Poll: Should the Govt provide every American with free guns?

[Nostra]

Since the Dimsocialists have invented the right to free healthcare out of thin air, and claim the govt has to provide it to all Americans, it seems reasonable that the REAL RIGHT to bear arms, which is actually in the Constitution, requires the govt to provide those arms free of charge to every American.

Let’s see if there are any non-hypocritical Dimsocialists on the board.

Like I told the lat person who started a thread like this (there are several a month), give in on healthcare, food, housing, etc. And we'll give you guns.

"... we'll give you guns"?

I love the statist presumption.

Read the OP. Dude is asking for free guns.

Reading the OP prevents you from being stupider than you have to be.

OP flew over your flat head.

what are the odds?

No it didn't. You asked a question, I answered it.

Yes it did.

 

[2aguy]

Oh, then you're cool with Voter ID, so people have to prove they're real Americans?

It's not likely someone who casts a vote illegally kills another with that vote.

It's not likely anyone owning a gun legally kills another with that gun.

I know this is hard for you to accept -- your programming has been very successful -- but 99.99+% of legal gun owners didn't murder anyone yesterday.

All your unoriginal ideas for "gun control" do nothing about criminals. You don't actually care about criminals killing people.

No, you want law-abiding people disarmed so they can't resist leftist tyranny.

But your programming won't let you see that.

Oh bullshit. Why not just post, "shall not infringe" and join the rest of the sheep?

Not everyone driving a car kills pedestrians who have the right away in a crosswalk. Do you believe Involuntary Manslaughter ought to be struck from the Vehicle or Penal Codes since it only applies to someone who is negligent and kills someone?

Since all of us who drive must have a license to do so, is our liberty infringed by such a law?

As for your typical lie, phrased within an ad hominem, I DO NOT want law-abiding, sober and sane citizens the right to own a firearm.

Violent criminals, persons found to have been civilly detained as a danger to themselves or others, and those found to be addicted to alcohol or illict drugs are those cited in Heller by Scalia to historically be denied the so called Right to keep and bear arms.

Why do you idiots always bring up driving as some kind of parallel to owning guns?

Owning guns is in the Constitution. Driving is not -- and as long as I stay off public roads, I can drive legally without a licence or insurance.

And quit bitching about ad hominem, you flaming hypocrite.

Q. "Why do you idiots always bring up driving as some kind of parallel to owning guns?"

A. For the simple reason that guns and cars kill people. Sometimes intentionally, sometimes irresponsibly and sometimes accidentally. There are laws which enforce responsible ownership and operation of a car. Of course there are gun laws, but they are always objected to by people like you, with the "shall not infringe" meme. It is not a Right. Not only because Scalia wrote so, but history as far back as Plato concluded that some people should never own an arm (BTW, notice there is not one part of the 2nd where a gun is noted).

That is significant, since other arms (gravity knives, push button knives, nonchucks, fully automatic firearms, cane swords, etc. etc. are controlled, or outlawed.

We already have laws and regulations on guns......they don't ban them or allow confiscation, so people like you don't think they go far enough.

You asshats keep pretending we think everyone should own a gun......you make that up and use it to smear us. We already have laws that allow people who use guns for crime to be arrested and locked up.....we have laws that keep previous criminals from buying, owning and carrying guns...

We have all those laws...

But again...since they don't allow you to ban and confiscate guns from normal citizens, you don't think they go far enough.

And to show you why you don't know what you are talking about...under current laws, as more Americans own, and carry guns, our gun murder rate went down 49%....you can't explain that, and it shows you don't understand the issue.

Under current laws and more people owning and carrying guns, our gun crime rate went down 75%.....you can't explain that and it shows that your opinion on guns is completely wrong...and it shows that current laws work...

Our actual problem? The democrat party politicians, judges and prosecutor keep letting known, repeat gun offenders out of prison, over and over again...those are the criminals causing all of the gun crime in the country and you don't care about actually dealing with them.

In Baltimore, there are about 100 known gang members responsible for almost all of the gun murder in the city.....they each have, on average, 8 felony convictions....and are continuously released on bail and from prison with short sentences........if we focus on them...instead of the stupid things you focus on, our gun crime problem in democrat party controlled cities would go down.....

But you don't care about that...because all you care about are all the guns you can't touch..because normal gun owners don't use them for crime...

 

[2aguy]

Oh, then you're cool with Voter ID, so people have to prove they're real Americans?

It's not likely someone who casts a vote illegally kills another with that vote.

It's not likely anyone owning a gun legally kills another with that gun.

I know this is hard for you to accept -- your programming has been very successful -- but 99.99+% of legal gun owners didn't murder anyone yesterday.

All your unoriginal ideas for "gun control" do nothing about criminals. You don't actually care about criminals killing people.

No, you want law-abiding people disarmed so they can't resist leftist tyranny.

But your programming won't let you see that.

Oh bullshit. Why not just post, "shall not infringe" and join the rest of the sheep?

Not everyone driving a car kills pedestrians who have the right away in a crosswalk. Do you believe Involuntary Manslaughter ought to be struck from the Vehicle or Penal Codes since it only applies to someone who is negligent and kills someone?

Since all of us who drive must have a license to do so, is our liberty infringed by such a law?

As for your typical lie, phrased within an ad hominem, I DO NOT want law-abiding, sober and sane citizens the right to own a firearm.

Violent criminals, persons found to have been civilly detained as a danger to themselves or others, and those found to be addicted to alcohol or illict drugs are those cited in Heller by Scalia to historically be denied the so called Right to keep and bear arms.

Why do you idiots always bring up driving as some kind of parallel to owning guns?

Owning guns is in the Constitution. Driving is not -- and as long as I stay off public roads, I can drive legally without a licence or insurance.

And quit bitching about ad hominem, you flaming hypocrite.

Q. "Why do you idiots always bring up driving as some kind of parallel to owning guns?"

A. For the simple reason that guns and cars kill people. Sometimes intentionally, sometimes irresponsibly and sometimes accidentally. There are laws which enforce responsible ownership and operation of a car. Of course there are gun laws, but they are always objected to by people like you, with the "shall not infringe" meme. It is not a Right. Not only because Scalia wrote so, but history as far back as Plato concluded that some people should never own an arm (BTW, notice there is not one part of the 2nd where a gun is noted).

That is significant, since other arms (gravity knives, push button knives, nonchucks, fully automatic firearms, cane swords, etc. etc. are controlled, or outlawed.

Wow....you really are stupid if you don't understand that "Arms" is a term for weapons...including guns...you doofus.....and those laws on swords and knives are now being challenged as well....

Owning a gun is a Right, you doofus.....and like any Right, if you break the law by violating someone else's Rights, you can be arrested, tried in a court and through due process have your Rights removed...........

And you can't have your Right to own and carry a gun removed if you don't commit a crime with the gun...you moron.

 

[daveman]

Oh, then you're cool with Voter ID, so people have to prove they're real Americans?

It's not likely someone who casts a vote illegally kills another with that vote.

It's not likely anyone owning a gun legally kills another with that gun.

I know this is hard for you to accept -- your programming has been very successful -- but 99.99+% of legal gun owners didn't murder anyone yesterday.

All your unoriginal ideas for "gun control" do nothing about criminals. You don't actually care about criminals killing people.

No, you want law-abiding people disarmed so they can't resist leftist tyranny.

But your programming won't let you see that.

Oh bullshit. Why not just post, "shall not infringe" and join the rest of the sheep?

Not everyone driving a car kills pedestrians who have the right away in a crosswalk. Do you believe Involuntary Manslaughter ought to be struck from the Vehicle or Penal Codes since it only applies to someone who is negligent and kills someone?

Since all of us who drive must have a license to do so, is our liberty infringed by such a law?

As for your typical lie, phrased within an ad hominem, I DO NOT want law-abiding, sober and sane citizens the right to own a firearm.

Violent criminals, persons found to have been civilly detained as a danger to themselves or others, and those found to be addicted to alcohol or illict drugs are those cited in Heller by Scalia to historically be denied the so called Right to keep and bear arms.

Why do you idiots always bring up driving as some kind of parallel to owning guns?

Owning guns is in the Constitution. Driving is not -- and as long as I stay off public roads, I can drive legally without a licence or insurance.

And quit bitching about ad hominem, you flaming hypocrite.

Q. "Why do you idiots always bring up driving as some kind of parallel to owning guns?"

A. For the simple reason that guns and cars kill people. Sometimes intentionally, sometimes irresponsibly and sometimes accidentally. There are laws which enforce responsible ownership and operation of a car. Of course there are gun laws, but they are always objected to by people like you, with the "shall not infringe" meme. It is not a Right. Not only because Scalia wrote so, but history as far back as Plato concluded that some people should never own an arm (BTW, notice there is not one part of the 2nd where a gun is noted).

That is significant, since other arms (gravity knives, push button knives, nonchucks, fully automatic firearms, cane swords, etc. etc. are controlled, or outlawed.

"Owning a firearm is not a right."

Rational people disagree. No one's going to give up their rights because your feelings are hurt.

Say, have you figured out how to get criminals to obey the law?

Oh, that's right, you don't care about criminals. You just want law-abiding people disarmed.

How'd that work out for the British 240 years ago? Hint: We killed them until they left us alone.

Silly leftist. No totalitarianism for you!

 

[daveman]

It's not likely someone who casts a vote illegally kills another with that vote.

It's not likely anyone owning a gun legally kills another with that gun.

I know this is hard for you to accept -- your programming has been very successful -- but 99.99+% of legal gun owners didn't murder anyone yesterday.

All your unoriginal ideas for "gun control" do nothing about criminals. You don't actually care about criminals killing people.

No, you want law-abiding people disarmed so they can't resist leftist tyranny.

But your programming won't let you see that.

Oh bullshit. Why not just post, "shall not infringe" and join the rest of the sheep?

Not everyone driving a car kills pedestrians who have the right away in a crosswalk. Do you believe Involuntary Manslaughter ought to be struck from the Vehicle or Penal Codes since it only applies to someone who is negligent and kills someone?

Since all of us who drive must have a license to do so, is our liberty infringed by such a law?

As for your typical lie, phrased within an ad hominem, I DO NOT want law-abiding, sober and sane citizens the right to own a firearm.

Violent criminals, persons found to have been civilly detained as a danger to themselves or others, and those found to be addicted to alcohol or illict drugs are those cited in Heller by Scalia to historically be denied the so called Right to keep and bear arms.

Why do you idiots always bring up driving as some kind of parallel to owning guns?

Owning guns is in the Constitution. Driving is not -- and as long as I stay off public roads, I can drive legally without a licence or insurance.

And quit bitching about ad hominem, you flaming hypocrite.

Q. "Why do you idiots always bring up driving as some kind of parallel to owning guns?"

A. For the simple reason that guns and cars kill people. Sometimes intentionally, sometimes irresponsibly and sometimes accidentally. There are laws which enforce responsible ownership and operation of a car. Of course there are gun laws, but they are always objected to by people like you, with the "shall not infringe" meme. It is not a Right. Not only because Scalia wrote so, but history as far back as Plato concluded that some people should never own an arm (BTW, notice there is not one part of the 2nd where a gun is noted).

That is significant, since other arms (gravity knives, push button knives, nonchucks, fully automatic firearms, cane swords, etc. etc. are controlled, or outlawed.

We already have laws and regulations on guns......they don't ban them or allow confiscation, so people like you don't think they go far enough.

You asshats keep pretending we think everyone should own a gun......you make that up and use it to smear us. We already have laws that allow people who use guns for crime to be arrested and locked up.....we have laws that keep previous criminals from buying, owning and carrying guns...

We have all those laws...

But again...since they don't allow you to ban and confiscate guns from normal citizens, you don't think they go far enough.

And to show you why you don't know what you are talking about...under current laws, as more Americans own, and carry guns, our gun murder rate went down 49%....you can't explain that, and it shows you don't understand the issue.

Under current laws and more people owning and carrying guns, our gun crime rate went down 75%.....you can't explain that and it shows that your opinion on guns is completely wrong...and it shows that current laws work...

Our actual problem? The democrat party politicians, judges and prosecutor keep letting known, repeat gun offenders out of prison, over and over again...those are the criminals causing all of the gun crime in the country and you don't care about actually dealing with them.

In Baltimore, there are about 100 known gang members responsible for almost all of the gun murder in the city.....they each have, on average, 8 felony convictions....and are continuously released on bail and from prison with short sentences........if we focus on them...instead of the stupid things you focus on, our gun crime problem in democrat party controlled cities would go down.....

But you don't care about that...because all you care about are all the guns you can't touch..because normal gun owners don't use them for crime...

It's not like Democrats give a shit about crime.

Democrats Don't Want ICE Notified When Illegal Aliens Try to Purchase Guns

Democrats have declared they support illegal aliens committing crime against American citizens.

I'd ask Fly Catcher to explain it, but he'd just sputter impotently and inflate his stuffed shirt some more.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

Wrong. See my post above.

Is this the post?

Q. "Why do you idiots always bring up driving as some kind of parallel to owning guns?"

A. For the simple reason that guns and cars kill people. Sometimes intentionally, sometimes irresponsibly and sometimes accidentally. There are laws which enforce responsible ownership and operation of a car. Of course there are gun laws, but they are always objected to by people like you, with the "shall not infringe" meme. It is not a Right. Not only because Scalia wrote so, but history as far back as Plato concluded that some people should never own an arm (BTW, notice there is not one part of the 2nd where a gun is noted).

That is significant, since other arms (gravity knives, push button knives, nonchucks, fully automatic firearms, cane swords, etc. etc. are controlled, or outlawed.

If so it has zero to do with my post, less than zero as a matter of fact, it addresses nothing in my post...and why are you quoting plato? our constitutional democracy was established to correct the deficiencies in the greek form of democracy i.e. we made sure the platophiles of the world could not determine for us what is right for us.

 

[Nostra]

It's not likely anyone owning a gun legally kills another with that gun.

I know this is hard for you to accept -- your programming has been very successful -- but 99.99+% of legal gun owners didn't murder anyone yesterday.

All your unoriginal ideas for "gun control" do nothing about criminals. You don't actually care about criminals killing people.

No, you want law-abiding people disarmed so they can't resist leftist tyranny.

But your programming won't let you see that.

Oh bullshit. Why not just post, "shall not infringe" and join the rest of the sheep?

Not everyone driving a car kills pedestrians who have the right away in a crosswalk. Do you believe Involuntary Manslaughter ought to be struck from the Vehicle or Penal Codes since it only applies to someone who is negligent and kills someone?

Since all of us who drive must have a license to do so, is our liberty infringed by such a law?

As for your typical lie, phrased within an ad hominem, I DO NOT want law-abiding, sober and sane citizens the right to own a firearm.

Violent criminals, persons found to have been civilly detained as a danger to themselves or others, and those found to be addicted to alcohol or illict drugs are those cited in Heller by Scalia to historically be denied the so called Right to keep and bear arms.

Why do you idiots always bring up driving as some kind of parallel to owning guns?

Owning guns is in the Constitution. Driving is not -- and as long as I stay off public roads, I can drive legally without a licence or insurance.

And quit bitching about ad hominem, you flaming hypocrite.

Q. "Why do you idiots always bring up driving as some kind of parallel to owning guns?"

A. For the simple reason that guns and cars kill people. Sometimes intentionally, sometimes irresponsibly and sometimes accidentally. There are laws which enforce responsible ownership and operation of a car. Of course there are gun laws, but they are always objected to by people like you, with the "shall not infringe" meme. It is not a Right. Not only because Scalia wrote so, but history as far back as Plato concluded that some people should never own an arm (BTW, notice there is not one part of the 2nd where a gun is noted).

That is significant, since other arms (gravity knives, push button knives, nonchucks, fully automatic firearms, cane swords, etc. etc. are controlled, or outlawed.

We already have laws and regulations on guns......they don't ban them or allow confiscation, so people like you don't think they go far enough.

You asshats keep pretending we think everyone should own a gun......you make that up and use it to smear us. We already have laws that allow people who use guns for crime to be arrested and locked up.....we have laws that keep previous criminals from buying, owning and carrying guns...

We have all those laws...

But again...since they don't allow you to ban and confiscate guns from normal citizens, you don't think they go far enough.

And to show you why you don't know what you are talking about...under current laws, as more Americans own, and carry guns, our gun murder rate went down 49%....you can't explain that, and it shows you don't understand the issue.

Under current laws and more people owning and carrying guns, our gun crime rate went down 75%.....you can't explain that and it shows that your opinion on guns is completely wrong...and it shows that current laws work...

Our actual problem? The democrat party politicians, judges and prosecutor keep letting known, repeat gun offenders out of prison, over and over again...those are the criminals causing all of the gun crime in the country and you don't care about actually dealing with them.

In Baltimore, there are about 100 known gang members responsible for almost all of the gun murder in the city.....they each have, on average, 8 felony convictions....and are continuously released on bail and from prison with short sentences........if we focus on them...instead of the stupid things you focus on, our gun crime problem in democrat party controlled cities would go down.....

But you don't care about that...because all you care about are all the guns you can't touch..because normal gun owners don't use them for crime...

It's not like Democrats give a shit about crime.

Democrats Don't Want ICE Notified When Illegal Aliens Try to Purchase Guns

Democrats have declared they support illegal aliens committing crime against American citizens.

I'd ask Fly Catcher to explain it, but he'd just sputter impotently and inflate his stuffed shirt some more.

Law abiding Americans need to register when they buy a firearm, but not illegals.

Sounds about right for the Dimsocialist party.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I got 45 gunz, don't need govt in my life.

That's what David Koresh believed, guess what happened when gov't came into his life?

So, you believe anyone with 45 guns should be killed by government?

.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The second amendment is my license. Stupid commie.

"The second amendment is my license. Stupid commie."


is it?

who are you that you don't need to show any ID when buying a a gun....

how do I know you really ARE an American citizen with 2nd amendment rights?

you could be an islamic terrorist trying to buy weapons so you can kill REAL Americans...

sorry...

before i will concede you your 2nd amendment rights we are going to have to do a background check to PROVE you REALLY ARE an American.

An American, not a liberal commie scumbag like you.

You'll need a background check to prove

1. you are not a violent criminal
2. you are not a terrorist
3. you are a REAL American

Oh, then you're cool with Voter ID, so people have to prove they're real Americans?

It's not likely someone who casts a vote illegally kills another with that vote.

It's not likely someone who buys a gun without a background check kills another with it either.

.

 

[JusticeHammer]

Oh, then you're cool with Voter ID, so people have to prove they're real Americans?

It's not likely someone who casts a vote illegally kills another with that vote.

It's not likely anyone owning a gun legally kills another with that gun.

I know this is hard for you to accept -- your programming has been very successful -- but 99.99+% of legal gun owners didn't murder anyone yesterday.

All your unoriginal ideas for "gun control" do nothing about criminals. You don't actually care about criminals killing people.

No, you want law-abiding people disarmed so they can't resist leftist tyranny.

But your programming won't let you see that.

Oh bullshit. Why not just post, "shall not infringe" and join the rest of the sheep?

Not everyone driving a car kills pedestrians who have the right away in a crosswalk. Do you believe Involuntary Manslaughter ought to be struck from the Vehicle or Penal Codes since it only applies to someone who is negligent and kills someone?

Since all of us who drive must have a license to do so, is our liberty infringed by such a law?

As for your typical lie, phrased within an ad hominem, I DO NOT want law-abiding, sober and sane citizens the right to own a firearm.

Violent criminals, persons found to have been civilly detained as a danger to themselves or others, and those found to be addicted to alcohol or illict drugs are those cited in Heller by Scalia to historically be denied the so called Right to keep and bear arms.

Why do you idiots always bring up driving as some kind of parallel to owning guns?

Owning guns is in the Constitution. Driving is not -- and as long as I stay off public roads, I can drive legally without a licence or insurance.

And quit bitching about ad hominem, you flaming hypocrite.

Q. "Why do you idiots always bring up driving as some kind of parallel to owning guns?"

A. For the simple reason that guns and cars kill people. Sometimes intentionally, sometimes irresponsibly and sometimes accidentally. There are laws which enforce responsible ownership and operation of a car. Of course there are gun laws, but they are always objected to by people like you, with the "shall not infringe" meme. It is not a Right. Not only because Scalia wrote so, but history as far back as Plato concluded that some people should never own an arm (BTW, notice there is not one part of the 2nd where a gun is noted).

That is significant, since other arms (gravity knives, push button knives, nonchucks, fully automatic firearms, cane swords, etc. etc. are controlled, or outlawed.

Everytime you post stupid stuff like this I laugh, because you prove how stupid you are.

 

[Rye Catcher]

It's not likely someone who casts a vote illegally kills another with that vote.

It's not likely anyone owning a gun legally kills another with that gun.

I know this is hard for you to accept -- your programming has been very successful -- but 99.99+% of legal gun owners didn't murder anyone yesterday.

All your unoriginal ideas for "gun control" do nothing about criminals. You don't actually care about criminals killing people.

No, you want law-abiding people disarmed so they can't resist leftist tyranny.

But your programming won't let you see that.

Oh bullshit. Why not just post, "shall not infringe" and join the rest of the sheep?

Not everyone driving a car kills pedestrians who have the right away in a crosswalk. Do you believe Involuntary Manslaughter ought to be struck from the Vehicle or Penal Codes since it only applies to someone who is negligent and kills someone?

Since all of us who drive must have a license to do so, is our liberty infringed by such a law?

As for your typical lie, phrased within an ad hominem, I DO NOT want law-abiding, sober and sane citizens the right to own a firearm.

Violent criminals, persons found to have been civilly detained as a danger to themselves or others, and those found to be addicted to alcohol or illict drugs are those cited in Heller by Scalia to historically be denied the so called Right to keep and bear arms.

Why do you idiots always bring up driving as some kind of parallel to owning guns?

Owning guns is in the Constitution. Driving is not -- and as long as I stay off public roads, I can drive legally without a licence or insurance.

And quit bitching about ad hominem, you flaming hypocrite.

Q. "Why do you idiots always bring up driving as some kind of parallel to owning guns?"

A. For the simple reason that guns and cars kill people. Sometimes intentionally, sometimes irresponsibly and sometimes accidentally. There are laws which enforce responsible ownership and operation of a car. Of course there are gun laws, but they are always objected to by people like you, with the "shall not infringe" meme. It is not a Right. Not only because Scalia wrote so, but history as far back as Plato concluded that some people should never own an arm (BTW, notice there is not one part of the 2nd where a gun is noted).

That is significant, since other arms (gravity knives, push button knives, nonchucks, fully automatic firearms, cane swords, etc. etc. are controlled, or outlawed.

Everytime you post stupid stuff like this I laugh, because you prove how stupid you are.

Every time you post, must I remind you to get a therapist, and to seek out an anger management group?

 

[SAYIT]

Since the Dimsocialists have invented the right to free healthcare out of thin air, and claim the govt has to provide it to all Americans, it seems reasonable that the REAL RIGHT to bear arms, which is actually in the Constitution, requires the govt to provide those arms free of charge to every American.

Let’s see if there are any non-hypocritical Dimsocialists on the board.

I already have guns but if the gov't is buying, can I have a Maserati instead?

 

[candycorn]

Since the Dimsocialists have invented the right to free healthcare out of thin air, and claim the govt has to provide it to all Americans, it seems reasonable that the REAL RIGHT to bear arms, which is actually in the Constitution, requires the govt to provide those arms free of charge to every American.

Let’s see if there are any non-hypocritical Dimsocialists on the board.

Garbage thread.

 

[Shawnee_b]

Where is the Well Regulated Militia?

Quiet and stealthy until needed.

 

[Shawnee_b]

So, you believe anyone with 45 guns should be killed by government?

.

Huh? You make no sense. Try again.

Gunz are inventory from being a dealer with several part my collection btw.

 

[Crepitus]

Where is the Well Regulated Militia?

Quiet and stealthy until needed.

Non-existent.

 

[Nostra]

Since the Dimsocialists have invented the right to free healthcare out of thin air, and claim the govt has to provide it to all Americans, it seems reasonable that the REAL RIGHT to bear arms, which is actually in the Constitution, requires the govt to provide those arms free of charge to every American.

Let’s see if there are any non-hypocritical Dimsocialists on the board.

Garbage thread.

Says the Dimsocialist who just had his hypocrisy exposed.

 

[regent]

Will American be able to request cash instead of the gun?

 

[harmonica]

healthcare = helps people get better
firearms= designed to kill
I see a slight difference

Healthcare =Not in the Constitution

Firearms = Specifically outlined in the Constitution

....hahahahha = so your argument is not for common sense -but with something written by imperfect humans 200 hundred years ago.....

Common sense tells me the govt should only perform the very limited tasks the Constitution empowers it to do.

free healthcare isn’t one of those tasks.

...guns designed to kill--healthcare to help --huge difference that you did not try to refute because you know you can't
..sure give free killing machines to people--that makes sense

 

[JusticeHammer]

Since the Dimsocialists have invented the right to free healthcare out of thin air, and claim the govt has to provide it to all Americans, it seems reasonable that the REAL RIGHT to bear arms, which is actually in the Constitution, requires the govt to provide those arms free of charge to every American.

Let’s see if there are any non-hypocritical Dimsocialists on the board.

Garbage thread.

Just like liberalism, garbage.