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.
