Gun Control Has Only 1 Motive - Confiscation of All Guns from Law Abiding Citizens

[Frankeneinstein]

No?
But Weatherman, we only want sensible gun laws passed!


OK

List the ‘sensible’ gun laws that still need to pass and just ONE Democrat saying once these pass we’ve done all we can do, no more laws about guns will be pushed for.

There isn’t one Leftist. It’s all about riding the slippery slope and making sure felons are on the streets to create more violence to further their agenda of grabbing all guns from law abiding citizens.

Now the end game: Name one tyrannical government in modern history that didn’t grab guns from law abiding citizens.

There isn’t one. They all grabbed the guns first.

https://www.thetrace.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Screen-Shot-2018-07-16-at-4.02.12-PM.jpg

The face of the NRA

and here are the folks who would stand up to them

 

[Bob Blaylock]

No....he didn't.......he used the gun registration records created in the 1920s and 30s to disarm his enemies and Jews.........he allowed his supporters to have guns.....

You just don't know the history.

He knows history well enough to know what he wants to repeat.

There's a reason that the Nazis wanted to disarm the Jews.

There's a similar reason that subhuman filth such as Daryl Hunt want to disarm law-abiding citizens.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Gun control has only one motive...

Protect the citizens of the United States

Only to protect criminals, terrorists and tyrants. Which tells us on whose side those are, who oppose the Second Amendment.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

the one argument the left have never addressed, is answering how taking guns from law abiding citizens solves criminal use of guns? Please, open forum here, let's hear your answers.

They're never going to answer that. To even acknowledge the question is to acknowledge their own lies for what they are.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Big deal, if every single person in this country wanted a return to slavery it would still be unconstitutional...if everyone wanted stricter laws on speech it would still be unconstitutional, and btw, charts prove nothing, and the media bias is now so obvious that it is easier to believe the opposite of what the MSM says is true...so while I would hesitate to say ya got nothing it would only be because ya got less than that.

If every single person in this country wanted to return to slavery, we could amend the Constitution to allow it again.

If there was really as much support for gun control as the criminal-loving subhuman left wrong-wing pieces of shit persist in claiming, then we could and would amend the Constitution to allow it.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

If every single person in this country wanted to return to slavery, we could amend the Constitution to allow it again.

If there was really as much support for gun control as the criminal-loving subhuman left wrong-wing pieces of shit persist in claiming, then we could and would amend the Constitution to allow it.

If that is true then there is no such thing as "unalienable" [or inalienable if you prefer] rights referred to in the DOI...the term means that no power can alienate you from them, and the constitution is designed to protect minority opinions and rights from the will of the majority...we are born with those rights, they were given to us by our creator and are merely expressed in writing in the constitution so even if everyone were to disagree with them, eliminating them would still be unconstitutional.

 

[2aguy]

View attachment 311528

Get back to us when those respondents actually know something about the issue.

 

[Weatherman2020]

No?
But Weatherman, we only want sensible gun laws passed!


OK

List the ‘sensible’ gun laws that still need to pass and just ONE Democrat saying once these pass we’ve done all we can do, no more laws about guns will be pushed for.

There isn’t one Leftist. It’s all about riding the slippery slope and making sure felons are on the streets to create more violence to further their agenda of grabbing all guns from law abiding citizens.

Now the end game: Name one tyrannical government in modern history that didn’t grab guns from law abiding citizens.

There isn’t one. They all grabbed the guns first.

This is paranoid delusion. Well, it would be, if you actually believed it. But you don't. You're just trolling for attention.

Your support of infinite new laws to take guns from law abiding citizens validates the OP.

 

[Weatherman2020]

No?
But Weatherman, we only want sensible gun laws passed!


OK

List the ‘sensible’ gun laws that still need to pass and just ONE Democrat saying once these pass we’ve done all we can do, no more laws about guns will be pushed for.

There isn’t one Leftist. It’s all about riding the slippery slope and making sure felons are on the streets to create more violence to further their agenda of grabbing all guns from law abiding citizens.

Now the end game: Name one tyrannical government in modern history that didn’t grab guns from law abiding citizens.

There isn’t one. They all grabbed the guns first.

Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawn, the sky has been falling all my life on this, still got mine. Don had 2 years with majorities in both houses. Did the Reps not get anything done to protect you from your fear when they could have? Gee, and nothing on abortion either.

Good little Brown Shirter.

 

[KGB]

Do enumerated rights also depend on technology? All gun laws are unconstitutional. Every last one of them. We don’t need gun control, we need criminal control.

Are the regulations concerning fully automatic weapons effective where public safety is concerned? Where's your RPG? Your mortar? Your 20mm? The constitution is not a suicide pact.

All gun laws are unconstitutional. All means all.

The courts and the vast majority of Americans look at your statement and slap their foreheads in incredulity.

Funny how the Founding Fathers didn’t...

When can I get my cannons the Founding Fathers allowed citizens to own?

the Founding Fathers didn’t “allow” anything. They put down on paper rights you were born with.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Are the regulations concerning fully automatic weapons effective where public safety is concerned? Where's your RPG? Your mortar? Your 20mm? The constitution is not a suicide pact.

All gun laws are unconstitutional. All means all.

The courts and the vast majority of Americans look at your statement and slap their foreheads in incredulity.

Funny how the Founding Fathers didn’t...

When can I get my cannons the Founding Fathers allowed citizens to own?

the Founding Fathers didn’t “allow” anything. They put down on paper rights you were born with.

Yes. To own artillery.

 

[progressive hunter]

If I ran the nation, everyone who is mentally competent could buy any six round revolver, bolt action rifle, pump action shotgun they want. But nothing else. So that title you slapped on this thread is just good old fashioned fear mongering. Not all guns, but some of them for sure.

The OP must be drunk. I cant figure out why he would think it was smart to limit what laws you can make regarding anything. Can you imagine some of the draconian laws that would still be in effect today from the 1700's

I did I know you can’t think of any political leader laying out an endgame to gun laws.

And when firearm technology evolves, should the public and law makers turn a blind eye? Laws follow technology. Your premise is typically short sighted.

Do enumerated rights also depend on technology? All gun laws are unconstitutional. Every last one of them. We don’t need gun control, we need criminal control.

Are the regulations concerning fully automatic weapons effective where public safety is concerned? Where's your RPG? Your mortar? Your 20mm? The constitution is not a suicide pact.

the 2nd doesnt say you can just run around shooting willy nilly,,of course public safety is an issue,,but it does say you have a right to any arms that might be used against you,,,,,so if an invading force tries to invade with full auto or RPGs then we NEED full auto or RPGS to repel that force,,,

 

[bigrebnc1775]

All gun laws are unconstitutional. All means all.

The courts and the vast majority of Americans look at your statement and slap their foreheads in incredulity.

Funny how the Founding Fathers didn’t...

When can I get my cannons the Founding Fathers allowed citizens to own?

Common Citizens could not afford to own a cannon. It was way outside their pay grade so the Founding Fathers didn't think to include them. Only the Rich owned Cannons and they were used to protect the villages against various nasties. This is why each small town ended up with a cannon in the town square for display and ceremony even today. While some nutcases think the FFs were omnipotent when they wrote the 2nd A they weren't.

Common citizens could barely afford guns then. There were no mass producers of guns. Each gun was handmade. No interchangible parts, no catalogued various makes and models. Weapons for defense of the state were provided by the state.

Who told you that bullshit?

 

[Ame®icano]

Isn't that what the British wanted to do in 1775? And every other oppressive tyrannical government?

 

[Asclepias]

Your Drumpftards need to calm down. I promise you retarded cons. If they try to take all our guns I will be the first to join you in rebellion.

 

[Preacher]

Hitler, Stalin and Mao had that same motive.

Hitler didn't take the guns, he actually EXPANDED the gun laws for German Citizens.

BS. Hitler grabbed all guns from all Jews.
Guess what happened next.

Jews aren't humans, they were/are vermin. As I clearly stated he expanded gun laws for German Citizens. Not for parasites who destroyed the state.

Hitler, Stalin and Mao had that same motive.

Hitler didn't take the guns, he actually EXPANDED the gun laws for German Citizens.

Actually like a good little Democrat he only took guns from certain citizens more less racist

OK cuck

Hitler, Stalin and Mao had that same motive.

Hitler didn't take the guns, he actually EXPANDED the gun laws for German Citizens.

No....he didn't.......he used the gun registration records created in the 1920s and 30s to disarm his enemies and Jews.........he allowed his supporters to have guns.....

You just don't know the history.

Lol. Jews are everyone's enemy as they should be. REGULAR German citizens had their gun rights expanded.

Hitler, Stalin and Mao had that same motive.

Hitler didn't take the guns, he actually EXPANDED the gun laws for German Citizens.

Lie.

Lol. Facts don't lie

 

[Daryl Hunt]

It's customary for the statues of the losing side of any war to have to get rid of their statues that keeps the conflict going.

I don't remember reading that in the Constitution. Could you point it out, please?

So you support giving the Baths a brand new Saddam Statue paid for by the US because it was illegally torn down? I would quote the Constitution but since you have never read it, you would just claim it's fake news. I really want to see the version of the Constitution that you operate from. But the fact remains, the south ain't gonna' rise again. Get over it.

What was the law violated? Cite exact law.

To the Victors go the spoils. The Vanquished don't make the rules.

The Victor's also have all the guns. So tell me what guns do you have? LOL

You tell me. Do I own a gun or two or three or not? You are just going to take your chances, pinky.

 

[Ame®icano]

Hitler didn't take the guns, he actually EXPANDED the gun laws for German Citizens.

Lie.

Lol. Facts don't lie

And the fact are that German Jews were also citizens, and claiming that only citizens could own guns is nonsense. Even before Hitler got in power, German interior minister ordered gun registration, and then he ordered those gun registration records be made secure to keep them from falling into the hands of radical elements.

Very next year, Hitler got in power and seized those records, then he stripped Jews of citizenship first, then their assets, including firearms. He also disarmed all his political opponents, regardless of being citizens.

Nazi Firearm Law by Stephen Halbrook

 

[Daryl Hunt]

When can I get my cannons the Founding Fathers allowed citizens to own?

Common Citizens could not afford to own a cannon. It was way outside their pay grade so the Founding Fathers didn't think to include them. Only the Rich owned Cannons and they were used to protect the villages against various nasties. This is why each small town ended up with a cannon in the town square for display and ceremony even today. While some nutcases think the FFs were omnipotent when they wrote the 2nd A they weren't.

Common citizens could barely afford guns then. There were no mass producers of guns. Each gun was handmade. No interchangible parts, no catalogued various makes and models. Weapons for defense of the state were provided by the state.

You’re a victim of Leftard education skipping history.

Prove it! You're "history" is fable, not fact.

You're?

No, it's not. He's spot on. In 1800's most of Americans had guns, and they were easily accessible. If they were not, why would British be threatened by them and wanted to confiscate them?

The expensive ones were repeating guns were expensive at first, but cheaper later.

1. In the first half of the 19th century, most Americans were Rural. When you say most, that's what you probably mean. But in the last half of the 19th century, there were more city dwellers and most cities with any size enacted some forms of gun control. But as you moved westward, the population density went way down and many had to have firearms for exactly the same reason the people in the 18th century needed them and that was to protect their homes, family and put meat on the table. But something happened when the troops were sent home with their newly issued weapons after the Civil War. There was nothing for them in the East so they moved west. Until then, sidearms were quite rare in the West. Almost everyone had a rifle or a shotgun but the surplus of revolvers became a problem. May cities and towns in the West inacted the "Turn your guns in" when you entered a town or city to either the police or a central location. You would get them back on your way out. Cities like Dallas, TX got tired of their city or town being shot to pieces by drunken cowboys. A stray bullet doesn't check to see if the end result is a human or not. Tombstone, the Earps were actually civilized in asking for guns to be turned in but it didn't work out so well. In Dallas, you got asked once and if you didn't comply you were shot dead on sight. The West ended up with a completely different problem than the East with completely different problems and gun regulations. In fact, in NYC during the last half of the 19th century, there were fewer gun regulations than Dallas.

In the west, it wasn't a given state that made the gun regs, it was the various cities and towns. For instance, in the 1960s and back, Montrose, Co. had a no open carry law but 20 miles down the road, Delta had an open carry as per the State law. Funny thing is, the old law said that the gun had to be free and ready. That meant that if it even had a safety strap on it it was considered a concealed weapon and that was illegal unless you were properly licensed. Today, you can have a safety strap on it and it's considered open carry.

In Colorado, it's still left up to the Counties and Cities to what will be accepted for carrying firearms. That is the way it's been since the creation of the United States of America. Gun Regs predate the 2nd A.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Since I want to have common sense gun regs, that means that I am a criminal-loving filth? The only ones that I want disarmed are the ones that are a serious threat to society. If you don't fall in that category then what I say doesn't apply to you. But if you are, the sooner we get your firearms out of your reach the better.

Without exception, those who want to interfere with the rights of law-abiding cities are against the side of law-abiding citizens, and on the side of violent criminals.

If you don't want to be seen as being on the side of criminals, them stop advocating policies that are intended to make easier prey for them of law-abiding citizens.

We went to common sense gun regs and the gun violence went down. I can still walk into any gun shop and walk out with anything they are selling (of course pay for it) in about 15 minutes if I know exactly what I want to buy. It takes a lot longer than that because it's like a kid in a candy store with all those on hand. Common Sense Gun Regs don't even slow me down. We have added exactly one new law to the gun regs since 2013 and there isn't any talk of adding any more. Where you live, if there is talk about adding more laws after you get common sense gun regs then I suggest you vote a whole bunch of people out of office. But step one is to stop with the "World is ending" crap. Regular People don't listen to crackpots who keep screaming "The Sky is Falling".