF adopted it in 1964 in a test. USAF didn't want to spend the time training their people the M-14 or carry that heavy thing around with all that heavy ammo. Their initial purchase of 4000 AR-15 Model 601s proved to be a success. The Army finally bought them in 1967. The Army model was different. They cheapened up the rifle a bit. The USAF model was the AR-15 Model 601 while the Army model was the AR-15 Model 602. When the Army took possession of their new Rifle, it was stamped the M-16 since all military rifles used the M designation. In 1967. The AF stamped M-16 on their AR-15 Model 601s. The Model 601 saw service in the AF until about 1992. There were over 7000 of these purchase overall. The Army found out that they Full Auto Feature was worthless and just wasted armor. Hence the upgrades and introduction of the Model 603 that had the 3 shot burst in the place of the full auto. The AF followed suit with their model 604.

When the Civilian AR-15 was introduced, the only real difference was the receiver. It wouldn't accept the full auto or the 3 shot parts from the M-16 or the Model 601. They also cheapened it up a bit and made it so it could fire only the lower powered 223 and not the 556 Nato Round. Yes, there were some 556 non nato rounds that it could fire but they were expensive and performed about like the 223 so why buy them. The Civilian AR-15 has the same basic features that made the original AR-15 Model 601 the world beater is was and the M-16 the world beater is still is. It's designed so that in combat, an 18 year old kid, with little training, that is scared out of his mind, can easily operate it and kill an enemy and carry it for a long distance with little fatigue.

You can call a duck a goose if you want but if walks like a duck and quacks like it's a duck, it's a duck.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

First off your fear is unfounded on just that, fear of the unknown..

It ain't a "fear". It's a fact that the dem Party wishes to ban anything that looks nasty to them. There is already a SCOTUS ruling on them though. So that will slow them down, but if you think that they don't desire the absolute disarmament of the People of the USA, then you are a fool.

If we go by the majority of the population, some gun regulation is needed. In fact it's running pretty high that more gun regulation is needed. But it runs even higher that we should have the right to own sane fire arms. The Feds can really only rule on Insane Weapons. Not common sense weapons. The Feds just don't have the right to rule on the lower forms of fire arms. But the States, Counties, Common Wealths and Municipalities do have that right. But even they can't take away the right of sane home defense firearms in the home. This is where we stand today on the various federal court rulings. I don't see any change coming even with one more republican supreme court judge being appointed since the 2nd and the 14th amendment pretty well covers it already.

We have all the gun laws we need to stop criminals..... we don't need any more.

According to the 2nd and 14th Amendment, it's not up to the Feds to make that determination. It's up to the lower governments. And it's not up to just you either. That's the beauty of the system that was setup. If you don't like the way it's set up in one state, you have the option to move to another that is more to your liking. I suggest the state of "Rough and Ready".

Wrong.....just like voting, owning and carrying a gun is a Right...states do not get to regulate a Right out of existence.....

No, the States don't have the right to right out of existance. But they do have the right to regulate the rights. It says so in the 14th amendment that you so conveniently overlook. Cowboys had the right to have their firearms in Dallas before 1871. They had the right to fire their firearms as well. But when they started exercising those rights by haphazardly shooting up the town and killing citizens with errant shots, the City passed a No Firearms on the Streets regulation in 1871 and it was vigorously enforced even by gun force. In Tombstone, the OK Corral wasn't about cattle rustling or anything quite as dramatic. It was about the Cowboys refusing to take their guns off when entering into Tombstone. The Earps did what many other marshals did and they enforced the law. No different than the Marshals in Dallas or Kansas City or any other western town or city. Like any other thing, when the public feels threatened or they feel their public safety is in jepordy then they have the right to pass regulations to relieve those fears.

And if you find that where you are is passing regulations that you don't like you have the option to move to another location that is not passing those laws. Simple as that. I suggest you move to the State of Rough and Ready (there is a historical message there).

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

We're never gonna get most liberals to stop coming after the 2nd.

To them it's an infringement on their Right to Authoritarian Rule by the few.
It means they can't have absolute control over you. That's just not acceptable to them.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

We're never gonna get most liberals to stop coming after the 2nd.

To them it's an infringement on their Right to Authoritarian Rule by the few.
It means they can't have absolute control over you. That's just not acceptable to them.

And what part am I, personally, coming after? Care to expand your idea? How about some decent discussion on this discussion. I am game, are you?

\

 

[Luddly Neddite]

This is the thing you anti gunners don't realize about the teenagers from Parkland..... teenagers eat tidepods, play Fortnight, and snort condoms.... Those of us who understand the history of mankind and human nature, want to protect the Bill of Rights... So, while teenagers forget, we remember....and we are going to remember in November what you want to do to our gun Rights....

This is why the gun control extremist groups are telling the gun control extremist democrats to not say they want to ban Assault rifles.......

Dem Candidate Tedra Cobb Tells Supporters She Wants ‘Assault Rifle’ Ban But ‘Cannot Say That’ in Public

Tedra Cobb, the Democratic candidate in New York's 21st Congressional District, told a group of teenage supporters that she supports a ban on certain firearms but won't say so publicly for fear of losing her election.

"When I was at this thing today, it was the first table I was at, a woman said, ‘How do you feel about assault rifles?' And I said they should be banned," Cobb can be heard saying in the video recorded by one of the attendees. "And I said, you know, people were getting up to go, to go get their lunch because it was a buffet, and I just said to her, I want you to know Cindy, I cannot say that."

When the woman pushed back on Cobb keeping quiet on how she feels about banning certain firearms, Cobb said coming out in favor of a gun ban would lead to her losing her bid against Republican incumbent Elise Stefanik.

"And she said, ‘Well, I want you to' and I said, ‘I won't win,'" Cobb said. "I said Moms Demand [Action] says, and Tricia Pleau said, ‘Do not say that you want an assault rifle ban because you will not win.'"

Tricia Pleau is a member of the New York chapter of the gun-control group Moms Demand Action.

Cobb's campaign website features a page on "Addressing Gun Violence" detailing her support for a number of gun-control measures but does not feature any language supporting a specific ban on any firearms.

Chris Martin, regional press secretary of the National Republican Congressional Committee, said Cobb's comments are disqualifying.

"Tedra Cobb knows that she's wildly out of touch with the district, so she's desperately trying to hide her liberal agenda from voters," Martin said. "First, she was forced to admit that she raised taxes over 20 times, and now she's being exposed for lying to voters about her support for an assault weapons ban and taking guns away from law-abiding citizens."

The Cobb campaign did not respond to a request for comment from the Free Beacon but did issue a statement to The Post Star.

Ding bat ... Repubs are all humping trump's leg (and Putin's) because of nutters like you who have your heart set on handing over our democracy to Russia.

Ever hear of Citizens United? Gerrymandering? Voter suppression? Vote THEFT?

Grow up and educate yourself as to the reality of US elections. Putin owns you now. That's just fact.

Sounds like a job for your hero -

Lock and load, right?

 

[2aguy]

This is the thing you anti gunners don't realize about the teenagers from Parkland..... teenagers eat tidepods, play Fortnight, and snort condoms.... Those of us who understand the history of mankind and human nature, want to protect the Bill of Rights... So, while teenagers forget, we remember....and we are going to remember in November what you want to do to our gun Rights....

This is why the gun control extremist groups are telling the gun control extremist democrats to not say they want to ban Assault rifles.......

Dem Candidate Tedra Cobb Tells Supporters She Wants ‘Assault Rifle’ Ban But ‘Cannot Say That’ in Public

Tedra Cobb, the Democratic candidate in New York's 21st Congressional District, told a group of teenage supporters that she supports a ban on certain firearms but won't say so publicly for fear of losing her election.

"When I was at this thing today, it was the first table I was at, a woman said, ‘How do you feel about assault rifles?' And I said they should be banned," Cobb can be heard saying in the video recorded by one of the attendees. "And I said, you know, people were getting up to go, to go get their lunch because it was a buffet, and I just said to her, I want you to know Cindy, I cannot say that."

When the woman pushed back on Cobb keeping quiet on how she feels about banning certain firearms, Cobb said coming out in favor of a gun ban would lead to her losing her bid against Republican incumbent Elise Stefanik.

"And she said, ‘Well, I want you to' and I said, ‘I won't win,'" Cobb said. "I said Moms Demand [Action] says, and Tricia Pleau said, ‘Do not say that you want an assault rifle ban because you will not win.'"

Tricia Pleau is a member of the New York chapter of the gun-control group Moms Demand Action.

Cobb's campaign website features a page on "Addressing Gun Violence" detailing her support for a number of gun-control measures but does not feature any language supporting a specific ban on any firearms.

Chris Martin, regional press secretary of the National Republican Congressional Committee, said Cobb's comments are disqualifying.

"Tedra Cobb knows that she's wildly out of touch with the district, so she's desperately trying to hide her liberal agenda from voters," Martin said. "First, she was forced to admit that she raised taxes over 20 times, and now she's being exposed for lying to voters about her support for an assault weapons ban and taking guns away from law-abiding citizens."

The Cobb campaign did not respond to a request for comment from the Free Beacon but did issue a statement to The Post Star.

why did you say simply "rifles" in your title instead of "Assault Rifles", which is what she actually said?

Because there is no such thing as an Assault rifle...... as a democrat she means AR-15 rifle....which means nothing since the AR-15 rifle is not an assault rifle.

You back to this crap again. In combat, there is no real difference between an AR-15 and a M-16A-4. While one will have a 3 shot burst setting, it is rarely used since it just wastes ammo and the 2nd and 3rd shot goes off center. The AR-15 Model 601 was introduced to Maylasia in 1959 after the US Army turned it down as an Assault Rifle that could be used by a young, scared kid with little training. In a matter of a couple of hours of training, that kid could be pumping adrenaline, scared out of his wits with incoming fire and operate the rifle, reload, charge it and keep firing and never take his finger off the trigger or have to rotate the rifle for any reason. The USAF adopted it in 1964 in a test. USAF didn't want to spend the time training their people the M-14 or carry that heavy thing around with all that heavy ammo. Their initial purchase of 4000 AR-15 Model 601s proved to be a success. The Army finally bought them in 1967. The Army model was different. They cheapened up the rifle a bit. The USAF model was the AR-15 Model 601 while the Army model was the AR-15 Model 602. When the Army took possession of their new Rifle, it was stamped the M-16 since all military rifles used the M designation. In 1967. The AF stamped M-16 on their AR-15 Model 601s. The Model 601 saw service in the AF until about 1992. There were over 7000 of these purchase overall. The Army found out that they Full Auto Feature was worthless and just wasted armor. Hence the upgrades and introduction of the Model 603 that had the 3 shot burst in the place of the full auto. The AF followed suit with their model 604.

When the Civilian AR-15 was introduced, the only real difference was the receiver. It wouldn't accept the full auto or the 3 shot parts from the M-16 or the Model 601. They also cheapened it up a bit and made it so it could fire only the lower powered 223 and not the 556 Nato Round. Yes, there were some 556 non nato rounds that it could fire but they were expensive and performed about like the 223 so why buy them. The Civilian AR-15 has the same basic features that made the original AR-15 Model 601 the world beater is was and the M-16 the world beater is still is. It's designed so that in combat, an 18 year old kid, with little training, that is scared out of his mind, can easily operate it and kill an enemy and carry it for a long distance with little fatigue.

You can call a duck a goose if you want but if walks like a duck and quacks like it's a duck, it's a duck.

Sorry..... the AR-15 is a specifically protected rifle, as are all semi automatic rifles.......you guys don't get to ban them.

 

[2aguy]

It ain't a "fear". It's a fact that the dem Party wishes to ban anything that looks nasty to them. There is already a SCOTUS ruling on them though. So that will slow them down, but if you think that they don't desire the absolute disarmament of the People of the USA, then you are a fool.

If we go by the majority of the population, some gun regulation is needed. In fact it's running pretty high that more gun regulation is needed. But it runs even higher that we should have the right to own sane fire arms. The Feds can really only rule on Insane Weapons. Not common sense weapons. The Feds just don't have the right to rule on the lower forms of fire arms. But the States, Counties, Common Wealths and Municipalities do have that right. But even they can't take away the right of sane home defense firearms in the home. This is where we stand today on the various federal court rulings. I don't see any change coming even with one more republican supreme court judge being appointed since the 2nd and the 14th amendment pretty well covers it already.

We have all the gun laws we need to stop criminals..... we don't need any more.

According to the 2nd and 14th Amendment, it's not up to the Feds to make that determination. It's up to the lower governments. And it's not up to just you either. That's the beauty of the system that was setup. If you don't like the way it's set up in one state, you have the option to move to another that is more to your liking. I suggest the state of "Rough and Ready".

Wrong.....just like voting, owning and carrying a gun is a Right...states do not get to regulate a Right out of existence.....

No, the States don't have the right to right out of existance. But they do have the right to regulate the rights. It says so in the 14th amendment that you so conveniently overlook. Cowboys had the right to have their firearms in Dallas before 1871. They had the right to fire their firearms as well. But when they started exercising those rights by haphazardly shooting up the town and killing citizens with errant shots, the City passed a No Firearms on the Streets regulation in 1871 and it was vigorously enforced even by gun force. In Tombstone, the OK Corral wasn't about cattle rustling or anything quite as dramatic. It was about the Cowboys refusing to take their guns off when entering into Tombstone. The Earps did what many other marshals did and they enforced the law. No different than the Marshals in Dallas or Kansas City or any other western town or city. Like any other thing, when the public feels threatened or they feel their public safety is in jepordy then they have the right to pass regulations to relieve those fears.

And if you find that where you are is passing regulations that you don't like you have the option to move to another location that is not passing those laws. Simple as that. I suggest you move to the State of Rough and Ready (there is a historical message there).

Nope...... please read D.C v Heller, Caetano v Massachusetts and Friedman v Highland Park, Scalia's dissent on why they should have taken the case......he explains it so even you can understand it...

And the gun control laws in Tombstone didn't work either.....as the shoot out demonstrated.....

 

[2aguy]

This is the thing you anti gunners don't realize about the teenagers from Parkland..... teenagers eat tidepods, play Fortnight, and snort condoms.... Those of us who understand the history of mankind and human nature, want to protect the Bill of Rights... So, while teenagers forget, we remember....and we are going to remember in November what you want to do to our gun Rights....

This is why the gun control extremist groups are telling the gun control extremist democrats to not say they want to ban Assault rifles.......

Dem Candidate Tedra Cobb Tells Supporters She Wants ‘Assault Rifle’ Ban But ‘Cannot Say That’ in Public

Tedra Cobb, the Democratic candidate in New York's 21st Congressional District, told a group of teenage supporters that she supports a ban on certain firearms but won't say so publicly for fear of losing her election.

"When I was at this thing today, it was the first table I was at, a woman said, ‘How do you feel about assault rifles?' And I said they should be banned," Cobb can be heard saying in the video recorded by one of the attendees. "And I said, you know, people were getting up to go, to go get their lunch because it was a buffet, and I just said to her, I want you to know Cindy, I cannot say that."

When the woman pushed back on Cobb keeping quiet on how she feels about banning certain firearms, Cobb said coming out in favor of a gun ban would lead to her losing her bid against Republican incumbent Elise Stefanik.

"And she said, ‘Well, I want you to' and I said, ‘I won't win,'" Cobb said. "I said Moms Demand [Action] says, and Tricia Pleau said, ‘Do not say that you want an assault rifle ban because you will not win.'"

Tricia Pleau is a member of the New York chapter of the gun-control group Moms Demand Action.

Cobb's campaign website features a page on "Addressing Gun Violence" detailing her support for a number of gun-control measures but does not feature any language supporting a specific ban on any firearms.

Chris Martin, regional press secretary of the National Republican Congressional Committee, said Cobb's comments are disqualifying.

"Tedra Cobb knows that she's wildly out of touch with the district, so she's desperately trying to hide her liberal agenda from voters," Martin said. "First, she was forced to admit that she raised taxes over 20 times, and now she's being exposed for lying to voters about her support for an assault weapons ban and taking guns away from law-abiding citizens."

The Cobb campaign did not respond to a request for comment from the Free Beacon but did issue a statement to The Post Star.

Ding bat ... Repubs are all humping trump's leg (and Putin's) because of nutters like you who have your heart set on handing over our democracy to Russia.

Ever hear of Citizens United? Gerrymandering? Voter suppression? Vote THEFT?

Grow up and educate yourself as to the reality of US elections. Putin owns you now. That's just fact.

Sounds like a job for your hero -

Lock and load, right?

yes... that is why Trump is demanding NATO actually build up their militaries... I am sure that is exactly what Putin wants...you dumb ass.... and he sure wants Trump pointing out Germany selling their souls to Putin..... are you always this stupid or do you just pretend to be this stupid when you post...

 

[Dan Stubbs]

They know stating their gun control intent is not (yet) a winning proposition. They are wise to tone that down.
Never fear, they will never (as long as it's allowed) stop their march to disarm America

To explain: The Progressives like to get a law passed for a goal, it does not have to be law that they want. The just want it on the books so that they can go back later and make a few changes. A good example: Pass a law that cuts surgar down to less than .04 percent in Kool Aid. The bill passes. Next change the bill to include all drinks. Later lower the amount more. Well you get the idea. Now with gun control they get banning any firearm you can be sure it will slower and all guns will be banned, and gathered under the Little law that was passed.