If banning rifles is a winner for democrats, why do they want to hide it from voters?

[Skull Pilot]

The day a feeble old man like you could lay a hand on me is the day I'll eat a bullet.

My stepfather thought he could lay his hands on me but he too learned his lesson

You people don't give a flying or any other kind of FUCK about the murder rate or murder victims all you care about is controlling other people

I was hoping you would say that you would become a Ballerina in that case and I was going to send you a Four Four. Your fat ass would probably not fit in a tutu.

Keep your fetishes to yourself you old pervert

Oh, you have harmed me. I am not a Pervert. There are three classes of Perverts. There is the Prevert. That's the Pervert in Training. Then there is the Pervert. That's the practicing Pervert. Then there is me, the Provert, the Instructor.

Wow proud of instructing perverts

You have far more problems than your irrational fear of Ar 15s

Humor is not your strong suit. And I don't fear the AR15. I respect it. I just don't respect you.

And I don't respect control freaks who try to tell other people how they should live their lives

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I was hoping you would say that you would become a Ballerina in that case and I was going to send you a Four Four. Your fat ass would probably not fit in a tutu.

Keep your fetishes to yourself you old pervert

Oh, you have harmed me. I am not a Pervert. There are three classes of Perverts. There is the Prevert. That's the Pervert in Training. Then there is the Pervert. That's the practicing Pervert. Then there is me, the Provert, the Instructor.

Wow proud of instructing perverts

You have far more problems than your irrational fear of Ar 15s

Humor is not your strong suit. And I don't fear the AR15. I respect it. I just don't respect you.

And I don't respect control freaks who try to tell other people how they should live their lives

Then you shouldn't respect yourself since you are trying to use Rural America's values for Urban America. You should strip off your shirt and use a strap on your own back.

 

[2aguy]

says the feeble minded old man who is so afraid of a rifle he wants it banned

There is no good reason to ban the Ar 15 none zero zip nada

I've given some pretty good reasons. You haven't given one single reason why the moving the AR up to the FFL standard (not banning) would stop the sun from coming up in the morning.

Because it is the same rifle as all the other rifles, and giving in to morons like you will just lead to all the other semi auto rifles, pistols and shotguns being put into that standard....

The AR-15 rifle and all other semi auto rifles are protected by the 2nd Amendment.... you can't change that, you can only lie about it.

4 states and many lower governments have specifically singled the AR-15 out by name and have made special laws concerning just the AR-15 and it's clones. They have not been banned but they have been elevated to requiring a FFL License to own them. You, like them, can place the name Ban on it but it's atually elevating them to FFL status. And it's been upheld in Federal Court. Now, stop making shit up.

And that is unConstitutional..... The Supreme Court has ruled on this and those lower courts are in violation of the law.

We have been through it many times. The Supreme Court has NOT ruled on the lower courts. In fact, they have refused to hear them. Meaning, they may or many not agree with it but don't find those ruling as unconstitutional. Are we going to do this dog and pony show again? Are you going to go into all the ways that the SC has ruled the way you think they did only to have it pointed out that you are cherry picking and leaving out the real meat of the rulings? Just how many times are you going to do this. I have the time.

Yes.... they did, in Heller...... the lower courts are breaking the law..... the process is the Supreme Court has to call them out...they haven't done that yet.... they need 4 votes to hear a case and rule on it.... they have had 4 pretend justices and kennedy.......that isn't the case anymore....you twit.

 

[2aguy]

And you demonstrate the problem with a spoiled child. Hope more firearms regulations come down the pike so you can feel nice and spanked.

Red states are deregulating firearms...

Let's take a look at the least firearms regulation states.

Kansas makes the top of the list. It's a VERY Red State It also makes the top of the list as the worst run economy in the US. It's one of the highest Welfare states for food stamps, social programs and more. If I had to pick a state that was the most likely to have an armed rebellion by poor people,, this would be the one.

Vermont comes in as #2. But it's a deep blue state. The reason is that it's very low in population. Low population usually means there are a lot of rural areas that don't really require a lot of gun regulations. Vermont is still trying to stand ready for the Revolutionary War as it is it's always has. Great place to live or visit if you want to step back to the early days of the United States. Many of you gun nutz should consider moving there. All you would need to do is to find jobs which they seem to lack.

South Dakota is #3. South Dakota is a welfare state with only small pockets of population. It's about as rural as you can get. Most states have cities with more population that the entire state has. I don't live in a particularly large city in Colorado and yet our town is as large as Sioux Falls, SD which is the largest city in SD. It's population is spread out in a very rural way. And it's another Welfare State. And many of the businesses that other states have as private businesses, SD has city owned like the Cement Factory in Rapid City. And yes, South Dakota is a Red State.

Alaska is #4. I spent 3 years living in Alaska. I can tell you that you can't tell an Alaskan to do ANYTHING. These are some of the nicest folks you ever wanted to meet but they are also some of the independent people as well. They are big on Individual Rights. But, truth be told, Alaska is a Welfare State. Over 1/3 or all income or employment comes directly from the Federal Government. And this does not include the social programs since Alaskans that are hard up have trouble making the Federal Rate. Last year, Alaska cut their Oil Revenue that they give back to all Alaskans back to 1000 from 3000 dollars as it's getting mighty tight since the programs like the "Bridge to Nowhere" are being monitored more closely. If ever we had a state that could be great without Federal Aid, it would be Alaska. If we ever had one that isn't, it is also Alaska. Probably the #1 Welfare State in the Union. Yes, very, very Red.

Missouri is #5. Missouri made the top 3 list of the Corporate Welfare States. But they have made some real fine choices in reducing their poor welfare rates. I applaud their putting people to work who are capable of working. Missouri is more a light Pink state that also goes to a Purple state. Sorry, but you can't claim this as just a Red state. It's not. It goes from election to election. This state is doing well.

Wyoming is #6. Yes, a very, very Red state. But also a very, very welfare state. And has almost no population. The largest city they have would be considered small in almost every other state. Another highly rural dominant state. They lack heavy industry and depend on oil and coal. I will admit they have made inroads in trying to clean up their welfare social programs. When you once had the worst in the nation, anything can be an improvement. But they also have one of the highest Corporate Welfare in the Nation per Capita. That's not hard to do when you don't have that many capita to drive that number down. Their entire economy is tied directly to oil and coal and goes up and down like a yo yo. Mostly down.

Kentucky comes in at #7. This puppy makes the list of Per Capita Welfare Recipients at #1. Yes, it's a real Red State. And like MOST Red States, it's in extreme financial trouble. And like most Red States, it's near the top of the list for Corporate Welfare. This is another case of poorly run Government which caters to only the rich, buys off the poor to keep the from noticing. Yes, another case of a very, very Red State.

I won't go any further down the list. But Most of the states that are Red States with lower gun regs than others have some things in common.

1. High Social Welfare Rates
2. Low Employment Rates
3. High rate of Rural Population
4. Are in Financial Trouble

2 out of the 5 are not Red States. Those 2 don't seem to be having those problems with the exception of the High rate of Rural Population. Rustbucket is right about one thing and only one thing. Rural Population areas require fewer gun regs. In fact, rural population areas require fewer laws since they have fewer people who interact with each other less. On the other side of the coin, higher population areas need more laws because people interact with each other more. You can't have one size fits all but that seems to be what the guncrazies want. If you think NYC, Detroit, Atlanta or LA would be safe to live anywhere near with no gun laws or the same laws as a rural area you would be sadly mistaken and probably dead.

Rural states are great for self-employment... And they have no need for frivolous laws and regulations

That is why rural and urban will never have the same interests...

Then why do you demand that the Urban Areas force the same Laws that the Rural Areas do when it would be completely suicidal to do so? Single people or small groups are more stable while large groups will have some fringe groups that can be very dangerous. We NEED gun more gun restrictions in the urban areas. Yet you fight tooth and nail to prevent it even at the cost of human lives.

Keeping law abiding people from owning and carrying guns in democrat controlled cities is getting them killed you asshat..... the criminals are currently shooting each other and innocent people in the cities with the strictest gun control laws, controlled by democrats for decades.....

You have the strictest gun control in democrat cities and the highest gun murder rates...you are an idiot.

 

[Rustic]

And you demonstrate the problem with a spoiled child. Hope more firearms regulations come down the pike so you can feel nice and spanked.

Red states are deregulating firearms...

Let's take a look at the least firearms regulation states.

Kansas makes the top of the list. It's a VERY Red State It also makes the top of the list as the worst run economy in the US. It's one of the highest Welfare states for food stamps, social programs and more. If I had to pick a state that was the most likely to have an armed rebellion by poor people,, this would be the one.

Vermont comes in as #2. But it's a deep blue state. The reason is that it's very low in population. Low population usually means there are a lot of rural areas that don't really require a lot of gun regulations. Vermont is still trying to stand ready for the Revolutionary War as it is it's always has. Great place to live or visit if you want to step back to the early days of the United States. Many of you gun nutz should consider moving there. All you would need to do is to find jobs which they seem to lack.

South Dakota is #3. South Dakota is a welfare state with only small pockets of population. It's about as rural as you can get. Most states have cities with more population that the entire state has. I don't live in a particularly large city in Colorado and yet our town is as large as Sioux Falls, SD which is the largest city in SD. It's population is spread out in a very rural way. And it's another Welfare State. And many of the businesses that other states have as private businesses, SD has city owned like the Cement Factory in Rapid City. And yes, South Dakota is a Red State.

Alaska is #4. I spent 3 years living in Alaska. I can tell you that you can't tell an Alaskan to do ANYTHING. These are some of the nicest folks you ever wanted to meet but they are also some of the independent people as well. They are big on Individual Rights. But, truth be told, Alaska is a Welfare State. Over 1/3 or all income or employment comes directly from the Federal Government. And this does not include the social programs since Alaskans that are hard up have trouble making the Federal Rate. Last year, Alaska cut their Oil Revenue that they give back to all Alaskans back to 1000 from 3000 dollars as it's getting mighty tight since the programs like the "Bridge to Nowhere" are being monitored more closely. If ever we had a state that could be great without Federal Aid, it would be Alaska. If we ever had one that isn't, it is also Alaska. Probably the #1 Welfare State in the Union. Yes, very, very Red.

Missouri is #5. Missouri made the top 3 list of the Corporate Welfare States. But they have made some real fine choices in reducing their poor welfare rates. I applaud their putting people to work who are capable of working. Missouri is more a light Pink state that also goes to a Purple state. Sorry, but you can't claim this as just a Red state. It's not. It goes from election to election. This state is doing well.

Wyoming is #6. Yes, a very, very Red state. But also a very, very welfare state. And has almost no population. The largest city they have would be considered small in almost every other state. Another highly rural dominant state. They lack heavy industry and depend on oil and coal. I will admit they have made inroads in trying to clean up their welfare social programs. When you once had the worst in the nation, anything can be an improvement. But they also have one of the highest Corporate Welfare in the Nation per Capita. That's not hard to do when you don't have that many capita to drive that number down. Their entire economy is tied directly to oil and coal and goes up and down like a yo yo. Mostly down.

Kentucky comes in at #7. This puppy makes the list of Per Capita Welfare Recipients at #1. Yes, it's a real Red State. And like MOST Red States, it's in extreme financial trouble. And like most Red States, it's near the top of the list for Corporate Welfare. This is another case of poorly run Government which caters to only the rich, buys off the poor to keep the from noticing. Yes, another case of a very, very Red State.

I won't go any further down the list. But Most of the states that are Red States with lower gun regs than others have some things in common.

1. High Social Welfare Rates
2. Low Employment Rates
3. High rate of Rural Population
4. Are in Financial Trouble

2 out of the 5 are not Red States. Those 2 don't seem to be having those problems with the exception of the High rate of Rural Population. Rustbucket is right about one thing and only one thing. Rural Population areas require fewer gun regs. In fact, rural population areas require fewer laws since they have fewer people who interact with each other less. On the other side of the coin, higher population areas need more laws because people interact with each other more. You can't have one size fits all but that seems to be what the guncrazies want. If you think NYC, Detroit, Atlanta or LA would be safe to live anywhere near with no gun laws or the same laws as a rural area you would be sadly mistaken and probably dead.

Rural states are great for self-employment... And they have no need for frivolous laws and regulations

That is why rural and urban will never have the same interests...

Then why do you demand that the Urban Areas force the same Laws that the Rural Areas do when it would be completely suicidal to do so? Single people or small groups are more stable while large groups will have some fringe groups that can be very dangerous. We NEED gun more gun restrictions in the urban areas. Yet you fight tooth and nail to prevent it even at the cost of human lives.

Urban America can do what they want, but they never leave it at that. They have to control everyone they disagree with.
Anti-gun nutters like yourself are their grunts...

 

[Rustic]

And who the fuck are you to tell me what I should or should not do?

That's the problem with you control freaks

And you demonstrate the problem with a spoiled child. Hope more firearms regulations come down the pike so you can feel nice and spanked.

Red states are deregulating firearms...

Let's take a look at the least firearms regulation states.

Kansas makes the top of the list. It's a VERY Red State It also makes the top of the list as the worst run economy in the US. It's one of the highest Welfare states for food stamps, social programs and more. If I had to pick a state that was the most likely to have an armed rebellion by poor people,, this would be the one.

Vermont comes in as #2. But it's a deep blue state. The reason is that it's very low in population. Low population usually means there are a lot of rural areas that don't really require a lot of gun regulations. Vermont is still trying to stand ready for the Revolutionary War as it is it's always has. Great place to live or visit if you want to step back to the early days of the United States. Many of you gun nutz should consider moving there. All you would need to do is to find jobs which they seem to lack.

South Dakota is #3. South Dakota is a welfare state with only small pockets of population. It's about as rural as you can get. Most states have cities with more population that the entire state has. I don't live in a particularly large city in Colorado and yet our town is as large as Sioux Falls, SD which is the largest city in SD. It's population is spread out in a very rural way. And it's another Welfare State. And many of the businesses that other states have as private businesses, SD has city owned like the Cement Factory in Rapid City. And yes, South Dakota is a Red State.

Alaska is #4. I spent 3 years living in Alaska. I can tell you that you can't tell an Alaskan to do ANYTHING. These are some of the nicest folks you ever wanted to meet but they are also some of the independent people as well. They are big on Individual Rights. But, truth be told, Alaska is a Welfare State. Over 1/3 or all income or employment comes directly from the Federal Government. And this does not include the social programs since Alaskans that are hard up have trouble making the Federal Rate. Last year, Alaska cut their Oil Revenue that they give back to all Alaskans back to 1000 from 3000 dollars as it's getting mighty tight since the programs like the "Bridge to Nowhere" are being monitored more closely. If ever we had a state that could be great without Federal Aid, it would be Alaska. If we ever had one that isn't, it is also Alaska. Probably the #1 Welfare State in the Union. Yes, very, very Red.

Missouri is #5. Missouri made the top 3 list of the Corporate Welfare States. But they have made some real fine choices in reducing their poor welfare rates. I applaud their putting people to work who are capable of working. Missouri is more a light Pink state that also goes to a Purple state. Sorry, but you can't claim this as just a Red state. It's not. It goes from election to election. This state is doing well.

Wyoming is #6. Yes, a very, very Red state. But also a very, very welfare state. And has almost no population. The largest city they have would be considered small in almost every other state. Another highly rural dominant state. They lack heavy industry and depend on oil and coal. I will admit they have made inroads in trying to clean up their welfare social programs. When you once had the worst in the nation, anything can be an improvement. But they also have one of the highest Corporate Welfare in the Nation per Capita. That's not hard to do when you don't have that many capita to drive that number down. Their entire economy is tied directly to oil and coal and goes up and down like a yo yo. Mostly down.

Kentucky comes in at #7. This puppy makes the list of Per Capita Welfare Recipients at #1. Yes, it's a real Red State. And like MOST Red States, it's in extreme financial trouble. And like most Red States, it's near the top of the list for Corporate Welfare. This is another case of poorly run Government which caters to only the rich, buys off the poor to keep the from noticing. Yes, another case of a very, very Red State.

I won't go any further down the list. But Most of the states that are Red States with lower gun regs than others have some things in common.

1. High Social Welfare Rates
2. Low Employment Rates
3. High rate of Rural Population
4. Are in Financial Trouble

2 out of the 5 are not Red States. Those 2 don't seem to be having those problems with the exception of the High rate of Rural Population. Rustbucket is right about one thing and only one thing. Rural Population areas require fewer gun regs. In fact, rural population areas require fewer laws since they have fewer people who interact with each other less. On the other side of the coin, higher population areas need more laws because people interact with each other more. You can't have one size fits all but that seems to be what the guncrazies want. If you think NYC, Detroit, Atlanta or LA would be safe to live anywhere near with no gun laws or the same laws as a rural area you would be sadly mistaken and probably dead.

Rural states are great for self-employment... And they have no need for frivolous laws and regulations

And illegal immigrant employment.

Maybe down south...

 

[deanrd]

This is the thing you anti gunners don't realize about the teenagers from Parkland..... teenagers eat tidepods, play Fortnight, and snort condoms.... Those of us who understand the history of mankind and human nature, want to protect the Bill of Rights... So, while teenagers forget, we remember....and we are going to remember in November what you want to do to our gun Rights....

This is why the gun control extremist groups are telling the gun control extremist democrats to not say they want to ban Assault rifles.......

Dem Candidate Tedra Cobb Tells Supporters She Wants ‘Assault Rifle’ Ban But ‘Cannot Say That’ in Public

Tedra Cobb, the Democratic candidate in New York's 21st Congressional District, told a group of teenage supporters that she supports a ban on certain firearms but won't say so publicly for fear of losing her election.

"When I was at this thing today, it was the first table I was at, a woman said, ‘How do you feel about assault rifles?' And I said they should be banned," Cobb can be heard saying in the video recorded by one of the attendees. "And I said, you know, people were getting up to go, to go get their lunch because it was a buffet, and I just said to her, I want you to know Cindy, I cannot say that."

When the woman pushed back on Cobb keeping quiet on how she feels about banning certain firearms, Cobb said coming out in favor of a gun ban would lead to her losing her bid against Republican incumbent Elise Stefanik.

"And she said, ‘Well, I want you to' and I said, ‘I won't win,'" Cobb said. "I said Moms Demand [Action] says, and Tricia Pleau said, ‘Do not say that you want an assault rifle ban because you will not win.'"

Tricia Pleau is a member of the New York chapter of the gun-control group Moms Demand Action.

Cobb's campaign website features a page on "Addressing Gun Violence" detailing her support for a number of gun-control measures but does not feature any language supporting a specific ban on any firearms.

Chris Martin, regional press secretary of the National Republican Congressional Committee, said Cobb's comments are disqualifying.

"Tedra Cobb knows that she's wildly out of touch with the district, so she's desperately trying to hide her liberal agenda from voters," Martin said. "First, she was forced to admit that she raised taxes over 20 times, and now she's being exposed for lying to voters about her support for an assault weapons ban and taking guns away from law-abiding citizens."

The Cobb campaign did not respond to a request for comment from the Free Beacon but did issue a statement to The Post Star.

I don't know any Democrats who want to ban rifles.
Why would you........oh, I forgot. You are a lying SOS. Thanks for reminding me.

 

[Rustic]

Keep your fetishes to yourself you old pervert

Oh, you have harmed me. I am not a Pervert. There are three classes of Perverts. There is the Prevert. That's the Pervert in Training. Then there is the Pervert. That's the practicing Pervert. Then there is me, the Provert, the Instructor.

Wow proud of instructing perverts

You have far more problems than your irrational fear of Ar 15s

Humor is not your strong suit. And I don't fear the AR15. I respect it. I just don't respect you.

And I don't respect control freaks who try to tell other people how they should live their lives

Then you shouldn't respect yourself since you are trying to use Rural America's values for Urban America. You should strip off your shirt and use a strap on your own back.

You have no idea what Rural America is really like, You have been just a sometimes visitor...

 

[2aguy]

This is the thing you anti gunners don't realize about the teenagers from Parkland..... teenagers eat tidepods, play Fortnight, and snort condoms.... Those of us who understand the history of mankind and human nature, want to protect the Bill of Rights... So, while teenagers forget, we remember....and we are going to remember in November what you want to do to our gun Rights....

This is why the gun control extremist groups are telling the gun control extremist democrats to not say they want to ban Assault rifles.......

Dem Candidate Tedra Cobb Tells Supporters She Wants ‘Assault Rifle’ Ban But ‘Cannot Say That’ in Public

Tedra Cobb, the Democratic candidate in New York's 21st Congressional District, told a group of teenage supporters that she supports a ban on certain firearms but won't say so publicly for fear of losing her election.

"When I was at this thing today, it was the first table I was at, a woman said, ‘How do you feel about assault rifles?' And I said they should be banned," Cobb can be heard saying in the video recorded by one of the attendees. "And I said, you know, people were getting up to go, to go get their lunch because it was a buffet, and I just said to her, I want you to know Cindy, I cannot say that."

When the woman pushed back on Cobb keeping quiet on how she feels about banning certain firearms, Cobb said coming out in favor of a gun ban would lead to her losing her bid against Republican incumbent Elise Stefanik.

"And she said, ‘Well, I want you to' and I said, ‘I won't win,'" Cobb said. "I said Moms Demand [Action] says, and Tricia Pleau said, ‘Do not say that you want an assault rifle ban because you will not win.'"

Tricia Pleau is a member of the New York chapter of the gun-control group Moms Demand Action.

Cobb's campaign website features a page on "Addressing Gun Violence" detailing her support for a number of gun-control measures but does not feature any language supporting a specific ban on any firearms.

Chris Martin, regional press secretary of the National Republican Congressional Committee, said Cobb's comments are disqualifying.

"Tedra Cobb knows that she's wildly out of touch with the district, so she's desperately trying to hide her liberal agenda from voters," Martin said. "First, she was forced to admit that she raised taxes over 20 times, and now she's being exposed for lying to voters about her support for an assault weapons ban and taking guns away from law-abiding citizens."

The Cobb campaign did not respond to a request for comment from the Free Beacon but did issue a statement to The Post Star.

I don't know any Democrats who want to ban rifles.
Why would you........oh, I forgot. You are a lying SOS. Thanks for reminding me.

Hey...shit for brains..... they yelled it at the CNN Town hall.... they carried signs that stated this at their anti gun rallies.... they yelled it at their school walkouts..... their pet Supreme court justice said to repeal the 2nd Amendment...

Are you this stupid in real life, or do you just pretend to be this stupid when you post?

 

[Rustic]

This is the thing you anti gunners don't realize about the teenagers from Parkland..... teenagers eat tidepods, play Fortnight, and snort condoms.... Those of us who understand the history of mankind and human nature, want to protect the Bill of Rights... So, while teenagers forget, we remember....and we are going to remember in November what you want to do to our gun Rights....

This is why the gun control extremist groups are telling the gun control extremist democrats to not say they want to ban Assault rifles.......

Dem Candidate Tedra Cobb Tells Supporters She Wants ‘Assault Rifle’ Ban But ‘Cannot Say That’ in Public

Tedra Cobb, the Democratic candidate in New York's 21st Congressional District, told a group of teenage supporters that she supports a ban on certain firearms but won't say so publicly for fear of losing her election.

"When I was at this thing today, it was the first table I was at, a woman said, ‘How do you feel about assault rifles?' And I said they should be banned," Cobb can be heard saying in the video recorded by one of the attendees. "And I said, you know, people were getting up to go, to go get their lunch because it was a buffet, and I just said to her, I want you to know Cindy, I cannot say that."

When the woman pushed back on Cobb keeping quiet on how she feels about banning certain firearms, Cobb said coming out in favor of a gun ban would lead to her losing her bid against Republican incumbent Elise Stefanik.

"And she said, ‘Well, I want you to' and I said, ‘I won't win,'" Cobb said. "I said Moms Demand [Action] says, and Tricia Pleau said, ‘Do not say that you want an assault rifle ban because you will not win.'"

Tricia Pleau is a member of the New York chapter of the gun-control group Moms Demand Action.

Cobb's campaign website features a page on "Addressing Gun Violence" detailing her support for a number of gun-control measures but does not feature any language supporting a specific ban on any firearms.

Chris Martin, regional press secretary of the National Republican Congressional Committee, said Cobb's comments are disqualifying.

"Tedra Cobb knows that she's wildly out of touch with the district, so she's desperately trying to hide her liberal agenda from voters," Martin said. "First, she was forced to admit that she raised taxes over 20 times, and now she's being exposed for lying to voters about her support for an assault weapons ban and taking guns away from law-abiding citizens."

The Cobb campaign did not respond to a request for comment from the Free Beacon but did issue a statement to The Post Star.

I don't know any Democrats who want to ban rifles.
Why would you........oh, I forgot. You are a lying SOS. Thanks for reminding me.

Any new frivolous gun laws is gun confiscation...

 

[2aguy]

This is the thing you anti gunners don't realize about the teenagers from Parkland..... teenagers eat tidepods, play Fortnight, and snort condoms.... Those of us who understand the history of mankind and human nature, want to protect the Bill of Rights... So, while teenagers forget, we remember....and we are going to remember in November what you want to do to our gun Rights....

This is why the gun control extremist groups are telling the gun control extremist democrats to not say they want to ban Assault rifles.......

Dem Candidate Tedra Cobb Tells Supporters She Wants ‘Assault Rifle’ Ban But ‘Cannot Say That’ in Public

Tedra Cobb, the Democratic candidate in New York's 21st Congressional District, told a group of teenage supporters that she supports a ban on certain firearms but won't say so publicly for fear of losing her election.

"When I was at this thing today, it was the first table I was at, a woman said, ‘How do you feel about assault rifles?' And I said they should be banned," Cobb can be heard saying in the video recorded by one of the attendees. "And I said, you know, people were getting up to go, to go get their lunch because it was a buffet, and I just said to her, I want you to know Cindy, I cannot say that."

When the woman pushed back on Cobb keeping quiet on how she feels about banning certain firearms, Cobb said coming out in favor of a gun ban would lead to her losing her bid against Republican incumbent Elise Stefanik.

"And she said, ‘Well, I want you to' and I said, ‘I won't win,'" Cobb said. "I said Moms Demand [Action] says, and Tricia Pleau said, ‘Do not say that you want an assault rifle ban because you will not win.'"

Tricia Pleau is a member of the New York chapter of the gun-control group Moms Demand Action.

Cobb's campaign website features a page on "Addressing Gun Violence" detailing her support for a number of gun-control measures but does not feature any language supporting a specific ban on any firearms.

Chris Martin, regional press secretary of the National Republican Congressional Committee, said Cobb's comments are disqualifying.

"Tedra Cobb knows that she's wildly out of touch with the district, so she's desperately trying to hide her liberal agenda from voters," Martin said. "First, she was forced to admit that she raised taxes over 20 times, and now she's being exposed for lying to voters about her support for an assault weapons ban and taking guns away from law-abiding citizens."

The Cobb campaign did not respond to a request for comment from the Free Beacon but did issue a statement to The Post Star.

I don't know any Democrats who want to ban rifles.
Why would you........oh, I forgot. You are a lying SOS. Thanks for reminding me.

Hey, dumb shit...just for you...watch the video mark at 1:56

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I've given some pretty good reasons. You haven't given one single reason why the moving the AR up to the FFL standard (not banning) would stop the sun from coming up in the morning.

Because it is the same rifle as all the other rifles, and giving in to morons like you will just lead to all the other semi auto rifles, pistols and shotguns being put into that standard....

The AR-15 rifle and all other semi auto rifles are protected by the 2nd Amendment.... you can't change that, you can only lie about it.

4 states and many lower governments have specifically singled the AR-15 out by name and have made special laws concerning just the AR-15 and it's clones. They have not been banned but they have been elevated to requiring a FFL License to own them. You, like them, can place the name Ban on it but it's atually elevating them to FFL status. And it's been upheld in Federal Court. Now, stop making shit up.

And that is unConstitutional..... The Supreme Court has ruled on this and those lower courts are in violation of the law.

We have been through it many times. The Supreme Court has NOT ruled on the lower courts. In fact, they have refused to hear them. Meaning, they may or many not agree with it but don't find those ruling as unconstitutional. Are we going to do this dog and pony show again? Are you going to go into all the ways that the SC has ruled the way you think they did only to have it pointed out that you are cherry picking and leaving out the real meat of the rulings? Just how many times are you going to do this. I have the time.

Yes.... they did, in Heller...... the lower courts are breaking the law..... the process is the Supreme Court has to call them out...they haven't done that yet.... they need 4 votes to hear a case and rule on it.... they have had 4 pretend justices and kennedy.......that isn't the case anymore....you twit.

Here we go again. Heller was granted the right to have a license to have a fully functional handgun in his home. Not to carry it outside his home. Not to carry any sort of Rifle, Shotgun or anything else. In fact, it specifically dealt with hanguns in the home only. The original DC law stated the handgun had to either disassembled or stored with a trigger guard on it to make it legal. And it had to be not only registered but the owner had to be registered. Heller was denied the License. The Court overturned the ruling and forced DC to allow fully functional Handguns in the homes for home defense and forced DC to issue Heller the License to own the weapon in his home. DC outlawed the AR-15 specifically and that was upheld. DC just went overboard when it pertained to hand guns and were slapped down for it. 4 states and numerous townships have used Heller to either heavily regulate the AR-15 or outright ban it. You just keep wet dreaming, there cupcake. And stop making shit up.

 

[2aguy]

Because it is the same rifle as all the other rifles, and giving in to morons like you will just lead to all the other semi auto rifles, pistols and shotguns being put into that standard....

The AR-15 rifle and all other semi auto rifles are protected by the 2nd Amendment.... you can't change that, you can only lie about it.

4 states and many lower governments have specifically singled the AR-15 out by name and have made special laws concerning just the AR-15 and it's clones. They have not been banned but they have been elevated to requiring a FFL License to own them. You, like them, can place the name Ban on it but it's atually elevating them to FFL status. And it's been upheld in Federal Court. Now, stop making shit up.

And that is unConstitutional..... The Supreme Court has ruled on this and those lower courts are in violation of the law.

We have been through it many times. The Supreme Court has NOT ruled on the lower courts. In fact, they have refused to hear them. Meaning, they may or many not agree with it but don't find those ruling as unconstitutional. Are we going to do this dog and pony show again? Are you going to go into all the ways that the SC has ruled the way you think they did only to have it pointed out that you are cherry picking and leaving out the real meat of the rulings? Just how many times are you going to do this. I have the time.

Yes.... they did, in Heller...... the lower courts are breaking the law..... the process is the Supreme Court has to call them out...they haven't done that yet.... they need 4 votes to hear a case and rule on it.... they have had 4 pretend justices and kennedy.......that isn't the case anymore....you twit.

Here we go again. Heller was granted the right to have a license to have a fully functional handgun in his home. Not to carry it outside his home. Not to carry any sort of Rifle, Shotgun or anything else. In fact, it specifically dealt with hanguns in the home only. The original DC law stated the handgun had to either disassembled or stored with a trigger guard on it to make it legal. And it had to be not only registered but the owner had to be registered. Heller was denied the License. The Court overturned the ruling and forced DC to allow fully functional Handguns in the homes for home defense and forced DC to issue Heller the License to own the weapon in his home. DC outlawed the AR-15 specifically and that was upheld. DC just went overboard when it pertained to hand guns and were slapped down for it. 4 states and numerous townships have used Heller to either heavily regulate the AR-15 or outright ban it. You just keep wet dreaming, there cupcake. And stop making shit up.

Wrong dumb ass..... in Heller Scalia stated that all bearable arms in common use for lawful purposes are protected by the 2nd Amendment.... try reading it again....slowly....sound out the words.....

Then, moron.....Scalia went in on Friedman v Highland Park and specifically stated the AR-15 rifle was protected.......read that again slowly too...

 

[2aguy]

Because it is the same rifle as all the other rifles, and giving in to morons like you will just lead to all the other semi auto rifles, pistols and shotguns being put into that standard....

The AR-15 rifle and all other semi auto rifles are protected by the 2nd Amendment.... you can't change that, you can only lie about it.

4 states and many lower governments have specifically singled the AR-15 out by name and have made special laws concerning just the AR-15 and it's clones. They have not been banned but they have been elevated to requiring a FFL License to own them. You, like them, can place the name Ban on it but it's atually elevating them to FFL status. And it's been upheld in Federal Court. Now, stop making shit up.

And that is unConstitutional..... The Supreme Court has ruled on this and those lower courts are in violation of the law.

We have been through it many times. The Supreme Court has NOT ruled on the lower courts. In fact, they have refused to hear them. Meaning, they may or many not agree with it but don't find those ruling as unconstitutional. Are we going to do this dog and pony show again? Are you going to go into all the ways that the SC has ruled the way you think they did only to have it pointed out that you are cherry picking and leaving out the real meat of the rulings? Just how many times are you going to do this. I have the time.

Yes.... they did, in Heller...... the lower courts are breaking the law..... the process is the Supreme Court has to call them out...they haven't done that yet.... they need 4 votes to hear a case and rule on it.... they have had 4 pretend justices and kennedy.......that isn't the case anymore....you twit.

Here we go again. Heller was granted the right to have a license to have a fully functional handgun in his home. Not to carry it outside his home. Not to carry any sort of Rifle, Shotgun or anything else. In fact, it specifically dealt with hanguns in the home only. The original DC law stated the handgun had to either disassembled or stored with a trigger guard on it to make it legal. And it had to be not only registered but the owner had to be registered. Heller was denied the License. The Court overturned the ruling and forced DC to allow fully functional Handguns in the homes for home defense and forced DC to issue Heller the License to own the weapon in his home. DC outlawed the AR-15 specifically and that was upheld. DC just went overboard when it pertained to hand guns and were slapped down for it. 4 states and numerous townships have used Heller to either heavily regulate the AR-15 or outright ban it. You just keep wet dreaming, there cupcake. And stop making shit up.

Again...from D.C v Heller...


Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

And then from Scalia....Friedman v Highland Park...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf

Lastly, the Seventh Circuit considered “whether lawabiding citizens retain adequate means of self-defense,” and reasoned that the City’s ban was permissible because “f criminals can find substitutes for banned assault weapons, then so can law-abiding homeowners.” 784 F. 3d, at 410, 411. Although the court recognized that “Heller held that the availability of long guns does not save a ban on handgun ownership,” it thought that “Heller did not foreclose the possibility that allowing the use of most long guns plus pistols and revolvers . . . gives householders adequate means of defense.” Id., at 411.

That analysis misreads Heller.

The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.

Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629.


And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.

The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.


Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

This is the thing you anti gunners don't realize about the teenagers from Parkland..... teenagers eat tidepods, play Fortnight, and snort condoms.... Those of us who understand the history of mankind and human nature, want to protect the Bill of Rights... So, while teenagers forget, we remember....and we are going to remember in November what you want to do to our gun Rights....

This is why the gun control extremist groups are telling the gun control extremist democrats to not say they want to ban Assault rifles.......

Dem Candidate Tedra Cobb Tells Supporters She Wants ‘Assault Rifle’ Ban But ‘Cannot Say That’ in Public

Tedra Cobb, the Democratic candidate in New York's 21st Congressional District, told a group of teenage supporters that she supports a ban on certain firearms but won't say so publicly for fear of losing her election.

"When I was at this thing today, it was the first table I was at, a woman said, ‘How do you feel about assault rifles?' And I said they should be banned," Cobb can be heard saying in the video recorded by one of the attendees. "And I said, you know, people were getting up to go, to go get their lunch because it was a buffet, and I just said to her, I want you to know Cindy, I cannot say that."

When the woman pushed back on Cobb keeping quiet on how she feels about banning certain firearms, Cobb said coming out in favor of a gun ban would lead to her losing her bid against Republican incumbent Elise Stefanik.

"And she said, ‘Well, I want you to' and I said, ‘I won't win,'" Cobb said. "I said Moms Demand [Action] says, and Tricia Pleau said, ‘Do not say that you want an assault rifle ban because you will not win.'"

Tricia Pleau is a member of the New York chapter of the gun-control group Moms Demand Action.

Cobb's campaign website features a page on "Addressing Gun Violence" detailing her support for a number of gun-control measures but does not feature any language supporting a specific ban on any firearms.

Chris Martin, regional press secretary of the National Republican Congressional Committee, said Cobb's comments are disqualifying.

"Tedra Cobb knows that she's wildly out of touch with the district, so she's desperately trying to hide her liberal agenda from voters," Martin said. "First, she was forced to admit that she raised taxes over 20 times, and now she's being exposed for lying to voters about her support for an assault weapons ban and taking guns away from law-abiding citizens."

The Cobb campaign did not respond to a request for comment from the Free Beacon but did issue a statement to The Post Star.

I don't know any Democrats who want to ban rifles.
Why would you........oh, I forgot. You are a lying SOS. Thanks for reminding me.

Hey, dumb shit...just for you...watch the video mark at 1:56

Standard NRA boiler plate. People are buying it less and less every day. Regardless, the cult rifle for these killings is the AR-15 and it's clones. You want to change that, change the cult of the thing. Until then, something has to be done.

 

[2aguy]

This is the thing you anti gunners don't realize about the teenagers from Parkland..... teenagers eat tidepods, play Fortnight, and snort condoms.... Those of us who understand the history of mankind and human nature, want to protect the Bill of Rights... So, while teenagers forget, we remember....and we are going to remember in November what you want to do to our gun Rights....

This is why the gun control extremist groups are telling the gun control extremist democrats to not say they want to ban Assault rifles.......

Dem Candidate Tedra Cobb Tells Supporters She Wants ‘Assault Rifle’ Ban But ‘Cannot Say That’ in Public

Tedra Cobb, the Democratic candidate in New York's 21st Congressional District, told a group of teenage supporters that she supports a ban on certain firearms but won't say so publicly for fear of losing her election.

"When I was at this thing today, it was the first table I was at, a woman said, ‘How do you feel about assault rifles?' And I said they should be banned," Cobb can be heard saying in the video recorded by one of the attendees. "And I said, you know, people were getting up to go, to go get their lunch because it was a buffet, and I just said to her, I want you to know Cindy, I cannot say that."

When the woman pushed back on Cobb keeping quiet on how she feels about banning certain firearms, Cobb said coming out in favor of a gun ban would lead to her losing her bid against Republican incumbent Elise Stefanik.

"And she said, ‘Well, I want you to' and I said, ‘I won't win,'" Cobb said. "I said Moms Demand [Action] says, and Tricia Pleau said, ‘Do not say that you want an assault rifle ban because you will not win.'"

Tricia Pleau is a member of the New York chapter of the gun-control group Moms Demand Action.

Cobb's campaign website features a page on "Addressing Gun Violence" detailing her support for a number of gun-control measures but does not feature any language supporting a specific ban on any firearms.

Chris Martin, regional press secretary of the National Republican Congressional Committee, said Cobb's comments are disqualifying.

"Tedra Cobb knows that she's wildly out of touch with the district, so she's desperately trying to hide her liberal agenda from voters," Martin said. "First, she was forced to admit that she raised taxes over 20 times, and now she's being exposed for lying to voters about her support for an assault weapons ban and taking guns away from law-abiding citizens."

The Cobb campaign did not respond to a request for comment from the Free Beacon but did issue a statement to The Post Star.

I don't know any Democrats who want to ban rifles.
Why would you........oh, I forgot. You are a lying SOS. Thanks for reminding me.

Hey, dumb shit...just for you...watch the video mark at 1:56

Standard NRA boiler plate. People are buying it less and less every day. Regardless, the cult rifle for these killings is the AR-15 and it's clones. You want to change that, change the cult of the thing. Until then, something has to be done.

No...you are a moron...... there are over 8 million AR-15s in private hands...... those weapons are used for lawful purposes...fewer than 5 have been used in mass shootings more people are killed by lawnmowers, you moron, than are killed by AR-15 rifles each year...

 

[Daryl Hunt]

4 states and many lower governments have specifically singled the AR-15 out by name and have made special laws concerning just the AR-15 and it's clones. They have not been banned but they have been elevated to requiring a FFL License to own them. You, like them, can place the name Ban on it but it's atually elevating them to FFL status. And it's been upheld in Federal Court. Now, stop making shit up.

And that is unConstitutional..... The Supreme Court has ruled on this and those lower courts are in violation of the law.

We have been through it many times. The Supreme Court has NOT ruled on the lower courts. In fact, they have refused to hear them. Meaning, they may or many not agree with it but don't find those ruling as unconstitutional. Are we going to do this dog and pony show again? Are you going to go into all the ways that the SC has ruled the way you think they did only to have it pointed out that you are cherry picking and leaving out the real meat of the rulings? Just how many times are you going to do this. I have the time.

Yes.... they did, in Heller...... the lower courts are breaking the law..... the process is the Supreme Court has to call them out...they haven't done that yet.... they need 4 votes to hear a case and rule on it.... they have had 4 pretend justices and kennedy.......that isn't the case anymore....you twit.

Here we go again. Heller was granted the right to have a license to have a fully functional handgun in his home. Not to carry it outside his home. Not to carry any sort of Rifle, Shotgun or anything else. In fact, it specifically dealt with hanguns in the home only. The original DC law stated the handgun had to either disassembled or stored with a trigger guard on it to make it legal. And it had to be not only registered but the owner had to be registered. Heller was denied the License. The Court overturned the ruling and forced DC to allow fully functional Handguns in the homes for home defense and forced DC to issue Heller the License to own the weapon in his home. DC outlawed the AR-15 specifically and that was upheld. DC just went overboard when it pertained to hand guns and were slapped down for it. 4 states and numerous townships have used Heller to either heavily regulate the AR-15 or outright ban it. You just keep wet dreaming, there cupcake. And stop making shit up.

Wrong dumb ass..... in Heller Scalia stated that all bearable arms in common use for lawful purposes are protected by the 2nd Amendment.... try reading it again....slowly....sound out the words.....

Then, moron.....Scalia went in on Friedman v Highland Park and specifically stated the AR-15 rifle was protected.......read that again slowly too...

Here we go again. Scalia voiced his dissenting view. A dissenting view is the losing side of the ruling. His view meant absolutely nothing yet you present it as the winning argument. Here it is without the dissent that means nothing.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL v . HELLER
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
No. 07–290. Argued March 18, 2008—Decided June 26, 2008
District of Columbia law bans handgun possession by making it a crime
to carry an unregistered firearm and prohibiting the registration of
handguns; provides separately that no person may carry an unli-
censed handgun, but authorizes the police chief to issue 1-year li-
censes; and requires residents to keep lawfully owned firearms
unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar de-
vice. Respondent Heller, a D. C. special policeman, applied to regis-
ter a handgun he wished to keep at
home, but the District refused. He filed this suit seeking, on Second Amendment grounds, to enjoin
the city from enforcing the bar on handgun registration, the licensing
requirement insofar as it prohibit s carrying an unlicensed firearm in
the home, and the trigger-lock requirement insofar as it prohibits the
use of functional firearms in the home. The District Court dismissed
the suit, but the D. C. Circuit reversed, holding that the Second
Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess firearms and
that the city’s total ban on handguns, as well as its requirement that
firearms in the home be kept nonfunctional even when necessary for
self-defense, violated that right.Held:

1.
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

Pp. 2–53.(a)
The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but
does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative
clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it
connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.(b)
The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation

2
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
Syllabus
of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically
capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederal-
ists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in
order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing
army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress
power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear
arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.

Pp. 22–28.(c)
The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-
bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately
followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.(d)
The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious
interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals
that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms.

Pp. 30–32.(e)
Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts
and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the
late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.(f)
None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither
United States v. Cruikshank , 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v.
Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individual-
rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not
limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather
limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by
the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.
2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, con-
cealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment
or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast
doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by
felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of fire-
arms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or
laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of
arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those
“in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition
of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

Pp. 54–56.
3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to
self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban
on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an
entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the
lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scru-
tiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this
Cite as: 554 U. S. ____ (2008) Syllabus prohibition—in the place where
the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is mo
st acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that
any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock
makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core
lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because
Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible
if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that
a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing
requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment
rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and
must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.

The dissent was not listed here because it means absolutely nothing in the ruling that was passed. Once again, you interpret it as something it isn't. Again, stop making shit up.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

This is the thing you anti gunners don't realize about the teenagers from Parkland..... teenagers eat tidepods, play Fortnight, and snort condoms.... Those of us who understand the history of mankind and human nature, want to protect the Bill of Rights... So, while teenagers forget, we remember....and we are going to remember in November what you want to do to our gun Rights....

This is why the gun control extremist groups are telling the gun control extremist democrats to not say they want to ban Assault rifles.......

Dem Candidate Tedra Cobb Tells Supporters She Wants ‘Assault Rifle’ Ban But ‘Cannot Say That’ in Public

Tedra Cobb, the Democratic candidate in New York's 21st Congressional District, told a group of teenage supporters that she supports a ban on certain firearms but won't say so publicly for fear of losing her election.

"When I was at this thing today, it was the first table I was at, a woman said, ‘How do you feel about assault rifles?' And I said they should be banned," Cobb can be heard saying in the video recorded by one of the attendees. "And I said, you know, people were getting up to go, to go get their lunch because it was a buffet, and I just said to her, I want you to know Cindy, I cannot say that."

When the woman pushed back on Cobb keeping quiet on how she feels about banning certain firearms, Cobb said coming out in favor of a gun ban would lead to her losing her bid against Republican incumbent Elise Stefanik.

"And she said, ‘Well, I want you to' and I said, ‘I won't win,'" Cobb said. "I said Moms Demand [Action] says, and Tricia Pleau said, ‘Do not say that you want an assault rifle ban because you will not win.'"

Tricia Pleau is a member of the New York chapter of the gun-control group Moms Demand Action.

Cobb's campaign website features a page on "Addressing Gun Violence" detailing her support for a number of gun-control measures but does not feature any language supporting a specific ban on any firearms.

Chris Martin, regional press secretary of the National Republican Congressional Committee, said Cobb's comments are disqualifying.

"Tedra Cobb knows that she's wildly out of touch with the district, so she's desperately trying to hide her liberal agenda from voters," Martin said. "First, she was forced to admit that she raised taxes over 20 times, and now she's being exposed for lying to voters about her support for an assault weapons ban and taking guns away from law-abiding citizens."

The Cobb campaign did not respond to a request for comment from the Free Beacon but did issue a statement to The Post Star.

I don't know any Democrats who want to ban rifles.
Why would you........oh, I forgot. You are a lying SOS. Thanks for reminding me.

Hey, dumb shit...just for you...watch the video mark at 1:56

Standard NRA boiler plate. People are buying it less and less every day. Regardless, the cult rifle for these killings is the AR-15 and it's clones. You want to change that, change the cult of the thing. Until then, something has to be done.

No...you are a moron...... there are over 8 million AR-15s in private hands...... those weapons are used for lawful purposes...fewer than 5 have been used in mass shootings more people are killed by lawnmowers, you moron, than are killed by AR-15 rifles each year...

When I see people carrying into schools lawnmowers that can fire that many rounds a minute and are used to gun down school children, people in theaters, people at concerts and such then I will be the first to want to discuss changing how we do lawnmowers. It's one thing for accidental deaths and another for killing in cold blood in our schools. If you can't see the difference then you shouldn't even own a lawn mower much less a firearm.

 

[Rustic]

This is the thing you anti gunners don't realize about the teenagers from Parkland..... teenagers eat tidepods, play Fortnight, and snort condoms.... Those of us who understand the history of mankind and human nature, want to protect the Bill of Rights... So, while teenagers forget, we remember....and we are going to remember in November what you want to do to our gun Rights....

This is why the gun control extremist groups are telling the gun control extremist democrats to not say they want to ban Assault rifles.......

Dem Candidate Tedra Cobb Tells Supporters She Wants ‘Assault Rifle’ Ban But ‘Cannot Say That’ in Public

Tedra Cobb, the Democratic candidate in New York's 21st Congressional District, told a group of teenage supporters that she supports a ban on certain firearms but won't say so publicly for fear of losing her election.

"When I was at this thing today, it was the first table I was at, a woman said, ‘How do you feel about assault rifles?' And I said they should be banned," Cobb can be heard saying in the video recorded by one of the attendees. "And I said, you know, people were getting up to go, to go get their lunch because it was a buffet, and I just said to her, I want you to know Cindy, I cannot say that."

When the woman pushed back on Cobb keeping quiet on how she feels about banning certain firearms, Cobb said coming out in favor of a gun ban would lead to her losing her bid against Republican incumbent Elise Stefanik.

"And she said, ‘Well, I want you to' and I said, ‘I won't win,'" Cobb said. "I said Moms Demand [Action] says, and Tricia Pleau said, ‘Do not say that you want an assault rifle ban because you will not win.'"

Tricia Pleau is a member of the New York chapter of the gun-control group Moms Demand Action.

Cobb's campaign website features a page on "Addressing Gun Violence" detailing her support for a number of gun-control measures but does not feature any language supporting a specific ban on any firearms.

Chris Martin, regional press secretary of the National Republican Congressional Committee, said Cobb's comments are disqualifying.

"Tedra Cobb knows that she's wildly out of touch with the district, so she's desperately trying to hide her liberal agenda from voters," Martin said. "First, she was forced to admit that she raised taxes over 20 times, and now she's being exposed for lying to voters about her support for an assault weapons ban and taking guns away from law-abiding citizens."

The Cobb campaign did not respond to a request for comment from the Free Beacon but did issue a statement to The Post Star.

I don't know any Democrats who want to ban rifles.
Why would you........oh, I forgot. You are a lying SOS. Thanks for reminding me.

Hey, dumb shit...just for you...watch the video mark at 1:56

See that is the problem, the snowflakes(crowd) rely on emotion only. They know nothing about the facts of the issue.
They’re all for banning all firearms... Progressives are emotional fuck ups

 

[Rustic]

This is the thing you anti gunners don't realize about the teenagers from Parkland..... teenagers eat tidepods, play Fortnight, and snort condoms.... Those of us who understand the history of mankind and human nature, want to protect the Bill of Rights... So, while teenagers forget, we remember....and we are going to remember in November what you want to do to our gun Rights....

This is why the gun control extremist groups are telling the gun control extremist democrats to not say they want to ban Assault rifles.......

Dem Candidate Tedra Cobb Tells Supporters She Wants ‘Assault Rifle’ Ban But ‘Cannot Say That’ in Public

Tedra Cobb, the Democratic candidate in New York's 21st Congressional District, told a group of teenage supporters that she supports a ban on certain firearms but won't say so publicly for fear of losing her election.

"When I was at this thing today, it was the first table I was at, a woman said, ‘How do you feel about assault rifles?' And I said they should be banned," Cobb can be heard saying in the video recorded by one of the attendees. "And I said, you know, people were getting up to go, to go get their lunch because it was a buffet, and I just said to her, I want you to know Cindy, I cannot say that."

When the woman pushed back on Cobb keeping quiet on how she feels about banning certain firearms, Cobb said coming out in favor of a gun ban would lead to her losing her bid against Republican incumbent Elise Stefanik.

"And she said, ‘Well, I want you to' and I said, ‘I won't win,'" Cobb said. "I said Moms Demand [Action] says, and Tricia Pleau said, ‘Do not say that you want an assault rifle ban because you will not win.'"

Tricia Pleau is a member of the New York chapter of the gun-control group Moms Demand Action.

Cobb's campaign website features a page on "Addressing Gun Violence" detailing her support for a number of gun-control measures but does not feature any language supporting a specific ban on any firearms.

Chris Martin, regional press secretary of the National Republican Congressional Committee, said Cobb's comments are disqualifying.

"Tedra Cobb knows that she's wildly out of touch with the district, so she's desperately trying to hide her liberal agenda from voters," Martin said. "First, she was forced to admit that she raised taxes over 20 times, and now she's being exposed for lying to voters about her support for an assault weapons ban and taking guns away from law-abiding citizens."

The Cobb campaign did not respond to a request for comment from the Free Beacon but did issue a statement to The Post Star.

I don't know any Democrats who want to ban rifles.
Why would you........oh, I forgot. You are a lying SOS. Thanks for reminding me.

Hey, dumb shit...just for you...watch the video mark at 1:56

Standard NRA boiler plate. People are buying it less and less every day. Regardless, the cult rifle for these killings is the AR-15 and it's clones. You want to change that, change the cult of the thing. Until then, something has to be done.

Lol
Ar15 are just sporting rifles, A tiny, tiny percentage of them are used in violent crime in this country. So shut the fuck up you ridiculous moron...