Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Name ONE politician trying to take you're guns!!1
Comments
-
APAG, this is clearly a subject you don’t know much about. And that’s fine. Guarding our civil liberties relies upon diverse advocacy groups and citizens.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. -
Wow, never seen you so bitchy.GrundleStiltzkin said:
APAG, this is clearly a subject you don’t know much about. And that’s fine. Guarding our civil liberties relies upon diverse advocacy groups and citizens.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.
Advocate for our civil liberties, I support you.
-
Grundle, it is only a civil liberty if it affects a minority group or the MSM. Where have you been the last 20 years?GrundleStiltzkin said:
APAG, this is clearly a subject you don’t know much about. And that’s fine. Guarding our civil liberties relies upon diverse advocacy groups and citizens.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. -
Bitchy? You misread meTheKobeStopper said:
Wow, never seen you so bitchy.GrundleStiltzkin said:
APAG, this is clearly a subject you don’t know much about. And that’s fine. Guarding our civil liberties relies upon diverse advocacy groups and citizens.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.
Advocate for our civil liberties, I support you. -
Grundle, STOP! being bitchy.GrundleStiltzkin said:
Bitchy? You misread meTheKobeStopper said:
Wow, never seen you so bitchy.GrundleStiltzkin said:
APAG, this is clearly a subject you don’t know much about. And that’s fine. Guarding our civil liberties relies upon diverse advocacy groups and citizens.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.
Advocate for our civil liberties, I support you.
-
Ok, my mistake.GrundleStiltzkin said:
Bitchy? You misread meTheKobeStopper said:
Wow, never seen you so bitchy.GrundleStiltzkin said:
APAG, this is clearly a subject you don’t know much about. And that’s fine. Guarding our civil liberties relies upon diverse advocacy groups and citizens.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.
Advocate for our civil liberties, I support you. -
It happens.TheKobeStopper said:
Ok, my mistake.GrundleStiltzkin said:
Bitchy? You misread meTheKobeStopper said:
Wow, never seen you so bitchy.GrundleStiltzkin said:
APAG, this is clearly a subject you don’t know much about. And that’s fine. Guarding our civil liberties relies upon diverse advocacy groups and citizens.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.
Advocate for our civil liberties, I support you. -
Are you two having a moment?GrundleStiltzkin said:
It happens.TheKobeStopper said:
Ok, my mistake.GrundleStiltzkin said:
Bitchy? You misread meTheKobeStopper said:
Wow, never seen you so bitchy.GrundleStiltzkin said:
APAG, this is clearly a subject you don’t know much about. And that’s fine. Guarding our civil liberties relies upon diverse advocacy groups and citizens.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.
Advocate for our civil liberties, I support you. -
As well documented as Dwayne Washington's fumbling problem?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. -
For the dingbat democratic socialist gun control fag. -
And it's state militias to be regulated by the state, not the feds. The Bill of Rights were to provide individuals protection from the government. These were individual rights, and not to be infringed.PurpleThrobber said:
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 -
Kobe's new pledge name is "InfringementStopper".WestlinnDuck said:
And it's state militias to be regulated by the state, not the feds. The Bill of Rights were to provide individuals protection from the government. These were individual rights, and not to be infringed.PurpleThrobber said:
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
-
Are you that dumb to not know what well regulated means?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. -
Ah, they won't do away to 2A not because they don't want, but because they are incompetent. Got it.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 -
OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) — The Washington state Senate has voted to ban the manufacture, distribution and sale of firearm magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition.
The Seattle Times reports if the bill passes the House and becomes law, the ban would limit not just magazines for rifles that hold 20 or 30 rounds, but for a host of semiautomatic pistols, which often carry more than 10 rounds.
The late Wednesday vote on Senate Bill 5078 by the Senate’s Democratic majority marks the first time such a bill has passed a floor vote at the Legislature.
For years, restrictions on firearm magazines have been a top priority for many Democrats and advocates of stricter gun regulations. Conservatives and gun-rights advocates have meanwhile assailed such laws as not effective and an infringement on the Second Amendment.
-
Well, Beto isn't one of the politicians wanting to take your guns. No siree bob. Just like barry said that marriage was between a man a woman and that you could keep your doctor and health plan and save $2500. Everyone knew he was lying that had a brain but as someone once said, Leftards lie and love to be lied to.
https://instapundit.com/
PAST PERFORMANCE IS NO GUARANTEE OF FUTURE RESULTS: Beto Backtracks on AR-15 Confiscation: ‘I’m not Interested in Taking Anything From Anyone.’
Hell no, Beto O’Rourke does not want to take your AR-15. At least, not anymore.
The Texas Democrat currently running for governor said he does not want to force Texans to turn in their guns.
“I’m not interested in taking anything from anyone,” O’Rourke told supporters during a campaign stop in Tyler, Texas on Tuesday. “What I want to make sure that we do is defend the Second Amendment.”
That’s literally the opposite of what he told a national audience during a presidential primary debate in 2020.
“Hell yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47,” he said in September 2019. “We’re not going to allow it to be used against our fellow Americans anymore.”
O’Rourke doubled down on the pledge throughout his 2019 campaign. He even promised those who did not participate in his mandatory buyback scheme would face severe punishment.
“If someone does not turn in an AR-15, or an AK-47, one of these weapons of war, or brings it out in public and brandishes it in an attempt to intimidate—as we saw in Kent State recently—then that weapon will be taken from them,” Beto told CNN’s Anderson Cooper. “If they persist, there will be other consequences from law enforcement.”
Police were unenthused by the idea, though.
Flashback: Beto Suggests Anyone Who Votes for Trump Is a Racist.
That’s some niche campaign Robert O’Rourke is running in Texas. -
Washuntonians, email you're state reps to oppose this shit.GrundleStiltzkin said:OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) — The Washington state Senate has voted to ban the manufacture, distribution and sale of firearm magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition.
The Seattle Times reports if the bill passes the House and becomes law, the ban would limit not just magazines for rifles that hold 20 or 30 rounds, but for a host of semiautomatic pistols, which often carry more than 10 rounds.
The late Wednesday vote on Senate Bill 5078 by the Senate’s Democratic majority marks the first time such a bill has passed a floor vote at the Legislature.
For years, restrictions on firearm magazines have been a top priority for many Democrats and advocates of stricter gun regulations. Conservatives and gun-rights advocates have meanwhile assailed such laws as not effective and an infringement on the Second Amendment.
