Jump to content

ANOTHER ATTACK ON 2nd AMMENDMENT


Hagar

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, nappyroots said:

obama hasn't taken your guns in 7 yrs, so I guess he will get them in the next 7 months........just motivating the followers

There you go...move along citizen...nothing to see here...Obama/Clinton wants more of you.

You keep worrying about Cruz, who is not even in it anymore, putting too much prayer in schools...very dangerous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, LumRaiderFan said:

There you go...move along citizen...nothing to see here...Obama/Clinton wants more of you.

You keep worrying about Cruz, who is not even in it anymore, putting too much prayer in schools...very dangerous.

Right LRF, the morals, and crime situation in our country have improved dramatically since we got rid of prayer in schools.  Yep, proofs in the pudding.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

But he is likely to be replaced by the snakette in the grass who may be worse. 

With her it's all about the money.   It's possible that if Colt, Winchester, and a few others can get a few million in her hands, she'll back off.  Of course if Soros & other leftist pay more, we're fudged.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On May 5, 2016 at 7:51 AM, LumRaiderFan said:

There you go...move along citizen...nothing to see here...Obama/Clinton wants more of you.

You keep worrying about Cruz, who is not even in it anymore, putting too much prayer in schools...very dangerous.

Cruz doesn't give a four letter word about religion, he just uses it to further his agenda with the devil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, nappyroots said:

America was dealing with gun control in the 1800s, their were signs in wichita kansas before entering town stating to leave your guns at police headquarters. Same in dodge city also. tighter gun restrictions has always been a problem in this society.

That was when the cattlemen came to town and Earp disarming a bunch of outlaws. All of their guns were returned.....even the outlaws. That is not the case here. Keep crying though. It helps so much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Why not cut all restrictions and let anyone buy whatever gun or ammo that want at anytime. Lets stop inspecting planes and food products, drinking water and medical facilities also. Since chemical plants and refinerys are supplying good jobs, let them do whatever they want without any government restrictions, lets not hold them back. Lets not take away any rights from anybody.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, nappyroots said:

Why not cut all restrictions and let anyone buy whatever gun or ammo that want at anytime. Lets stop inspecting planes and food products, drinking water and medical facilities also. Since chemical plants and refinerys are supplying good jobs, let them do whatever they want without any government restrictions, lets not hold them back. Lets not take away any rights from anybody.

I never noticed where jobs, medicine, drinking water, chemicals, driving, modes of transportation, etc, we're mentioned in the Constitution as specific rights. Maybe you can point out my oversight. 

Freedom of speech, assembly, religion, right to an attorney, public trial, bearing arms, free from unreasonable searches and seizures, along with a few others are specifically stated as rights.

i know that concept escapes you. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The CA senate just pass a bill that keeps a gun with a detachable magazine from being reloaded without tools to take it apart. 

They are like the frog in the boiling water. Heat it slow so he doesn't notice rather than toss him into hot water and letting him jump out. 

No, they don't want our guns. They are fine with us using flintlocks .... for now. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, nappyroots said:

Guns will NEVER be taken away, just a tool for talk radio and Hannity  to keep getting paid

You've never answered the question I've posed to you earlier. What does Hillary mean when she says she wants to hold gun manufacturers responsible in cases of gun violence?

Then let's hear your educated response to TVC's post right before.

Then let's hear your response to the Congressman that wants to ban guns for anyone that is going through a divorce.

Then let's hear your response to Diane Feinstein's assertion that all returning military personnel should not be allowed to own guns.

There are tons and tons more evidence of liberals wanting to take your guns than of Dick Cheney going to war to make money.

When Republicans proposed having to show identification when voting, liberals went nuts saying that Republicans are taking away the right to vote for millions of people. They starting spouting off about Jim Crow Laws and echoing of poll taxes. But when it comes to the second amendment...whoa, now that's a situation that needs to be heavily regulated by enlightened people. You should have to be identified, studied through background checks, and pay heavy taxes to exercise that right. Just imagine what questions would be asked on background checks if Cass Sunstein was in charge of writing them.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Englebert said:

You've never answered the question I've posed to you earlier. What does Hillary mean when she says she wants to hold gun manufacturers responsible in cases of gun violence?

Then let's hear your educated response to TVC's post right before.

Then let's hear your response to the Congressman that wants to ban guns for anyone that is going through a divorce.

Then let's hear your response to Diane Feinstein's assertion that all returning military personnel should not be allowed to own guns.

There are tons and tons more evidence of liberals wanting to take your guns than of Dick Cheney going to war to make money.

When Republicans proposed having to show identification when voting, liberals went nuts saying that Republicans are taking away the right to vote for millions of people. They starting spouting off about Jim Crow Laws and echoing of poll taxes. But when it comes to the second amendment...whoa, now that's a situation that needs to be heavily regulated by enlightened people. You should have to be identified, studied through background checks, and pay heavy taxes to exercise that right. Just imagine what questions would be asked on background checks if Cass Sunstein was in charge of writing them.

 

hmmm...no answer yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Member Statistics

    46,181
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    Josh4343
    Newest Member
    Josh4343
    Joined


×
×
  • Create New...