Candidate Who Campaigned For New AWB Says She Isn't Going to Take Your Guns

SSA said:
So, this is about the candidate who has been against assault weapons.

But not about the other candidate who has been against assault weapons.
Click to expand...

No, this is about the candidate who IS against "assault weapons" (aka all semi-auto actions) right now. Current tense. Specifically it is about the way she is walking around town saying she is going to ban an entire class of firearms that has existed for over a century while simultaneously saying she isn't going to take anyone's guns away. Sometimes even saying the two contradictory statements in the same speech.

It is about a candidate who wants to be able to put people on a secret list with no due process or court oversight and people on that list cannot buy firearms.

It is about a candidate who thinks it is unconscionable that you cannot sue gun manufacturers into bankruptcy when their products are used in a crime.

It is about a candidate who believes that the central holding of Heller, that you have an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense in YOUR OWN HOME is wrong and should be overturned.
 
Trust

Look at her history; from her termination for her methods at Watergate to her suspect tales of greatness.

"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie- deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth-
persistent, persuasive and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought"
JFK
 
Another question that maybe should be ask is; Is the "Gun Control" being suggested good for "Organized Crime"?

Without items being illegal there is no need for "Black Markets" and organized crime to operate them. Just Saying:cool:
 
A friend of mine posted on his Facebook that "liberals don't want to take guns away". In a separate conversation he said "no one needs an AR15 or a 30 round magazine. They should be illegal." He thinks this is "common sense". To him there is no contradiction in these statements.

Evidently, reasonable people don't "need" to own semi-automatic rifles or pistols or magazines with capacities > than 10 rounds. So the government needs to ban and confiscate them. We should be happy if the government lets us keep bolt action rifles as long as they are used for hunting and don't look too scary. No one needs a handgun - all they're good for is killing people.

Hillary has said the Australian gun confiscation (aka buyback) is "worth considering" for the US. When Hillary says she doesn't want to take our guns does anyone believe her?

I'm reminded of criminals who knock at your door and will say anything to get in the door so they can rob, assault, and rape.
 
A friend of mine posted on his Facebook that "liberals don't want to take guns away". In a separate conversation he said "no one needs an AR15 or a 30 round magazine. They should be illegal."
Click to expand...

Find out your friends favorite hobby, or just his favorite beverage. Doesn't matter what it is, the simple fact is, no one "needs" it to survive, and since no one needs it, it should be illegal, under HIS rules. Hit him with that and see if it sticks...

OR, if he has any income above minimum wage, no one "needs" that, and he should have his money taken away...

no one "needs" a Facebook account, either, so Facebook should be illegal...etc.

If they think like children, treat them like children. Help them grow up, if you can, but don't hold your breath. Lots and LOTS of adult bodies with children's minds running them. Spoiled, selfish children, at that.

Sometimes, when you hit them where they live, they wake up and see the idiocy of their viewpoints. Sadly, only sometimes....

Good Luck
 
The facebook argument is a good one. Nobody needs it and more people are getting killed from stupid stuff they put on there every year. Alcohol is a better one though...
 
Bartholomew Roberts said:
Then they look at you like you're an ignorant rube because you believe someone wants to take your guns.
Click to expand...

That kind of situation reminds me of one here in Tennessee when Governor Sundquist campaigned on a State Income tax being evil and once elected, acted like it was the best thing since sliced bread. Point being: rely more on what a politician does during their term and never trust what they say during an election.
 
rely more on what a politician does during their term and never trust what they say during an election.
Click to expand...

You say check out what they SAY and what they DO...

Goodness, it's possible my vote could be swayed positively in favor of the candidate I feel is the laziest and lying the most!
 
One candidate has either:
1) done what you fear
2) been involved with something you fear
3) attempted what you fear

The other one hasn't.

The antigun candidate is probably gonna win. Find comfort that maybe that candidate's promises will go unaccomplished
 
The antigun candidate is probably gonna win. Find comfort ...
Click to expand...

Yes, probably. I'm about as comfortable as a dental patient sitting in a waiting room waiting for 3 root canals and a rectal exam by the neighboring proctologist when I'm done at the dentist.:eek:
 
Did a British king try the same thing about 240 years ago? How did that work out for him? Does she think she is any better? Personally any of our cats are better than she is and have more sense as well.
 
Last edited:
A lot of the polls show the pro gun candidate to be ahead, it's just that they won't report it because they don't want you to hear about it. It makes rigging the elections easier.
 
Vote for the pro-gun candidate who has a chance of winning or don't complain when the anti-gun candidate selects the next 2 or 3 SCOTUS justices and hundreds of judges for the federal judiciary over the next 4 years.
 
Vote for the pro-gun candidate who has a chance of winning
Click to expand...

I would, if there was one.

Unfortunately, there isn't. In some state contests, there are a few, but nationally, there is no "pro-gun" candidate.

There is only one who has proven to be and boasts about being our enemy, and the other, who SAYS they will be our friend.

However, in the past, that same candidate has SAID they favor banning assault weapons, and also said they were a Democrat. Now, they say they are a Republican and will preserve our gun rights....

We don't have a GOOD choice, we have only a poor choice and a worse choice.

One will actively and gleefully work to restrict guns, and our rights. The other says he won't, but I believe he will throw us under the bus / off the sleigh when/if he believes it to be politically expedient.
 
One will actively and gleefully work to restrict guns, and our rights. The other says he won't, but I believe he will throw us under the bus / off the sleigh when/if he believes it to be politically expedient
Click to expand...

I suspect you are right, but also wonder if the less committed anti-gun candidate will need pro-gun Congressman more than the other person does. I believe one candidate is philosophically opposed to gun ownership while the other is much less committed to gun control. While neither choice is very attractive it still seems clear to me.
 
It's already happening in states across the country. Throw in an anti gun potus, anti gun SCOTUS appointments, then an anti gun leaning congress..... Well, more states will bravely go anti gun. The remains of the west coast will go and most of the east.

Many states will fall. Loopholes will close. The loopholes of past bans will not happen this time.

Good news, the AR market seems to be as good as ever
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top