Name ONE politician trying to take you're guns!!1
MAGAZINE BAN - Senate Bill 5078, bans the manufacture, possession, sale, transfer, etc., of magazines that “are capable of holding,” or hold more than, 17 rounds of ammunition. Amendments to the bill are expected to lower this to 12 or even 10 rounds. This includes conversion kits or parts from which any such magazine may be assembled. These so-called “high capacity” magazines are, in fact, standard equipment for commonly-owned firearms that many Americans legally and effectively use for an entire range of legitimate purposes, such as self-defense or competition. Those who own non-compliant magazines prior to the ban are only allowed to possess them on their own property and in other limited instances, such as at licensed shooting ranges or while hunting. Prohibited magazines have to be transported unloaded and locked separately from firearms, and must be stored locked at home, making them unavailable for self-defense. Any violation of this measure is a gross misdemeanor punishable by a maximum of 364 days in jail and/or a fine of up to $5,000.
ANTI-PREEMPTION - Senate Bill 5568 guts the state’s preemption laws. SB 5568 will expand gun free zones and permit municipalities to ban the open carry of firearms. These types of measures result in a complex patchwork of gun laws across the state that ensnare otherwise law-abiding gun owners, turning them into criminals.
GHOST GUNS BAN - HB 1705 further restricts the centuries-old practice of manufacturing firearms for personal use and self-defense by imposing requirements that far exceed those in federal law. It seeks to prohibit private individuals from possessing certain unregulated components commonly-used by hobbyists to make their own firearms, as well as possessing currently legal firearms that don’t have serial numbers.
Comments
-
The entire left.
-
Yeah, but name ONE who actually has POWER….
-
MikeDamone said:
Yeah, but name ONE who actually has POWER….
Justin Trudeau
I guess the new all powerful is Gavin Newsom. Until the convoy goes to Sacramento and Gavin has to 'quarantine'.
-
MikeDamone said:
Yeah, but name ONE who actually has POWER….
-
Fixed that for you!46XiJCAB said:The entire
leftcommunist party. -
I would draw a distinction between banning some types of guns or regulating them and “taking away” your guns.
While it could technically take away guns, the implication is that it’s taking away all guns and I am strongly against that. Just don’t buy the whole slipper slope argument here. -
Your disdain for the constitution is well documentedTheKobeStopper said:I would draw a distinction between banning some types of guns or regulating them and “taking away” your guns.
While it could technically take away guns, the implication is that it’s taking away all guns and I am strongly against that. Just don’t buy the whole slipper slope argument here.
-
I am against the implication that you are straightTheKobeStopper said:I would draw a distinction between banning some types of guns or regulating them and “taking away” your guns.
While it could technically take away guns, the implication is that it’s taking away all guns and I am strongly against that. Just don’t buy the whole slipper slope argument here. -
Seems unlikely since I think the constitution is great.RaceBannon said:
Your disdain for the constitution is well documentedTheKobeStopper said:I would draw a distinction between banning some types of guns or regulating them and “taking away” your guns.
While it could technically take away guns, the implication is that it’s taking away all guns and I am strongly against that. Just don’t buy the whole slipper slope argument here. -
What part of "shall not be infringed" do you have trouble understanding? Our founders bought cannons and every other type of destructive weaponry of the period.TheKobeStopper said:I would draw a distinction between banning some types of guns or regulating them and “taking away” your guns.
While it could technically take away guns, the implication is that it’s taking away all guns and I am strongly against that. Just don’t buy the whole slipper slope argument here.
The real problem is letting shitbags and loons roam our streets.
Fuck off. -
It just needs to drop 10 pounds and maybe get a nose jobTheKobeStopper said:
Seems unlikely since I think the constitution is great.RaceBannon said:
Your disdain for the constitution is well documentedTheKobeStopper said:I would draw a distinction between banning some types of guns or regulating them and “taking away” your guns.
While it could technically take away guns, the implication is that it’s taking away all guns and I am strongly against that. Just don’t buy the whole slipper slope argument here. -
Banning the most popular semiautomatic rifle, legally owned by thousands of Washuntonians, is a taking.TheKobeStopper said:I would draw a distinction between banning some types of guns or regulating them and “taking away” your guns.
While it could technically take away guns, the implication is that it’s taking away all guns and I am strongly against that. Just don’t buy the whole slipper slope argument here. -
Banning and trying to take are two very different things.GrundleStiltzkin said:
Banning the most popular semiautomatic rifle, legally owned by thousands of Washuntonians, is a taking.TheKobeStopper said:I would draw a distinction between banning some types of guns or regulating them and “taking away” your guns.
While it could technically take away guns, the implication is that it’s taking away all guns and I am strongly against that. Just don’t buy the whole slipper slope argument here.
amirite, @RandyWeaverDawg?
-
States rights?GrundleStiltzkin said:
Banning the most popular semiautomatic rifle, legally owned by thousands of Washuntonians, is a taking.TheKobeStopper said:I would draw a distinction between banning some types of guns or regulating them and “taking away” your guns.
While it could technically take away guns, the implication is that it’s taking away all guns and I am strongly against that. Just don’t buy the whole slipper slope argument here.
“No one is going to take away your guns” is a dismissive response to the idea that the left want to take away all the guns and undo the second amendment. Your response ignores the context in which it is said. It’s very “well actually” and then going on to argue a totally different point.
Yes, regulation can and should lead to some guns being taken away. I don’t know the specifics of the bills you posted so I’m not endorsing them though. -
It also says well regulated.Sledog said:
What part of "shall not be infringed" do you have trouble understanding? Our founders bought cannons and every other type of destructive weaponry of the period.TheKobeStopper said:I would draw a distinction between banning some types of guns or regulating them and “taking away” your guns.
While it could technically take away guns, the implication is that it’s taking away all guns and I am strongly against that. Just don’t buy the whole slipper slope argument here.
The real problem is letting shitbags and loons roam our streets.
Fuck off. -
Damn I just shot a snarky email off to one of my owners like hey dickhead you had me send this agreement out and you are ruining my perfect record. No joke the moment I shot it off the dude signed. I was like fuck. Poor timing lol
-
Many on the left want to do away with the 2A and want to take the gunsTheKobeStopper said:
States rights?GrundleStiltzkin said:
Banning the most popular semiautomatic rifle, legally owned by thousands of Washuntonians, is a taking.TheKobeStopper said:I would draw a distinction between banning some types of guns or regulating them and “taking away” your guns.
While it could technically take away guns, the implication is that it’s taking away all guns and I am strongly against that. Just don’t buy the whole slipper slope argument here.
“No one is going to take away your guns” is a dismissive response to the idea that the left want to take away all the guns and undo the second amendment. Your response ignores the context in which it is said. It’s very “well actually” and then going on to argue a totally different point.
Yes, regulation can and should lead to some guns being taken away. I don’t know the specifics of the bills you posted so I’m not endorsing them though.
It's not a dismissive response it's a lie. As usual
You may stop short but a lot of you guys (lol) won't -
Many is a vague and meaningless term. Sure, there are some but not nearly enough to have any sort meaningful push. We can’t get Medicare For All, we can’t even pass Build Back Better, we’re incompetent but we’re going to overturn the second amendment? Come on, this is fear mongering.RaceBannon said:
Many on the left want to do away with the 2A and want to take the gunsTheKobeStopper said:
States rights?GrundleStiltzkin said:
Banning the most popular semiautomatic rifle, legally owned by thousands of Washuntonians, is a taking.TheKobeStopper said:I would draw a distinction between banning some types of guns or regulating them and “taking away” your guns.
While it could technically take away guns, the implication is that it’s taking away all guns and I am strongly against that. Just don’t buy the whole slipper slope argument here.
“No one is going to take away your guns” is a dismissive response to the idea that the left want to take away all the guns and undo the second amendment. Your response ignores the context in which it is said. It’s very “well actually” and then going on to argue a totally different point.
Yes, regulation can and should lead to some guns being taken away. I don’t know the specifics of the bills you posted so I’m not endorsing them though.
It's not a dismissive response it's a lie. As usual
You may stop short but a lot of you guys (lol) won't -
You sound super fucking gayTheKobeStopper said:
Many is a vague and meaningless term. Sure, there are some but not nearly enough to have any sort meaningful push. We can’t get Medicare For All, we can’t even pass Build Back Better, we’re incompetent but we’re going to overturn the second amendment? Come on, this is fear mongering.RaceBannon said:
Many on the left want to do away with the 2A and want to take the gunsTheKobeStopper said:
States rights?GrundleStiltzkin said:
Banning the most popular semiautomatic rifle, legally owned by thousands of Washuntonians, is a taking.TheKobeStopper said:I would draw a distinction between banning some types of guns or regulating them and “taking away” your guns.
While it could technically take away guns, the implication is that it’s taking away all guns and I am strongly against that. Just don’t buy the whole slipper slope argument here.
“No one is going to take away your guns” is a dismissive response to the idea that the left want to take away all the guns and undo the second amendment. Your response ignores the context in which it is said. It’s very “well actually” and then going on to argue a totally different point.
Yes, regulation can and should lead to some guns being taken away. I don’t know the specifics of the bills you posted so I’m not endorsing them though.
It's not a dismissive response it's a lie. As usual
You may stop short but a lot of you guys (lol) won't
But admitting defeat in front of easily surmountable odds is why you are a leftist -
You have got to be the most naive dipshit I've ever encountered in real life and fake internet life. End your carbon footprint.TheKobeStopper said:I would draw a distinction between banning some types of guns or regulating them and “taking away” your guns.
While it could technically take away guns, the implication is that it’s taking away all guns and I am strongly against that. Just don’t buy the whole slipper slope argument here.
You would be happy with every kind of gun but the dollar store potato guns being banned and would somehow do the mental gymnastics to claim all guns weren't banned, etc. -
Lobbying for rights is only okay if it's your team. Otherwise it's fear mongering.TheKobeStopper said:
Many is a vague and meaningless term. Sure, there are some but not nearly enough to have any sort meaningful push. We can’t get Medicare For All, we can’t even pass Build Back Better, we’re incompetent but we’re going to overturn the second amendment? Come on, this is fear mongering.RaceBannon said:
Many on the left want to do away with the 2A and want to take the gunsTheKobeStopper said:
States rights?GrundleStiltzkin said:
Banning the most popular semiautomatic rifle, legally owned by thousands of Washuntonians, is a taking.TheKobeStopper said:I would draw a distinction between banning some types of guns or regulating them and “taking away” your guns.
While it could technically take away guns, the implication is that it’s taking away all guns and I am strongly against that. Just don’t buy the whole slipper slope argument here.
“No one is going to take away your guns” is a dismissive response to the idea that the left want to take away all the guns and undo the second amendment. Your response ignores the context in which it is said. It’s very “well actually” and then going on to argue a totally different point.
Yes, regulation can and should lead to some guns being taken away. I don’t know the specifics of the bills you posted so I’m not endorsing them though.
It's not a dismissive response it's a lie. As usual
You may stop short but a lot of you guys (lol) won't -
Fine, ALL lefty policies are dumb and they're being exposed one by one.TheKobeStopper said:
Many is a vague and meaningless term. Sure, there are some but not nearly enough to have any sort meaningful push. We can’t get Medicare For All, we can’t even pass Build Back Better, we’re incompetent but we’re going to overturn the second amendment? Come on, this is fear mongering.RaceBannon said:
Many on the left want to do away with the 2A and want to take the gunsTheKobeStopper said:
States rights?GrundleStiltzkin said:
Banning the most popular semiautomatic rifle, legally owned by thousands of Washuntonians, is a taking.TheKobeStopper said:I would draw a distinction between banning some types of guns or regulating them and “taking away” your guns.
While it could technically take away guns, the implication is that it’s taking away all guns and I am strongly against that. Just don’t buy the whole slipper slope argument here.
“No one is going to take away your guns” is a dismissive response to the idea that the left want to take away all the guns and undo the second amendment. Your response ignores the context in which it is said. It’s very “well actually” and then going on to argue a totally different point.
Yes, regulation can and should lead to some guns being taken away. I don’t know the specifics of the bills you posted so I’m not endorsing them though.
It's not a dismissive response it's a lie. As usual
You may stop short but a lot of you guys (lol) won't -
This is getting weird.Pitchfork51 said:
You sound super fucking gayTheKobeStopper said:
Many is a vague and meaningless term. Sure, there are some but not nearly enough to have any sort meaningful push. We can’t get Medicare For All, we can’t even pass Build Back Better, we’re incompetent but we’re going to overturn the second amendment? Come on, this is fear mongering.RaceBannon said:
Many on the left want to do away with the 2A and want to take the gunsTheKobeStopper said:
States rights?GrundleStiltzkin said:
Banning the most popular semiautomatic rifle, legally owned by thousands of Washuntonians, is a taking.TheKobeStopper said:I would draw a distinction between banning some types of guns or regulating them and “taking away” your guns.
While it could technically take away guns, the implication is that it’s taking away all guns and I am strongly against that. Just don’t buy the whole slipper slope argument here.
“No one is going to take away your guns” is a dismissive response to the idea that the left want to take away all the guns and undo the second amendment. Your response ignores the context in which it is said. It’s very “well actually” and then going on to argue a totally different point.
Yes, regulation can and should lead to some guns being taken away. I don’t know the specifics of the bills you posted so I’m not endorsing them though.
It's not a dismissive response it's a lie. As usual
You may stop short but a lot of you guys (lol) won't
But admitting defeat in front of easily surmountable odds is why you are a leftist -
I'm fine with the left continuing to voluntarily disarm themselves.BleachedAnusDawg said:
You have got to be the most naive dipshit I've ever encountered in real life and fake internet life. End your carbon footprint.TheKobeStopper said:I would draw a distinction between banning some types of guns or regulating them and “taking away” your guns.
While it could technically take away guns, the implication is that it’s taking away all guns and I am strongly against that. Just don’t buy the whole slipper slope argument here.
You would be happy with every kind of gun but the dollar store potato guns being banned and would somehow do the mental gymnastics to claim all guns weren't banned, etc. -
One has nothing to do with the other. Check the Supremes.TheKobeStopper said:
It also says well regulated.Sledog said:
What part of "shall not be infringed" do you have trouble understanding? Our founders bought cannons and every other type of destructive weaponry of the period.TheKobeStopper said:I would draw a distinction between banning some types of guns or regulating them and “taking away” your guns.
While it could technically take away guns, the implication is that it’s taking away all guns and I am strongly against that. Just don’t buy the whole slipper slope argument here.
The real problem is letting shitbags and loons roam our streets.
Fuck off.
How much did your parents pay for school? -
This is how it works with rats, they deny, lie, subvert and then destroy rights. BO Care destroyed the quality corporate insurance and medical selection for millions even though they lied over and over again and said it wouldn't happen.. Rats own the college campuses and force their brand of elitist, racist and bigoted socialism on everyone who touches ground there. Individual rights are taken away if you don't follow their politics. In many states they literally own public education and teach children hatred for diversity of thought and even their own ancestral and familial history. They go so far as to believe parents should have no opinion or voice in how their own children should be educated. Does anyone with half a brain believe that if rats created "gun free safe zones" that they wouldn't be taking away all rights to guns?
Still question it? Watch how they treat "uncle tom's" who walk away from the plantation. They try to destroy them, just like they would destroy your gun rights if they could and they have been trying for years, I know because I have heard their leaders from as far back as 1989. They are just looking for that opportunity and are laying the groundwork every time you hear them say "gun violence".
The kobe's of the world are either liars or goose stepping liberal morons who are too light in the brain to understand the lies they are being told by their leaders. -
It says a well regulated militia. Meaning the militia is to be regulated.TheKobeStopper said:
It also says well regulated.Sledog said:
What part of "shall not be infringed" do you have trouble understanding? Our founders bought cannons and every other type of destructive weaponry of the period.TheKobeStopper said:I would draw a distinction between banning some types of guns or regulating them and “taking away” your guns.
While it could technically take away guns, the implication is that it’s taking away all guns and I am strongly against that. Just don’t buy the whole slipper slope argument here.
The real problem is letting shitbags and loons roam our streets.
Fuck off.
The right to bear arms shall not be infringed
You seem to hate words more than the Ostrich Boy
-
Supremacy Clause??!??TheKobeStopper said:
States rights?GrundleStiltzkin said:
Banning the most popular semiautomatic rifle, legally owned by thousands of Washuntonians, is a taking.TheKobeStopper said:I would draw a distinction between banning some types of guns or regulating them and “taking away” your guns.
While it could technically take away guns, the implication is that it’s taking away all guns and I am strongly against that. Just don’t buy the whole slipper slope argument here.
“No one is going to take away your guns” is a dismissive response to the idea that the left want to take away all the guns and undo the second amendment. Your response ignores the context in which it is said. It’s very “well actually” and then going on to argue a totally different point.
Yes, regulation can and should lead to some guns being taken away. I don’t know the specifics of the bills you posted so I’m not endorsing them though.
Middle paragraph, word salad. It is entirely the point if you'd read the 5217 bill.
You should read the 5217 bill. Or don't. I could care less.
As I've said before, at this point, I'd much rather have debates on repealing the Second Amendment. That's much more honesty than this smiley face anti-civil liberties shit. -
States rights was a pot shot at the libertarians who cry that all the time.GrundleStiltzkin said:
Supremacy Clause??!??TheKobeStopper said:
States rights?GrundleStiltzkin said:
Banning the most popular semiautomatic rifle, legally owned by thousands of Washuntonians, is a taking.TheKobeStopper said:I would draw a distinction between banning some types of guns or regulating them and “taking away” your guns.
While it could technically take away guns, the implication is that it’s taking away all guns and I am strongly against that. Just don’t buy the whole slipper slope argument here.
“No one is going to take away your guns” is a dismissive response to the idea that the left want to take away all the guns and undo the second amendment. Your response ignores the context in which it is said. It’s very “well actually” and then going on to argue a totally different point.
Yes, regulation can and should lead to some guns being taken away. I don’t know the specifics of the bills you posted so I’m not endorsing them though.
Middle paragraph, word salad. It is entirely the point if you'd read the 5217 bill.
You should read the 5217 bill. Or don't. I could care less.
As I've said before, at this point, I'd much rather have debates on repealing the Second Amendment. That's much more honesty than this smiley face anti-civil liberties shit.
If you’re just going to decide that any type of regulation is dishonest (based on literally nothing) then yeah it’s pointless to talk about. -
Stick with the googles.TheKobeStopper said:
States rights was a pot shot at the libertarians who cry that all the time.GrundleStiltzkin said:
Supremacy Clause??!??TheKobeStopper said:
States rights?GrundleStiltzkin said:
Banning the most popular semiautomatic rifle, legally owned by thousands of Washuntonians, is a taking.TheKobeStopper said:I would draw a distinction between banning some types of guns or regulating them and “taking away” your guns.
While it could technically take away guns, the implication is that it’s taking away all guns and I am strongly against that. Just don’t buy the whole slipper slope argument here.
“No one is going to take away your guns” is a dismissive response to the idea that the left want to take away all the guns and undo the second amendment. Your response ignores the context in which it is said. It’s very “well actually” and then going on to argue a totally different point.
Yes, regulation can and should lead to some guns being taken away. I don’t know the specifics of the bills you posted so I’m not endorsing them though.
Middle paragraph, word salad. It is entirely the point if you'd read the 5217 bill.
You should read the 5217 bill. Or don't. I could care less.
As I've said before, at this point, I'd much rather have debates on repealing the Second Amendment. That's much more honesty than this smiley face anti-civil liberties shit.
If you’re just going to decide that any type of regulation is dishonest (based on literally nothing) then yeah it’s pointless to talk about.
