Name ONE politician trying to take you're guns!!1

[BleachedAnusDawg]

I would draw a distinction between banning some types of guns or regulating them and “taking away” your guns.

While it could technically take away guns, the implication is that it’s taking away all guns and I am strongly against that. Just don’t buy the whole slipper slope argument here.

You have got to be the most naive dipshit I've ever encountered in real life and fake internet life. End your carbon footprint.

You would be happy with every kind of gun but the dollar store potato guns being banned and would somehow do the mental gymnastics to claim all guns weren't banned, etc.

 

[BleachedAnusDawg]

I would draw a distinction between banning some types of guns or regulating them and “taking away” your guns.

While it could technically take away guns, the implication is that it’s taking away all guns and I am strongly against that. Just don’t buy the whole slipper slope argument here.

Banning the most popular semiautomatic rifle, legally owned by thousands of Washuntonians, is a taking.

States rights?

“No one is going to take away your guns” is a dismissive response to the idea that the left want to take away all the guns and undo the second amendment. Your response ignores the context in which it is said. It’s very “well actually” and then going on to argue a totally different point.

Yes, regulation can and should lead to some guns being taken away. I don’t know the specifics of the bills you posted so I’m not endorsing them though.

Many on the left want to do away with the 2A and want to take the guns

It's not a dismissive response it's a lie. As usual

You may stop short but a lot of you guys (lol) won't

Many is a vague and meaningless term. Sure, there are some but not nearly enough to have any sort meaningful push. We can’t get Medicare For All, we can’t even pass Build Back Better, we’re incompetent but we’re going to overturn the second amendment? Come on, this is fear mongering.

Lobbying for rights is only okay if it's your team. Otherwise it's fear mongering.

 

[hardhat]

I would draw a distinction between banning some types of guns or regulating them and “taking away” your guns.

While it could technically take away guns, the implication is that it’s taking away all guns and I am strongly against that. Just don’t buy the whole slipper slope argument here.

Banning the most popular semiautomatic rifle, legally owned by thousands of Washuntonians, is a taking.

States rights?

“No one is going to take away your guns” is a dismissive response to the idea that the left want to take away all the guns and undo the second amendment. Your response ignores the context in which it is said. It’s very “well actually” and then going on to argue a totally different point.

Yes, regulation can and should lead to some guns being taken away. I don’t know the specifics of the bills you posted so I’m not endorsing them though.

Many on the left want to do away with the 2A and want to take the guns

It's not a dismissive response it's a lie. As usual

You may stop short but a lot of you guys (lol) won't

Many is a vague and meaningless term. Sure, there are some but not nearly enough to have any sort meaningful push. We can’t get Medicare For All, we can’t even pass Build Back Better, we’re incompetent but we’re going to overturn the second amendment? Come on, this is fear mongering.

Fine, ALL lefty policies are dumb and they're being exposed one by one.

 

[TheKobeStopper]

I would draw a distinction between banning some types of guns or regulating them and “taking away” your guns.

While it could technically take away guns, the implication is that it’s taking away all guns and I am strongly against that. Just don’t buy the whole slipper slope argument here.

Banning the most popular semiautomatic rifle, legally owned by thousands of Washuntonians, is a taking.

States rights?

“No one is going to take away your guns” is a dismissive response to the idea that the left want to take away all the guns and undo the second amendment. Your response ignores the context in which it is said. It’s very “well actually” and then going on to argue a totally different point.

Yes, regulation can and should lead to some guns being taken away. I don’t know the specifics of the bills you posted so I’m not endorsing them though.

Many on the left want to do away with the 2A and want to take the guns

It's not a dismissive response it's a lie. As usual

You may stop short but a lot of you guys (lol) won't

Many is a vague and meaningless term. Sure, there are some but not nearly enough to have any sort meaningful push. We can’t get Medicare For All, we can’t even pass Build Back Better, we’re incompetent but we’re going to overturn the second amendment? Come on, this is fear mongering.

You sound super fucking gay

But admitting defeat in front of easily surmountable odds is why you are a leftist

This is getting weird.

 

[UW_Doog_Bot]

I would draw a distinction between banning some types of guns or regulating them and “taking away” your guns.

While it could technically take away guns, the implication is that it’s taking away all guns and I am strongly against that. Just don’t buy the whole slipper slope argument here.

You have got to be the most naive dipshit I've ever encountered in real life and fake internet life. End your carbon footprint.

You would be happy with every kind of gun but the dollar store potato guns being banned and would somehow do the mental gymnastics to claim all guns weren't banned, etc.

I'm fine with the left continuing to voluntarily disarm themselves.

 

[Sledog]

I would draw a distinction between banning some types of guns or regulating them and “taking away” your guns.

While it could technically take away guns, the implication is that it’s taking away all guns and I am strongly against that. Just don’t buy the whole slipper slope argument here.

What part of "shall not be infringed" do you have trouble understanding? Our founders bought cannons and every other type of destructive weaponry of the period.

The real problem is letting shitbags and loons roam our streets.

Fuck off.

It also says well regulated.

One has nothing to do with the other. Check the Supremes.

How much did your parents pay for school?

 

[Bendintheriver]

This is how it works with rats, they deny, lie, subvert and then destroy rights. BO Care destroyed the quality corporate insurance and medical selection for millions even though they lied over and over again and said it wouldn't happen.. Rats own the college campuses and force their brand of elitist, racist and bigoted socialism on everyone who touches ground there. Individual rights are taken away if you don't follow their politics. In many states they literally own public education and teach children hatred for diversity of thought and even their own ancestral and familial history. They go so far as to believe parents should have no opinion or voice in how their own children should be educated. Does anyone with half a brain believe that if rats created "gun free safe zones" that they wouldn't be taking away all rights to guns?

Still question it? Watch how they treat "uncle tom's" who walk away from the plantation. They try to destroy them, just like they would destroy your gun rights if they could and they have been trying for years, I know because I have heard their leaders from as far back as 1989. They are just looking for that opportunity and are laying the groundwork every time you hear them say "gun violence".

The kobe's of the world are either liars or goose stepping liberal morons who are too light in the brain to understand the lies they are being told by their leaders.

 

[PurpleThrobber]

I would draw a distinction between banning some types of guns or regulating them and “taking away” your guns.

While it could technically take away guns, the implication is that it’s taking away all guns and I am strongly against that. Just don’t buy the whole slipper slope argument here.

What part of "shall not be infringed" do you have trouble understanding? Our founders bought cannons and every other type of destructive weaponry of the period.

The real problem is letting shitbags and loons roam our streets.

Fuck off.

It also says well regulated.

It says a well regulated militia. Meaning the militia is to be regulated.

The right to bear arms shall not be infringed

You seem to hate words more than the Ostrich Boy

 

[GrundleStiltzkin]

I would draw a distinction between banning some types of guns or regulating them and “taking away” your guns.

While it could technically take away guns, the implication is that it’s taking away all guns and I am strongly against that. Just don’t buy the whole slipper slope argument here.

Banning the most popular semiautomatic rifle, legally owned by thousands of Washuntonians, is a taking.

States rights?

“No one is going to take away your guns” is a dismissive response to the idea that the left want to take away all the guns and undo the second amendment. Your response ignores the context in which it is said. It’s very “well actually” and then going on to argue a totally different point.

Yes, regulation can and should lead to some guns being taken away. I don’t know the specifics of the bills you posted so I’m not endorsing them though.

Supremacy Clause??!??

Middle paragraph, word salad. It is entirely the point if you'd read the 5217 bill.

You should read the 5217 bill. Or don't. I could care less.

As I've said before, at this point, I'd much rather have debates on repealing the Second Amendment. That's much more honesty than this smiley face anti-civil liberties shit.

 

[TheKobeStopper]

I would draw a distinction between banning some types of guns or regulating them and “taking away” your guns.

While it could technically take away guns, the implication is that it’s taking away all guns and I am strongly against that. Just don’t buy the whole slipper slope argument here.

Banning the most popular semiautomatic rifle, legally owned by thousands of Washuntonians, is a taking.

States rights?

“No one is going to take away your guns” is a dismissive response to the idea that the left want to take away all the guns and undo the second amendment. Your response ignores the context in which it is said. It’s very “well actually” and then going on to argue a totally different point.

Yes, regulation can and should lead to some guns being taken away. I don’t know the specifics of the bills you posted so I’m not endorsing them though.

Supremacy Clause??!??

Middle paragraph, word salad. It is entirely the point if you'd read the 5217 bill.

You should read the 5217 bill. Or don't. I could care less.

As I've said before, at this point, I'd much rather have debates on repealing the Second Amendment. That's much more honesty than this smiley face anti-civil liberties shit.

States rights was a pot shot at the libertarians who cry that all the time.

If you’re just going to decide that any type of regulation is dishonest (based on literally nothing) then yeah it’s pointless to talk about.

 

[PurpleThrobber]

I would draw a distinction between banning some types of guns or regulating them and “taking away” your guns.

While it could technically take away guns, the implication is that it’s taking away all guns and I am strongly against that. Just don’t buy the whole slipper slope argument here.

Banning the most popular semiautomatic rifle, legally owned by thousands of Washuntonians, is a taking.

States rights?

“No one is going to take away your guns” is a dismissive response to the idea that the left want to take away all the guns and undo the second amendment. Your response ignores the context in which it is said. It’s very “well actually” and then going on to argue a totally different point.

Yes, regulation can and should lead to some guns being taken away. I don’t know the specifics of the bills you posted so I’m not endorsing them though.

Supremacy Clause??!??

Middle paragraph, word salad. It is entirely the point if you'd read the 5217 bill.

You should read the 5217 bill. Or don't. I could care less.

As I've said before, at this point, I'd much rather have debates on repealing the Second Amendment. That's much more honesty than this smiley face anti-civil liberties shit.

States rights was a pot shot at the libertarians who cry that all the time.

If you’re just going to decide that any type of regulation is dishonest (based on literally nothing) then yeah it’s pointless to talk about.

Stick with the googles.

 

[GrundleStiltzkin]

I would draw a distinction between banning some types of guns or regulating them and “taking away” your guns.

While it could technically take away guns, the implication is that it’s taking away all guns and I am strongly against that. Just don’t buy the whole slipper slope argument here.

Banning the most popular semiautomatic rifle, legally owned by thousands of Washuntonians, is a taking.

States rights?

“No one is going to take away your guns” is a dismissive response to the idea that the left want to take away all the guns and undo the second amendment. Your response ignores the context in which it is said. It’s very “well actually” and then going on to argue a totally different point.

Yes, regulation can and should lead to some guns being taken away. I don’t know the specifics of the bills you posted so I’m not endorsing them though.

Supremacy Clause??!??

Middle paragraph, word salad. It is entirely the point if you'd read the 5217 bill.

You should read the 5217 bill. Or don't. I could care less.

As I've said before, at this point, I'd much rather have debates on repealing the Second Amendment. That's much more honesty than this smiley face anti-civil liberties shit.

States rights was a pot shot at the libertarians who cry that all the time.

If you’re just going to decide that any type of regulation is dishonest (based on literally nothing) then yeah it’s pointless to talk about.

APAG, this is clearly a subject you don’t know much about. And that’s fine. Guarding our civil liberties relies upon diverse advocacy groups and citizens.

 

[TheKobeStopper]

I would draw a distinction between banning some types of guns or regulating them and “taking away” your guns.

While it could technically take away guns, the implication is that it’s taking away all guns and I am strongly against that. Just don’t buy the whole slipper slope argument here.

Banning the most popular semiautomatic rifle, legally owned by thousands of Washuntonians, is a taking.

States rights?

“No one is going to take away your guns” is a dismissive response to the idea that the left want to take away all the guns and undo the second amendment. Your response ignores the context in which it is said. It’s very “well actually” and then going on to argue a totally different point.

Yes, regulation can and should lead to some guns being taken away. I don’t know the specifics of the bills you posted so I’m not endorsing them though.

Supremacy Clause??!??

Middle paragraph, word salad. It is entirely the point if you'd read the 5217 bill.

You should read the 5217 bill. Or don't. I could care less.

As I've said before, at this point, I'd much rather have debates on repealing the Second Amendment. That's much more honesty than this smiley face anti-civil liberties shit.

States rights was a pot shot at the libertarians who cry that all the time.

If you’re just going to decide that any type of regulation is dishonest (based on literally nothing) then yeah it’s pointless to talk about.

APAG, this is clearly a subject you don’t know much about. And that’s fine. Guarding our civil liberties relies upon diverse advocacy groups and citizens.

Wow, never seen you so bitchy.

Advocate for our civil liberties, I support you.

 

[Swaye]

I would draw a distinction between banning some types of guns or regulating them and “taking away” your guns.

While it could technically take away guns, the implication is that it’s taking away all guns and I am strongly against that. Just don’t buy the whole slipper slope argument here.

Banning the most popular semiautomatic rifle, legally owned by thousands of Washuntonians, is a taking.

States rights?

“No one is going to take away your guns” is a dismissive response to the idea that the left want to take away all the guns and undo the second amendment. Your response ignores the context in which it is said. It’s very “well actually” and then going on to argue a totally different point.

Yes, regulation can and should lead to some guns being taken away. I don’t know the specifics of the bills you posted so I’m not endorsing them though.

Supremacy Clause??!??

Middle paragraph, word salad. It is entirely the point if you'd read the 5217 bill.

You should read the 5217 bill. Or don't. I could care less.

As I've said before, at this point, I'd much rather have debates on repealing the Second Amendment. That's much more honesty than this smiley face anti-civil liberties shit.

States rights was a pot shot at the libertarians who cry that all the time.

If you’re just going to decide that any type of regulation is dishonest (based on literally nothing) then yeah it’s pointless to talk about.

APAG, this is clearly a subject you don’t know much about. And that’s fine. Guarding our civil liberties relies upon diverse advocacy groups and citizens.

Grundle, it is only a civil liberty if it affects a minority group or the MSM. Where have you been the last 20 years?

 

[GrundleStiltzkin]

I would draw a distinction between banning some types of guns or regulating them and “taking away” your guns.

While it could technically take away guns, the implication is that it’s taking away all guns and I am strongly against that. Just don’t buy the whole slipper slope argument here.

Banning the most popular semiautomatic rifle, legally owned by thousands of Washuntonians, is a taking.

States rights?

“No one is going to take away your guns” is a dismissive response to the idea that the left want to take away all the guns and undo the second amendment. Your response ignores the context in which it is said. It’s very “well actually” and then going on to argue a totally different point.

Yes, regulation can and should lead to some guns being taken away. I don’t know the specifics of the bills you posted so I’m not endorsing them though.

Supremacy Clause??!??

Middle paragraph, word salad. It is entirely the point if you'd read the 5217 bill.

You should read the 5217 bill. Or don't. I could care less.

As I've said before, at this point, I'd much rather have debates on repealing the Second Amendment. That's much more honesty than this smiley face anti-civil liberties shit.

States rights was a pot shot at the libertarians who cry that all the time.

If you’re just going to decide that any type of regulation is dishonest (based on literally nothing) then yeah it’s pointless to talk about.

APAG, this is clearly a subject you don’t know much about. And that’s fine. Guarding our civil liberties relies upon diverse advocacy groups and citizens.

Wow, never seen you so bitchy.

Advocate for our civil liberties, I support you.

Bitchy? You misread me

 

[PurpleThrobber]

I would draw a distinction between banning some types of guns or regulating them and “taking away” your guns.

While it could technically take away guns, the implication is that it’s taking away all guns and I am strongly against that. Just don’t buy the whole slipper slope argument here.

Banning the most popular semiautomatic rifle, legally owned by thousands of Washuntonians, is a taking.

States rights?

“No one is going to take away your guns” is a dismissive response to the idea that the left want to take away all the guns and undo the second amendment. Your response ignores the context in which it is said. It’s very “well actually” and then going on to argue a totally different point.

Yes, regulation can and should lead to some guns being taken away. I don’t know the specifics of the bills you posted so I’m not endorsing them though.

Supremacy Clause??!??

Middle paragraph, word salad. It is entirely the point if you'd read the 5217 bill.

You should read the 5217 bill. Or don't. I could care less.

As I've said before, at this point, I'd much rather have debates on repealing the Second Amendment. That's much more honesty than this smiley face anti-civil liberties shit.

States rights was a pot shot at the libertarians who cry that all the time.

If you’re just going to decide that any type of regulation is dishonest (based on literally nothing) then yeah it’s pointless to talk about.

APAG, this is clearly a subject you don’t know much about. And that’s fine. Guarding our civil liberties relies upon diverse advocacy groups and citizens.

Wow, never seen you so bitchy.

Advocate for our civil liberties, I support you.

Bitchy? You misread me

Grundle, STOP! being bitchy.

 

[TheKobeStopper]

I would draw a distinction between banning some types of guns or regulating them and “taking away” your guns.

While it could technically take away guns, the implication is that it’s taking away all guns and I am strongly against that. Just don’t buy the whole slipper slope argument here.

Banning the most popular semiautomatic rifle, legally owned by thousands of Washuntonians, is a taking.

States rights?

“No one is going to take away your guns” is a dismissive response to the idea that the left want to take away all the guns and undo the second amendment. Your response ignores the context in which it is said. It’s very “well actually” and then going on to argue a totally different point.

Yes, regulation can and should lead to some guns being taken away. I don’t know the specifics of the bills you posted so I’m not endorsing them though.

Supremacy Clause??!??

Middle paragraph, word salad. It is entirely the point if you'd read the 5217 bill.

You should read the 5217 bill. Or don't. I could care less.

As I've said before, at this point, I'd much rather have debates on repealing the Second Amendment. That's much more honesty than this smiley face anti-civil liberties shit.

States rights was a pot shot at the libertarians who cry that all the time.

If you’re just going to decide that any type of regulation is dishonest (based on literally nothing) then yeah it’s pointless to talk about.

APAG, this is clearly a subject you don’t know much about. And that’s fine. Guarding our civil liberties relies upon diverse advocacy groups and citizens.

Wow, never seen you so bitchy.

Advocate for our civil liberties, I support you.

Bitchy? You misread me

Ok, my mistake.

 

[GrundleStiltzkin]

I would draw a distinction between banning some types of guns or regulating them and “taking away” your guns.

While it could technically take away guns, the implication is that it’s taking away all guns and I am strongly against that. Just don’t buy the whole slipper slope argument here.

Banning the most popular semiautomatic rifle, legally owned by thousands of Washuntonians, is a taking.

States rights?

“No one is going to take away your guns” is a dismissive response to the idea that the left want to take away all the guns and undo the second amendment. Your response ignores the context in which it is said. It’s very “well actually” and then going on to argue a totally different point.

Yes, regulation can and should lead to some guns being taken away. I don’t know the specifics of the bills you posted so I’m not endorsing them though.

Supremacy Clause??!??

Middle paragraph, word salad. It is entirely the point if you'd read the 5217 bill.

You should read the 5217 bill. Or don't. I could care less.

As I've said before, at this point, I'd much rather have debates on repealing the Second Amendment. That's much more honesty than this smiley face anti-civil liberties shit.

States rights was a pot shot at the libertarians who cry that all the time.

If you’re just going to decide that any type of regulation is dishonest (based on literally nothing) then yeah it’s pointless to talk about.

APAG, this is clearly a subject you don’t know much about. And that’s fine. Guarding our civil liberties relies upon diverse advocacy groups and citizens.

Wow, never seen you so bitchy.

Advocate for our civil liberties, I support you.

Bitchy? You misread me

Ok, my mistake.

It happens.

 

[Swaye]

I would draw a distinction between banning some types of guns or regulating them and “taking away” your guns.

While it could technically take away guns, the implication is that it’s taking away all guns and I am strongly against that. Just don’t buy the whole slipper slope argument here.

Banning the most popular semiautomatic rifle, legally owned by thousands of Washuntonians, is a taking.

States rights?

“No one is going to take away your guns” is a dismissive response to the idea that the left want to take away all the guns and undo the second amendment. Your response ignores the context in which it is said. It’s very “well actually” and then going on to argue a totally different point.

Yes, regulation can and should lead to some guns being taken away. I don’t know the specifics of the bills you posted so I’m not endorsing them though.

Supremacy Clause??!??

Middle paragraph, word salad. It is entirely the point if you'd read the 5217 bill.

You should read the 5217 bill. Or don't. I could care less.

As I've said before, at this point, I'd much rather have debates on repealing the Second Amendment. That's much more honesty than this smiley face anti-civil liberties shit.

States rights was a pot shot at the libertarians who cry that all the time.

If you’re just going to decide that any type of regulation is dishonest (based on literally nothing) then yeah it’s pointless to talk about.

APAG, this is clearly a subject you don’t know much about. And that’s fine. Guarding our civil liberties relies upon diverse advocacy groups and citizens.

Wow, never seen you so bitchy.

Advocate for our civil liberties, I support you.

Bitchy? You misread me

Ok, my mistake.

It happens.

Are you two having a moment?

 

[DerekJohnson]

I would draw a distinction between banning some types of guns or regulating them and “taking away” your guns.

While it could technically take away guns, the implication is that it’s taking away all guns and I am strongly against that. Just don’t buy the whole slipper slope argument here.

Your disdain for the constitution is well documented

As well documented as Dwayne Washington's fumbling problem?