Anybody Else Herd This

dav1965

May 15, 2019 15:05

I walked in my room and a radio talk show was playing and someone said that a politician was trying to outlaw importing AR type guns and they wanted to outlaw the remaining ARs in America.

Plus anyone who has had a domestic violence charge will not be able to have a gun either.

I am pretty sure that its a democrat running for president because they said that they were going to use an executive order to do it.

0

• 

  Sam06

  May 15, 2019 15:16

  Yep
  
  Kamala Harris said that.

  0
• 

  KenK/84Bravo

  May 15, 2019 15:23

  Good luck on the "Executive Action," accomplishing it though.
  
  
  There is that whole Pesky "2nd Amendment to the Constitution" thing to overcome.
  
  
  (Also) That is the type of thing, that will ingnite a whole new Civil War. There is THAT whole Pesky thing to consider, as well.
  
  I believe the Liberals will be slightly underarmed, in that whole scenario.

  0
• 

  remingtonoaks

  May 15, 2019 17:38

  dav1965 wrote:

  
  
  Plus anyone who has had a domestic violence charge will not be able to have a gun either.
  

  
  Nothing new about this point of your thread... people that have been convicted of a misdemeanor or felony domestic violence have been banned from possessing firearms since 1996
  
  
  The Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban, often called "the Lautenberg Amendment" ("Gun Ban for Individuals Convicted of a Misdemeanor Crime of Domestic Violence", Pub.L. 104?208,[1] 18 U.S.C. ? 922(g)(9)[2]), is an amendment to the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997, enacted by the 104th United States Congress in 1996, which bans access to firearms by people convicted of crimes of domestic violence
  
  Oh, and by the way. I have heard of this, but I have not herd of this

  0
• 

  buschmaster

  May 15, 2019 20:45

  I knew a politician who was running for Congress. he was saying he wanted to ban assault rifles and get AK47's off the street because he was in 'Nam and AK47's killed some of his friends.
  
  ya, well how about the M16's that saved your friends' lives, dingleberry. gonna ban those too?
  
  same logic applies to this Camela tnuc.

  0
• 

  11b6r

  May 15, 2019 22:17

  Point of discussion has been changing the definition of "Domestic Violence" to include people that- AT THIS TIME_ are not included. Go to the form 4473, read the instructions for question 11 I. As it stands right now, you must be in a family relationship or "keeping house". Talk is about expanding that to girlfriend/ boyfriend that do not live together.

  0
• 

  BobJudy

  May 16, 2019 00:07

  When President Trump tries to do an executive order about immigration that may actually save lives They go absolutely Bats##t crazy about it. The only logical conclusion about the democrats at the moment - They are nucking futts. Bob

  0
• 

  yoshmyster

  May 16, 2019 03:33

  Ain't that already on the books? That's why you can't get Daewoos.

  0
• 

  buschmaster

  May 16, 2019 04:42

  yoshmyster wrote:

  Ain't that already on the books? That's why you can't get Daewoos.

  
  yup, the 1989 semiauto rifle ban.
  
  they're talking about specifically banning the import of AR-pattern rifles that aren't already banned. don't know how that's supposed to work. a ban on top of a ban?
  
  everything about these bans are illegal and against the 2A, if you have "the right to bear arms" there is nothing that should allow anybody to ban one type of gun while allowing others. either you have the right or you don't.

  0
• 

  remingtonoaks

  May 16, 2019 05:12

  BobJudy wrote:

  When President Trump tries to do an executive order about immigration that may actually save lives They go absolutely Bats##t crazy about it. The only logical conclusion about the democrats at the moment - They are nucking futts. Bob

  
  And you just finally figured out the Liberals are nucking futts???????
  

  0
• 

  remingtonoaks

  May 16, 2019 05:23

  buschmaster wrote:

  yoshmyster wrote:

  Ain't that already on the books? That's why you can't get Daewoos.

  
  yup, the 1989 semiauto rifle ban.
  
  they're talking about specifically banning the import of AR-pattern rifles that aren't already banned. don't know how that's supposed to work. a ban on top of a ban?
  
  everything about these bans are illegal and against the 2A, if you have "the right to bear arms" there is nothing that should allow anybody to ban one type of gun while allowing others. either you have the right or you don't.

  
  According to the Liberals train of thought, our founding fathers were so mentally handicapped that our founding fathers thought that the Muzzleloader was as far as the firearm developed into. And even though that the firearm had advanced leaps and bounds from its initial meager concept back in the 1300s of be nothing more than a pipe with a hole drilled in it, that you stuck a burning Wick in to ignite the gunpowder. To the muzzleloader of the 1700s. So therefore their reasoning is that because our founding fathers were mentally handicapped and thought the firearm would not go any further than a Muzzleloader, that's all we are entitled to according to the Second Amendment...
  
  Of course we both know that the Liberals of today are the ones that are mentally handicapped, not our founding fathers

  0
• 

  chiefr

  May 16, 2019 07:12

  I hear that same mantra anytime any DEMOCRAT opens their mouth. They all hate the Second Amendment.

  0
• 

  buschmaster

  May 16, 2019 09:06

  remingtonoaks wrote:

  According to the Liberals train of thought, our founding fathers were so mentally handicapped that our founding fathers thought that the Muzzleloader was as far as the firearm developed into. And even though that the firearm had advanced leaps and bounds from its initial meager concept back in the 1300s of be nothing more than a pipe with a hole drilled in it, that you stuck a burning Wick in to ignite the gunpowder. To the muzzleloader of the 1700s. So therefore their reasoning is that because our founding fathers were mentally handicapped and thought the firearm would not go any further than a Muzzleloader, that's all we are entitled to according to the Second Amendment...
  
  Of course we both know that the Liberals of today are the ones that are mentally handicapped, not our founding fathers

  and that's exactly what some of them would say too! "you can have a muzzle loader (or single shot rifle) nothing else"

  0
• 

  babun

  May 16, 2019 14:03

  buschmaster wrote:

  remingtonoaks wrote:

  According to the Liberals train of thought, our founding fathers were so mentally handicapped that our founding fathers thought that the Muzzleloader was as far as the firearm developed into. And even though that the firearm had advanced leaps and bounds from its initial meager concept back in the 1300s of be nothing more than a pipe with a hole drilled in it, that you stuck a burning Wick in to ignite the gunpowder. To the muzzleloader of the 1700s. So therefore their reasoning is that because our founding fathers were mentally handicapped and thought the firearm would not go any further than a Muzzleloader, that's all we are entitled to according to the Second Amendment...
  
  Of course we both know that the Liberals of today are the ones that are mentally handicapped, not our founding fathers

  and that's exactly what some of them would say too! "you can have a muzzle loader (or single shot rifle) nothing else"

  
  
  

  0

Please sign in to leave a comment.