'Hell, yes, we're going to take your AR-15, your AK-47' - Beto "Whitey" O'rourke

How the fuck can any sane person use a picture of chickenhawk Rush Fucking Limbaugh as his/her avatar?

"I'm a fucking piece of shit" is a tattoo that should be on Bigdog's forehead. If he/she doesn't mind the avatar, that should work for him/her too.

If ti wasn't illegal, I'd use my K-bar to carve a fucking swastika on your forehead.
 
Not confiscate, you alarmist. It would be a buyback. That is what enlightened countries have done. You still do not know what the left has in mind.

Government gun buyback? I sure wouldn't want to sell my guns to crooks, now would I? And if I don't feel like selling? Then what?
 
Make no mistake, the ultimate goal of the left is the total confiscation of guns from the American citizens who never use them illegally.

This incrementalism has been happening since the 1930's.

It will not succeed.

Make no mistake.No it is not. Do you think gun rights and weapons have gotten weaker? Do you really? Rightys are capable of such self-delusion.
 
jsut goes to show how similar Beto - and his leftist loons are to those sickos that shoot at people

they will use violence to pursue their agenda. Beto is not voluntarily buying back things - he is prepared to use force to do so. He is a hypocrite - a wannabe dictator prone to violence to force his views on others

That is really the issue in society today. People don't respect other peoples property, or life - and the left is BY FAR the worst in this regard
 
Not confiscate, you alarmist. It would be a buyback.

giphy.gif
 
Make no mistake, the ultimate goal of the left is the total confiscation of guns from the American citizens who never use them illegally.

This incrementalism has been happening since the 1930's.

It will not succeed.

Correct. :thumbsup:
 
How the fuck can any sane person use a picture of chickenhawk Rush Fucking Limbaugh as his/her avatar?

"I'm a fucking piece of shit" is a tattoo that should be on Bigdog's forehead. If he/she doesn't mind the avatar, that should work for him/her too.

^Triggered Fascist dumb fuck. :laugh:
 
WAR WEAPON ASSHOLE. I don't give give a flying fuck if it's a weapon of war painted PINK and licensed with the HELLO KITTY theme.

It is pretty funny, I don't know how many times I've seen gun huggers attempt to deflect in these gun exchanges by trying to turn it into an arguement on gun semantics, that the other is wrong close they don't know the difference weapons.

Bottom line, thier purpose by design is to kill a lot of people in a matter of seconds regardless of what you call them
 
Otra vez:

DC v, Heller:

" 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."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

key point there being there "earl" "within the home," and Holder, and other cases attempting to use Holder as a precedent, went far beyond that, meaning guns can be regulated. Need proof, DC today is not an open gun city even though Holder centered upon DC gun laws
 
It is pretty funny, I don't know how many times I've seen gun huggers attempt to deflect in these gun exchanges by trying to turn it into an arguement on gun semantics, that the other is wrong close they don't know the difference weapons.

Bottom line, thier purpose by design is to kill a lot of people in a matter of seconds regardless of what you call them

In the words of a very near and dear lady to me, sounds like a variation on "MANSPLAINING."
 
It is pretty funny, I don't know how many times I've seen gun huggers

It's pretty stupid and LAME when morons like you on the left call anyone who supports the second amendment a "gun hugger". :rolleyes:

..attempt to deflect in these gun exchanges by trying to turn it into an arguement on gun semantics, that the other is wrong close they don't know the difference weapons.

The only one's fabricating strawmen and engaging in semantics are leftist idiots like you who think you can re-invent what the Constitution says. :rolleyes:

Bottom line, thier purpose by design is to kill a lot of people in a matter of seconds regardless of what you call them

Bottom line is that the left want to rescind the second amendment. We are just saying that there is a process with which to do this; all they need to do is win a LOT of elections.

;)
 
'Hell, yes, we're going to take your AR-15, your AK-47' - Beto "Whitey" O'rourke

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/12/politics/beto-orourke-hell-yes-take-ar-15-ak-47/index.html

Democrat Progressives want to confiscate legally owned DANGEROUS firearms from SUPPOSEDLY law abiding citizens.

Most of us knew this was their true agenda. :palm:

Good!!!!! :good4u: :hand:

You stupid redneck wannabe cowboy Rambo fucks don't need AR-15's or AK-47's. :fu:

The Democrat party is trying to start another civil war, ... again. :palm:

The only "war" the Democrats are waging, is a war against the ignorance and stupidity of the conservative jackass right.
 
It is pretty funny, I don't know how many times I've seen gun huggers attempt to deflect in these gun exchanges by trying to turn it into an arguement on gun semantics, that the other is wrong close they don't know the difference weapons.

Bottom line, thier purpose by design is to kill a lot of people in a matter of seconds regardless of what you call them
If a lot of people come to my house and threaten my family and me, yes, they will face a gun with many rounds.

TheSecond cond and Heller v. D.C. protects this tight.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top