If we ever let liberals disarm us, we will lose the last bits of freedom we have left...

[justinacolmena]

Ploughshares? Imagine that!

Swords into ploughshares, and our once proud warriors beaten into submission, humility, servitude, and manual labor on the farm. Is that what passes for peace in our time?

What incredible ignorance!

 

[Dan Stubbs]

For eight years you guncrazies said the same things over and over. It's become a habit, a very bad habit. The more you keep this up the more dire you make your plight because your message was lost long ago.

Be careful, we are coming for your guns. All of them. We will come in black Choppers, black panel trucks, Tanks, all dressed in black with our faces covered. And we have your interment camps already built in the Deserts. You don't get a trial. So be prepared, we are not only coming for your guns but for you as well as an enemy of the State. Happy now?

We have legislators ON RECORD saying they want to take them all or that they want to do what Austrailia did.

All we get is MORE restrictions with promises that you gun grabbers won't go further if you can just get a little more "common sense" restrictions.

Nah, we're done with regulation. It's going the other way for good.

M Albright Clinton's appointed Sec of State once said she did not want to take the guns from Americans she just wanted to know where everyone of them are. She did not mention why/

 

[Dan Stubbs]

For eight years you guncrazies said the same things over and over. It's become a habit, a very bad habit. The more you keep this up the more dire you make your plight because your message was lost long ago.

Be careful, we are coming for your guns. All of them. We will come in black Choppers, black panel trucks, Tanks, all dressed in black with our faces covered. And we have your interment camps already built in the Deserts. You don't get a trial. So be prepared, we are not only coming for your guns but for you as well as an enemy of the State. Happy now?

And obama appointed anti gun judges all through the court system....and they have repeatedly ignored the Supreme Court cases that limit government banning guns......from California and New York, to Colorado and Washington State, they are banning categories of guns and magazines.....and these obama controlled courts are letting them do it...

You have been spouting this diatribe for so long that it's meaningless. So far, all the court rulings have been constant with the 1st, 2nd, 10th and the 14th amendment. You misinterpret one amendment and throw out all the rest. It doesn't work that way. You accept ALL of the Constitution of the United States or you accept none of it. The Courts can only rule on the whole thing, not just the parts that you like or misinterpret for your own ends. You keep waiting for some white hooded knight to come along in the form of a Chief Justice to rescue you from all the rest of us. Kavenhaugh is your latest great white hope. He's already singing a different tune. That happens when you sit in that chair. All of a sudden the weight of the position lays heavy on ones shoulder. Again, the Supreme Court can only rule on what the Constitution already says. They can't make up laws. And they steer clear of every 2nd amendment ruling like the plague unless it's something like Heller that reads something entirely differently than you claim it does. If you are that unhappy with the Constitution of the United States and it's Provisions here are some suggestions for you.

1. Move to a country with no gun laws. Yemen is one of the only places on Earth with no gun regulations. Not my cup of tea but it might be more to your liking. Of course, you will be battling for your own land on a daily and hourly basis by people that don't want you there. Bring plenty of ammo.

2. I am sure that there is a country in the Pacific that would sell you an island that you can separate from them for a few bucks and call it your own country where you get to make all the laws. It won't be very big and it will get much smaller during high tide. In fact, it will get smaller each year as the Seas rise. But since you also don't believe the seas are rising, that shouldn't be a problem for you. There is a historic name you can call your new but shrinking Nation. You can call it Rough and Ready.

See, I can make suggestions to make your happiness happen. But don't look for any great Messiah to come along in the United States. You think it's Trump but he's a false Prophet at best.

It is mentioned in the Constitution that Revolution is a option to bring the Nation under control.

 

[danielpalos]

For eight years you guncrazies said the same things over and over. It's become a habit, a very bad habit. The more you keep this up the more dire you make your plight because your message was lost long ago.

Be careful, we are coming for your guns. All of them. We will come in black Choppers, black panel trucks, Tanks, all dressed in black with our faces covered. And we have your interment camps already built in the Deserts. You don't get a trial. So be prepared, we are not only coming for your guns but for you as well as an enemy of the State. Happy now?

And obama appointed anti gun judges all through the court system....and they have repeatedly ignored the Supreme Court cases that limit government banning guns......from California and New York, to Colorado and Washington State, they are banning categories of guns and magazines.....and these obama controlled courts are letting them do it...

You have been spouting this diatribe for so long that it's meaningless. So far, all the court rulings have been constant with the 1st, 2nd, 10th and the 14th amendment. You misinterpret one amendment and throw out all the rest. It doesn't work that way. You accept ALL of the Constitution of the United States or you accept none of it. The Courts can only rule on the whole thing, not just the parts that you like or misinterpret for your own ends. You keep waiting for some white hooded knight to come along in the form of a Chief Justice to rescue you from all the rest of us. Kavenhaugh is your latest great white hope. He's already singing a different tune. That happens when you sit in that chair. All of a sudden the weight of the position lays heavy on ones shoulder. Again, the Supreme Court can only rule on what the Constitution already says. They can't make up laws. And they steer clear of every 2nd amendment ruling like the plague unless it's something like Heller that reads something entirely differently than you claim it does. If you are that unhappy with the Constitution of the United States and it's Provisions here are some suggestions for you.

1. Move to a country with no gun laws. Yemen is one of the only places on Earth with no gun regulations. Not my cup of tea but it might be more to your liking. Of course, you will be battling for your own land on a daily and hourly basis by people that don't want you there. Bring plenty of ammo.

2. I am sure that there is a country in the Pacific that would sell you an island that you can separate from them for a few bucks and call it your own country where you get to make all the laws. It won't be very big and it will get much smaller during high tide. In fact, it will get smaller each year as the Seas rise. But since you also don't believe the seas are rising, that shouldn't be a problem for you. There is a historic name you can call your new but shrinking Nation. You can call it Rough and Ready.

See, I can make suggestions to make your happiness happen. But don't look for any great Messiah to come along in the United States. You think it's Trump but he's a false Prophet at best.

It is mentioned in the Constitution that Revolution is a option to bring the Nation under control.

where?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Ploughshares? Imagine that!

Swords into ploughshares, and our once proud warriors beaten into submission, humility, servitude, and manual labor on the farm. Is that what passes for peace in our time?

What incredible ignorance!

Our Warriors have NEVER been humiliated, brought into servitude and only have done manual labor when it was called upon. You honestly believe that being a warrior only depends on killing an enemy? When I was bucking cargo in Pakistan along side the Soviets because of the floods and famine there was no killing by us. When I was on a fire line in Colorado there was no killing of an enemy.

I started out with a plow share and went to serve my country. When it was time, I went back to the plow share and some else took my place. In an ideal world, there should be no need for a sword bit there is no ideal world. You people that refuse to accept your time with the sword are blood thirsty as long as it's someone else's blood that blows.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

For eight years you guncrazies said the same things over and over. It's become a habit, a very bad habit. The more you keep this up the more dire you make your plight because your message was lost long ago.

Be careful, we are coming for your guns. All of them. We will come in black Choppers, black panel trucks, Tanks, all dressed in black with our faces covered. And we have your interment camps already built in the Deserts. You don't get a trial. So be prepared, we are not only coming for your guns but for you as well as an enemy of the State. Happy now?

And obama appointed anti gun judges all through the court system....and they have repeatedly ignored the Supreme Court cases that limit government banning guns......from California and New York, to Colorado and Washington State, they are banning categories of guns and magazines.....and these obama controlled courts are letting them do it...

You have been spouting this diatribe for so long that it's meaningless. So far, all the court rulings have been constant with the 1st, 2nd, 10th and the 14th amendment. You misinterpret one amendment and throw out all the rest. It doesn't work that way. You accept ALL of the Constitution of the United States or you accept none of it. The Courts can only rule on the whole thing, not just the parts that you like or misinterpret for your own ends. You keep waiting for some white hooded knight to come along in the form of a Chief Justice to rescue you from all the rest of us. Kavenhaugh is your latest great white hope. He's already singing a different tune. That happens when you sit in that chair. All of a sudden the weight of the position lays heavy on ones shoulder. Again, the Supreme Court can only rule on what the Constitution already says. They can't make up laws. And they steer clear of every 2nd amendment ruling like the plague unless it's something like Heller that reads something entirely differently than you claim it does. If you are that unhappy with the Constitution of the United States and it's Provisions here are some suggestions for you.

1. Move to a country with no gun laws. Yemen is one of the only places on Earth with no gun regulations. Not my cup of tea but it might be more to your liking. Of course, you will be battling for your own land on a daily and hourly basis by people that don't want you there. Bring plenty of ammo.

2. I am sure that there is a country in the Pacific that would sell you an island that you can separate from them for a few bucks and call it your own country where you get to make all the laws. It won't be very big and it will get much smaller during high tide. In fact, it will get smaller each year as the Seas rise. But since you also don't believe the seas are rising, that shouldn't be a problem for you. There is a historic name you can call your new but shrinking Nation. You can call it Rough and Ready.

See, I can make suggestions to make your happiness happen. But don't look for any great Messiah to come along in the United States. You think it's Trump but he's a false Prophet at best.

It is mentioned in the Constitution that Revolution is a option to bring the Nation under control.

Give us the quote where is specifically states that a Revolution is necessary.

 

[forkup]

Are you claiming here the US is the only country that has checks on government powers???? Don't look now but quite a few countries have those things called elections that function as a check. Quite a few countries have even more stringent separation of powers. And liberty as you call it seems just as broad,or limited if you want, as in most Democracies. So what exactly are you talking about?

The United States was founded as a Republic, not a Democracy. You would be hard pressed to show me a country out there whose founding documents include an acknowledgment of unalienable Rights.

Democracies are all about majority rule. Under our Constitution (as originally written and intended) the majority can pound sand. Our Bill of Rights limited government and guaranteed those unalienable Rights.

We are both a republic & a democracy.

That is like saying we are a virgin whore.

A primary difference between a Republic and a Democracy is that, in a Republic unalienable Rights are above the reach of government. See this for the differences between a Republic and a Democracy:

REPUBLIC VS. DEMOCRACY, U.S.ARMY ANALYSIS

Load of crock. In most, if not all democracies the judicial branch pushes back on the government if they rule they are violating the constitution. In a lot of those countries that is even done more vigorously then in the US because unlike in the US the judicial branch has no clear party affiliation. Oh and the report was written in 1928 and you are using it to prove your point? Seems a bit ridiculous.

Are you claiming that the words democracy and republic have changed since 1928? Cite your source.

Cite for us a country that was founded with the recognition that men have Rights that are above the law and cannot be changed?

What country entrusts its citizenry with weapons so that the people can repel tyranny in government?

What country has a Bill of Rights that guarantees absolute Rights?

Under the illegal/ de facto government we have today, the judicial branch has unconstitutionally legislated from the bench and turned our laws 180 degrees opposite of what they were intended to say.

No I'm saying that your report gives a definition of Democracy, neither me, nor any dictionary has ever heard about.
"Attitude toward property is communistic--negating property rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether is be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences." Find me a single example of this being backed up in real life? I don't know who wrote this piece of crap, but any person with fifth grade level civics behind him should recognize is at simply false.
You are also getting tiresome. Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen - Wikipedia
As for this weapons thing. Most countries allow possession of firearms withing certain restrictions. You for instance don't have the right to own an armed Abrams tank. So what are you talking about?

 

[H B Lowrie]

...it's not about self-defense against criminals (though that's important), or hunting (though that's important too) the purpose of the Second Amendment is to protect us from liberal elites who are conspiring to destroy our freedoms. Look at what they've accomplished on university campuses, where First Amendment no longer exists, and a man accused of rape is denied due process. Look at what they're doing with Google, Facebook and Twitter, censoring speech and banning conservatives from speaking. Look at the California one-party state, secured with illegal votes of illegal aliens. This is the liberal elite's goal for all of us, a total loss of the freedom to speak and vote.

You will of course notify us when you actually see this, please?

 

[H B Lowrie]

If we ever let liberals disarm us

...we'll just beat them to a pulp with our fists.

Nah, you'll throw fits, not fists.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

The United States was founded as a Republic, not a Democracy. You would be hard pressed to show me a country out there whose founding documents include an acknowledgment of unalienable Rights.

Democracies are all about majority rule. Under our Constitution (as originally written and intended) the majority can pound sand. Our Bill of Rights limited government and guaranteed those unalienable Rights.

We are both a republic & a democracy.

That is like saying we are a virgin whore.

A primary difference between a Republic and a Democracy is that, in a Republic unalienable Rights are above the reach of government. See this for the differences between a Republic and a Democracy:

REPUBLIC VS. DEMOCRACY, U.S.ARMY ANALYSIS

Load of crock. In most, if not all democracies the judicial branch pushes back on the government if they rule they are violating the constitution. In a lot of those countries that is even done more vigorously then in the US because unlike in the US the judicial branch has no clear party affiliation. Oh and the report was written in 1928 and you are using it to prove your point? Seems a bit ridiculous.

Are you claiming that the words democracy and republic have changed since 1928? Cite your source.

Cite for us a country that was founded with the recognition that men have Rights that are above the law and cannot be changed?

What country entrusts its citizenry with weapons so that the people can repel tyranny in government?

What country has a Bill of Rights that guarantees absolute Rights?

Under the illegal/ de facto government we have today, the judicial branch has unconstitutionally legislated from the bench and turned our laws 180 degrees opposite of what they were intended to say.

No I'm saying that your report gives a definition of Democracy, neither me, nor any dictionary has ever heard about.
"Attitude toward property is communistic--negating property rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether is be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences." Find me a single example of this being backed up in real life? I don't know who wrote this piece of crap, but any person with fifth grade level civics behind him should recognize is at simply false.
You are also getting tiresome. Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen - Wikipedia
As for this weapons thing. Most countries allow possession of firearms withing certain restrictions. You for instance don't have the right to own an armed Abrams tank. So what are you talking about?

So now you're calling the people that write the manuals that taught our military of a fifth grade level of understanding??? WTH are you?

I think the Army got it right. It's EXACTLY the way Democrats and Republicrats operate. Hell, you're even implying that you believe it. If you were the head honcho, you would deny Article X to all those you had a beef with.

 

[forkup]

We are both a republic & a democracy.

That is like saying we are a virgin whore.

A primary difference between a Republic and a Democracy is that, in a Republic unalienable Rights are above the reach of government. See this for the differences between a Republic and a Democracy:

REPUBLIC VS. DEMOCRACY, U.S.ARMY ANALYSIS

Load of crock. In most, if not all democracies the judicial branch pushes back on the government if they rule they are violating the constitution. In a lot of those countries that is even done more vigorously then in the US because unlike in the US the judicial branch has no clear party affiliation. Oh and the report was written in 1928 and you are using it to prove your point? Seems a bit ridiculous.

Are you claiming that the words democracy and republic have changed since 1928? Cite your source.

Cite for us a country that was founded with the recognition that men have Rights that are above the law and cannot be changed?

What country entrusts its citizenry with weapons so that the people can repel tyranny in government?

What country has a Bill of Rights that guarantees absolute Rights?

Under the illegal/ de facto government we have today, the judicial branch has unconstitutionally legislated from the bench and turned our laws 180 degrees opposite of what they were intended to say.

No I'm saying that your report gives a definition of Democracy, neither me, nor any dictionary has ever heard about.
"Attitude toward property is communistic--negating property rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether is be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences." Find me a single example of this being backed up in real life? I don't know who wrote this piece of crap, but any person with fifth grade level civics behind him should recognize is at simply false.
You are also getting tiresome. Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen - Wikipedia
As for this weapons thing. Most countries allow possession of firearms withing certain restrictions. You for instance don't have the right to own an armed Abrams tank. So what are you talking about?

So now you're calling the people that write the manuals that taught our military of a fifth grade level of understanding??? WTH are you?

I think the Army got it right. It's EXACTLY the way Democrats and Republicrats operate. Hell, you're even implying that you believe it.

Yes when they wrote it in 1929. Give me ANY definition of Democracy besides that army manual that has a paragraph similar to this.
"Attitude toward property is communistic--negating property rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether is be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences." I'll wait for it.
Oh and by the way, waving the flag to prevent me from calling bullshit when I see it, just makes you look more a fool.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

...it's not about self-defense against criminals (though that's important), or hunting (though that's important too) the purpose of the Second Amendment is to protect us from liberal elites who are conspiring to destroy our freedoms. Look at what they've accomplished on university campuses, where First Amendment no longer exists, and a man accused of rape is denied due process. Look at what they're doing with Google, Facebook and Twitter, censoring speech and banning conservatives from speaking. Look at the California one-party state, secured with illegal votes of illegal aliens. This is the liberal elite's goal for all of us, a total loss of the freedom to speak and vote.

Yes, most conservatives are truly this stupid and dishonest.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

...it's not about self-defense against criminals (though that's important), or hunting (though that's important too) the purpose of the Second Amendment is to protect us from liberal elites who are conspiring to destroy our freedoms. Look at what they've accomplished on university campuses, where First Amendment no longer exists, and a man accused of rape is denied due process. Look at what they're doing with Google, Facebook and Twitter, censoring speech and banning conservatives from speaking. Look at the California one-party state, secured with illegal votes of illegal aliens. This is the liberal elite's goal for all of us, a total loss of the freedom to speak and vote.

I am pro 2nd Amendment and a liberal....I encourage all women and minorities to be pro-2nd Amendment and own guns and know how to use them.

Correct.

Liberals support the Second Amendment, own guns, and enjoy the shooting sports.

They also own guns pursuant to lawful self-defense.

The notion that liberals are ‘anti-gun’ or want to ‘disarm’ Americans is a moronic rightwing lie.

And women and minorities very much need to arm themselves during this time when racists and bigots believe they have license to act violently on their hate.

 

[francoHFW]

If we ever let liberals disarm us

...we'll just beat them to a pulp with our fists.

Basically there are no liberals who want to disarm you, brainwashed functional morons.

 

[Preacher]

...it's not about self-defense against criminals (though that's important), or hunting (though that's important too) the purpose of the Second Amendment is to protect us from liberal elites who are conspiring to destroy our freedoms. Look at what they've accomplished on university campuses, where First Amendment no longer exists, and a man accused of rape is denied due process. Look at what they're doing with Google, Facebook and Twitter, censoring speech and banning conservatives from speaking. Look at the California one-party state, secured with illegal votes of illegal aliens. This is the liberal elite's goal for all of us, a total loss of the freedom to speak and vote.

I doubt most people would listen even if the leftists did manage to pass a law disarming American's. As you can see in New Jersey even facing a FELONY charge NO ONE has turned into their "high capacity magazines" and I don't think anyone will!

 

[BluesLegend]

If we ever let liberals disarm us

...we'll just beat them to a pulp with our fists.

Basically there are no liberals who want to disarm you, brainwashed functional morons.

You lie here

 

[Porter Rockwell]

That is like saying we are a virgin whore.

A primary difference between a Republic and a Democracy is that, in a Republic unalienable Rights are above the reach of government. See this for the differences between a Republic and a Democracy:

REPUBLIC VS. DEMOCRACY, U.S.ARMY ANALYSIS

Load of crock. In most, if not all democracies the judicial branch pushes back on the government if they rule they are violating the constitution. In a lot of those countries that is even done more vigorously then in the US because unlike in the US the judicial branch has no clear party affiliation. Oh and the report was written in 1928 and you are using it to prove your point? Seems a bit ridiculous.

Are you claiming that the words democracy and republic have changed since 1928? Cite your source.

Cite for us a country that was founded with the recognition that men have Rights that are above the law and cannot be changed?

What country entrusts its citizenry with weapons so that the people can repel tyranny in government?

What country has a Bill of Rights that guarantees absolute Rights?

Under the illegal/ de facto government we have today, the judicial branch has unconstitutionally legislated from the bench and turned our laws 180 degrees opposite of what they were intended to say.

No I'm saying that your report gives a definition of Democracy, neither me, nor any dictionary has ever heard about.
"Attitude toward property is communistic--negating property rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether is be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences." Find me a single example of this being backed up in real life? I don't know who wrote this piece of crap, but any person with fifth grade level civics behind him should recognize is at simply false.
You are also getting tiresome. Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen - Wikipedia
As for this weapons thing. Most countries allow possession of firearms withing certain restrictions. You for instance don't have the right to own an armed Abrams tank. So what are you talking about?

So now you're calling the people that write the manuals that taught our military of a fifth grade level of understanding??? WTH are you?

I think the Army got it right. It's EXACTLY the way Democrats and Republicrats operate. Hell, you're even implying that you believe it.

Yes when they wrote it in 1929. Give me ANY definition of Democracy besides that army manual that has a paragraph similar to this.
"Attitude toward property is communistic--negating property rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether is be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences." I'll wait for it.
Oh and by the way, waving the flag to prevent me from calling bullshit when I see it, just makes you look more a fool.

OMG. You are not only arrogant, but that halo is a bit more than I can stand.

Unfortunately, this thread is about liberals disarming gun owners. I've noticed that when the left begins to lose an argument, they try to hijack threads and go into places that are irrelevant to the OP. I could start with the founders and work my up to he mid 1800s and it would be insufficient.

But, to those who want to know where liberalism leads, I have two words: Bernie Sanders.

 

[H B Lowrie]

If we ever let liberals disarm us

...we'll just beat them to a pulp with our fists.

Basically there are no liberals who want to disarm you, brainwashed functional morons.

You lie here

Don't forget the womenfolk and childurns.

 

[H B Lowrie]

Load of crock. In most, if not all democracies the judicial branch pushes back on the government if they rule they are violating the constitution. In a lot of those countries that is even done more vigorously then in the US because unlike in the US the judicial branch has no clear party affiliation. Oh and the report was written in 1928 and you are using it to prove your point? Seems a bit ridiculous.

Are you claiming that the words democracy and republic have changed since 1928? Cite your source.

Cite for us a country that was founded with the recognition that men have Rights that are above the law and cannot be changed?

What country entrusts its citizenry with weapons so that the people can repel tyranny in government?

What country has a Bill of Rights that guarantees absolute Rights?

Under the illegal/ de facto government we have today, the judicial branch has unconstitutionally legislated from the bench and turned our laws 180 degrees opposite of what they were intended to say.

No I'm saying that your report gives a definition of Democracy, neither me, nor any dictionary has ever heard about.
"Attitude toward property is communistic--negating property rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether is be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences." Find me a single example of this being backed up in real life? I don't know who wrote this piece of crap, but any person with fifth grade level civics behind him should recognize is at simply false.
You are also getting tiresome.
As for this weapons thing. Most countries allow possession of firearms withing certain restrictions. You for instance don't have the right to own an armed Abrams tank. So what are you talking about?

So now you're calling the people that write the manuals that taught our military of a fifth grade level of understanding??? WTH are you?

I think the Army got it right. It's EXACTLY the way Democrats and Republicrats operate. Hell, you're even implying that you believe it.

Yes when they wrote it in 1929. Give me ANY definition of Democracy besides that army manual that has a paragraph similar to this.
"Attitude toward property is communistic--negating property rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether is be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences." I'll wait for it.
Oh and by the way, waving the flag to prevent me from calling bullshit when I see it, just makes you look more a fool.

OMG. You are not only arrogant, but that halo is a bit more than I can stand.

Unfortunately, this thread is about liberals disarming gun owners. I've noticed that when the left begins to lose an argument, they try to hijack threads and go into places that are irrelevant to the OP. I could start with the founders and work my up to he mid 1800s and it would be insufficient.

But, to those who want to know where liberalism leads, I have two words: Bernie Sanders.

Ronald Reagan ushered in neoliberal economics didn't he.

 

[francoHFW]

If we ever let liberals disarm us

...we'll just beat them to a pulp with our fists.

Basically there are no liberals who want to disarm you, brainwashed functional morons.

You lie here

At the worst oh, you'll always be able to have hunting rifles and shotguns, handguns for those who need them. That's the way it always used to be until the NRA became a rifle corporation and started running the GOP. You people are totally brainwashed. Enjoy the mayhem...