Who do liberal gun owners vote for?

[JGalt]

I wish black youngun's thought the way you do!

When youre trying to survive in the hood as a result of a racist society, your mind is on self preservation. I'm speaking of the limp dick republicans that have no need to carry a weapon but need a dickaide.

How many of those people who want to sell you drugs, rob your ass, or shoot you are "racist" white people?

Seems to me you have more of a problem than we'd ever be.

You mean besides the cops?

Not the popo's fault you look like a criminal.

I dont look like a criminal. I look like a white cops worst fear.

You look like a dog? The police usually just shoot those.

 

[Asclepias]

When youre trying to survive in the hood as a result of a racist society, your mind is on self preservation. I'm speaking of the limp dick republicans that have no need to carry a weapon but need a dickaide.

How many of those people who want to sell you drugs, rob your ass, or shoot you are "racist" white people?

Seems to me you have more of a problem than we'd ever be.

You mean besides the cops?

Not the popo's fault you look like a criminal.

I dont look like a criminal. I look like a white cops worst fear.

You look like a dog? The police usually just shoot those.

I look like a Black man. White cops love dogs. They even let them lick them in the mouth.

 

[RealDave]

Liberal gun owners understand that we need better background checks, ban assault type rifles, and not be a bunch of shit fed NRA dupes who want to allow 11 year olds to handle loaded AR_15s, untrained assfucks to run around with loaded weapons in public, loopholes so anyone can buy a gun, and provide easy access for mass shooters to get the weapons to slaughter children.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Liberal gun owners understand that we need better background checks, ban assault type rifles, and not be a bunch of shit fed NRA dupes who want to allow 11 year olds to handle loaded AR_15s, untrained assfucks to run around with loaded weapons in public, loopholes so anyone can buy a gun, and provide easy access for mass shooters to get the weapons to slaughter children.

You can't even tell us what an “assault rifle” is, or what characteristics a gun that you want to ban by that name has that distinguish it from one that you claim not to want to ban, which make it any more suitable for criminal purposes, or any less suitable for lawful purposes.

It is notable that the fraudulent 1994 “assault weapon” ban defined them almost entirely according to purely cosmetic features that had no bearing whatsoever on their suitability or unsuitability for any purpose, legitimate or otherwise. When gun manufacturers simply changed the cosmetic designs of certain guns to comply with that law, your kind screamed that they were subverting the law.

One of these guns is an “assault weapon”, according to the 1994 ban, and the other is not. What is the difference between them that makes one more suitable than the other for criminal purposes, and less suitable for lawful uses?

Guess what? THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE! It's exactly the same gun. The same action, the same barrel, the same magazine. It takes the same ammunition, has the same rate of fire, the same ballistic characteristics. There is nothing that either of these guns does better or worse than the other. Why should one of thee be banned, and not the other? There is no reason, other than to get the camel's nose further into the tent, bringing us closer to the point where we will not be allowed to own either of these, or any other gun.

 

[Asclepias]

Liberal gun owners understand that we need better background checks, ban assault type rifles, and not be a bunch of shit fed NRA dupes who want to allow 11 year olds to handle loaded AR_15s, untrained assfucks to run around with loaded weapons in public, loopholes so anyone can buy a gun, and provide easy access for mass shooters to get the weapons to slaughter children.

You can't even tell us what an “assault rifle” is, or what characteristics a gun that you want to ban by that name has that distinguish it from one that you claim not to want to ban, which make it any more suitable for criminal purposes, or any less suitable for lawful purposes.

It is notable that the fraudulent 1994 “assault weapon” ban defined them almost entirely according to purely cosmetic features that had no bearing whatsoever on their suitability or unsuitability for any purpose, legitimate or otherwise. When gun manufacturers simply changed the cosmetic designs of certain guns to comply with that law, your kind screamed that they were subverting the law.

One of these guns is an “assault weapon”, according to the 1994 ban, and the other is not. What is the difference between them that makes one more suitable than the other for criminal purposes, and less suitable for lawful uses?

View attachment 309798

Guess what? THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE! It's exactly the same gun. The same action, the same barrel, the same magazine. It takes the same ammunition, has the same rate of fire, the same ballistic characteristics. There is nothing that either of these guns does better or worse than the other. Why should one of thee be banned, and not the other? There is no reason, other than to get the camel's nose further into the tent, bringing us closer to the point where we will not be allowed to own either of these, or any other gun.

"You can't even tell us what an “assault rifle” is, or what characteristics a gun that you want to ban by that name has that distinguish it from one that you claim not to want to ban, which make it any more suitable for criminal purposes, or any less suitable for lawful purposes."

Its pretty simple. Any weapon that gives limp dicks a thrill when they want to play Rambo. Doesnt really matter if the action is the same. Its the image these dumb ***** want to associate themselves with. That picture on the bottom makes military and law enforcement rejects feel tough. We know because they wouldnt be whining over one weapon being banned if they could just get another that looks different but does the same thing.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Its pretty simple. Any weapon that gives limp dicks a thrill when they want to play Rambo. Doesnt really matter if the action is the same. Its the image these dumb ***** want to associate themselves with. That picture on the bottom makes military and law enforcement rejects feel tough. We know because they wouldnt be whining over one weapon being banned if they could just get another that looks different but does the same thing.

And here, we see, on display, the intellectual zenith of the anti-Second-Amendment movement.

Of course, all the sexual references in this person posts go to show something else, that the quote of unknown provenance, commonly misattributed to Freud, which states that a fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual development, is based on a considerable amount of truth.

 

[Asclepias]

Its pretty simple. Any weapon that gives limp dicks a thrill when they want to play Rambo. Doesnt really matter if the action is the same. Its the image these dumb ***** want to associate themselves with. That picture on the bottom makes military and law enforcement rejects feel tough. We know because they wouldnt be whining over one weapon being banned if they could just get another that looks different but does the same thing.

And here, we see, on display, the intellectual zenith of the anti-Second-Amendment movement.

Of course, all the sexual references in this person posts go to show something else, that the quote of unknown provenance, commonly misattributed to Freud, which states that a fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual development, is based on a considerable amount of truth.

Who told you anyone had a fear of weapons? I probably have more hand guns than you do.

 

[Rigby5]

Liberal gun owners understand that we need better background checks, ban assault type rifles, and not be a bunch of shit fed NRA dupes who want to allow 11 year olds to handle loaded AR_15s, untrained assfucks to run around with loaded weapons in public, loopholes so anyone can buy a gun, and provide easy access for mass shooters to get the weapons to slaughter children.

Nonsense.
Gun control is always only supported by racists fascists.
Gun control started to prevent Blacks, immigrants, and labor organizers from being able to defend themselves from right wing, vigilante violence.
No one who believes in a democracy would ever want to disarm the public, and instead want the right wing police and military have a monopoly on weapons.

We already have far too invasive background checks, requiring finger prints and taking up to a week.
And a misdemeanor domestic dispute is enough to deny.
No other country in the world is that strict.

There is no such thing as an assault weapon, as almost all weapons can and have been used as assault weapons. In the Revolutionary war, the blunderbus, known as a coach gun, was the assault weapon of choice. During the Civil war, a pair of revolvers were used as assault weapons. In WWI it was the pump shotgun, known as the trench gun. In WWII it was the carbine. Only in Vietnam was the AR type used as an assault weapon, and that is automatic. No civilian has an automatic version.

No one wants 11 year olds to have or handle any loaded weapon, but an AR is no more dangerous than any weapon and actually pistols are far more dangerous. No untrained person is ever allowed to run around with loaded weapons in public. To carry in public it has to be concealed to that people are not frightened, and that requires training, classes, testing, and licensing that has to be renewed yearly.
There are no loopholes so anyone can buy a gun, there is no gun show loophole, there is no internet loophole. These are all lies.

Every single mass murder or school shooting has obtained weapons illegally. So no additional law would have changed anything. The only way to reduce illegal weapons is to end the War on Drugs, so then all drug dealers will not have to be armed or be so willing to sell arms illegally. If you think they are legally buying through loopholes, you are totally and completely wrong.

 

[Rigby5]

Liberal gun owners understand that we need better background checks, ban assault type rifles, and not be a bunch of shit fed NRA dupes who want to allow 11 year olds to handle loaded AR_15s, untrained assfucks to run around with loaded weapons in public, loopholes so anyone can buy a gun, and provide easy access for mass shooters to get the weapons to slaughter children.

You can't even tell us what an “assault rifle” is, or what characteristics a gun that you want to ban by that name has that distinguish it from one that you claim not to want to ban, which make it any more suitable for criminal purposes, or any less suitable for lawful purposes.

It is notable that the fraudulent 1994 “assault weapon” ban defined them almost entirely according to purely cosmetic features that had no bearing whatsoever on their suitability or unsuitability for any purpose, legitimate or otherwise. When gun manufacturers simply changed the cosmetic designs of certain guns to comply with that law, your kind screamed that they were subverting the law.

One of these guns is an “assault weapon”, according to the 1994 ban, and the other is not. What is the difference between them that makes one more suitable than the other for criminal purposes, and less suitable for lawful uses?

View attachment 309798

Guess what? THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE! It's exactly the same gun. The same action, the same barrel, the same magazine. It takes the same ammunition, has the same rate of fire, the same ballistic characteristics. There is nothing that either of these guns does better or worse than the other. Why should one of thee be banned, and not the other? There is no reason, other than to get the camel's nose further into the tent, bringing us closer to the point where we will not be allowed to own either of these, or any other gun.

Your argument is valid because use, range, effect, rate of fire, etc., is the same, but it is not quite the same action. The AR uses direct impingement of gas pressure through a tube, directly onto the bolt. The Mini-14 used a cylinder and piston up front, with a long rod, that rotates what is basically a bolt action mechanism. Just a minor detail.

 

[Rigby5]

Liberal gun owners understand that we need better background checks, ban assault type rifles, and not be a bunch of shit fed NRA dupes who want to allow 11 year olds to handle loaded AR_15s, untrained assfucks to run around with loaded weapons in public, loopholes so anyone can buy a gun, and provide easy access for mass shooters to get the weapons to slaughter children.

You can't even tell us what an “assault rifle” is, or what characteristics a gun that you want to ban by that name has that distinguish it from one that you claim not to want to ban, which make it any more suitable for criminal purposes, or any less suitable for lawful purposes.

It is notable that the fraudulent 1994 “assault weapon” ban defined them almost entirely according to purely cosmetic features that had no bearing whatsoever on their suitability or unsuitability for any purpose, legitimate or otherwise. When gun manufacturers simply changed the cosmetic designs of certain guns to comply with that law, your kind screamed that they were subverting the law.

One of these guns is an “assault weapon”, according to the 1994 ban, and the other is not. What is the difference between them that makes one more suitable than the other for criminal purposes, and less suitable for lawful uses?

View attachment 309798

Guess what? THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE! It's exactly the same gun. The same action, the same barrel, the same magazine. It takes the same ammunition, has the same rate of fire, the same ballistic characteristics. There is nothing that either of these guns does better or worse than the other. Why should one of thee be banned, and not the other? There is no reason, other than to get the camel's nose further into the tent, bringing us closer to the point where we will not be allowed to own either of these, or any other gun.

"You can't even tell us what an “assault rifle” is, or what characteristics a gun that you want to ban by that name has that distinguish it from one that you claim not to want to ban, which make it any more suitable for criminal purposes, or any less suitable for lawful purposes."

Its pretty simple. Any weapon that gives limp dicks a thrill when they want to play Rambo. Doesnt really matter if the action is the same. Its the image these dumb ***** want to associate themselves with. That picture on the bottom makes military and law enforcement rejects feel tough. We know because they wouldnt be whining over one weapon being banned if they could just get another that looks different but does the same thing.

Wrong, and totally based on an uninformed opinion.
The reason the AR has become so popular is because it is about the cheapest rifle you can buy, due to surplus markets for parts and ammunition.
There are about 30 million of them currently owned legally, and they are the most popular being purchased, so anyone trying to make them illegal will have 30 million with very strong and valid legal objections. It in the constitution. Making them illegal now would violate the ban on ex post facto laws. There is no legal way to ban assault weapons now. Its too late.
Nor should anyone want to. They not only are less dangerous than pistols, but it is illegal in a democracy to try to disarm the public while allowing the police and military to be armed. That is totally against the principles of a democracy.

If what you said were true, then why would police also use ARs?
Police do not need or are ever authorized to use full auto.
They just use ARs for the same reason everyone does, that they are inexpensive due to the surplus market, and light and easy to carry.

 

[Rigby5]

Its pretty simple. Any weapon that gives limp dicks a thrill when they want to play Rambo. Doesnt really matter if the action is the same. Its the image these dumb ***** want to associate themselves with. That picture on the bottom makes military and law enforcement rejects feel tough. We know because they wouldnt be whining over one weapon being banned if they could just get another that looks different but does the same thing.

And here, we see, on display, the intellectual zenith of the anti-Second-Amendment movement.

Of course, all the sexual references in this person posts go to show something else, that the quote of unknown provenance, commonly misattributed to Freud, which states that a fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual development, is based on a considerable amount of truth.

Who told you anyone had a fear of weapons? I probably have more hand guns than you do.

I do not believe you for a second.
Anyone who knows anything at all about firearms knows that a civilian AR is single fire, just like any rifle or pistol in the last century that is not bolt action.
There is nothing at all about an AR that makes it dangerous.
In fact, its main characteristic is that it is very low power, so there is less recoil and lighter to carry.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Your argument is valid because use, range, effect, rate of fire, etc., is the same, but it is not quite the same action. The AR uses direct impingement of gas pressure through a tube, directly onto the bolt. The Mini-14 used a cylinder and piston up front, with a long rod, that rotates what is basically a bolt action mechanism. Just a minor detail.

It's possible that I slightly botched seeking out the right picture.

What I was looking for, what I'd seen before, and what I'd intended to post, was a picture that showed two Ruger Mini-14s, one in traditional wooden furniture, and one in “assault weapon” furniture. On looking back at the picture I posted, I think you may be correct that the “assault weapon” in that picture is something other than a Mini-14, probably an AR-15.

I think my point stands, even if the picture that I posted wasn't quite right. A Mini-14 can be configured either way; and either way, in spire of different appearances, it is exactly the same gun, with exactly the same action, the same barrel, the same ammunition, the same ballistic characteristics, and the same suitability for any application. But one way, it was classified and banned as an “assault weapon” under the fraudulent 1994 law, and the other way, it was not, based entirely on cosmetic differences.

 

[Rigby5]

Getting back to the thread, Tulsi Gabbard was the strongest against gun control, but they cut her off.
However, Bernie Sanders has always voted against gun control, like the Brady Bill, so I do not think he will support it.
He is not taking a stand against it however, because of the hysteria.
But I don't believe he will push gun control.
He is the least fascist.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

There is nothing at all about an AR that makes it dangerous.
In fact, its main characteristic is that it is very low power, so there is less recoil and lighter to carry.

It's considered “intermediate power”. A .22 rimfire would be very low power. Any decent deer rifle would be high power.

A point worth making is that in many jurisdictions, it is not legal to use a AR-15, or any comparable gun, to hunt deer. You know why? It's not powerful enough. There is too much risk of only injuring a deer, causing it to suffer needlessly, without actually killing it. A proper deer rifle is more powerful, so as to be reliably able to kill a deer quickly and humanely.

And it's actually one of the points to a military rifle, as well, to have a higher chance of injuring an enemy soldier rather than killing him. Aside from ethical issues, there's a tactical advantage in that. In war, if you kill an enemy soldier, you just have one less enemy shooting back at you. If you injure an enemy soldier, then you not only take him out of the battle, but two or three others who are then obligated to take care of him.

 

[Chuz Life]

I would like to remind both sides in this thread that the right to keep and bear arms PREDATES the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

The 2nd Amendment merely expounded on the people's right to bear arms and specifically notified the new Federal Government of "the people's" right to also organize into and form Militias, in defense of our freedoms.

 

[Rigby5]

Essentially the 2nd amendment does only one thing, which is to grant state and municipalities totally jurisdiction over weapons, and deny any federal jurisdiction over weapons, at all. So while gun control is possible, it can NOT be federal, and it still likely to be very questionable in a democracy. In a democracy, we trust the general population, not the government, which is hired by and supposed to be subservient to the general population.

 

[Lysistrata]

Liberal gun owners face dilemma in 2020 field

Is there a strong 2A liberal candidate?

Liberals, moderates, and progressives who own guns probably will vote for the Democrat of their choice. Most likely they do not own, or defend owning the kind of useless military weaponry that the 2A radical fanatics champion. Not all gun owners are goobers prancing around in military fatigues brandishing rapid-fire, bullet-spraying weaponry while yelling about some nameless "them," of whom they seem to be very, very afraid, as if screaming hordes of "them" are going to invade Gooberville, USA. Many gun owners have common sense.

 

[Rigby5]

Liberal gun owners face dilemma in 2020 field

Is there a strong 2A liberal candidate?

Liberals, moderates, and progressives who own guns probably will vote for the Democrat of their choice. Most likely they do not own, or defend owning the kind of useless military weaponry that the 2A radical fanatics champion. Not all gun owners are goobers prancing around in military fatigues brandishing rapid-fire, bullet-spraying weaponry while yelling about some nameless "them," of whom they seem to be very, very afraid, as if screaming hordes of "them" are going to invade Gooberville, USA. Many gun owners have common sense.

There are no military weaponry sold in the US to the public, and has not been since around 1935.
The military uses full auto, and all civilian weapons sold are single shot.
They are no more rapid-fire, bullet spraying than they were back in the Civil War, with Spencers, Sharps, and revolvers.
Single shot.
You pull the trigger on an AR, and you get a single shot.

Common sense should tell anyone that in a democracy, it is the general population that should be trusted with the best weapons, not the mercenary police or military. We already know the police are murdering Blacks and the military lied to us and murdered half a million innocent Iraqis.

 

[Lysistrata]

Liberal gun owners face dilemma in 2020 field

Is there a strong 2A liberal candidate?

Liberals, moderates, and progressives who own guns probably will vote for the Democrat of their choice. Most likely they do not own, or defend owning the kind of useless military weaponry that the 2A radical fanatics champion. Not all gun owners are goobers prancing around in military fatigues brandishing rapid-fire, bullet-spraying weaponry while yelling about some nameless "them," of whom they seem to be very, very afraid, as if screaming hordes of "them" are going to invade Gooberville, USA. Many gun owners have common sense.

There are no military weaponry sold in the US to the public, and has not been since around 1935.
The military uses full auto, and all civilian weapons sold are single shot.
They are no more rapid-fire, bullet spraying than they were back in the Civil War, with Spencers, Sharps, and revolvers.
Single shot.
You pull the trigger on an AR, and you get a single shot.

Common sense should tell anyone that in a democracy, it is the general population that should be trusted with the best weapons, not the mercenary police or military. We already know the police are murdering Blacks and the military lied to us and murdered half a million innocent Iraqis.

Disagree. Whatever you want to call these weapons, we have seen the carnage that these weapons can cause at the hands of the "general public" and we have seen the blatant stupidity of the people who carry them. We have seen the proliferation of these white gangs that hide out in the woods playing soldier. There is no need for the "general public" to possess this kind of fire-power.

Any household need for a gun can be satisfied by a pistol, rifle, or shotgun, all of which we had growing up, kept under lock and key and transported in locked leather cases, with strict instructions never to point them at any other living thing unless we actually were in bonafide danger. But I once shot at a large spider on the back of a garage in Castroville, TX, with my aunt's pistol. I missed.

Yes, we have seen African-Americans being murdered by police, but I'm not that sure that arming all African-Americans with high-powered weaponry is the answer. As for killing people in foreign countries, I don't know how we can stop it. Our foreign policy has been screwed up for my entire life, at least. Who else could come up with a slogan like "kill a commie for Christ" or put bible verses on bullets?

 

[Rigby5]

Liberal gun owners face dilemma in 2020 field

Is there a strong 2A liberal candidate?

Liberals, moderates, and progressives who own guns probably will vote for the Democrat of their choice. Most likely they do not own, or defend owning the kind of useless military weaponry that the 2A radical fanatics champion. Not all gun owners are goobers prancing around in military fatigues brandishing rapid-fire, bullet-spraying weaponry while yelling about some nameless "them," of whom they seem to be very, very afraid, as if screaming hordes of "them" are going to invade Gooberville, USA. Many gun owners have common sense.

There are no military weaponry sold in the US to the public, and has not been since around 1935.
The military uses full auto, and all civilian weapons sold are single shot.
They are no more rapid-fire, bullet spraying than they were back in the Civil War, with Spencers, Sharps, and revolvers.
Single shot.
You pull the trigger on an AR, and you get a single shot.

Common sense should tell anyone that in a democracy, it is the general population that should be trusted with the best weapons, not the mercenary police or military. We already know the police are murdering Blacks and the military lied to us and murdered half a million innocent Iraqis.

Disagree. Whatever you want to call these weapons, we have seen the carnage that these weapons can cause at the hands of the "general public" and we have seen the blatant stupidity of the people who carry them. We have seen the proliferation of these white gangs that hide out in the woods playing soldier. There is no need for the "general public" to possess this kind of fire-power.

Any household need for a gun can be satisfied by a pistol, rifle, or shotgun, all of which we had growing up, kept under lock and key and transported in locked leather cases, with strict instructions never to point them at any other living thing unless we actually were in bonafide danger. But I once shot at a large spider on the back of a garage in Castroville, TX, with my aunt's pistol. I missed.

Yes, we have seen African-Americans being murdered by police, but I'm not that sure that arming all African-Americans with high-powered weaponry is the answer. As for killing people in foreign countries, I don't know how we can stop it. Our foreign policy has been screwed up for my entire life, at least. Who else could come up with a slogan like "kill a commie for Christ" or put bible verses on bullets?

You are misinformed.
These so called assault weapons are no more rapid fire, high capacity, or powerful than most weapons were by 1870 or so.
They are single shot.

The solution to abusive police is to not have a police state, and to defend yourself instead of falsely believing police can or will defend you. There is no legal basis for police, and they did not exist for the first 100 years or so of this country.
The solution to abusive military is to do what the founders wanted, and that is to have citizens soldiers instead of paid mercenaries.

If you look at mass shootings, like at schools, they are almost all suicides, so then clearly it is a mental health issue, and not a criminal justice problem. Reagan shut down all the mental health facilities that could identify and help prevent these tragedies. Gun control can not. For there is no minor gun control penalty you can impose that is going to prevent a person bent on murder and suicide. They are not going to hesitate to obtain the firearms illegally. All you do then with gun control, is disarm the honest people, who are the ones we should want to be armed.

If you really look at what those who support gun control are talking about, it actually does boil down to every single pistol, rifle, or shotgun.
They do not want the general public to have any recourse when the fossil fuels start to run out, and the 1% are not willing to accept the same slice of a shrinking pie. So far it has only been Blacks, immigrants, and those in other countries that have been abused. But all but the 1% will eventually be targeted.