Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dear, right-wing gun "enthusiasts":

Most people on the left have no problem with gun ownership, but want stricter background checks and also see no point in any civilian owning a military-grade weapon. Your Rambo fantasies of taking on the govt, would end the moment some 20yo in Quantico, sitting at a screen, eating lunch, sent a drone and decimated your entire neighborhood.

Harris supports gun confiscation, mandatory sale to the government.

Keep trying, lyin’ MAGA sh*tbag!

DP

That’s NOT a lie. It’s in her campaign platform. That’s one of the biggest reasons many people whom I know support her, support her.

Because she has PROMISED that she will do gun confiscation. If she doesn’t, she may be a 1-term president herself. She made a promise. She damn well better keep it and do confiscation.

BULLSHIT. You can’t “do" “gun confiscation,” moron. Firearms are legal. There are 400 million of them in the U.S. No one’s coming for your guns, idiot.

It is not confiscating that will be effective . we put resources to buy back programs and then stop selling the assault weapons. It is accomplished with money if we are serious that we want to get rid of certain weapons.

We will start with the assault rifles first. Then it will be easier to gradually move on to other types, until we eventually get rid of every last one.

No you will not. First -- the so-called assault rifles will keep being sold and there will be no restrictions. Why? Votes are not there in Congress and will not be. In any event cannot under Second Amendment. There will be no change in Sup Ct for 20 years. In the next 20 years, at least half the time will have republican presidents so no I doubt this will change. Even if none of that mattered there are too many guns out there to make even a slightly meaningful dent.

What we could do is enhanced background checks, create a red flag system, enhanced firearms training, enhanced enforcement of gun violations, better protect schools -- all that could be done by Harris in the first year if she wanted to as president.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does it change your view of gun ownership or of Kamala Harris?

No to both.

I don't want to ban guns. I want gun control and a ban on assault weapons (like the one we used to have - it worked!). I want it to be a felony if your minor child obtains access to a gun and harms themself or others. These are not radical ideas. I like target shooting with a handgun myself.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually am one of those liberals that Fox News is constantly warning about. I hate all guns and I would love for the government to confiscate them all. I think the only people who should have them are police and military.

I’m enthusiastically voting for Harris, but yes, I am a little disappointed that she’s a gun owner. But obviously she’s a responsible one and I get that it’s politically expedient for her to have one. So whatever.

One of the few honest replies.

See, this is your problem. You want to believe this one post and ignoring all of the others, because that's what it is to be a conservative gun nut. Your only "validation" is being seen as victims of the "woke/DEI/commie/cancel culture/ blah blah blah" left when you aren't. You claimed Obama was going to take your guns, he didn't. You claimed Biden would. He hasn't.

You want to believe every Dem gives a damn about you simply owning hand guns or a rifle. The majority believe you have no business owning an AR. You're not using it for hunting (there would be nothing left of your kill). There's something seriously wrong with someone desperate to own them.

Anonymous wrote:I actually am one of those liberals that Fox News is constantly warning about. I hate all guns and I would love for the government to confiscate them all. I think the only people who should have them are police and military.

I’m enthusiastically voting for Harris, but yes, I am a little disappointed that she’s a gun owner. But obviously she’s a responsible one and I get that it’s politically expedient for her to have one. So whatever.

Anonymous wrote:Liberals think the Second Amendment was written just after the Founding Fathers just finished a 2-week hunting excursion...

It was written after they just finished fighting a tyrannical government in 1791, just years after the Revolutionary War.

Shall not be infringed.

Anonymous wrote:Liberals think the Second Amendment was written just after the Founding Fathers just finished a 2-week hunting excursion...

It was written after they just finished fighting a tyrannical government in 1791, just years after the Revolutionary War.

Shall not be infringed.

Anonymous wrote:Liberals think the Second Amendment was written just after the Founding Fathers just finished a 2-week hunting excursion...

It was written after they just finished fighting a tyrannical government in 1791, just years after the Revolutionary War.

Shall not be infringed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Liberals think the Second Amendment was written just after the Founding Fathers just finished a 2-week hunting excursion...

It was written after they just finished fighting a tyrannical government in 1791, just years after the Revolutionary War.

Shall not be infringed.

Well regulated.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Liberals think the Second Amendment was written just after the Founding Fathers just finished a 2-week hunting excursion...

It was written after they just finished fighting a tyrannical government in 1791, just years after the Revolutionary War.

Shall not be infringed.

Well regulated.

Anonymous wrote:Liberals think the Second Amendment was written just after the Founding Fathers just finished a 2-week hunting excursion...

It was written after they just finished fighting a tyrannical government in 1791, just years after the Revolutionary War.

Shall not be infringed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually am one of those liberals that Fox News is constantly warning about. I hate all guns and I would love for the government to confiscate them all. I think the only people who should have them are police and military.

I’m enthusiastically voting for Harris, but yes, I am a little disappointed that she’s a gun owner. But obviously she’s a responsible one and I get that it’s politically expedient for her to have one. So whatever.

One of the few honest replies.

See, this is your problem. You want to believe this one post and ignoring all of the others, because that's what it is to be a conservative gun nut. Your only "validation" is being seen as victims of the "woke/DEI/commie/cancel culture/ blah blah blah" left when you aren't. You claimed Obama was going to take your guns, he didn't. You claimed Biden would. He hasn't.

You want to believe every Dem gives a damn about you simply owning hand guns or a rifle. The majority believe you have no business owning an AR. You're not using it for hunting (there would be nothing left of your kill). There's something seriously wrong with someone desperate to own them.

You do realize that AR-15s are varmint guns, don’t you. They would be used to take care of animals like coyotes that are threatening a farmer’s livestock. An AR-15 while lethal is actually a very under powered weapon for hunting. Much less powerful that a .308 or 30.6 which are more traditionally used to hunt deer or other larger game.

Varmint guns OMG. Farmers handled coyotes with rifles for generations.

We can agree that if someone shows a legitimate need to fight back packs of coyotes, they can get a special AR-15 permit.

An AR-15 is a rifle. One bullet per one pull of the trigger

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[twitter]

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.

This. I have zero problem with handguns, hunting rifles, dueling pistols, whatever.

I have a huge problem with assault rifles being so easily accessible that even teenagers can get their hands on one. There is no good reason to have an assault rifle. It is not a defensive weapon. It cannot be used to hunt. It is good for nothing but mass murder. A ban on assault rifles is supported by the vast majority of Americans. It is not an extreme position at all.

There is no such thing as an assault rifle. Why are democrats so uninformed and downright dumb when it comes to firearms?

Why would one need to know the difference beyond the basics? How about you simply sum up why you need the type of f***ing weapon that you couldn't use for actual hunting or protecting your family? Why do you need more than handguns and hunting rifles? Explain why you need the type of weapon that allows for 100 rounds a second? What kind of psycho needs that and considers it normal?

It is a legit defense weapon. Sorry but it is.

Lots of weapons are "legit defense weapons". You don't live in a movie. There is no elite strike team rappelling down from helicopters to breach your house from all sides. You don't need an AR-15 to do the job.