Court Docs show the shooter hated christians, Trump, and was a registered democrat....

[BULLDOG]

Shall we bookmark this comment for the next mass shooting where you and your ilk all claim the entire right is to blame for one shooter?

Or all guns must be banned because one was used illegally?

You poor guy. Your fear that all guns will be confiscated reminds me of a kid who is convinced there is a monster under his bed. It doesn't matter how many times his parents tell him there is no monster, that poor kid is still afraid. Kids usually outgrow such irrational fears, but it looks like you have some sort of flaw that prevents you from doing that.

You know, if the entire leadership of the democrat party wasn't saying they want to confiscate guns....you might have a point.....you might want to tell them to stop saying they want to confiscate guns....and make them stop using the courts and the law to keep banning guns, magazines, and pieces of equipment....

The entire leadership of the Democratic party isn't saying that, and has never said they want to confiscate all guns. Where did you hear that? I know it's hard for you to separate real voices from the voices that are just in your head, but you really should try.

Hmmm...you mean like this guy?

“I don’t believe people should be able to own guns.”

President Barack Obama, during conversation with economist and author John Lott Jr. at the University of Chicago Law School in the 1990s


“If I could have gotten...an outright ban – ‘Mr. and Mrs. America turn in your guns’ – I would have!”

Senator Diane Feinstein, author of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban


“We’re bending the law as far as we can to ban an entirely new class of guns.”

Rahm Emmanuel, President Obama's former Chief of Staff and a senior advisor to President Bill Clinton

“Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe.”

Sen. Dianne Feinstein

You're would really be killing it now, if the Democratic party was being led by the off hand remarks of a college kid 30 years ago and an ex-Mayor. I noticed you included remarks by a senator, who actually has more control over the party than the other two. That must be why you mentioned her twice. Her position as senator does make her part of the Democratic party, but not it's leader. Now, how about something credible to show the DNC leadership does, or has ever wanted to confiscate all guns? Dumb ass.

 

[BULLDOG]

You poor guy. Your fear that all guns will be confiscated reminds me of a kid who is convinced there is a monster under his bed. It doesn't matter how many times his parents tell him there is no monster, that poor kid is still afraid. Kids usually outgrow such irrational fears, but it looks like you have some sort of flaw that prevents you from doing that.

You know, if the entire leadership of the democrat party wasn't saying they want to confiscate guns....you might have a point.....you might want to tell them to stop saying they want to confiscate guns....and make them stop using the courts and the law to keep banning guns, magazines, and pieces of equipment....

The entire leadership of the Democratic party isn't saying that, and has never said they want to confiscate all guns. Where did you hear that? I know it's hard for you to separate real voices from the voices that are just in your head, but you really should try.

Hmmm...you mean like this guy?

“I don’t believe people should be able to own guns.”

President Barack Obama, during conversation with economist and author John Lott Jr. at the University of Chicago Law School in the 1990s


“If I could have gotten...an outright ban – ‘Mr. and Mrs. America turn in your guns’ – I would have!”

Senator Diane Feinstein, author of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban


“We’re bending the law as far as we can to ban an entirely new class of guns.”

Rahm Emmanuel, President Obama's former Chief of Staff and a senior advisor to President Bill Clinton

“Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe.”

Sen. Dianne Feinstein

Talk about deception....quotes from the 90’s....no context....even Rahm’s quote is talking about banning a particular class of guns. Not all guns.

You think obama changed his mind? Or Feinstein?

Obama was president for 8 years. Please point out the laws he enacted that would confiscate all guns.

 

[BULLDOG]

The entire leadership of the Democratic party isn't saying that, and has never said they want to confiscate all guns. Where did you hear that? I know it's hard for you to separate real voices from the voices that are just in your head, but you really should try.

Hmmm...you mean like this guy?

“I don’t believe people should be able to own guns.”

President Barack Obama, during conversation with economist and author John Lott Jr. at the University of Chicago Law School in the 1990s


“If I could have gotten...an outright ban – ‘Mr. and Mrs. America turn in your guns’ – I would have!”

Senator Diane Feinstein, author of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban


“We’re bending the law as far as we can to ban an entirely new class of guns.”

Rahm Emmanuel, President Obama's former Chief of Staff and a senior advisor to President Bill Clinton

“Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe.”

Sen. Dianne Feinstein

Talk about deception....quotes from the 90’s....no context....even Rahm’s quote is talking about banning a particular class of guns. Not all guns.

You think obama changed his mind? Or Feinstein?

Have they banned all guns or proposed legislation to do so?

They take steps.....they learned the hard way in the 90s that being open about gun confiscation loses seats in congress.....that is why they went to local jurisdictions to ban guns, then use the courts at the appeals level to make those bans stick....knowing in the past that the 4-4 split on the Supreme Court would allow them to get away with ignoring Heller and the other Supreme Court rulings.

Then you have hilary....she wanted to use the Department of Justice, and law suits against gun makers to pass the gun control they were afraid of openly promoting...

Hillary: Impose Gun Control by Judicial Fiat



Hillary’s focus on repealing the PLCAA seems strange: it’s been on the books for eleven years, it was passed by 2-1 bipartisan majorities (65-31 Senate, 283-144 House), and every suit it has blocked is one that should never have been filed. Yet oppose it Hillary does. Her campaign webpage proposes to “Take on the gun lobby by removing the industry’s sweeping legal protection for illegal and irresponsible actions (which makes it almost impossible for people to hold them accountable), and revoking licenses from dealers who break the law.” She told the Bridgeport News that “as president, I would lead the charge to repeal this law.” In Iowa, she called the PLCAA “one of the most egregious, wrong, pieces of legislation that ever passed the Congress.”

But, even given her anti-gun beliefs, why does Hillary place so high a priority on repealing some eleven-year-old statute?

The papers found in her husband’s presidential archives in Little Rock show why the lawsuits that the PLCAA stopped were so important to his anti-gun plans. A January 2000 question and answer document, probably meant to prepare Bill Clinton for a press conference, asks about his involvement in the lawsuits against the gun industry. It suggests as an answer that he “intends to engage the gun industry in negotiations” to “achieve meaningful reforms to the way the gun industry does business.” The memo suggests he close with “We want real reforms that will improve the public safety and save lives.”

This is noteworthy: the Clinton White House did not see the lawsuits’ purpose as winning money, but as a means to pressure the gun industry into adopting the Clinton “reforms.” What might those reforms have been?

The Clinton Presidential Archives answered that question, too. In December 1999, the “Office of the Deputy Secretary” (presumably of Treasury) had sent a fax to the fax line for Clinton’s White House Domestic Policy Council. The fax laid out a proposed settlement of the legal cases. The terms were very well designed.

They would have given the antigun movements all the victories that it had been unable to win in Congress over the past twenty years!

Moreover, the terms would be imposed by a court order, not by a statute. That meant that any violation could be prosecuted as a contempt of court, by the parties to the lawsuit rather than by the government. A future Congress could not repeal the judgment, and a future White House could not block its enforcement. The settlement would have a permanent existence outside the democratic process.

The terms were extensive and drastic:

Gun manufacturers must stop producing firearms (rifle, pistol, or shotguns) that could accept detachable magazines holding more than ten rounds. In practice, since there is no way to design a detachable-magazine firearm that cannot take larger magazines, this would mean ceasing production of all firearms with detachable magazines. No more semiauto handguns.

The manufacturers would be required to stop production of magazines holding more than ten rounds.

Manufacturers must also stop production of firearms with polymer frames. All handguns made must meet importation standards (long barrels, target sights, etc.).

After five years, manufacturers must produce nothing but “smart guns” (that is, using “authorized user technology”).

But those conditions were just the beginning. The next requirement was the key to regulating all licensed firearms dealers, as well. The manufacturers must agree to sell only to distributors and dealers who agreed to comply with the standards set for distributors and dealers. Thus dealers would were not parties to the lawsuits would be forced to comply, upon pain of being unable to buy inventory.

The dealers in turn must agree:

They’d make no sales at gun shows, and no sales over internet.

They’d hold their customers to one-gun-a-month, for all types of guns, not just handguns.

They would not sell used or new magazines holding more than ten rounds.

They would not sell any firearm that fell within the definitions of the 1994 “assault weapon ban,” even if the ban expired.

They must prove they have a minimum inventory of each manufacturers’ product, and that they derive a majority of their revenue from firearms or sporting equipment sales. No more small town hardware store dealers, and no more WalMarts with gun sections.

The manufacturers would be required to pay for a “monitor,” a person to make sure the settlement was enforced. The monitor would create a “sales data clearinghouse,” to which the manufacturers, distributors, and dealers must report each gun sale, thus creating a registration system, outside of the government and thus not covered by the Privacy Act.

The monitor would have the authority to hire investigators, inspect dealer records without notice, and to “conduct undercover sting operations.” The monitor would thus serve as a private BATFE, without the legal restrictions that bind that agency, and paid for by the gun industry itself.

The manufacturers must cut off any dealer who failed to comply, and whenever BATFE traced a gun to a dealer, the dealer would be presumed guilty unless he could prove himself innocent. (BATFE encourages police departments to trace every firearm that comes into their hands, including firearms turned in, lost and found, and recovered from thieves. As a result, it performs over 300,000 traces a year. Thus, this term would lead to many dealers being cut off and forced to prove their innocence on a regular basis).

Gun registration, one gun a month, magazines limited to ten rounds, no Glocks, no guns with detachable magazines (in effect, no semiauto handguns), no dealers at gun shows, an “assault weapon ban” in perpetuity, no internet sales. In short, the movement to restrict gun owners would have achieved, in one stroke, every objective it had labored for over the years -- indeed, it would have achieved some that (a ban on semiauto handguns) that were so bold it had never dared to propose them. All this would be achieved without the messy necessity of winning a majority vote in Congress.

What part of that included the gun confiscation you claim?

 

[2aguy]

You know, if the entire leadership of the democrat party wasn't saying they want to confiscate guns....you might have a point.....you might want to tell them to stop saying they want to confiscate guns....and make them stop using the courts and the law to keep banning guns, magazines, and pieces of equipment....

The entire leadership of the Democratic party isn't saying that, and has never said they want to confiscate all guns. Where did you hear that? I know it's hard for you to separate real voices from the voices that are just in your head, but you really should try.

Hmmm...you mean like this guy?

“I don’t believe people should be able to own guns.”

President Barack Obama, during conversation with economist and author John Lott Jr. at the University of Chicago Law School in the 1990s


“If I could have gotten...an outright ban – ‘Mr. and Mrs. America turn in your guns’ – I would have!”

Senator Diane Feinstein, author of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban


“We’re bending the law as far as we can to ban an entirely new class of guns.”

Rahm Emmanuel, President Obama's former Chief of Staff and a senior advisor to President Bill Clinton

“Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe.”

Sen. Dianne Feinstein

Talk about deception....quotes from the 90’s....no context....even Rahm’s quote is talking about banning a particular class of guns. Not all guns.

You think obama changed his mind? Or Feinstein?

Obama was president for 8 years. Please point out the laws he enacted that would confiscate all guns.

He cared more about getting obama care first passed, then kept......to do that he needed to control congress, and didn't want to lose members to anti-gun votes the way bill clinton did. He put his efforts into stacking the lower courts and the Supreme Court with anti-gun judges....as we see in the people he put on the 9th, 4th, and 2nd Courts of appeals and the other federal benches.....they have ignored the rulings in Heller, and MacDonald over and over again.....knowing that the Supreme Court was divided 4-4 on gun issues.....they would have fixed that if hilary had won...

 

[2aguy]

Hmmm...you mean like this guy?

“I don’t believe people should be able to own guns.”

President Barack Obama, during conversation with economist and author John Lott Jr. at the University of Chicago Law School in the 1990s


“If I could have gotten...an outright ban – ‘Mr. and Mrs. America turn in your guns’ – I would have!”

Senator Diane Feinstein, author of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban


“We’re bending the law as far as we can to ban an entirely new class of guns.”

Rahm Emmanuel, President Obama's former Chief of Staff and a senior advisor to President Bill Clinton

“Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe.”

Sen. Dianne Feinstein

Talk about deception....quotes from the 90’s....no context....even Rahm’s quote is talking about banning a particular class of guns. Not all guns.

You think obama changed his mind? Or Feinstein?

Have they banned all guns or proposed legislation to do so?

They take steps.....they learned the hard way in the 90s that being open about gun confiscation loses seats in congress.....that is why they went to local jurisdictions to ban guns, then use the courts at the appeals level to make those bans stick....knowing in the past that the 4-4 split on the Supreme Court would allow them to get away with ignoring Heller and the other Supreme Court rulings.

Then you have hilary....she wanted to use the Department of Justice, and law suits against gun makers to pass the gun control they were afraid of openly promoting...

Hillary: Impose Gun Control by Judicial Fiat



Hillary’s focus on repealing the PLCAA seems strange: it’s been on the books for eleven years, it was passed by 2-1 bipartisan majorities (65-31 Senate, 283-144 House), and every suit it has blocked is one that should never have been filed. Yet oppose it Hillary does. Her campaign webpage proposes to “Take on the gun lobby by removing the industry’s sweeping legal protection for illegal and irresponsible actions (which makes it almost impossible for people to hold them accountable), and revoking licenses from dealers who break the law.” She told the Bridgeport News that “as president, I would lead the charge to repeal this law.” In Iowa, she called the PLCAA “one of the most egregious, wrong, pieces of legislation that ever passed the Congress.”

But, even given her anti-gun beliefs, why does Hillary place so high a priority on repealing some eleven-year-old statute?

The papers found in her husband’s presidential archives in Little Rock show why the lawsuits that the PLCAA stopped were so important to his anti-gun plans. A January 2000 question and answer document, probably meant to prepare Bill Clinton for a press conference, asks about his involvement in the lawsuits against the gun industry. It suggests as an answer that he “intends to engage the gun industry in negotiations” to “achieve meaningful reforms to the way the gun industry does business.” The memo suggests he close with “We want real reforms that will improve the public safety and save lives.”

This is noteworthy: the Clinton White House did not see the lawsuits’ purpose as winning money, but as a means to pressure the gun industry into adopting the Clinton “reforms.” What might those reforms have been?

The Clinton Presidential Archives answered that question, too. In December 1999, the “Office of the Deputy Secretary” (presumably of Treasury) had sent a fax to the fax line for Clinton’s White House Domestic Policy Council. The fax laid out a proposed settlement of the legal cases. The terms were very well designed.

They would have given the antigun movements all the victories that it had been unable to win in Congress over the past twenty years!

Moreover, the terms would be imposed by a court order, not by a statute. That meant that any violation could be prosecuted as a contempt of court, by the parties to the lawsuit rather than by the government. A future Congress could not repeal the judgment, and a future White House could not block its enforcement. The settlement would have a permanent existence outside the democratic process.

The terms were extensive and drastic:

Gun manufacturers must stop producing firearms (rifle, pistol, or shotguns) that could accept detachable magazines holding more than ten rounds. In practice, since there is no way to design a detachable-magazine firearm that cannot take larger magazines, this would mean ceasing production of all firearms with detachable magazines. No more semiauto handguns.

The manufacturers would be required to stop production of magazines holding more than ten rounds.

Manufacturers must also stop production of firearms with polymer frames. All handguns made must meet importation standards (long barrels, target sights, etc.).

After five years, manufacturers must produce nothing but “smart guns” (that is, using “authorized user technology”).

But those conditions were just the beginning. The next requirement was the key to regulating all licensed firearms dealers, as well. The manufacturers must agree to sell only to distributors and dealers who agreed to comply with the standards set for distributors and dealers. Thus dealers would were not parties to the lawsuits would be forced to comply, upon pain of being unable to buy inventory.

The dealers in turn must agree:

They’d make no sales at gun shows, and no sales over internet.

They’d hold their customers to one-gun-a-month, for all types of guns, not just handguns.

They would not sell used or new magazines holding more than ten rounds.

They would not sell any firearm that fell within the definitions of the 1994 “assault weapon ban,” even if the ban expired.

They must prove they have a minimum inventory of each manufacturers’ product, and that they derive a majority of their revenue from firearms or sporting equipment sales. No more small town hardware store dealers, and no more WalMarts with gun sections.

The manufacturers would be required to pay for a “monitor,” a person to make sure the settlement was enforced. The monitor would create a “sales data clearinghouse,” to which the manufacturers, distributors, and dealers must report each gun sale, thus creating a registration system, outside of the government and thus not covered by the Privacy Act.

The monitor would have the authority to hire investigators, inspect dealer records without notice, and to “conduct undercover sting operations.” The monitor would thus serve as a private BATFE, without the legal restrictions that bind that agency, and paid for by the gun industry itself.

The manufacturers must cut off any dealer who failed to comply, and whenever BATFE traced a gun to a dealer, the dealer would be presumed guilty unless he could prove himself innocent. (BATFE encourages police departments to trace every firearm that comes into their hands, including firearms turned in, lost and found, and recovered from thieves. As a result, it performs over 300,000 traces a year. Thus, this term would lead to many dealers being cut off and forced to prove their innocence on a regular basis).

Gun registration, one gun a month, magazines limited to ten rounds, no Glocks, no guns with detachable magazines (in effect, no semiauto handguns), no dealers at gun shows, an “assault weapon ban” in perpetuity, no internet sales. In short, the movement to restrict gun owners would have achieved, in one stroke, every objective it had labored for over the years -- indeed, it would have achieved some that (a ban on semiauto handguns) that were so bold it had never dared to propose them. All this would be achieved without the messy necessity of winning a majority vote in Congress.

What part of that included the gun confiscation you claim?

They need gun registration before they can confiscate guns....


First comes banning creation of new guns, then comes the confiscation. Left wingers take the long view......which is why they push for universal background checks, knowing that they don't stop criminals or mass shooters......they need universal background checks implemented so that, when criminals and mass shooters still get guns....they can come back and demand universal gun registration, which they need before they start banning guns, so law abiding gun owners can't hide their guns....

 

[Coyote]

The entire leadership of the Democratic party isn't saying that, and has never said they want to confiscate all guns. Where did you hear that? I know it's hard for you to separate real voices from the voices that are just in your head, but you really should try.

Hmmm...you mean like this guy?

“I don’t believe people should be able to own guns.”

President Barack Obama, during conversation with economist and author John Lott Jr. at the University of Chicago Law School in the 1990s


“If I could have gotten...an outright ban – ‘Mr. and Mrs. America turn in your guns’ – I would have!”

Senator Diane Feinstein, author of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban


“We’re bending the law as far as we can to ban an entirely new class of guns.”

Rahm Emmanuel, President Obama's former Chief of Staff and a senior advisor to President Bill Clinton

“Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe.”

Sen. Dianne Feinstein

Talk about deception....quotes from the 90’s....no context....even Rahm’s quote is talking about banning a particular class of guns. Not all guns.

You think obama changed his mind? Or Feinstein?

Obama was president for 8 years. Please point out the laws he enacted that would confiscate all guns.

He cared more about getting obama care first passed, then kept......to do that he needed to control congress, and didn't want to lose members to anti-gun votes the way bill clinton did. He put his efforts into stacking the lower courts and the Supreme Court with anti-gun judges....as we see in the people he put on the 9th, 4th, and 2nd Courts of appeals and the other federal benches.....they have ignored the rulings in Heller, and MacDonald over and over again.....knowing that the Supreme Court was divided 4-4 on gun issues.....they would have fixed that if hilary had won...

So...no legislation. Nothing to indicate he was going to grab all guns.

 

[2aguy]

Hmmm...you mean like this guy?

“I don’t believe people should be able to own guns.”

President Barack Obama, during conversation with economist and author John Lott Jr. at the University of Chicago Law School in the 1990s


“If I could have gotten...an outright ban – ‘Mr. and Mrs. America turn in your guns’ – I would have!”

Senator Diane Feinstein, author of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban


“We’re bending the law as far as we can to ban an entirely new class of guns.”

Rahm Emmanuel, President Obama's former Chief of Staff and a senior advisor to President Bill Clinton

“Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe.”

Sen. Dianne Feinstein

Talk about deception....quotes from the 90’s....no context....even Rahm’s quote is talking about banning a particular class of guns. Not all guns.

You think obama changed his mind? Or Feinstein?

Obama was president for 8 years. Please point out the laws he enacted that would confiscate all guns.

He cared more about getting obama care first passed, then kept......to do that he needed to control congress, and didn't want to lose members to anti-gun votes the way bill clinton did. He put his efforts into stacking the lower courts and the Supreme Court with anti-gun judges....as we see in the people he put on the 9th, 4th, and 2nd Courts of appeals and the other federal benches.....they have ignored the rulings in Heller, and MacDonald over and over again.....knowing that the Supreme Court was divided 4-4 on gun issues.....they would have fixed that if hilary had won...

So...no legislation. Nothing to indicate he was going to grab all guns.

Judges are the point. They allow unConstitutional laws to stand, including bans on rifles, pistols and magazines....any law is going to the court....so they stack the court, get universal background checks, get universal gun registration....then ban guns....

 

[Coyote]

Talk about deception....quotes from the 90’s....no context....even Rahm’s quote is talking about banning a particular class of guns. Not all guns.

You think obama changed his mind? Or Feinstein?

Obama was president for 8 years. Please point out the laws he enacted that would confiscate all guns.

He cared more about getting obama care first passed, then kept......to do that he needed to control congress, and didn't want to lose members to anti-gun votes the way bill clinton did. He put his efforts into stacking the lower courts and the Supreme Court with anti-gun judges....as we see in the people he put on the 9th, 4th, and 2nd Courts of appeals and the other federal benches.....they have ignored the rulings in Heller, and MacDonald over and over again.....knowing that the Supreme Court was divided 4-4 on gun issues.....they would have fixed that if hilary had won...

So...no legislation. Nothing to indicate he was going to grab all guns.

Judges are the point. They allow unConstitutional laws to stand, including bans on rifles, pistols and magazines....any law is going to the court....so they stack the court, get universal background checks, get universal gun registration....then ban guns....

So universal background checks now equal gun confiscation. That is kind of like saying restricting late term abortions will lead to forced breeding programs.

 

[Rustic]

Yep....one of the shooters from a few weeks ago was in court and the documents show....

-hated Christians
-hated Trump
-loved obama
-registered democrat...

They used an axe and a crow bar to break into a safe to get the handguns....so...anti-gunners...so much for your safe storage laws stopping a mass public shooter.......

Transgender Colorado STEM Shooter Motivated by Revenge Over Pronouns, Bullying

Erickson, a registered Democrat, expressed hatred for Christians who uphold the biblical position on traditional sexuality. He also attacked Donald Trump and praised Barack Obama on social media.

"You know what I hate? All these Christians who hate gays, yet in the bible, it says in Deuteronomy 17:12-13, if someone doesn't do what their priest tells them to do, they are supposed to die. It has plenty of crazy stuff like that. But all they get out of it is 'ewwwwww gays,'" he wrote. (Read more on why this is not a contradiction, and why Christians oppose LGBT pride for theological and cultural reasons, not from a gut reaction.)
-----------

The teenagers confessed to breaking into a gun safe at Erickson's home before the shooting. McKinney told police she threatened Erickson with an ax to get him to help open the gun safe using the ax and a crowbar. They found three handguns and a rifle inside. Both have been charged with murder and attempted murder in the shooting. McKinney has been charged as an adult despite her age. Neither has yet entered a plea.

Yep, most mass shooters are progressives... fact

 

[Rustic]

You think obama changed his mind? Or Feinstein?

Obama was president for 8 years. Please point out the laws he enacted that would confiscate all guns.

He cared more about getting obama care first passed, then kept......to do that he needed to control congress, and didn't want to lose members to anti-gun votes the way bill clinton did. He put his efforts into stacking the lower courts and the Supreme Court with anti-gun judges....as we see in the people he put on the 9th, 4th, and 2nd Courts of appeals and the other federal benches.....they have ignored the rulings in Heller, and MacDonald over and over again.....knowing that the Supreme Court was divided 4-4 on gun issues.....they would have fixed that if hilary had won...

So...no legislation. Nothing to indicate he was going to grab all guns.

Judges are the point. They allow unConstitutional laws to stand, including bans on rifles, pistols and magazines....any law is going to the court....so they stack the court, get universal background checks, get universal gun registration....then ban guns....

So universal background checks now equal gun confiscation. That is kind of like saying restricting late term abortions will lead to forced breeding programs.

Lol
Firearm ownership is only the individuals business and certainly not the federal governments business.

 

[Rustic]

Any type of firearm “registration” is Firearm confiscation... And should be resisted at any cost

 

[Coyote]

Obama was president for 8 years. Please point out the laws he enacted that would confiscate all guns.

He cared more about getting obama care first passed, then kept......to do that he needed to control congress, and didn't want to lose members to anti-gun votes the way bill clinton did. He put his efforts into stacking the lower courts and the Supreme Court with anti-gun judges....as we see in the people he put on the 9th, 4th, and 2nd Courts of appeals and the other federal benches.....they have ignored the rulings in Heller, and MacDonald over and over again.....knowing that the Supreme Court was divided 4-4 on gun issues.....they would have fixed that if hilary had won...

So...no legislation. Nothing to indicate he was going to grab all guns.

Judges are the point. They allow unConstitutional laws to stand, including bans on rifles, pistols and magazines....any law is going to the court....so they stack the court, get universal background checks, get universal gun registration....then ban guns....

So universal background checks now equal gun confiscation. That is kind of like saying restricting late term abortions will lead to forced breeding programs.

Lol
Firearm ownership is only the individuals business and certainly not the federal governments business.

So is one’s healthcare decisions.

 

[Rustic]

He cared more about getting obama care first passed, then kept......to do that he needed to control congress, and didn't want to lose members to anti-gun votes the way bill clinton did. He put his efforts into stacking the lower courts and the Supreme Court with anti-gun judges....as we see in the people he put on the 9th, 4th, and 2nd Courts of appeals and the other federal benches.....they have ignored the rulings in Heller, and MacDonald over and over again.....knowing that the Supreme Court was divided 4-4 on gun issues.....they would have fixed that if hilary had won...

So...no legislation. Nothing to indicate he was going to grab all guns.

Judges are the point. They allow unConstitutional laws to stand, including bans on rifles, pistols and magazines....any law is going to the court....so they stack the court, get universal background checks, get universal gun registration....then ban guns....

So universal background checks now equal gun confiscation. That is kind of like saying restricting late term abortions will lead to forced breeding programs.

Lol
Firearm ownership is only the individuals business and certainly not the federal governments business.

So is one’s healthcare decisions.

Yes, No one should have socialized medicine/healthcare forced on them… It’s a living hell for conservatives

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

So?

So?
So why was it such a big deal to note it was Right-Wingers involved when Bowers killed Jews, or Roof killed Blacks?
Now, when it comes to Leftist massacres, then it's just "So".

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

Yep....one of the shooters from a few weeks ago was in court and the documents show....

-hated Christians
-hated Trump
-loved obama
-registered democrat...

They used an axe and a crow bar to break into a safe to get the handguns....so...anti-gunners...so much for your safe storage laws stopping a mass public shooter.......

Transgender Colorado STEM Shooter Motivated by Revenge Over Pronouns, Bullying

Erickson, a registered Democrat, expressed hatred for Christians who uphold the biblical position on traditional sexuality. He also attacked Donald Trump and praised Barack Obama on social media.

"You know what I hate? All these Christians who hate gays, yet in the bible, it says in Deuteronomy 17:12-13, if someone doesn't do what their priest tells them to do, they are supposed to die. It has plenty of crazy stuff like that. But all they get out of it is 'ewwwwww gays,'" he wrote. (Read more on why this is not a contradiction, and why Christians oppose LGBT pride for theological and cultural reasons, not from a gut reaction.)
-----------

The teenagers confessed to breaking into a gun safe at Erickson's home before the shooting. McKinney told police she threatened Erickson with an ax to get him to help open the gun safe using the ax and a crowbar. They found three handguns and a rifle inside. Both have been charged with murder and attempted murder in the shooting. McKinney has been charged as an adult despite her age. Neither has yet entered a plea.

Congratulations.

That's 1.

You mean one deranged lefty....not even close.....

You forgot the bernie bro....who tried to murder the entire republican baseball team.

The Black lives matter sympathizer who murdered 6 Dallas police officers.

The D.C. snipers.

The Long Island Train shooter.

The list of left wing asshats murdering people, in mass shootings, or through government mass murder is long and horrible......

Far more than 1.....

True...it’s almost as long as rage rightwing asshats murdering people. What’s the point?

Mass murder has been politicized in the USA, mostly by the Leftists, who like to point out every time a mass shooter got guns, or has Right-Wing ideology.

But, when the Right-Wingers fight back, and rightfully pin blame on Leftists, it's just "So"?

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

So...no legislation. Nothing to indicate he was going to grab all guns.

Judges are the point. They allow unConstitutional laws to stand, including bans on rifles, pistols and magazines....any law is going to the court....so they stack the court, get universal background checks, get universal gun registration....then ban guns....

So universal background checks now equal gun confiscation. That is kind of like saying restricting late term abortions will lead to forced breeding programs.

Lol
Firearm ownership is only the individuals business and certainly not the federal governments business.

So is one’s healthcare decisions.

Yes, No one should have socialized medicine/healthcare forced on them… It’s a living hell for conservatives

The Living hell are not those having healthcare forced upon them, but those who literally die because of lack of healthcare for treatable illnesses.
Even more sad, is for the family who lose the loved ones.

 

[Coyote]

So?

So?
So why was it such a big deal to note it was Right-Wingers involved when Bowers killed Jews, or Roof killed Blacks?
Now, when it comes to Leftist massacres, then it's just "So".

How are two disturbed teen kids, motivated by anger over bullying, equivalent to a shooter shooting up a church full of black people in order to start a race war, or a man shooting up a Synagogue full of Jews because he hates Jews. It is all tragic. But the motivations behind the acts somewhat different.

 

[Rustic]

Judges are the point. They allow unConstitutional laws to stand, including bans on rifles, pistols and magazines....any law is going to the court....so they stack the court, get universal background checks, get universal gun registration....then ban guns....

So universal background checks now equal gun confiscation. That is kind of like saying restricting late term abortions will lead to forced breeding programs.

Lol
Firearm ownership is only the individuals business and certainly not the federal governments business.

So is one’s healthcare decisions.

Yes, No one should have socialized medicine/healthcare forced on them… It’s a living hell for conservatives

The Living hell are not those having healthcare forced upon them, but those who literally die because of lack of healthcare for treatable illnesses.
Even more sad, is for the family who lose the loved ones.

Lol
The people that have to pay for it can’t afford it, do not want it and cannot benefit from it... It’s only worth a shit if it’s 100% voluntary

People need to pay for their own shit...

 

[Coyote]

Yep....one of the shooters from a few weeks ago was in court and the documents show....

-hated Christians
-hated Trump
-loved obama
-registered democrat...

They used an axe and a crow bar to break into a safe to get the handguns....so...anti-gunners...so much for your safe storage laws stopping a mass public shooter.......

Transgender Colorado STEM Shooter Motivated by Revenge Over Pronouns, Bullying

Erickson, a registered Democrat, expressed hatred for Christians who uphold the biblical position on traditional sexuality. He also attacked Donald Trump and praised Barack Obama on social media.

"You know what I hate? All these Christians who hate gays, yet in the bible, it says in Deuteronomy 17:12-13, if someone doesn't do what their priest tells them to do, they are supposed to die. It has plenty of crazy stuff like that. But all they get out of it is 'ewwwwww gays,'" he wrote. (Read more on why this is not a contradiction, and why Christians oppose LGBT pride for theological and cultural reasons, not from a gut reaction.)
-----------

The teenagers confessed to breaking into a gun safe at Erickson's home before the shooting. McKinney told police she threatened Erickson with an ax to get him to help open the gun safe using the ax and a crowbar. They found three handguns and a rifle inside. Both have been charged with murder and attempted murder in the shooting. McKinney has been charged as an adult despite her age. Neither has yet entered a plea.

Congratulations.

That's 1.

You mean one deranged lefty....not even close.....

You forgot the bernie bro....who tried to murder the entire republican baseball team.

The Black lives matter sympathizer who murdered 6 Dallas police officers.

The D.C. snipers.

The Long Island Train shooter.

The list of left wing asshats murdering people, in mass shootings, or through government mass murder is long and horrible......

Far more than 1.....

True...it’s almost as long as rage rightwing asshats murdering people. What’s the point?

Mass murder has been politicized in the USA, mostly by the Leftists, who like to point out every time a mass shooter got guns, or has Right-Wing ideology.

But, when the Right-Wingers fight back, and rightfully pin blame on Leftists, it's just "So"?

You must have missed all the “look how violent lefties are” threads.

 

[Coyote]

So...no legislation. Nothing to indicate he was going to grab all guns.

Judges are the point. They allow unConstitutional laws to stand, including bans on rifles, pistols and magazines....any law is going to the court....so they stack the court, get universal background checks, get universal gun registration....then ban guns....

So universal background checks now equal gun confiscation. That is kind of like saying restricting late term abortions will lead to forced breeding programs.

Lol
Firearm ownership is only the individuals business and certainly not the federal governments business.

So is one’s healthcare decisions.

Yes, No one should have socialized medicine/healthcare forced on them… It’s a living hell for conservatives

I was referring to abortion. A private decision, by a woman, and what is essentially a healthcare choice between her and her doctor, not the government.