Kamala Harris owns a gun. Are you surprised or mad?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Here is Walz shooting skeet.

Wow one of those semiautomatic shotguns that have been around for about 125 years. Wonder if they will be on the banned list.

It’s not a semiautomatic gun, dummy. Stop being such an imbecile.

Really? There are 3 types of shotguns, break-action, pump-action and semiautomatic. It is not a break-action or pump-action so that leaves only one choice.

Your pedantic technical jargon is lost on normal people who DGAF about your gun nonsense. It’s not a semiautomatic gun, regardless of what gibberish you’re babbling about. If you have PROOF otherwise, then cite it. Otherwise STHU with your disruptive blathering.

Your insults are hilarious, though not as ridiculously hilarious as you openly displaying your complete ignorance of even the most basic firearms facts.

You are just so astoundingly stupid, I cannot help but throw you a bone out of pure pity for you:

Tim is holding a Beretta A400 Xcel, which is (say it with me):

- a SEMIAUTOMATIC SHOTGUN

it is NOT a semiautomatic, idiot! :roll:

- it's partly made of wood
- it doesn't have a high capacity clip
- it doesn't have a telescopic lens aiming device
- it doesn't have a handle underneath the bottom
- it looks absolutely nothing like a gun a army person would carry



All your buzzwords and technical jargon mean nothing, ok? Can you get that through your stupid trumper head?

+1. They cannot. They blather on and on about automatic-this-or-that, completely incognizant of the fact that no one else cares. I can describe an assault weapon easily. Can it kill somebody? Yes? Then it’s an assault weapon and the public should not have access to it. Period.

Ah, so we will be banning knives, pens, pencils, hammers, etc. All can kill. We will be eating meals with sporks, unless they are deemed to dangerous.

As Thomas Jefferson has said “I prefer dangerous liberty over peaceful slavery”.

Thomas Jefferson is a dead white male slave owner and completely irrelevant to modern times.

And yes, all those things you listed are potential weapons as well. And we should examine doing away with them or making them less dangerous, AFTER we've gotten all the guns. No argument from me at all. None.

Also if we are going to defer to the reverence of Jefferson, let's also be honest that he thought we should redo the constitution if it didn't suit the will and needs of the people given that times change.

"Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the arc of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment. I knew that age well; I belonged to it and labored with it. It deserved well of its country. It was very like the present, but without the experience of the present; and forty years of experience in government is worth a century of book-reading; and this they would say themselves, were they to rise from the dead. I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors"

Also Thomas Jefferson: "Every constitution then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right"

Basically the PP is violating the beliefs of Jefferson because they believe the constitution of our ancestors should be forced on us in modern times and never changed.

Fine start the constitutional process of repealing the 2nd amendment.

I don't want to repeal it, I want the "well regulated" part to be better and more consistently enacted across all states including red flag laws. So that I don't have to comfort another friend after they attend the funeral of a kid who dies in a school shooting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Here is Walz shooting skeet.

Wow one of those semiautomatic shotguns that have been around for about 125 years. Wonder if they will be on the banned list.

It’s not a semiautomatic gun, dummy. Stop being such an imbecile.

Really? There are 3 types of shotguns, break-action, pump-action and semiautomatic. It is not a break-action or pump-action so that leaves only one choice.

Your pedantic technical jargon is lost on normal people who DGAF about your gun nonsense. It’s not a semiautomatic gun, regardless of what gibberish you’re babbling about. If you have PROOF otherwise, then cite it. Otherwise STHU with your disruptive blathering.

Your insults are hilarious, though not as ridiculously hilarious as you openly displaying your complete ignorance of even the most basic firearms facts.

You are just so astoundingly stupid, I cannot help but throw you a bone out of pure pity for you:

Tim is holding a Beretta A400 Xcel, which is (say it with me):

- a SEMIAUTOMATIC SHOTGUN

it is NOT a semiautomatic, idiot! :roll:

- it's partly made of wood
- it doesn't have a high capacity clip
- it doesn't have a telescopic lens aiming device
- it doesn't have a handle underneath the bottom
- it looks absolutely nothing like a gun a army person would carry



All your buzzwords and technical jargon mean nothing, ok? Can you get that through your stupid trumper head?

+1. They cannot. They blather on and on about automatic-this-or-that, completely incognizant of the fact that no one else cares. I can describe an assault weapon easily. Can it kill somebody? Yes? Then it’s an assault weapon and the public should not have access to it. Period.

Ah, so we will be banning knives, pens, pencils, hammers, etc. All can kill. We will be eating meals with sporks, unless they are deemed to dangerous.

As Thomas Jefferson has said “I prefer dangerous liberty over peaceful slavery”.

Thomas Jefferson is a dead white male slave owner and completely irrelevant to modern times.

And yes, all those things you listed are potential weapons as well. And we should examine doing away with them or making them less dangerous, AFTER we've gotten all the guns. No argument from me at all. None.

Also if we are going to defer to the reverence of Jefferson, let's also be honest that he thought we should redo the constitution if it didn't suit the will and needs of the people given that times change.

"Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the arc of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment. I knew that age well; I belonged to it and labored with it. It deserved well of its country. It was very like the present, but without the experience of the present; and forty years of experience in government is worth a century of book-reading; and this they would say themselves, were they to rise from the dead. I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors"

Also Thomas Jefferson: "Every constitution then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right"

Basically the PP is violating the beliefs of Jefferson because they believe the constitution of our ancestors should be forced on us in modern times and never changed.

Fine start the constitutional process of repealing the 2nd amendment.

I don't want to repeal it, I want the "well regulated" part to be better and more consistently enacted across all states including red flag laws. So that I don't have to comfort another friend after they attend the funeral of a kid who dies in a school shooting.

DP and also to make straw purchases much more difficult.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Here is Walz shooting skeet.

Wow one of those semiautomatic shotguns that have been around for about 125 years. Wonder if they will be on the banned list.

It’s not a semiautomatic gun, dummy. Stop being such an imbecile.

Really? There are 3 types of shotguns, break-action, pump-action and semiautomatic. It is not a break-action or pump-action so that leaves only one choice.

Your pedantic technical jargon is lost on normal people who DGAF about your gun nonsense. It’s not a semiautomatic gun, regardless of what gibberish you’re babbling about. If you have PROOF otherwise, then cite it. Otherwise STHU with your disruptive blathering.

Your insults are hilarious, though not as ridiculously hilarious as you openly displaying your complete ignorance of even the most basic firearms facts.

You are just so astoundingly stupid, I cannot help but throw you a bone out of pure pity for you:

Tim is holding a Beretta A400 Xcel, which is (say it with me):

- a SEMIAUTOMATIC SHOTGUN

it is NOT a semiautomatic, idiot! :roll:

- it's partly made of wood
- it doesn't have a high capacity clip
- it doesn't have a telescopic lens aiming device
- it doesn't have a handle underneath the bottom
- it looks absolutely nothing like a gun a army person would carry



All your buzzwords and technical jargon mean nothing, ok? Can you get that through your stupid trumper head?

+1. They cannot. They blather on and on about automatic-this-or-that, completely incognizant of the fact that no one else cares. I can describe an assault weapon easily. Can it kill somebody? Yes? Then it’s an assault weapon and the public should not have access to it. Period.

Ah, so we will be banning knives, pens, pencils, hammers, etc. All can kill. We will be eating meals with sporks, unless they are deemed to dangerous.

As Thomas Jefferson has said “I prefer dangerous liberty over peaceful slavery”.

Thomas Jefferson is a dead white male slave owner and completely irrelevant to modern times.

And yes, all those things you listed are potential weapons as well. And we should examine doing away with them or making them less dangerous, AFTER we've gotten all the guns. No argument from me at all. None.

Also if we are going to defer to the reverence of Jefferson, let's also be honest that he thought we should redo the constitution if it didn't suit the will and needs of the people given that times change.

"Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the arc of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment. I knew that age well; I belonged to it and labored with it. It deserved well of its country. It was very like the present, but without the experience of the present; and forty years of experience in government is worth a century of book-reading; and this they would say themselves, were they to rise from the dead. I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors"

Also Thomas Jefferson: "Every constitution then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right"

Basically the PP is violating the beliefs of Jefferson because they believe the constitution of our ancestors should be forced on us in modern times and never changed.

Fine start the constitutional process of repealing the 2nd amendment.

I don't want to repeal it, I want the "well regulated" part to be better and more consistently enacted across all states including red flag laws. So that I don't have to comfort another friend after they attend the funeral of a kid who dies in a school shooting.

DP and also to make straw purchases much more difficult.

Have to actually go after straw purchasers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Here is Walz shooting skeet.

Wow one of those semiautomatic shotguns that have been around for about 125 years. Wonder if they will be on the banned list.

It’s not a semiautomatic gun, dummy. Stop being such an imbecile.

Really? There are 3 types of shotguns, break-action, pump-action and semiautomatic. It is not a break-action or pump-action so that leaves only one choice.

Your pedantic technical jargon is lost on normal people who DGAF about your gun nonsense. It’s not a semiautomatic gun, regardless of what gibberish you’re babbling about. If you have PROOF otherwise, then cite it. Otherwise STHU with your disruptive blathering.

Your insults are hilarious, though not as ridiculously hilarious as you openly displaying your complete ignorance of even the most basic firearms facts.

You are just so astoundingly stupid, I cannot help but throw you a bone out of pure pity for you:

Tim is holding a Beretta A400 Xcel, which is (say it with me):

- a SEMIAUTOMATIC SHOTGUN

it is NOT a semiautomatic, idiot! :roll:

- it's partly made of wood
- it doesn't have a high capacity clip
- it doesn't have a telescopic lens aiming device
- it doesn't have a handle underneath the bottom
- it looks absolutely nothing like a gun a army person would carry



All your buzzwords and technical jargon mean nothing, ok? Can you get that through your stupid trumper head?

+1. They cannot. They blather on and on about automatic-this-or-that, completely incognizant of the fact that no one else cares. I can describe an assault weapon easily. Can it kill somebody? Yes? Then it’s an assault weapon and the public should not have access to it. Period.

Ah, so we will be banning knives, pens, pencils, hammers, etc. All can kill. We will be eating meals with sporks, unless they are deemed to dangerous.

As Thomas Jefferson has said “I prefer dangerous liberty over peaceful slavery”.

Thomas Jefferson is a dead white male slave owner and completely irrelevant to modern times.

And yes, all those things you listed are potential weapons as well. And we should examine doing away with them or making them less dangerous, AFTER we've gotten all the guns. No argument from me at all. None.

Also if we are going to defer to the reverence of Jefferson, let's also be honest that he thought we should redo the constitution if it didn't suit the will and needs of the people given that times change.

"Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the arc of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment. I knew that age well; I belonged to it and labored with it. It deserved well of its country. It was very like the present, but without the experience of the present; and forty years of experience in government is worth a century of book-reading; and this they would say themselves, were they to rise from the dead. I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors"

Also Thomas Jefferson: "Every constitution then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right"

Basically the PP is violating the beliefs of Jefferson because they believe the constitution of our ancestors should be forced on us in modern times and never changed.

Fine start the constitutional process of repealing the 2nd amendment.

I don't want to repeal it, I want the "well regulated" part to be better and more consistently enacted across all states including red flag laws. So that I don't have to comfort another friend after they attend the funeral of a kid who dies in a school shooting.

DP and also to make straw purchases much more difficult.

Have to actually go after straw purchasers.

It's actually the democrats leading on this as the red states turn a blind eye to how they make it easy for the straw purchasers.

[Anonymous]

-As many as 87% of the firearms used in crime in cities such as Chicago, Boston, NYC, etc. were trafficked from other states which often have weaker gun law

-States with strong gun laws see increased rates of gun homicide and gun crime when they border states with weak gun laws

lax gun laws coupled with weirdo anti-Christian juvenile gun worship culture make it easy for criminals to get guns - and mass school shooters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:-As many as 87% of the firearms used in crime in cities such as Chicago, Boston, NYC, etc. were trafficked from other states which often have weaker gun law

-States with strong gun laws see increased rates of gun homicide and gun crime when they border states with weak gun laws

lax gun laws coupled with weirdo anti-Christian juvenile gun worship culture make it easy for criminals to get guns - and mass school shooters.

It is no secret where the bad gun shops are located - https://gunviolence.issuelab.org/resources/30185/30185.pdf Time for DOJ to do something about those shops and the straw purchasers. That will go a long way to solving the problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:-As many as 87% of the firearms used in crime in cities such as Chicago, Boston, NYC, etc. were trafficked from other states which often have weaker gun law

-States with strong gun laws see increased rates of gun homicide and gun crime when they border states with weak gun laws

lax gun laws coupled with weirdo anti-Christian juvenile gun worship culture make it easy for criminals to get guns - and mass school shooters.

It is no secret where the bad gun shops are located - https://gunviolence.issuelab.org/resources/30185/30185.pdf Time for DOJ to do something about those shops and the straw purchasers. That will go a long way to solving the problem.

Perhaps we can all agree on that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of Dems own guns. Biden owns a gun; Walz owns a gun.

Most Dems aren't against gun ownership, but rather against assault rifles and the easy access to guns.

Assault rifles have been banned for decades here. Get educated before you spout your misinformed nonsense.

Are you lying or are stupid?

https://www.sandyhookpromise.org/blog/advocacy/federal-assault-weapons-laws-and-legislation/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Here is Walz shooting skeet.

Wow one of those semiautomatic shotguns that have been around for about 125 years. Wonder if they will be on the banned list.

It’s not a semiautomatic gun, dummy. Stop being such an imbecile.

Name calling is so puerile, and even worse when driven by fundamental ignorance. The pictured firearm is most certainly and unequivocally a semiauto 12 gauge shotgun, most likely loaded with no. 8 birdshot if in fact he was using it for a shooting sport. Such shotguns are ubiquitous. It is unlikely, but not impossible, that any sort of “permit” would be required for the purchase of such a shotgun.

Why is this? It is a gun, is it not? How can there not be a permit required to purchase or own it?

If this is true - IF - then I find that very troubling indeed, and would say that it prima facia evidence that we are in desperate need of reasonable, common sense gun safety laws, if a permit or license is not required to own something like that.

Further, why would one possibly need 8 birdshots? If you cannot hit your target with one shot, then you shouldn't be in the woods hunting to begin with. No one needs 8 shots to kill a duck.

But, isn’t this the same type of gun Tim carried when he was in Afghanistan?

It does NOT look like the kind of gun I have ever seen army people carrying. That's why we can be sure it's not a semiautomatic.

“Army people”?

FFS

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of Dems own guns. Biden owns a gun; Walz owns a gun.

Most Dems aren't against gun ownership, but rather against assault rifles and the easy access to guns.

Assault rifles have been banned for decades here. Get educated before you spout your misinformed nonsense.

Are you lying or are stupid?

https://www.sandyhookpromise.org/blog/advocacy/federal-assault-weapons-laws-and-legislation/

DP

The previous poster is correct. "Assualt rifles" are banned since 1986 for the public.

"Assualt weapons" are an entirely different thing.

You can go to the ATF's website if you want to be educated.

[Anonymous]

All of these defenders and their “arguments” just make me more convinced that they’re awful people and guns should be banned. I was more of a gun “control” person but congratulations, you’ve pushed me toward banning. Lunatics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All of these defenders and their “arguments” just make me more convinced that they’re awful people and guns should be banned. I was more of a gun “control” person but congratulations, you’ve pushed me toward banning. Lunatics.

What specifically are you pointing too? Mostly what I see from the pro gun people are educational posts.

How would a ban work?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All of these defenders and their “arguments” just make me more convinced that they’re awful people and guns should be banned. I was more of a gun “control” person but congratulations, you’ve pushed me toward banning. Lunatics.

What specifically are you pointing too? Mostly what I see from the pro gun people are educational posts.

How would a ban work?

This place is frequented by emotional wrecks. Do not expect too much in the way of facts, reason and logic on DCUM.

[Anonymous]

What kind of gun does she own? An AR15? It is the most popular type on gun in US.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What kind of gun does she own? An AR15? It is the most popular type on gun in US.

I seriously doubt the AR15 is the most popular gun in the US. Can you cite some proof of that claim?