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

Forum Index » Political Discussion

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

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][img] <a href="https://ibb.co/r2xhf6T"><img src="https://i.ibb.co/nM7y8cZ/IMG-4043.jpg" alt="IMG-4043" border="0"></a>[/img]

Here is Walz shooting skeet.

[/quote]

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

It’s not a semiautomatic gun, dummy. Stop being such an imbecile. [/quote]

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.

[/quote]

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. [/quote]

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[/quote]

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? 
[/quote]

+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. [/quote]

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”. [/quote]

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. [/quote]

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"[/quote]

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. [/quote]

Fine start the constitutional process of repealing the 2nd amendment.  [/quote]

If you repeal the second amendment, you’ll strip the right of the military to keep arms/guns. That would be a potential mistake. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics