View Full Version : Assault Weapons Ban 2019
The wings bats have gathered to propose a new AWB as expected:
Washington—Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) today led a group of senators in introducing the Assault Weapons Ban of 2019, an updated bill to ban the sale, transfer, manufacture and importation of military-style assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines.
In addition to Feinstein, Murphy and Blumenthal, cosponsors of the bill include Senators Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Tom Carper (D-Del.), Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), Ben Cardin (D-Md.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), Bob Casey (D-Pa.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Tina Smith (D-Minn.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and Mark Warner (D-Va.).
“Last year we saw tens of thousands of students nationwide take to the streets to demand action to stop mass shootings and stem the epidemic of gun violence that plagues our communities. Our youngest generation has grown up with active-shooter drills, hiding under their desks—and now they’re saying enough is enough,” said Senator Dianne Feinstein. “Americans across the nation are asking Congress to reinstate the federal ban on military-style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. If we’re going to put a stop to mass shootings and protect our children, we need to get these weapons of war off our streets.”
“Military-style assault rifles are the weapons of choice for mass murderers. There’s just no reason why these guns, which were designed to kill as many people as quickly as possible, are sold to the public,” said Senator Chris Murphy. “This past year, we’ve seen Americans rise up and demand Congress change our gun laws. Banning assault weapons would save lives, and I’m proud to join Senator Feinstein in introducing this bill.”
Cont:
https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?id=EFC76859-879D-4038-97DD-C577212ED17B
Over 70,000 deaths of US citizens last year directly caused by the hard drugs coming across our southern border. The Democrats could care less about that. We ought to ban the Democratic Party.
Over 70,000 deaths of US citizens last year directly caused by the hard drugs coming across our southern border. The Democrats could care less about that. We ought to ban the Democratic Party.
Considering there is nothing in the Constitution about the federal government having a say in what you ingest, you really shouldn't want them acting on that either. War on drugs, guns, and similar are power boosts for the powers that be at the cost of everyone's liberties.
BoringGuy45
01-10-19, 09:14
Not going anywhere for the next 2 years at least. Not to say that I trust the GOP, and they have bent over too much on a lot of gun bills, but they did stand firm against mag capacity laws and the AWB after Newtown, so I can't see anything being different right now.
Not going anywhere for the next 2 years at least. Not to say that I trust the GOP, and they have bent over too much on a lot of gun bills, but they did stand firm against mag capacity laws and the AWB after Newtown, so I can't see anything being different right now.
Obama was president then so pro wrestling code of conduct and all.
She parades this out every year since 2004. Goes nowhere. Still tho, they should all be hanged for treason simply for trying to pass this.
FromMyColdDeadHand
01-10-19, 09:47
Where in the hell are the follow-on cases to Heller and McDonald. We need to be cramming those down SCOTUS now before the dems get enough votes to make those wins meaningless.
Where in the hell are the follow-on cases to Heller and McDonald. We need to be cramming those down SCOTUS now before the dems get enough votes to make those wins meaningless.
That's part of the 100 year plan along with suppressors off the NFA and a few other things.
She parades this out every year since 2004. Goes nowhere. Still tho, they should all be hanged for treason simply for trying to pass this.
Nah no need for them to pass is, Trump will just order the Justice Department to make it so.
Ned Christiansen
01-10-19, 11:28
Ryan Cleckner on the same. I think this guy is worth watching in the coming years.
https://gununiversity.com/assault-weapon-ban-of-2019/
BoringGuy45
01-10-19, 11:40
Where in the hell are the follow-on cases to Heller and McDonald. We need to be cramming those down SCOTUS now before the dems get enough votes to make those wins meaningless.
It's the reason why RBG needs to retire. Roberts is either afraid of or apathetic towards 2nd Amendment cases. Though he has ruled the right way in most of the 2A cases that have made it to the SC during his tenure, he seems to turn away every case that he can, usually on the grounds that there hasn't been a disagreement between the circuit courts on most gun restrictions (because most cases have come up only to the circuits that are stacked with leftist judges), so there is no "final ruling" or "dispute" that needs to be settled. Of course, this is a cop out, and all four other conservative justices are on record saying so. But, unless a state in the conservative 5th through 8th Circuits passes a ban and gets overturned by one of those courts, Roberts won't want to take a 2A case. Another truly conservative justice will probably mean we finally see some of these bans come up to the SC and (hopefully) overturned.
I think that this bill and their New Green Deal just shows how far left not only the Dems are but their supporters. They are no longer afraid of being open communists.
Where in the hell are the follow-on cases to Heller and McDonald. We need to be cramming those down SCOTUS now before the dems get enough votes to make those wins meaningless.
This. I encourage everyone to read the dissenting opinion from the 3rd circuit concerning the NJ magazine ban appeal.
https://reason.com/blog/2018/12/06/powerful-dissent-charges-judges-who-casu
Law makers must be able to prove that the elements of these laws have a rational base before burdening citizens with restriction on their natural right of self defense protected by the 2nd Amendment.
As we all know in this community, flashhiders, pistol grips, adjustable stocks, bayonet lugs, barrel shrouds, etc have zero to do with how deadly a firearm is. However these charlatans take advantage of the public’s ignorance to win support for these cockamamie laws.
SCOTUS needs to hear a case and put that burden on the law makers. If they cant connect the dots between what they want to ban vs what they are trying to accomplish than it’s an unconstitutional and unnecessary infringement for political purposes.
LowSpeed_HighDrag
01-10-19, 12:31
With ardent 2A supporters like Pelosi and Trump in charge, I'm sure we'll see massive increases in our 2A rights soon...
Not panicking nor am I even caring about guns but...I see that M&P lower and LMT MWS lower within the next couple months
Before any Judgey Judies chime in ....I just really like the S&W rollmark and wanna slap a 1/7 M4 upper on it. And well...I like LMT
From the press release:
Updates to Assault Weapons Ban of 2017:
Bans stocks that are “otherwise foldable or adjustable in a manner that operates to reduce the length, size, or any other dimension, or otherwise enhances the concealability of a firearm.”
Bans assault pistols that weigh 50 or more ounces when unloaded, a policy included in the original 1994 ban.
Bans assault pistol stabilizing braces that transform assault pistols into assault rifles by allowing the shooter to shoulder the weapon and fire more accurately.
Bans Thordsen-type grips and stocks that are designed to evade a ban on assault weapons.
Sure seems that their tactics are evolving.
Couple this horese **** with what is happening at the state level across the country, it does not bode well. Maybe dog and pony again, maybe not.
God help us when the next POTUS is Dem. Which I fear is sooner than later. All bets will be off.
Sure seems that their tactics are evolving.
Couple this horese **** with what is happening at the state level across the country, it does not bode well. Maybe dog and pony again, maybe not.
God help us when the next POTUS is Dem. Which I fear is sooner than later. All bets will be off.
Y'all had 14 years. I got all I need, most what I want, mags, ammo, etc.
They do this every year and it goes nowhere so they go after states. But still....
You had 14 years. As chumpbaity as they are...I kinda want a 762 AK. Maybe a PTR91 to go with my original.
Even if it happened today it wouldnt affect me too bad. Still BS that does nothing.
Besides in the 90s they got their ban and were still calling black kids super predators and whining about crime.
Meh screw em. They don't care what happens in your community.
Just keep paying your damn taxes.
FromMyColdDeadHand
01-10-19, 14:32
It's the reason why RBG needs to retire. Roberts is either afraid of or apathetic towards 2nd Amendment cases. Though he has ruled the right way in most of the 2A cases that have made it to the SC during his tenure, he seems to turn away every case that he can, usually on the grounds that there hasn't been a disagreement between the circuit courts on most gun restrictions (because most cases have come up only to the circuits that are stacked with leftist judges), so there is no "final ruling" or "dispute" that needs to be settled. Of course, this is a cop out, and all four other conservative justices are on record saying so. But, unless a state in the conservative 5th through 8th Circuits passes a ban and gets overturned by one of those courts, Roberts won't want to take a 2A case. Another truly conservative justice will probably mean we finally see some of these bans come up to the SC and (hopefully) overturned.
Very well put.
I see that the pistol braces are within their area of perception. Hopefully those will take a legislative cycle to work their way through - and deal with the property issues of banning- so that we have a bit more time before the real bans get here.
It is the state and local laws where the fight is being fought. Fed is just a phony war of posturing.
ETA: With RBG out sick and not hearing cases, I assumed that she wouldn't be able to vote? But someone told me today that she can read the transcript and vote rule anyways? What judge gets to miss work and do some reading afterwards to rule? I assumed that she couldn't vote on cases that she didn't sit on.
Should have impeached her ass when we had the house.
Y'all had 14 years. I got all I need, most what I want, mags, ammo, etc.
They do this every year and it goes nowhere so they go after states. But still....
You had 14 years. As chumpbaity as they are...I kinda want a 762 AK. Maybe a PTR91 to go with my original.
Even if it happened today it wouldnt affect me too bad. Still BS that does nothing.
Besides in the 90s they got their ban and were still calling black kids super predators and whining about crime.
Meh screw em. They don't care what happens in your community.
Just keep paying your damn taxes.
Trust me, I want for nothing. Actually heading the opposite way and getting rid of most everything but basic defense stuff and moving on with life. Just over it. But, That does not mean I don't care about the cause.
To my minds eye though, gun control is just the gateway drug for these people. If/when it happens, what will be next? Because there will be a next.
But, what do I know, maybe it is just business as usual and much ado about nothing.
No way they grandfather anything this time. Trump set the precedent with Bump Stocks.
Outlander Systems
01-10-19, 15:32
You need a baby chop with a stendo clip.
As chumpbaity as they are...I kinda want a 762 AK.
No way they grandfather anything this time. Trump set the precedent with Bump Stocks.
I agree, they want to turn millions of Americans into instant felons who either fall in line or go to jail.
WickedWillis
01-10-19, 16:08
Yep, no friendly fire here we all need to be on the same team and fight this one.
Yep, no friendly fire here we all need to be on the same team and fight this one.
^THIS!
I've already been on the phone and sending emails to my "representatives".
^THIS!
I've already been on the phone and sending emails to my "representatives".
This.
^THIS!
I've already been on the phone and sending emails to my "representatives".
Thank you. They might trot this shit out every year, but every year we have to beat it. They almost got us with complacency after the first Sandy Hook attempt and when everyone thought it was done and gone NRA (A rated) Harry Reid tried a last hour hail mary attempt while nobody was looking.
We have to be on point for the same exact thing. The Dems retook the house so they probably feel strong and with the wishy washy GOPs we have in the Senate, anything is possible. The Trump bump stock thing probably gave this one momentum that they are going to try and ride.
Don't expect Trump or the RINO crew to do anything for you. The NRA as usual will probably be mostly on the sidelines. We are going to have to fight this one tooth and nail ourselves...again. Hopefully TOS is tuned up, say what you want about some of the GD antics from time to time, but they are a huge blocking force and know how to circle wagons and make shit happen.
I agree, they want to turn millions of Americans into instant felons who either fall in line or go to jail.
Yeah, about that......:rolleyes:
I agree, they want to turn millions of Americans into instant felons who either fall in line or go to jail.
Those are not the only two alternatives. People have been flaunting the marijuana laws for a hundred years.
Andy
Those are not the only two alternatives. People have been flaunting the marijuana laws for a hundred years.
Andy
Yeah man, **** these politicians...They can kiss my fat ass with their bans.
I the immortal words of Cypress Hill:
I got ta get my props
Cops
Come and try ta' snatch my crops
These pigs want to blow my house down
Head underground
To the next town
They get mad when they come to raid my pad
And I'm off in the night deuce Cad
Yes I'm the pirate
Pilot
Of this ship if I get wit' the ultraviolet dream
Hide from the red light beam
I agree, they want to turn millions of Americans into instant felons who either fall in line or go to jail.
Or cross their line. Not saying anything or suggesting a course of action, but compliance isn't guaranteed and if they thought the Bundy Ranch was a big deal, they ain't seen nothing.
titsonritz
01-10-19, 19:09
Perfect...let the panic ensue.
Here's something from the House of Traitors:
https://nationalgunrights.org/resources/press-releases/nagr-opposes-universal-brady-gun-registration/?fbclid=IwAR0DjgcCxjr5FJ-MRpjnsvyyu0KbI1u-bXLDerJYW-KI2AXqYeJ6fZZqMNU.
Somebody had this up in record time.
Folks .. please sign and send. Verify your signature thereafter or else it won't take:
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/remove-diane-feinstein-office-immediately-and-imprison-her-treason?fbclid=IwAR2ufa9PRWGwpAHI2Asz-IqFCNQPxkanFJ2I3b3GSTnpyG9zBWDFjufwK6M.
Phillygunguy
01-10-19, 21:18
Does Trump really think he can win a reelection after stabbing us in the back? And the way the left is planning on impeachment?
Phillygunguy
01-10-19, 21:22
**** em.
I read Trump told Difi he'd consider signing an AWB. I don't have the link it was on Facebook
Considering there is nothing in the Constitution about the federal government having a say in what you ingest, you really shouldn't want them acting on that either. War on drugs, guns, and similar are power boosts for the powers that be at the cost of everyone's liberties.
Exactly. People should have the rights to ingest whatever they want. War on Drugs is bullshit. Now, war on driving under the influence? Illegal immigration? Okay. But legislated morality is bullshit.
I read Trump told Difi he'd consider signing an AWB. I don't have the link it was on Facebook
I read the article. This is correct. He supported the 1994 AWB when it was passed, and he's a NY Democrat. What do you expect? I don't know why people voted for him beyond "He's not Hillary". That's why I voted for him. He's not some savior. He's just not the devil by name.
Trump has been pushing to keep a lot of his campaign promises, more than most.
Hes been great on economy.
Ive always had slight reservations about his 2a stance,but his son was out there running that game well. This made me optimistic, but the last few months have been dissapointing to say the least.
Where is Jr now? I think Trump will win 2020, but it seems its going to be a battle for 2a stuff for the next 6(?) years.
The 94 bill was 24 years ago, people can change views in 24 years. I was hoping he did, perhaps not.
Does Trump really think he can win a reelection after stabbing us in the back? And the way the left is planning on impeachment?
This is a good question of course and with him running his mouth along with the NRA about a bumpstock ban I cannot put anything past him.
I do remember him speaking FOR the AWB in 1994. This is most negative to say the least.
It's hard to say but what I'm worried most about (to be honest) is the crazy way things are going now in addition to cutthroat gun control. The left/liberals are totally unhinged and I would not put it past them to fraudulize votes to get this AWB just like they do to get in to office in the first place.
Just the same old thing again. They will keep trying till they get something. Not going anywhere! :angry:
I read the article. This is correct. He supported the 1994 AWB when it was passed, and he's a NY Democrat. What do you expect? I don't know why people voted for him beyond "He's not Hillary". That's why I voted for him. He's not some savior. He's just not the devil by name.
Not saying anything about Trump, but Bush (43) also vowed to sign the AW ban if it reached his desk.
http://www.ontheissues.org/george_w__bush.htm#Gun_Control
Would sign, but would not push, gun restrictions. (Apr 2000)
Ban automatic weapons & high-capacity ammunition clips. (Apr 2000)
I read Trump told Difi he'd consider signing an AWB. I don't have the link it was on Facebook
Donald Trump says he’s open to Dianne Feinstein’s assault weapons age limit – or even a ban
Video at link: https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article202733214.html
Washington
Sen. Dianne Feinstein got a high-profile boost for her new legislation to raise the minimum age for purchasing assault rifles.
President Donald Trump raised the issue, unprompted, during a roughly hour-long televised meeting with Feinstein and other members of Congress Wednesday afternoon at the White House. “I think it’s something you have to think about,” Trump said at the gathering to discuss school safety. “It doesn’t make sense that I have to wait until I’m 21 to get a handgun but I can get this weapon at 18,” he added, referring to assault rifles.
Trump’s comments came the same day Feinstein and Arizona Republican Sen. Jeff Flake formally rolled out their bipartisan legislation to raise the minimum age for purchasing assault weapons and high capacity magazines from 18 to 21. The California Democrat, sitting directly to the president’s left at the White House meeting, interjected at one point, asking if he’d sign legislation to raise the age to 21.
Trump said he’d give it “serious thought,” even though he acknowledged the National Rifle Association opposed such a proposal. The president said he’d been “asked that question more than any other question” in the wake of the Feb. 14 mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, which killed 17 people.
He also didn’t rule out the idea of outlawing assault weapons, like the semi-automatic AR-15 rifle gunman Nikolas Cruz used to mow down students and teachers at Stoneman Douglas High. Feinstein pitched her 2017 legislation to renew the ban at the beginning of the meeting, handing Trump a copy of the bill. She was the author of the original assault weapons ban that President Bill Clinton signed into law in 1994. It expired in 2004.
Later, the president asked Sens. Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania and Joe Manchin of West Virginia if they could fold Feinstein’s legislation (and another proposal from Minnesota Democratic Sen. Amy Klobucher) into their bipartisan background checks bill. “Can you add what Amy and Dianne have, can you add them in?” Trump asked. Feinstein’s gleeful reaction, smiling widely and appearing to plead with Toomey and Manchin, immediately began circulating on Twitter.
Congressional Republicans, meanwhile, were trying not to grimace. Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn of Texas tried to pour cold water on Trump’s suggestion about the assault weapons ban and other proposals the president advocated for during the meeting – which are well beyond what GOP lawmakers are willing to consider. Gun rights groups also promptly rejected the president’s proposals.
“President Trump and Congress need to stop talking about passing more burdensome gun control laws and start working to pass common-sense legislation to protect and advance the right to keep and bear arms,” Richard Thomson, grassroots director at the Sacramento-based Firearms Policy Coalition, said in a statement.
Without Republican support, it’s highly unlikely any of these more ambitious proposals will move through Congress.
“The biggest thing is to act,” Cornyn reminded Trump. Cornyn and other Republicans are arguing that the one thing Congress members from both parties can agree on is the Texas Republican’s legislation to improve the data that goes to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System or NICS. The House passed their version of the bill last December.
Democrats say that’s just a start. “Fix NICS would be a good thing to do, but it’s a tiny step when we need a giant leap. It cannot be the only thing we do,” Democratic Senate Leader Chuck Schumer said Wednesday in a speech on the Senate floor. In particular, Schumer is advocating for universal background checks legislation along the lines of what Manchin and Toomey have proposed. Among other things, it would close loopholes that allow gun buyers at gun shows or on the Internet to avoid background checks. The proposal garnered 54 votes in the Senate in 2013, not enough to overcome a filibuster.
But Manchin and Toomey argued Wednesday that the president’s support could lead to a different outcome this year. They predicted it will would get the necessary 60 votes in the Senate with his backing.
The president reiterated over the course of the meeting that he wanted a “comprehensive” bill to fix the background checks system, as well as strengthen school security and address mental health issues. He said the legislation would not have to address bump stocks – the device the Las Vegas gunman used last October that allowed his semi-automatic weapon to fire like an automatic weapon. Feinstein introduced legislation in the fall to outlaw that device, as well.
Trump insisted at the meeting he could ban bump stocks via executive action. “You don’t have to worry about bump stocks, that will be gone,” he said, adding, “we’ll have that done pretty quickly.” Feinstein has continued to argue that the administration does not have that authority, and that congressional action is needed to amend the law on automatic weapons. But she did not raise the point with Trump on Wednesday.
Instead, Feinstein focused on assault weapons, which has been a priority of hers for decades. It’s also one of the issues she’s emphasizing in her bid for reelection this fall. Last weekend in San Diego, Feinstein promised an audience at the California Democratic Party’s annual convention that she would not rest “until we get these AR-15s off of the streets and out of the hands of people who would use them to kill others.”
Her exchanges with the president on Wednesday may not help her with California’s Democratic faithful, however. At one point on Wednesday the president told Feinstein she had “some very good ideas” -- praise that will certainly not be a badge of honor among California’s left. They loathe Trump and already regard Feinstein with suspicion for her moderate positions on some issues. The party’s liberal base refused to endorse the 25-year incumbent at their convention.
Yup. that's the article, and I also think people are giving Trump WAYYYY too much credit on the economy. He's overclocking it, and starting dangerous trade wars that he is viewing as 2 dimensional when they are actually 3D ("If we don't compromise with them, they will have to pay as we demand!" vs. "If we don't compromise with them, they will possibly find a secondary source that will rise to the occasion and benefit massively, replacing us in this market."). Soon enough the tax cuts we are enjoying will expire, while the corporate tax cuts continue, and the sugar high will wear off. It was a total bread and circuses move. I'll be the first to say a few thousand dollars a year less in taxes is awesome, and I love it, but I do not think I will define the economy based on that and short-term results.
Lol Trump is pro guns
Not
Lol Trump is pro guns
Not
Some of us tried to say this when he was running in the primary and general. We were called libtards and insulted.
Think he could get his “wall” as a trade for a gun bill? To me it seems like the one thing Dems would agree to. Scary.
Think he could get his “wall” as a trade for a gun bill? To me it seems like the one thing Dems would agree to. Scary.
Brought up at about 50:45
https://youtu.be/8JzACChNiXg
Doc Safari
01-11-19, 09:01
Face it: If you're depending on politicians whose first impetus is self-preservation, then you're already playing with a deficit. You think they would put your puny rights ahead of whichever way the wind is blowing? Good luck with that.
thopkins22
01-11-19, 09:13
Some of us tried to say this when he was running in the primary and general. We were called libtards and insulted.
Yep. Sadly I learned a lot about folks during the last several years. Very little of it was comforting. Just wait a minute and someone will come in and say that you’re a paid troll.
Populism and Trump’s “ideology” has much more in common with Bernie Sanders than Reagan or Goldwater. From a pure “what is the role of government?” perspective, he’s to the left of Obama.
He’s a New Yorker who is a cartoonish impression of what a poor person thinks a wealthy person is.
He is not nor was he ever our friend.
Face it: If you're depending on politicians whose first impetus is self-preservation, then you're already playing with a deficit. You think they would put your puny rights ahead of whichever way the wind is blowing? Good luck with that.
100% correct. For me, Trump was the better option over HRC for a number of reasons, one of which was that he might not sign an AWB, were HRC would definitely sign an AWB. Look at what Reagan, Bush and now Trump (with the bump stock ban) have done to restrict our Constitutionally protected right to bear arms. Marco Rubio intrudes a red flag bill. The majority of Republicans in DC are not on our side and don’t care about our rights.
100% correct. For me, Trump was the better option over HRC for a number of reasons, one of which was that he might not sign an AWB, were HRC would definitely sign an AWB. Look at what Reagan, Bush and now Trump (with the bump stock ban) have done to restrict our Constitutionally protected right to bear arms. Marco Rubio intrudes a red flag bill. The majority of Republicans in DC are not on our side and don’t care about our rights.
Yep. Being better than the alternative is not the same as being a good choice.
Hilarious that: "he might do what every R President has done or said he would do" is all that never Trumpers can come up with.
Not saying anything about Trump, but Bush (43) also vowed to sign the AW ban if it reached his desk.
http://www.ontheissues.org/george_w__bush.htm#Gun_Control
Would sign, but would not push, gun restrictions. (Apr 2000)
Ban automatic weapons & high-capacity ammunition clips. (Apr 2000)
A good reminder that Politicians, especially at the upper levels of Government, are generally anti-2a regardless of which party they happen to belong to.
They know enough to obscure it during election years, especially Republicans, but the only thing keeping most of them from voting away our gun rights is the fear of losing re-election, not principle or a belief in liberty.
I think Democrats have only amped up the anti-gun rhetoric because of two things: gun control is increasingly seen as an issue that their base will support and only those who are already political opponents will oppose; and more importantly Bloomberg has been pouring money into the campaigns of politicians who align themselves with Everytown and his other astroturf anti-gun organizations. In politics money talks about all else.
It wouldn't surprise me to find that the majority of old school GOP congressmen would support an AWB and other severe restrictions on 2A rights.
Yep. Sadly I learned a lot about folks during the last several years. Very little of it was comforting. Just wait a minute and someone will come in and say that you’re a paid troll.
Populism and Trump’s “ideology” has much more in common with Bernie Sanders than Reagan or Goldwater. From a pure “what is the role of government?” perspective, he’s to the left of Obama.
He’s a New Yorker who is a cartoonish impression of what a poor person thinks a wealthy person is.
He is not nor was he ever our friend.
Well said.
Doc Safari
01-11-19, 11:38
Here is the 800-lb gorilla in the room:
Every politician, regardless of party or political beliefs, knows deep down inside that the Second Amendment gives the people the potential power to overthrow and murder the bastards if they take their efforts to screw the American people too far.
Therefore, any lip service they pay, any appearance of being pro-2A, any pretense that they believe in the Constitution, is only a smoke screen for 99.9% of the politicians who have an agenda to empower and enrich themselves at our expense.
Now, I know there are exceptions. That's why I didn't give it 100%. But the vast majority of politicians in both parties would have a 30-day long orgasm if they could somehow remove any possibility that they could twist in the wind because of their actions.
Fast forward to 5:20 for plain truth. Warning: If you watch the video in it's entirety, schroomer is focused on frequently.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEJFAvA-ZUE
The need for those in power to render us common folk powerless in directly proportional to their intent to subjugate and oppress the common folk.
Here is the 800-lb gorilla in the room:
Every politician, regardless of party or political beliefs, knows deep down inside that the Second Amendment gives the people the potential power to overthrow and murder the bastards if they take their efforts to screw the American people too far.
Therefore, any lip service they pay, any appearance of being pro-2A, any pretense that they believe in the Constitution, is only a smoke screen for 99.9% of the politicians who have an agenda to empower and enrich themselves at our expense.
Now, I know there are exceptions. That's why I didn't give it 100%. But the vast majority of politicians in both parties would have a 30-day long orgasm if they could somehow remove any possibility that they could twist in the wind because of their actions.Sad but true imo.
Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk
Sad but true imo.
Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk
Sorry, had to.
https://youtu.be/4AjScYSuGJ4
My iPhone XS Max is better than your android!
Americans dont need AR15s but my private security needs state of the art kit because Politicians Lives Matter.
There is a day of reckoning coming. Either for us or for these tyrannous dickheads.
I know where I stand.
There is a day of reckoning coming. Either for us or for these tyrannous dickheads.
I doubt it.
I have a bad feeling that this whole bill, or at least portions of it, will be passed.
I have a bad feeling that this whole bill, or at least portions of it, will be passed.
..Why?
..Why?
No reason in particular. My initial thought was that it will go no where. It has room for deals to be made though, maybe not the complete "assault weapon" ban, but magazines, and background checks. "We can all agree this is a good compromise..." sort of thing.
Again, that is just my thinking. I have no idea how politics work, nor do I have anything to support this.
thopkins22
01-11-19, 15:47
The folks submitting this bill do so every couple of years for no good reason. Nothing ever happens. Nor will it happen now.
The folks submitting this bill do so every couple of years for no good reason. Nothing ever happens. Nor will it happen now.
Do not underestimate the Left (or their proxies) creating another crisis at the time this bill hits the floor to garner support.
..Why?
As disturbing and horrible as the prospect of a large-scale civil conflict is, I'm starting to become even more disturbed by the realization that we really don't have the means, or the will, to pull it off.
As disturbing and horrible as the prospect of a large-scale civil conflict is, I'm starting to become even more disturbed by the realization that we really don't have the means, or the will, to pull it off.
I think that is entirely accurate. At least the will part. The means would be fine if we had the will.
WickedWillis
01-11-19, 17:35
I think that is entirely accurate. At least the will part. The means would be fine if we had the will.
What means do we have that is fool-proof and will benefit us? Writing our representatives is nice, but it's also the assumption that they truly care.
As disturbing and horrible as the prospect of a large-scale civil conflict is, I'm starting to become even more disturbed by the realization that we really don't have the means, or the will, to pull it off.
Fear not, wherever shirtless men stand prepared to put down dumpster offenders, brave defenders of freedom will do what other more learned men won't.
The battle cry will be "doubt it."
Fear not, wherever shirtless men stand prepared to put down dumpster offenders, brave defenders of freedom will do what other more learned men won't.
The battle cry will be "doubt it."
:lol:
badguybuster
01-11-19, 20:28
My concern is that the Dems will offer Trump the wall i exchange for gun control. Its a win-win for them
I'd sooner have a gun than a wall.
I still say it is every American's duty to breed Latin women in the wheatfields
Phillygunguy
01-11-19, 21:26
Soon there will come a time where you have to decide, do you die fighting for your 2A rights now? or give up your rights and die in a mass grave later.
I'd sooner have a gun than a wall.
Might need to be a t-shirt slogan so we can recruit the masses...
Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk
Submariner
01-12-19, 10:58
Americans dont need AR15s but my private security needs state of the art kit because Politicians Lives Matter.
THEY SAY: “Those assault rifles have no sporting purpose. You don’t need a 30-round magazine for hunting deer they’re only for killing people.”
WE SAY: “I compete in DCM (now CMP) High Power with my AR-15. You need a large-capacity magazine for their course of fire. My SKS is a fine deer rifle, and I’ve never done anything to give my government reason not to trust me, blah, blah, blah.” (FLAW: You have implicitly conceded that it is OK to ban any gun with no sporting use. And eventually they can replace your sporting arms with arcade-game substitutes.)
WE SHOULD SAY: “Your claim that ‘they’re only for killing people’ is imprecise. A gas chamber or electric chair is designed for killing people, and these devices obviously serve different functions than guns. To be precise, a high capacity military-type rifle or handgun is designed for CONFLICT. When I need to protect myself and my freedom, I want the most reliable, most durable, highest capacity weapon possible. The only thing hunting and target shooting have to do with freedom is that they’re good practice.”
Give It to Them Straight
by John Ross
Author of Unintended Consequences
https://www.floridaconcealedcarry.com/Foru...-Straight-John-Ross
If the Jews in Germany had beltfeds and rockets, would it have made a difference?
OOOH the buts and the ums and the 'that's different' get DELISH when I trot that one out
If the Jews in Germany had beltfeds and rockets, would it have made a difference?
OOOH the buts and the ums and the 'that's different' get DELISH when I trot that one out
Another fantastic point. So many holes in their “logic.”
If the Jews in Germany had beltfeds and rockets, would it have made a difference?
OOOH the buts and the ums and the 'that's different' get DELISH when I trot that one out
Nope because they would have wanted someone else to do it for them.
You were comparing apples and hand grenades
THEY SAY: “Those assault rifles have no sporting purpose. You don’t need a 30-round magazine for hunting deer they’re only for killing people.”
WE SAY: “I compete in DCM (now CMP) High Power with my AR-15. You need a large-capacity magazine for their course of fire. My SKS is a fine deer rifle, and I’ve never done anything to give my government reason not to trust me, blah, blah, blah.” (FLAW: You have implicitly conceded that it is OK to ban any gun with no sporting use. And eventually they can replace your sporting arms with arcade-game substitutes.)
WE SHOULD SAY: “Your claim that ‘they’re only for killing people’ is imprecise. A gas chamber or electric chair is designed for killing people, and these devices obviously serve different functions than guns. To be precise, a high capacity military-type rifle or handgun is designed for CONFLICT. When I need to protect myself and my freedom, I want the most reliable, most durable, highest capacity weapon possible. The only thing hunting and target shooting have to do with freedom is that they’re good practice.”
Give It to Them Straight
by John Ross
Author of Unintended Consequences
https://www.floridaconcealedcarry.com/Foru...-Straight-John-Ross
My answer to that is that killing other people, even large numbers of them, quickly, is a "legitimate purpose". Possessing a tool designed for purely anti-personnel use is completely valid.
It's who you are killing with it, and why, that determines legitimacy.
If you kill 28 MS-13 members trying to storm your home, that's legitimate. If you kill 28 schoolchildren, that's illegitimate.
Just like when people used to ask me what I needed "armor piercing bullets" for, my answer was "To pierce armor."
Nope because they would have wanted someone else to do it for them.
You were comparing apples and hand grenades
Well I should have added "and were willing to use them"
The folks submitting this bill do so every couple of years for no good reason. Nothing ever happens. Nor will it happen now.
You don't get the wailing and gnashing of teeth when republicans do it as seen with bans from Reagan, Bush, Bush, and now Trump.
Well I should have added "and were willing to use them"
I still think you are doing apples to oranges.
In 1933 the Jewish represented less that 1% of the German population, 505,000 out of 6.7 million. According to another source about 300.000 of those Jews emigrated during the first six years of Nazi rule.
So yes, they could have made it more difficult, but ultimately they would have been defeated.
There is a distinct difference in numbers when you are talking about gun confiscation and/or civil war in the United States.
Roughly 1/3 of American households have at least one firearm and we are not yet to the point that the remaining 2/3's want to take them away. But we can't rest easy, according to polls, gun ownership has dropped from 50% of households in 1980 to 36% in 2016.
Not so coincidentally, the number of veterans in the population dropped from 18% in 1980, to 7% in 2016.
Well I should have added "and were willing to use them"
Yep...... ;)
I still think you are doing apples to oranges.
In 1933 the Jewish represented less that 1% of the German population, 505,000 out of 6.7 million. According to another source about 300.000 of those Jews emigrated during the first six years of Nazi rule.
So yes, they could have made it more difficult, but ultimately they would have been defeated.
There is a distinct difference in numbers when you are talking about gun confiscation and/or civil war in the United States.
Roughly 1/3 of American households have at least one firearm and we are not yet to the point that the remaining 2/3's want to take them away. But we can't rest easy, according to polls, gun ownership has dropped from 50% of households in 1980 to 36% in 2016.
Not so coincidentally, the number of veterans in the population dropped from 18% in 1980, to 7% in 2016.
I dunno Wingman. I am told 6 million Jews perished in German Reich. I mean even 1 million would make an army with even basic weapons and training. Like even if all they had were trapdoor Krags and K38 Smiths.....
Just sayin.....
SomeOtherGuy
01-12-19, 16:02
My answer to that is that killing other people, even large numbers of them, quickly, is a "legitimate purpose". Possessing a tool designed for purely anti-personnel use is completely valid.
It's who you are killing with it, and why, that determines legitimacy.
If you kill 28 MS-13 members trying to storm your home, that's legitimate. If you kill 28 schoolchildren, that's illegitimate.
Just like when people used to ask me what I needed "armor piercing bullets" for, my answer was "To pierce armor."
I agree and I'll bet most on M4C also agree, but your position would be WAAAAY out beyond the fringes of sanity for the perspective of many people in our society. Probably more people than are on our side. Most people are neither smart nor capable of dealing with unpleasant things, no matter how obviously true they are. They will wish away any risk of bad things happening from bad people, and assume that some faceless but awesome LEO or soldier will miraculously handle any problems that require violence, due to that LEO or soldier's magic powers, and not recognize any possibility that the same individuals minus uniform and title can do some of the same things, for good.
Democracy barely works when it's limited to arms-bearing men of military age, as it was millennia ago. Even more tenuously when practiced as it was in 1789, and our current mob rule + Oprah does not work at all.
I dunno Wingman. I am told 6 million Jews perished in German Reich. I mean even 1 million would make an army with even basic weapons and training. Like even if all they had were trapdoor Krags and K38 Smiths.....
Just sayin.....
Personally, I view it as a moot issue. As the man said "If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.”
They may have been able to put up a resistance that was an ongoing distraction for the Nazis that slowed them down enough to make it more difficult to carry out their larger plan, it may have made no difference at all. We will never know, but the above is truth.
I agree and I'll bet most on M4C also agree, but your position would be WAAAAY out beyond the fringes of sanity for the perspective of many people in our society. Probably more people than are on our side. Most people are neither smart nor capable of dealing with unpleasant things, no matter how obviously true they are. They will wish away any risk of bad things happening from bad people, and assume that some faceless but awesome LEO or soldier will miraculously handle any problems that require violence, due to that LEO or soldier's magic powers, and not recognize any possibility that the same individuals minus uniform and title can do some of the same things, for good.
Democracy barely works when it's limited to arms-bearing men of military age, as it was millennia ago. Even more tenuously when practiced as it was in 1789, and our current mob rule + Oprah does not work at all.
You are, of course, correct in what you are saying, but I'm just increasingly sick of playing these dumb word games with anti-gun types.
Kinda like this thing the gun community does now: "It's not an 'assault rifle' it's a 'modern sporting rifle'! An assault rifle is select-fire!"
Ok...a Colt 6920 is basically the same gun as an M4 "assault rifle" except it isn't select-fire and the barrel is 1.5" longer...the differences are minimal and the 6920 (and every other civilian AR) is more or less an assault rifle, and you know what? That's okay. For me the fight is no longer about quibbling over what minor technical specifications make an "assault rifle", it's about making it clear that assault rifles are legitimate, constitutionally protected firearms for civilians to own and use, for the purposes that they were designed to fulfill.
And as an aside, if anyone does want to blame someone for the popularization of the terms assault rifle/assault pistol/assault weapon, it wasn't the antis, we actually need look no further than our own community. If you peruse a lot of 1980s gun magazines the gun writers of the time literally used these exact terms to refer to military style semi-automatics.
It was only after the Antis glommed on to the terminology that the gun press backtracked and began playing semantics, eventually culminating in queer-ass euphemisms like "modern sporting rifle'".
I say "assault rifle" is our term, and it's time to take it back.
Personally, I view it as a moot issue. As the man said "If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.”
They may have been able to put up a resistance that was an ongoing distraction for the Nazis that slowed them down enough to make it more difficult to carry out their larger plan, it may have made no difference at all. We will never know, but the above is truth.
If nothing else they could have died on their own terms rather than being herded into gas chambers. I'll take that if there is no better option to me.
I still think you are doing apples to oranges.
In 1933 the Jewish represented less that 1% of the German population, 505,000 out of 6.7 million. According to another source about 300.000 of those Jews emigrated during the first six years of Nazi rule.
So yes, they could have made it more difficult, but ultimately they would have been defeated.
Maybe. They obviously couldn't have went toe to toe with them, especially initially. If they had taken themselves out of contributing to their own demise by disappearing instead of paying taxes followed by being used as slave labor then that would have had a detrimental effect on their system. Kick in a few thousand running around killing their opponents in their downtime and that could have been a game changer. The will is never there though on any kind of scale large enough to matter.
If the Jews in Germany had beltfeds and rockets, would it have made a difference?
OOOH the buts and the ums and the 'that's different' get DELISH when I trot that one out
I’ve discussed this with fellow Jews who are dedicated progressive hoplophobes. One of them even came back with the position statement by the ADL that it’s offensive to suggest that the Jews would have fared better under the third Reich had they been armed. Others just hypothesize that there’s no way the Jews could have resisted the Reich and what’s the point of going up against tanks, planes, rockets, etc with small arms. Almost all believe “that can’t happen here”. There is no reasoning with the fully indoctrinated.
Would it have prevented the holocaust? Probably not. But I would prefer to go out fighting rather than be herded into a gas chamber.
I’ve discussed this with fellow Jews who are dedicated progressive hoplophobes. One of them even came back with the position statement by the ADL that it’s offensive to suggest that the Jews would have fared better under the third Reich had they been armed. Others just hypothesize that there’s no way the Jews could have resisted the Reich and what’s the point of going up against tanks, planes, rockets, etc with small arms. Almost all believe “that can’t happen here”. There is no reasoning with the fully indoctrinated.
Would it have prevented the holocaust? Probably not. But I would prefer to go out fighting rather than be herded into a gas chamber.
And the world would have know much sooner what was going on.
I’ve discussed this with fellow Jews who are dedicated progressive hoplophobes. One of them even came back with the position statement by the ADL that it’s offensive to suggest that the Jews would have fared better under the third Reich had they been armed. Others just hypothesize that there’s no way the Jews could have resisted the Reich and what’s the point of going up against tanks, planes, rockets, etc with small arms. Almost all believe “that can’t happen here”. There is no reasoning with the fully indoctrinated.
Would it have prevented the holocaust? Probably not. But I would prefer to go out fighting rather than be herded into a gas chamber.
The Jews in the Warsaw ghetto went up against tanks, planes, etc with small arms. They didn't win, but they died on their feet.
BoringGuy45
01-13-19, 13:43
I’ve discussed this with fellow Jews who are dedicated progressive hoplophobes. One of them even came back with the position statement by the ADL that it’s offensive to suggest that the Jews would have fared better under the third Reich had they been armed. Others just hypothesize that there’s no way the Jews could have resisted the Reich and what’s the point of going up against tanks, planes, rockets, etc with small arms. Almost all believe “that can’t happen here”. There is no reasoning with the fully indoctrinated.
I hate the "resistance is futile" argument. Yeah, an irregular resistance group is not likely to last long in a conventional battle against a professional army with armor and air support. Of course, I said "not likely," because the French thought that about the Viet Minh, who then kicked the French Army's ass in a conventional battle at Dien Bien Phu. But at any rate, I don't see the point of not resisting evil, even in the face of near certain defeat. If someone tells me that there's no point in fighting back, I'd say fine, go quietly to your death when they come for you. I want to at least make it hard for them.
Would it have prevented the holocaust? Probably not. But I would prefer to go out fighting rather than be herded into a gas chamber.
Prevented? Probably not. Slowed down, ended prematurely, or lowered the overall death toll? Likely. Adding onto this, an armed, aggressive Jewish resistance within Nazi controlled territory, especially in Germany and Poland, would likely have caught the attention of the Allies, probably leading to OSS and SOE special ops teams to link up with them to conduct an unconventional warfare campaign. Just imagine Jewish guerillas and Jedburg teams intercepting trains on the way to the camps over and over. Imagine camps getting raided and liberated. Imagine the SS ending up in long, drawn out firefights with resistance fighters and suffering heavy losses every time they went out to round up Jews for extermination. It would likely have sapped a lot of the enthusiasm the average young SS soldier actually had for committing genocide. It would have created a new front the Nazis would have had to fight on, and could have ended the whole war earlier. Just my theory.
I hate the "resistance is futile" argument. Yeah, an irregular resistance group is not likely to last long in a conventional battle against a professional army with armor and air support. Of course, I said "not likely," because the French thought that about the Viet Minh, who then kicked the French Army's ass in a conventional battle at Dien Bien Phu. But at any rate, I don't see the point of not resisting evil, even in the face of near certain defeat. If someone tells me that there's no point in fighting back, I'd say fine, go quietly to your death when they come for you. I want to at least make it hard for them.
Amen
Prevented? Probably not. Slowed down, ended prematurely, or lowered the overall death toll? Likely. Adding onto this, an armed, aggressive Jewish resistance within Nazi controlled territory, especially in Germany and Poland, would likely have caught the attention of the Allies, probably leading to OSS and SOE special ops teams to link up with them to conduct an unconventional warfare campaign. Just imagine Jewish guerillas and Jedburg teams intercepting trains on the way to the camps over and over. Imagine camps getting raided and liberated. Imagine the SS ending up in long, drawn out firefights with resistance fighters and suffering heavy losses every time they went out to round up Jews for extermination. It would likely have sapped a lot of the enthusiasm the average young SS soldier actually had for committing genocide. It would have created a new front the Nazis would have had to fight on, and could have ended the whole war earlier. Just my theory.
It would have been something to see.
It also sounds like the outline for one hell of an alternate history novel (video game/film/you name it).
Averageman
01-13-19, 16:46
I'm not real familiar with the source, but...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6586991/French-riot-police-using-semi-automatic-weapons-against-Yellow-Vest-protestors.html
French riot police have deployed semi-automatic weapons with live ammunition against Yellow Vest protestors for the first time.
Officers were filmed brandishing Heckler & Koch G36 weapons by the Arc de Triomphe in Paris on Saturday afternoon.
The presence of semi-automatic rifles at a demonstration by unarmed French citizens shows how President Emmanuel Macron’s law and order crisis spirals.
It comes after former conservative minister Luc Ferry called for live fire to be used against the ‘thugs’ from the Yellow Vest movement who he says 'beat up police'.
Riot police were on crowd control duty today facing off a mob of Gilet Jaunes or Yellow Vests - named after the bright high-visibility clothing.
Live ammunition 30 cartridge magazines could be seen as officers marched the streets, although none were used as 5000 police were deployed on the streets of the French capital.
I'm not sure if you've been following this, but these folks in the Yellow Vests are protesting their taxes being raised and the French version of their Social Security being taken from them. They feel that they no longer have representation within their .gov and that they are being taxed in to poverty.
Sound Familiar?
So when they tell you that these guns are for "Sporting Purposes Only" consider yourself in the same predicament as these French people.
WickedWillis
01-14-19, 12:26
If the Jews in Germany had beltfeds and rockets, would it have made a difference?
OOOH the buts and the ums and the 'that's different' get DELISH when I trot that one out
They would have died in the fight instead of in camps. I see why that's a tough question though.
They would have died in the fight instead of in camps. I see why that's a tough question though.There are insurgencies in countries around the world that continue to this day.
Sent from my G8341 using Tapatalk
I'm not real familiar with the source, but...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6586991/French-riot-police-using-semi-automatic-weapons-against-Yellow-Vest-protestors.html
French riot police have deployed semi-automatic weapons with live ammunition against Yellow Vest protestors for the first time.
Officers were filmed brandishing Heckler & Koch G36 weapons by the Arc de Triomphe in Paris on Saturday afternoon.
The presence of semi-automatic rifles at a demonstration by unarmed French citizens shows how President Emmanuel Macron’s law and order crisis spirals.
It comes after former conservative minister Luc Ferry called for live fire to be used against the ‘thugs’ from the Yellow Vest movement who he says 'beat up police'.
Riot police were on crowd control duty today facing off a mob of Gilet Jaunes or Yellow Vests - named after the bright high-visibility clothing.
Live ammunition 30 cartridge magazines could be seen as officers marched the streets, although none were used as 5000 police were deployed on the streets of the French capital.
I'm not sure if you've been following this, but these folks in the Yellow Vests are protesting their taxes being raised and the French version of their Social Security being taken from them. They feel that they no longer have representation within their .gov and that they are being taxed in to poverty.
Sound Familiar?
So when they tell you that these guns are for "Sporting Purposes Only" consider yourself in the same predicament as these French people.
Perhaps the French People see this as yet another glaring example of "a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism"
the first thing the Jews did wrong was willing to fall under special rules which is happening NOW in our world again !!!! look at Europe your speech is controlled to cater to a tiny minority of freaks
dont bake a cake for a certain group based on your religion face jail and persecution !
they also could have mixed in with populations and turning tanks and bombs on the general population might not have gone over so well and surely slowed things down and might have radically changed the take over which would have changed the outcome !
we will be their soon when the far left gets in power and sets down special rules for certain folks
its inevitable with the swings we are having how long ? who knows I doubt next election but I do think we will see rules start to apply next liberal in office which is the start or base of our fall as a free nation
many countries do get taken over by people with small arms and determination to take control for whatever reason ! drug cartels a good example and rebels in others
the countries become crap holes nobody wants to live in of course
and small arms can take over a bit bigger and so on till you have tanks and bombs ! again look at other countries !
when our countries fathers were around the separation was not as great and over time our 2nd has been eroded
back then folks had very close to what the military does and today its gone so far from that and continues to erode
the idea of fighting out own military is so far out of the realm of reality cause if it ever got to that point one side turned on the other we no longer have the USA
a lot of folks even pro guns folks spout this the Germans banned guns stuff and that is why hitler took over !!! NO NO NO NO !!!!
they actually loosened up the gun rights FOR the Nazis but took them away for the Jews !!!!
they did this by of course USING the list the gov made folks do of who bought what guns and ammo !!! sound familiar
so when the time came to target the Jews it was easy
you do not have to write you are a Jew or a Christian !
the party that is taking away now knows anyone is a target who is not with them just like is happening now again !!!
they dropped the age of ownership lengthened the registration times and in 1938 they took away the registration and ownership process so you could acquire guns without the registration the key thing again was NOT for jews if you were a nazi you could take the guns from the jews with no legal repercussions
maybe the key thing would have been when they came to take them they just used them on who was taking and the base of the take over from folks might have not happened as quickly etc..
the gov is not going to come take your guns the left will military or not when they are given power to most likely they will use the same playbook again
you ever see antifa in trouble for all it does ? can you imagine if that was some right wing group ! dont kid yourself it is going to happen when they get the chance
those who say it will never happen ?
China ?
Persia ?
Mayans ?
Romans ?
England the sun surely sets on England now !
and the list can go on and on in smaller situations and places etc..
look at parts of Europe in WWII what almost happened to many
For those who follow John Farnam's Quips, this appeared recently.
“After our enemies with guns have all been wiped out, there will still be enemies without guns, and they are
bound to struggle desperately against us. We must never regard these enemies lightly.”
Report to the Second Plenary Session of the Seventh Central Committee of the Communist Party of China,
1949, by Mao Tse Tung
A nice anti propaganda piece to share on social media
https://youtu.be/WCmO_y-0YdY
A nice anti propaganda piece to share on social media
https://youtu.be/WCmO_y-0YdY
We all know that there is absolutely no logic in the leftists wanting a Ban, other than their Socialist agenda.
What about the children? :blink:
We all know that there is absolutely no logic in the leftists wanting a Ban, other than their Socialist agenda.
What about the children? :blink:The children? According to the leftists, you have to be born first or cross our southern border first before they can care about you.
Sent from my G8341 using Tapatalk
Exactly. People should have the rights to ingest whatever they want. War on Drugs is bullshit. Now, war on driving under the influence? Illegal immigration? Okay. But legislated morality is bullshit.
The problem with people taking drugs and alky is that it destroys the abusers .Think the Homeless population. the junkies and Meth heads. Drug use is a victimless crime? Well it depends on if you were a victim of a druggie related crime. Or had a junky parent or a kid die from an O.D or the tax dollars stolen from the taxpayers to support the dopers and clean up their pig mess.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.