GUNS! Democrat Debate Talk Turns to Guns

At tonight’s debate among (some of) those seeking the Democrat nomination for the race for President in 2020, the topic of gun control came up. NBC’s Chuck Todd brought the topic up, but technical issues forced them to take a commercial break.

When they returned, Todd asked Elizabeth Warren what to do about guns. Warren said it’s a public health emergency. “Making real change in this country.”

Todd then turned to Cory Booker’s “buyback” provision in his gun control platform. Senator Spartacus says he hears gunfire in his neighborhood all the time. He’s tired of thoughts and prayers. “We’ve let the corporate gun lobby frame this debate,” he says.  He called for a bold agenda, but didn’t offer specifics.

Julian Castro attempted to pull at heartstrings by saying we don’t have to accept school shootings. He predicted that Democrats will sweep the presidency and both houses of Congress. Nothing like a dreamer.

Some nobody no one recognized talked about mental health counseling for schools. As though any of those on the stage tonight have a viable campaign for president.

Moderator Todd asked about how to have a conversation with gun owners who want to support a Democrat, but are worried about the party’s position against gun rights. So Robert Francis O’Rourke answered a question about how he deals with that question on the campaign trail. Of course, Beto lost his race in Texas so he must be an expert.

Amy Klobuchar’s litmus test for gun control is, ‘Does it impact her FUDD hunting uncle?” Sensible.  Sensible. Sensible. Which state is she from again? Minnesota?  Wisconsin?  North Dakota?  Nova Scotia?

Just when you thought it was all over, Booker said we need to have a bold agenda on guns including licensing. Because if you need a license to drive a car, you should need a license to own a gun.

comments

  1. avatar D says:

    We need to declare Demonrat party to be domestic terrorists

    1. avatar frank speak says:

      they don’t have a clue..just mouthing the same old lines…they’re obliged to speak about it..but are aware it could cost them votes if they make it to the general…which they probably won’t….

      1. avatar B7 says:

        They DO have a clue. The data show among Democrats gun control is no longer a third rail, that there is no issue with more of a sharp partisan divide.

        Pro vs Anti Second Amendment lines up more by party than abortion, gay rights, climate issues, foreign policy, immigration policy or any and all other policy issues. In Bill Clinton day it was still, barely, a “third rail.” It no longer is.

        Gun control is also now a massive, several hundred million per cycle, method of pumping money in to Democrat party messaging and campaigns

        1. avatar StLPro2A says:

          ‘If our kids are so traumatized that they are getting a gun and going into our schools, we’re doing something wrong’ . Like yeah….parents are failures at raising their kids. They are raising Defective Citizens, and should themselves be held accountable for their Defective Citizen offspring. They want to hold gun manufacturers responsible for crimes committed with their product. How about holding parents responsible for the crimes committed by their product…..their Defective Citizen kids. Their Defective Citizens actually make a decision to commit the crimes. Guns do not make a decision to commit crimes.

    2. avatar Doc Small says:

      Names called and games played. But in the end the POTG should be leaders, not sitting in sagging lawn chairs on the sidelines throwing empty beer cans at those grasping at change.

      Grow a set would you already. Unless there is a clear, cohesive, concise and common sense solution to mass shootings we will lose control and the 2A will be a footnote in history. Deliver the goods POTG or know you went out in a sissy wimpier not a bang. Keeping distance just means you’re scared of your shadow as well as your opponent. And they know it.

      1. avatar Barn Animal says:

        “Common sense” solution, huh?

        1. avatar napresto says:

          It’s been proposed many times: end unconstitutional laws that prohibit teachers and staff from carrying on school grounds. Train teachers and staff to take quick action to end a mass shooting if the worst happens. Stop passing laws that make schools more dangerous than they should be, and more attractive as targets for crazy people. Let the second amendment work. This is common sense.

      2. avatar Ardent says:

        And in that three word phrase “common sense solution” (not that your tone didn’t give it away) we all know you’re either a fudd or a troll, and I’m betting on the latter. Next time, learn something about the subject of the debate and you won’t out yourself so quickly as someone not to listen to.

        1. avatar Barn Animal says:

          Hey now don’t give him ideas. That’ll make his head hurt.

      3. avatar Mark says:

        I already know how to solve school shootings. Have several armed presences in school at all times. Whether it be resource officers, teachers, or volunteers. The more the better. When someone starts opening fire on the kids they get snuffed out quickly. Problem solved.

        1. avatar Dustin says:

          That is disgusting. Guns do not belong in schools.

        2. avatar Geoff “Guns. Lots of guns.” PR says:

          “That is disgusting. Guns do not belong in schools.”

          So you will have no problem with banning police from responding with guns to a school mass shooting then?

          So you will have zero problem with a school shooter racking up the kill count for long minuets until an armed responder shows up to kill the shooter?

          Letting scores of children being slaughtered until help arrives is what’s actually ‘disgusting’, asshole…

        3. avatar Pg2 says:

          @Geoff “make lots of dumb posts and flee.”

          Rather have healthy, unvaccinated kids in school than guns. But why not both? Still waiting for your reply from the last thread where you claimed to be my executioner😂…but you fled instead of responding to a beyond stupid post you made.

        4. avatar Geoff “Summary execution for anti-vaxxers” PR says:

          Did widdle Pg2 get his little feelings hurt?

          *snicker* 😉

        5. avatar Pg2's Momma says:

          Now, now, my snookums. Play nice with your friends. Momma doesn’t like to see you get into a tussle. You bruise easily and we have the family reunion coming up. Don’t want the group pic to show my lovebug with those nasty blemishes.

        6. avatar Sian says:

          “That is disgusting. Guns do not belong in schools.”

          Neither do murderers, but GFZ signs and policies and all the laws against doing what they do doesn’t seem to stop them.

          So which would you rather have in schools? legally carried guns or murderers? There’s no viable middle ground here.

        7. avatar pg2 says:

          “snicker”…the sound of the village idiot nervously laughing…..

        8. avatar Knute(ken) says:

          Pig2:
          Thanks for clearing that up. OFC, we’ve all known that you’re our village idiot for some time now, but its still nice to see you admit it.
          Remember, if you can admit to the problem, then it’s possible to fix it. Keep at it, and perhaps some day you will even know what a “muzzle” is. Then perhaps you can tell your buddy vlad.

        9. avatar B7 says:

          Dustin says:June 27, 2019 at 02:02
          That is disgusting. Guns do not belong in schools.

          Every single study of same demographic schools shows those with gun armed personnel have less homicide, less rape, less other sexual assault, less aggravated assault, less AWD, less simple assault, less robbery and even less theft. And way less school shootings.

          Legal guns in schools make teachers and students profoundly safer. Why are you disgusted at a mechanism that makes people safer?

        10. avatar Someone says:

          @Dustin
          “Guns do not belong in schools.” Thats, like, your opinion, man. You gun grabbers tried it and made schools “gun free zones”. It doesn’t look like mass murderers care much. They actually prefer to be the only armed person around, so no one can stop them. Now reverse the stupidity and see how the body counts drop and disappear when the murderer is confronted with armed resistance right there, right now.
          But then what would you grabbers use to push for civilian disarmament, if there weren’t any mass murders? The wast majority of homicides of black felons by black felons with handguns in Democrat controlled cities? Keep including suicides in “gun violence” numbers?

          You need those mass murders to scare uninformed voters into voting for gun control. That’s why progressive mainstream media won’t stop fulfilling dreams of murderers by making them famous.

      4. avatar Wiregrass says:

        There is a clear, concise, and common sense solution that we are offering, but they don’t want to hear it: Shoot back!

      5. avatar Hannibal says:

        There is no ‘solution’ to mass shootings just like there is no ‘solution’ to other crimes. There’s no ‘solution’ to rape. There’s no ‘solution’ to drunk driving. You can try and reduce them but there’s always going to be someone who can jump over the legal hurdles you put up there. And that’s the problem- the democratic message is meaningless except to ‘think of the children’ and they won’t stop. Even if they got everything they were asking for today they would demand more and more gun control tomorrow because it doesn’t work- and “if it saves one life” invariably results in the most totalitarian state possible, because there’s always another life to “save.” I am not willing to give up all my rights for the chance of saving one child, and that is exactly what they want.

        The democrats and the media have been losing their shit over shootings for about a decade. “Assault weapons” have existed long before then. If you really want to deal with mass shootings, maybe figure out what changed… and whether MAYBE it has something to do with the media coverage that allows one shithead with a rifle to become a nationally known figure if he shoots enough people.

        1. There is a solution to drunk driving.

          Just shut down all private automobiles.

          Is the mere convenience of fast travel worth tens of thousands of lives?

        2. avatar Knute(ken) says:

          Also not a viable solution. Then they just die in horse accidents instead…
          https://legallysociable.com/2012/09/07/figures-more-deaths-per-capita-in-horse-accidents-in-nyc-in-1900-than-in-auto-accidents-today/
          Exactly like we used to kill each other with rocks, and then stone hammers, and then pointy sticks, etc. Wayyyyyy before firearms ever came along.

      6. avatar John in Ohio says:

        “Unless there is a clear, cohesive, concise and common sense solution to mass shootings ”

        There already is:

        SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

        It’s been staring you right in the face this whole time. You may not like it but it is THE answer.

      7. avatar Bierce Ambrose says:

        Well, getting on the false-flag battlespace prep list for the upcoming election is a sign of success, I suppose.

      8. avatar Jim Bullock says:

        Obvious apparatchik is obvious.

        Concern troll agitates for the other position by making their argument, wrapped in “concern” that they are “winning” and we are “losing.” So gets to say they’re winning, n we’re losing. Qnd make the opposing argument.

        Throws in an impossible standard, to “solve” mass shootings. Conveniently, a “standard” that can only be met by the other guy’s agenda — No guns for you!

        Etc.

      9. avatar Jim Bullock says:

        Well, we’d like people to be able to defend themselves from the attacks you can’t stop — at schools, just like they do 2.5 million times a year other places.

        We’d rather you keep spree killings from starting, but tons of your intervention programs, red flags, n bans aren’t doing it. So, until people stop trying, we’ll keep tools to fix what you won’t prevent. (We have a few ideas about that, too, if you are interested.)

      10. avatar Billy Bob says:

        Maybe we should make it illegal to shoot and kill innocents. There, problem solved. Oh wait, it’s already illegal. Good. Done.

      11. avatar B7 says:

        Unless there is a clear, cohesive, concise and common sense solution to mass shootings we will lose control and the 2A will be a footnote in history

        The science shows this is a media created copycat celebrity phenomena. I mean the peer reviewed science.. So what you mean by common sense would be ,major reductions in the First Amendment.

      12. avatar AK49 says:

        The ONLY solution to mass shootings is to turn our society from the secular humanist nihilism that is bringing chaos and ruin upon our once great nation. The dissolution of traditional values, and the religious principals and institutions that made our civilization great are the cause of our youth turning to mindless violence. Moral relativity, a broken family, and an apathetic sense of hopelessness and meaninglessness rots the minds of many these days, and they act accordingly. Some turn to degenerate social behaviors and some to degenerate anti-social behaviors. The shootings will never stop because people value the freedom to be debased and vile more than the lives of those lost due to the products of their ‘liberty’. The shootings are obviously a symptom of a sick mind and no legislation on guns will cure a sick mind. If you have the stones to call for what it takes to stop the shootings then call for a return to the traditions that kept the chaos and sickness from our society, anything less is misguided or dissengenious.

    3. avatar Ardent says:

      Can’t happen under the current system, but at the rate they’re going that will fail, and we will be free to administer the justice they deserve.

    4. avatar DJ says:

      Progressive Stalinist Democrats

    5. avatar Mad Max says:

      The enemy of liberty, plain and simple.

    6. avatar Pg2 says:

      Except that many posters here agree with the Democrats on issues outside of the 2nd Amendment.

      1. avatar Geoff “Summary execution for anti-vaxxers” PR says:

        Speak for yourself, Leftist.

        Oh, and when do you plan on talking about guns in TTAG instead of a nutjob theory that has *zero* credible research to back up? 🙂

      2. avatar Pg2's Momma says:

        Ooo-wee! I love hearing my Little Snookums talking about politics. He’s so edumakated! Gonna take our family bloodline into the future!

        I’m so proud…

        1. avatar pg2 says:

          Knute? This you? You’re programmer using another name? Funny stuff.

        2. avatar Knute(ken) says:

          If I ever decide to sock puppet you, like you do to every body else, you’ll know it.

        3. avatar Knute2 says:

          Hey Knute, did Pg2 answer your muzzle question yet?

        4. avatar Knute2 says:

          Knute2. Nope. And not any of his other sock puppets either. Vlad, Lamp of whatever, none of ’em.

        5. avatar Knute3 says:

          Knute 2: What makes you think they’re all one?

        6. avatar Knute2 says:

          Knute 3: Well, just figure the odds. This is a gun blog, and they all try to give gun advice. Yet none of them know what a muzzle is. So, if we assume that at least 99% of gun owners know what a muzzle is, which we can safely, then the odds of Vlad, Lamp of____, Pg2, and DD… ALL not knowing what a muzzle is, is 1% of 1% of 1% of 1%, or 100^4. That’s a one in a hundred million chance that they AREN’T all the same person.
          Just do the math.

        7. avatar Knute3 says:

          Knute2: OK, OK. You’re right. Its been a looong time since my probabilities and statistics classes. 99,999,999 to one that they’re all sock puppets. I can see that.

        8. avatar Knute2 says:

          Knute 3: No biggy. Its been just as long ago for me. EXACTLY as long, to be accurate. But its real easy. Its not advanced math. Its only 1/100th times 1/100th, etc. Just repeat four times. And when multiplying fractions, we just multiply all the denominators together, so it becomes 1 divided by 100X100X100X100, or 100 to the fourth power. That’s a hundred million, so the odds they’re all sock puppets is .99999999. The other .00000001 is the chance that these four are just really that stupid.

        9. avatar Knute(ken) says:

          Did you know? Or are you REALLY that stupid?

        10. avatar Pg2 says:

          Getting trolled by a troll bot, that’s a compliment , must be saying something to piss off the people that want us to surrender our rights.

    7. avatar enuf says:

      No, we should not. It is a massive and stupid exaggeration, a complete fantasy. It also leaves out RepubliStains, the other cult of Party’ists who are the mirror image of DemonCraps.

      1. avatar B7 says:

        Republican legislators and voters are orders of magnitude more likely to support the second amendment than either Democrats or independents, that is clearly established in voting records and surveys.

        But keep lying, it is entertaining.

  2. “Authoritarianism, and Hard Paternalism, YO!”
    (Re: Future the Future! Which will be Tyranny…And a Police-state…More so , than now…)

    1. “Auto-correct + EDIT BUTTON= Fight the…”

  3. avatar Fully Involved says:

    How is it a “debate” if everyone agrees and is touting the same tired message?
    Call it what it is; it’s a circle jerk.

      1. avatar Stan says:

        Carlin is a giant dick.

        1. avatar DangerDave says:

          Carlin isn’t wrong though. Never before have we had a president who above all else needs his ego stroked regularly. I think it’s shown people that a personality cult fueled by social media can get you elected.

        2. avatar Geoff “Guns. Lots of guns.” PR says:

          ” I think it’s shown people that a personality cult fueled by social media can get you elected.”

          That’s exactly how Obama got elected, the media tripping over themselves fawning over him…

        3. avatar B7 says:

          Never before have we had a president who above all else needs his ego stroked regularly.

          Obama used the term “I” more often than any president. It is ludicrous to thing anyone was more egotistical than him. And he did it for things accomplished by others. Trump does give himself credit for things he has achieved.

    1. avatar barnbwt says:

      Them Dems be lined all up like a choo-choo train

      1. avatar Sian says:

        You mean like a centipede?

        1. avatar barnbwt says:

          More like an Ouro-Boros…but with dicks –even the ladies (ladies have dicks now, lol)

    2. avatar Huntmaster says:

      I work in a very large entertainment venue. Thousands of employees. Huge employee cafeteria seating maybe 800 employees at one time. At least ten big screen televisions going on at all times. Tonight was busy and so was the employee cafeteria. FOX News was on two of the televisions. Baseball, Women’s basketball, and a couple of other things were on the other televisions. I was in there at a few minutes after 9 PM. NBC was not on any of the televisions. Nobody, and I mean NOBODY cared about the Democratic Primary Debates.

  4. avatar Victoria Illinois says:

    You’ve heard it before, here it is again. Gun rights are rights. Driving is a privilege. (It’s not in the Bill of Rights.)
    I’ve said it before, here it is again. “Let’s make drugs illegal first”. Oh wait, they are illegal. How’s that working?

    1. avatar Knute(ken) says:

      Just about as good as prohibition and getting rid of prostitution. That is to say: rate of effectiveness = 0.
      That sounds good, but it’s actually a negative number. America consumed more alcohol during prohibition than before or after. So the law against it made the problem worse. The same with prostitution. The problem is smaller in Nevada where it’s legal, than in the places where it’s illegal. But I try not to use negative numbers because so few understand what they even are. Not you OFC, present company excluded. Unless PgVlad is around. I very much doubt he can articulate what a negative number is, any more than he knows what a muzzle is.

      1. avatar Ardent says:

        The damage done by prohibition of alcohol should have informed our drug policy, but didn’t. Now the predictable outcome is virtual war on the streets, millions suffering, emboldened criminals within and without our borders, and a total failure of mission. Meanwhile our 2nd, 4th and 5th amendments have been gutted. The prohibition of prostitution has lead to the horrors of human trafficking, a strong black market and a mockery of justice.
        Prohibition of firearms offers more of the same with the winners being criminals and black marketeers and the losers the otherwise law abiding.

        Prohibition is anathema to a free society, doesn’t work, and has fallout several orders of magnitude worse than what it aims to prevent.

        Freedom is messy, until that basic premise is understood and accepted we are in grave danger.

        1. avatar Barn Animal says:

          An entire corporate industry could be created around prostitution. Between infrastructure, security, medical staff, and petroleum products, you’d create a ton of stable jobs that wouldn’t be threatened by export or automation. (I would hope they wouldn’t be threatened by automation at least)

        2. avatar strych9 says:

          “… emboldened criminals…”

          Not just emboldened but emboldened specifically because they are enriched and empowered by prohibition. Rich and powerful enough to control basically all of Central America save Costa Rica, a country wealthy and stable enough to resist and small enough for the cartels to skip over for the most part.

          The fact that a friend of mine was set for life by age 30 by selling what amounted to black market full auto AKs, body armor, pistols ammo and other stuff to the Costa Rican cops all up and down the West coast of that country, stuff the cops bought solely because they feared accidentally bumping into drug runners, tells you all you really need to know.

        3. avatar John in Ohio says:

          “Freedom is messy, until that basic premise is understood and accepted we are in grave danger.”

          Right on! You nailed it.

        4. avatar Sian says:

          Decriminalizing sexwork could prevent the next incel mass shooting.

          If it saves just one life it’s worth it.

    2. avatar Biatec says:

      Also you don’t need a license to drive a car as far as I am aware. You don’t even technically need to register it. If it never leaves your property you are good to go.

      If I am wrong someone please correct me.

      1. avatar Knute(ken) says:

        Nope, so far as I know, one can drive at any age, at any speed, in any State, just so long as it’s on private property. That’s how all those race drivers come up from childhood on gocarts and outlaw sprint cars. One can drive however recklessly one dares to… on private property.

        1. avatar RidgeRunner says:

          That’s how all the people out where I live learned to drive the farm truck by the time they were 10.

        2. avatar Huntmaster says:

          Not true. In CT, there are laws against allowing minors to drive certain motorized vehicles even on privately owned property. Nanny state and all, you know how it goes. Can’t comment on other states.

        3. avatar Knute(ken) says:

          RidgeRunner:
          My Dad started me out on his 1960 Chevrolet Apache 4-speed. At age 6, sitting on his lap. By the time I was 8, he let me solo by putting it in granny gear, telling me to follow him in the combine to the other field, stop by turning off the key, and then jumping out while moving.
          That day sticks in my mind. Granny was so slow that I had trouble keeping up, so by the time we got moved, I’d figured out how to slide all the way down in the seat so I could reach the clutch, shift while laying down on the seat, and then pop back up in time to see where I was going. Dad was impressed when I pulled up along side of him, shifted into neutral, and waited for him idling.
          He did ask why I didn’t just shut it off, so I told him how I figured out shifting and it seemed better, and he just said “yeah, that works too.”

    3. avatar Jason says:

      People say this all the time, so curiously, since freedom of movement IS a right, how is a driving a car, a tool for movement a privilege, or for that matter any different than a gun, a tool for defense?

      1. avatar barnbwt says:

        A public road, which taxpayers agreed to fund the construction of, with the understanding & expectation it would be administered in accordance with statutory law.

        I must say, for being so “independent” sovereign-citizen types are right up there with libs in expecting the world to revolve around their whims…

        1. avatar Barn Animal says:

          Most of the sovereign citizen types don’t believe in private property either.

        2. avatar Jason says:

          It’s amusing to me that referring to the “right to travel’, a right that has been widely recognized since before the Articles of Confederation and which the Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed, somehow invokes your invectives of “sovereign citizen” and “liberal”.

          I will assume that this means you can conjure no legitimate response to my question.

          So again, what legitimate purpose do drivers licenses serve, and why should this be any more revocable than your right to keep and bear arms? After all many of the places that you might carry were funded by the taxpayer, blah blah blah blah.

          And for the record, you can’t claim that they ensure that drivers are “safe” or meet some particular measure of responsible behavior in public spaces. After all, here in CA they issue licenses to illegal aliens who in some cases cannot read or speak English and so in consequence cannot understand common traffic signs. The fact is that the licensing process is nothing but a tool for the illegitimate grabbing of money from the taxpayers by way of a tax masquerading as a fee that lacks the necessary 2/3 vote that taxes require here in the homeless, drug addicted, sanctuary state of Commifornia.

        3. avatar barnbwt says:

          Jason, the right to travel is not the right to use the massively-expensive transportation infrastructure as you see fit. That fact that this infrastructure system works *so well* (perhaps the single greatest success and accomplishment of our state & federal government) that there is no alternative and no need for an alternative cannot be debated. There is simply no significant need for the kind of unregulated transit system you seem to desire; no advantage. The earliest paved roads were privately-produced affairs, but the effort very quickly became dominated by municipalities & states once the concept was proven out. Ike got the feds involved after WWII so the project could be scaled even higher, leading to economic boom and social liberation that went unrivaled until the internet.

          Ask yourself; what exactly would you use a completely unrestricted road system for? To drive faster? To move vehicles/cargo that are larger/heavier than what is currently allowed? If it is simply that you take umbrage at having to register a vehicle & pay fees for the bureaucratic overhead to do that, how does that irritation compare to the benefit you yourself receive from the restrictions obeyed by other drivers? Are you sure you aren’t simply allowing a petty perceived violation of your ego to dictate your beliefs? That’s the worst trait of anarchists, that they allow emotions to dictate their philosophy as much as any knee-jerk leftist.

          Watch some dash cam footage from India sometime; even putting 3rd world incompetence aside, it’s a goddam warzone of abandoned vehicles, massive payloads that choke roads, dangerous driving and loading practices, and so on. The driver licensing & law enforcement mechanism may not be perfect, but they undeniably beat the alternative, at least in this particular case. There are very, very few arenas where I feel government earns its keep overall, but roadways are definitely one of them. If police would be more professional and focus on dangerous driving behaviors vs. raising revenue, and if states would stop using road tax sources to fund other nonsense, I argue the system would be pretty darn close to perfect.

        4. avatar barnbwt says:

          Ah, now I see; you’re a disaffected Californian who assumes that all government is as corrupt and ineffective as your own, and it’s turned you into an anarchist. Like I said, you’re being swayed by knee-jerk emotions just like the liberals you hate. The whole purpose behind our nation being constructed as a Republic after the Revolution instead of a Monarchy was because the victors of that war believed government could be done better; good enough that it would be worthwhile to as many people as possible.

          Government can definitely be done better than California does it. But even still, roads are a really dumb area to complain about mismanagement; CA would be 1/100th its current size and destitute without the huge network of roadways that allowed its ridiculous overpopulation and industrialization, for starters. Your municipal and state leaders valuing illegal immigrants more than law-abiding citizens is a completely separate, and completely unrelated issue to transit infrastructure. It’s also largely due to inaction on the part of law-abiding citizens going back many decades, and not the government.

        5. avatar Huntmaster says:

          As much as I love limited government, I find the prospect of doing away with drivers licenses and auto registration not simply a bad idea, but absolutely horrible and terrorizing.

        6. avatar OBOB says:

          barnbwt says:
          June 27, 2019 at 09:09

          Ah, now I see; you’re a disaffected Californian who assumes that all government is as corrupt and ineffective as your own

          You do know WHY he is that way and the state of cali is fucked up?

          because the other 49 states FAILED cali…AKA the feds failed to secure the border and made the mess. In 1994 with prop 187 cali cried out for help that the illegal aliens were drowning the state and was told by the feds to fuck off suck it up and PAY for illegals

          you know they say cali does it first in many cases…well cali was Trumpland in 1994 and FORESAW the disaster that illegals have caused!

          AKA fuck off 49 other states you ruined California forever by your inaction!

        7. avatar Jason says:

          I’m afraid that your argument unravels itself. If only the police would focus on this…, if only the government would value that…. You assume that the various licensing and registration fees go toward the maintenance of the road infrastructure. Perhaps you also believe that California’s new gas tax of 0.12/gallon and its “cap and trade” estimated to be about 0.75/gallon tax goes to such aims as well. After all it was marketed and pushed that way. Well I can assure you that it doesn’t. It goes toward public employees pensions and medical expenses.

          But more to the point, all you have said only goes to express your satisfaction with the present state of things and not to the underlying issue. Do you have the right to leave your private property or not? Yes you say, you just can’t use any public land or roadway. Explain, if you can, how this is consistent with your belief in the right to bear arms. Perhaps your right to bear arms only exists on your private property? Perhaps you are as satisfied with “may issue” carry permit schemes as you are with licensing schemes for automobiles? No? Unreasonable? Or perhaps you think that all the the property you acquired in your pursuit of Life, Liberty, and Happiness is forfeit? You can walk your way out with what you can carry on your back.

        8. avatar barnbwt says:

          “I’m afraid that your argument unravels itself. If only the police would focus on this…, if only the government would value that…. You assume that the various licensing and registration fees go toward the maintenance of the road infrastructure. Perhaps you also believe that California’s new gas tax of 0.12/gallon and its “cap and trade” estimated to be about 0.75/gallon tax goes to such aims as well. After all it was marketed and pushed that way. Well I can assure you that it doesn’t. It goes toward public employees pensions and medical expenses.”

          Jason, you can’t use an example of a building collapse in India to argue a skyscraper can’t be built in America. Or a business bankrupted by embezzlement to argue that no one can make money in sales. I already said that CA has a terrible governing system, with causes that are not intrinsic to a properly-designed government, such as the system CA itself had prior to adopting the lunacy of ballot initiatives. No one ever said a government magically sustains itself either; it requires a populace that actually wants that, which CA has also long since ceased to possess. Guys like yourself who have completely given up on the rule of law aren’t helping that side of things, and will only succeed in bringing about even more dictatorial systems of rule. You’d better hope the rule of law regains its footing over there, because the tiny fraction of people that still value individual liberty on the west coast cannot hope to stand against the radical hordes who would clap you in irons. You sure won’t defeat them by acting exactly the same & legitimizing that sort of authoritarian rule.

        9. avatar Jason says:

          Barnbwt,

          You have written a great many words at this point and I have learned from them. I have learned that I’m a “sovereign citizen”, that I’m a “liberal”, that I’m an “anarchist”, that I don’t value the “rule of law”. What I haven’t learned from you, however, is whether or not I or anyone else has the right to leave our private land. So maybe you could cut to the chase and explain your position on this issue, the one in my original post.

          Explain how bearing arms is a right, but freedom of movement is not.

        10. avatar barnbwt says:

          Okay, when you leave your property via a means that can lawfully cross the public roads without requiring registration/etc (ie a bike, horse, experimental car, or your own legs) do you have to file a travel permit with anyone? Or are you able to move about to your destination according to your liking? Because that’s what free travel is. Restricted travel is like the Soviet Union, China, or air travel. Again, just because car travel on public roads is ubiquitous because of how well the system works, doesn’t change the fact that it is only one way to travel. A way that relies heavily on publicly managed infrastructure, and which requires significant law enforcement oversight to function well. Nothing about individual gun ownership fits either of those criteria. Maybe if we had to operate firearms in potentially dangerous ways as often as we do cars (ie always) it could fit that criteria, but that’s not the world we live in.

          You can’t argue that freedom to travel is infringed because a single method of movement clearly requires strict administration to function. You’re first job is to convince me that anarchic roadways are in any way superior to the ‘crushing burden’ of traffic laws. Your state mismanaging roads and misappropriating tax money is a completely separate issue.

        11. avatar Jason says:

          Okay, when you BEAR ARMS via a means that can lawfully cross the public SPACES without requiring registration/etc (ie a POCKET KNIFE, WALKING STICK, experimental ARM, or your own FISTS) do you have to file a ARMS permit with anyone? Or are you able to BEAR RAMS to your destination according to your liking? Because that’s what BEARING ARMS is. Restricted BEARING ARMS is like the Soviet Union, China, or air travel. Again, just because ASAULT WEAPONS travel on public SPACES is ubiquitous because of how well the system works, doesn’t change the fact that it is only one way to BEAR ARMS. A way that relies heavily on publicly managed infrastructure, and which requires significant law enforcement oversight to function well. Nothing about individual CAR ownership fits either of those criteria. Maybe if we had to operate CARS in potentially dangerous ways as often as we do ASSAULT WEAPONS (ie always) it could fit that criteria, but that’s not the world we live in.

          You can’t argue that BEARING ARMS is infringed because a single method of ARMING ONESELF clearly requires strict administration to function. You’re first job is to convince me that anarchic AR-15’S are in any way superior to the ‘crushing burden’ of COMMON SENSE GUN SAFETY laws. Your state mismanaging THE SECOND AMENDMENT and misappropriating tax money is a completely separate issue.

          See what you just argued for? Open your eyes.

  5. avatar Geoff “Guns. Lots of guns.” PR says:

    “Chuck asked Elizabeth Warren what to do about guns. Warren says it’s a public health emergency. “Making real change in this country.””

    Don’t blow that off. A sitting president’s power to declare a state of emergency can be *vast*…

    1. avatar strych9 says:

      Warren is actually the one that worries me.

      Her “plans” are custom targeted to some disaffected groups of people that, no offense, older folks simply don’t understand. When ya’ll try to talk some sense (which is sense btw, no doubt about that) you just piss them off and make them more likely to run away from you since they’re once bitten, twice shy.

      Her “college loan forgiveness” and “free college” programs are directed at a large group of people who got fucked under Obama, are a decade behind on retirement, probably won’t have kids because of it and are really, really ticked that they played by the rules and got nothing but debt to show for it.

      Trying to explain the reality to them is a difficult thing to do and the polls show why [insert five paragraph post about that here]. Like approaching someone who’s drowning you need to be careful because they’re not thinking and might drown your ass too. Saving them takes more than just telling them what’s what because as far as they’re concerned you already did that, they listened and they mostly got screwed for it.

      1. avatar Geoff “Guns. Lots of guns.” PR says:

        Do you know who is most excited about ‘student loan forgiveness’?

        Those who went to Harvard, Stanford, etc. The big-money universities.

        ‘Free college’ means only one thing – The value of that degree goes straight in the toilet when everybody has a degree…

        1. avatar strych9 says:

          It’s not just the big money universities. Student loans cover anything related to school actives. That’s books and paper and pens but also food, housing, gas. Anything you can legitimately claim is “related” to your time in school and not purely for pleasure (guns, ammo, butt plugs, a subscription to nStyle magazine or whatever it is that floats your particular boat).

          As such people have learned that the interest rate on a credit card when you have little-to-no credit worthiness is pure murder to pay off. So they roll a lot of shit into student loans which drops that interest rate down to 4-8%. It works if you get a decent job after college which about nine years of kids didn’t. With four million people graduating each year someone like Warren has picked a great topic here when elections are often decided by less than 5% of half the country.

          That’s 36 million kids, quite a number of whom are whom are disaffected with the current state of things when elections are decided by 800,000 to 3,000,000 votes. If she can convince 10% of the kids who graduated in the last decade to vote for her (actually vote not just wear a pin) she’s got a damn good shot at being POTUS. That should scare people. Badly.

          It should further scare people that these kids are turned-the-fuck-off by older folks in general, whom they see as the ones who got them into this mess and just want us younger folks to bail you all out of with Medicare and Social Security taxes for which we will get a 0.0% return on our investment because you’ll be the last people to get fuck-all out of those systems without the solution of glorious socialism. Because you see, you’re all morons and capitalism doesn’t work. If it did we’d all have jobs and kids and houses. We don’t, the proof is in the pudding, Warren sounds like she might be on to something.

          ^^^That’s how a lot of these kids think because they never worked before college due to the pressure just to get into college and they haven’t really worked much since and if they did it was a shitty job.

          I could write a five page paper on this problem and 95% of people over 55 would deny the existence of the problem in the first place and not even look for a solution. But be aware: It most certainly IS a problem. Fuck, one of my friends is a lawyer (an employed one too, making damn good money) and a USMC vet and it seems like all he does these days is scream about how all the Republicans do is “lie” about “big shit”. It doesn’t even occur to him that even if he IS right he’s still wrong because anyone who lies to you is assuming you’re not smart enough to figure out the lie and is therefore insulting your intelligence and seeking to take advantage of you.

        2. avatar Geoff “Guns. Lots of guns.” PR says:

          Quite a few here in TTAG are convinced Trump will win in 2020. I fear they are setting themselves up for a kick in the teeth every bit as vicious as the the one the Leftists got on Nov 9, 2016, for many of the same reasons you laid out. The pendulum is gonna swing back, and it’s likely to be painful…

      2. avatar Jim Bullock says:

        I’ve gotten some traction with these folks with variations on “So, another grand plan like affordable college stimulous act? How’d that work out?”

        1. avatar Bierce Ambrose says:

          The affordable care act came after the patriot act.

          Was that whole thing just act envy?

        2. avatar Bierce Ambrose says:

          I do wish they’d stop committing unnatural acts in congress. It scares the horses.

  6. avatar former water walker says:

    People are seriously watching this gaggle of goof’s
    ? Yer a better man than me😊Methinks there’ll be a revolution of some sort. Prepare…

  7. avatar Barn Animal says:

    Yeah not gonna bother sitting around watching a bunch of hens cluck. I can think of more important things to do like sit on the can.

  8. avatar Timothy Toroian says:

    Why don’t I hear these dinks talking about such concerted efforts to round up criminals or would they rather spend the money harassing law abiding citizens?

    1. avatar Barn Animal says:

      They’d rather round up innocent gun owners while they fund the cartels, import jihadis, and release rapists from prison.

    2. avatar Ardent says:

      Seconding barn: the modern Democratic party is openly a communist and totalitarian threat to the republic. They are far more invested in usurping the rights of citizens while granting privileges to illegal immigrants to bother with anything like the rule of law as defined by the constitution.

      We ignore this threat at our own risk: at this point the Democratic party is anti constitution, anti american, anti freedom and pro anarchy. The point at which we can no longer compromise with such people has long past. What remains is to see how long we are able or willing to coexist with them. They are no longer another way of thinking about the same problems and are now the the most obvious and potent threat to the republic since the secession of the southern states. It is with great peril that the nation continues to pretend otherwise.

      1. avatar Barn Animal says:

        Indeed. There’s no other explanation other then their goal is to purposely destroy the United States. Nothing they do makes any sense unless it’s viewed from that angle. The democrats, their far left allies and the media all see America as the greatest enemy to the world. I know this because I’ve spent a significant amount of time around them. Not just run of the mill liberals, either. Some who actually hold positions of power. They truly hate America. They despise conservatives with a hatred I can only compare with racism. They don’t show it right away or wear it on their sleeve (not to that level, anyway), until you spend enough time around them and they let their guard down. That’s when they really start to spew their hate. To them America is a racist empire and the flag is a symbol of white supremacy. Veterans are the equivalent of the SS. Rural people are looked down upon as an inferior race of subhumans. The constitution is an ancient racist document. I don’t know when or how it all started but these people have true hatred in their hearts and I believe are fully committed to enacting something similar to the Chinese cultural revolution here.

        1. avatar Geoff “Guns. Lots of guns.” PR says:

          “They truly hate America.”

          Yup, and that’s why a separation is called for, since I have zero intentions of following them on that highway to hell…

  9. avatar Tim says:

    All of these jag-offs know the election is already over. None of this extreme leftist nonsense (reparations, “free education/healthcare/etc”, open borders, tranny BS) has broad appeal.

    It’s all about developing name recognition for future runs post-Trump. The election is already lost for dummycrats and they know it.

    1. avatar Geoff “Guns. Lots of guns.” PR says:

      I wouldn’t be so cock-sure about that. Their off-the-rails hissy-fit when they didn’t get Hillary was cute for about a year, but they haven’t moved on past the raw hate stage. They are gonna turn out in better-than-expected numbers in 2020…

  10. avatar TommyJay says:

    “Because if you need a license to drive a car, you should need a license to own a gun.”

    I’ve got mine in my wallet. Gotta renew it next year. Too bad it hasn’t seemed to stop Islamic psychos and anti-semites from shooting up the state of California.

    1. avatar SAFEupstateFML says:

      While the argument could be made that it only covers pistols (unless that changed to include non ‘assault’ longarms), you are ultimately right. Lawbreakers gonna lawbreak and get what they want to do whatever evil they are feeling the desire to do.

  11. avatar grumpster says:

    So I take it no talk about getting rid of “gun free safe zones” where almost all mass shootings happen?

  12. avatar WI Patriot says:

    chuck todd is a dick…he’s so far left, he could never work for UPS…

  13. avatar Kendahl says:

    Sorry, Cory. Firearms, especially handguns, already are licensed like drivers. You can buy a vehicle and drive it without a drivers license, registration or insurance as long as you stay on private property and off public roads. Farmers do this all the time. It is exactly like the licensing of handguns in most states. You need a license to carry in public but not on your own property.

    About the constant gunfire in your neighborhood. It’s your neighbors doing the shooting not OFWG gun owners from the sticks. It’s your neighbors who need to learn to behave like civilized people instead of hoodlums.

    1. avatar Bierce Ambrose says:

      Wasn’t Spartacus mayor of some place that’s still a free-fire zone?

      1. avatar edward kenway's ghost says:

        Newark.
        What Booker doesn’t tell you about the gunfire in his neighborhood is the fact it’s caused by gangs and drug dealing. This is where the “common sense” gun control lie for the law abiding falls flat on its face.
        I once had a co-worker who was from Camden. We’d talk, and at one point he admitted he couldn’t risk letting his kids outside when visiting his mother, who still lived in Camden.
        A cut above the rest, he managed to escape, make something of himself, and be a responsible example to his kids.

    2. avatar GunnyGene says:

      16 States don’t require a license to carry. I live in one of them. Don’t need no FOID, or any other State BS either. Pass the NICS check at the counter (if you buy from an FFL licensed Dealer), pay your money and leave. That’s it.

      1. avatar Kendahl says:

        Correct. I was keeping it simple. Those sixteen states are why repeal of the 2nd Amendment won’t happen. Repeal would be done by another amendment which would require ratification by at least three quarters of the states to pass. With fifty states, it takes only thirteen refusing ratification to block an amendment indefinitely. We have that with three to spare. What we do have to worry about is gradual encroachment that isn’t stopped by the Supreme Court.

  14. avatar Shawn says:

    Nothing we would not expect from freedom haters that want every Gun owner and white male dead. The Democrats hate guns, hate gun owners, and want to ban all guns and kill literally every single solitary gun owner in the country. They go to bed at night and have wet dreams about nuclear carpet bombing the country to kill us all. And then replacing us with people from Central and South America as a permanent slave class.

    1. avatar Dan W. says:

      This is why there is no point in debate. The only response that has any value is “fuck you, I will kill you over this.”

    2. avatar GS650G says:

      They do give the impression they want A new subserviant subclass to vote robotically for them and avail themselves of government benefits.
      They can’t understand why we are not down with that.

  15. avatar B.D. says:

    Well, that settles it. Democrats just lost 2020 lol. Comments all over the interwebs agree. They have lost their minds.

    Tyrants.

  16. avatar Tom T says:

    It always cracks me up when they use the comparison to cars. No, you don’t need a lucense or insurance to own a car. You only need those to drive the car on public roads. You can own as many cars as you please without any of that.

    Odd how they want to rule the country but are unfamiliar with such a basic law. That is typically the first law young Americans learn about.

    1. avatar GS650G says:

      They won’t take your car away even if you lose your license. You can build your own car and modify it a great deal, even emissions can be thwarted by using an old enough motor. You can lend your car to anyone you choose.
      By all means let’s compare cars with guns on a few levels.

      1. No jurisdiction in the United States prohibits persons convicted of DUI-related manslaughter from owning a motor vehicle.

      2. avatar Someone says:

        And even in Illinois you can have your car automatic with a muffler.

  17. avatar Chris Morton says:

    It’s as if twenty plus copies of the retarded clone of Homer Simpson from the Hammock of Horror skit all decided to run for President simultaneously.

  18. avatar possum" they can take your badzooka, I hunt with landmynes" Fudd says:

    The Right To Keep And Drive Cars. , , , , , , , We’re talking bout a revolution, , , welllll you know, , , we don’t wanna change the World

  19. avatar Dan W. says:

    We’ve can only lose by debating gun control with the left. This is not the kind of issue you debate any more than a mugging is a negotiation. The only response to gun control proposals that has any value is “fuck you, I will kill you over this.”

    1. avatar GunnyGene says:

      Roger that!

  20. avatar ElVagabondo says:

    Ten clowns and ten more to come how can you pick one when they are all saying the same thing? Take away your Rights, force single pay medical insurance, ban firearms etc. SOCIALISM SUCKS. Socialism will DESTROY the USA and anyone who votes for it is a traitor.

  21. avatar Jarett says:

    Never going to fix the mass shooting problem until it’s realized it’s a societal issue and NOT an inanimate object issue. Cant fix stupid……

  22. avatar GS650G says:

    I bet my left nut Booker lives in a neighborhood full of nice houses and no one shoots anyone. Fucking liar.

    1. avatar edward kenway's ghost says:

      You’re right. About the liar part.
      Whether he lives in a project or a gated community is somewhat irrelevant, it’s still fookin’ Joizee.
      I live in Jersey, but grew up in the Midwest. The only thing that ties me here is my wife’s job and a mortgage. When the mortgage is paid and her job allows her to relocate, Jersey time is over.

      1. avatar GS650G says:

        “According to Forbes, Booker’s Newark home is worth an estimated $435,377. The house has gone up in value 154 percent since Booker purchased it in 2011.”

  23. avatar GS650G says:

    I consider these two debates as a race for VP candidate under Biden. The smart candidates do too. Bernie not so much.

  24. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    Most interesting in all this is The Orange Crush displaying again his weird, feral genius. I don’t think he plots this stuff out in the front of his head with game theory. But he comes up with these brilliant, lateral moves in PR, all the time.

    – Tweet that he’s gonna live-tweet the dem debates.

    – News gotta cover what he said, so more PR.

    – People watching the debate were waiting for what he’d say: the d-party event promoted him.

    – He’s silent — imaginary Donald is way better than the reality of these clowns.

    – Then he live tweets *one word*. No positions people can attack. Steals the attention again. He’s the grown up(?!?) And it’s news so gets a mention next day. And they gotta say how he “behaved” compared to what they expected.

    – And what’s he gonna do on round 2 just stole another news cycle.

    I think the game for gun rights is to create situations where the preferred move appeals to *that guy*. Silencers are too esoteric. But, create an opportunity for him to one-up on people who come at him n he’ll bite.

    That and keep the entire D party out of every kind of power, since they’re uniform, “No guns for you.”, even when they say “If you like your guns, you can keep your guns.”

    1. avatar Jim Bullock says:

      Oh, my Bog…

      The well done steak hairpiece tweeted his *one word* comment, from a photo op w the military, en route to an economic conference. In Asia.

      That’s counterprogramming times eleventy. Again.

  25. avatar Chip in Florida says:

    “…Booker said we need to have a bold agenda on guns including licensing. Because if you need a license to drive a car, you should need a license to own a gun.”

    That would actually be kind of awesome….. One license accepted in all 50 States, no questions asked. One test to get it and then it is pretty much yours until you do something dangerous enough for them to revoke it. Yeah you gotta renew it every so many years, but I renew mine by mail. And Shooters Education, like Drivers Education, would be available at school ages and in schools. And the gun license, like a drivers license, applies to the owner, not the gun/vehicle. My license grants me any car, in any state, up to a certain size or weight. I can add qualifications to my license like I added Motorcycle to my drivers license, I could add full-auto to my gun license. (not equating motorcycles to full-auto, just making an example of ‘extra qualifications’ that could be added).

    It’s not the best idea because licensing a right turns it into a privilege, but when they bring it up it is worth pointing out the folly of their suggestion.

    1. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:

      guzzi convert is full semi auto.

    2. avatar barnbwt says:

      If Trump were slick & actually pro-gun, he would absolutely remember to bring up Dems’ opposition to Reciprocity in one of these debates. Alas…

  26. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    As the candidates are of the Marxist left do not believe in the Constitution,they if elected would have to swear a oath to,espouse these un American views. For the time being the entertainment value of the shit show is worth the laughs,Marxists on parade.

  27. avatar GunnyGene says:

    10 little drama queens all in a row.

  28. avatar barnbwt says:

    So Gabbard came out on top, huh? You think it could have anything to do with her being the most physically attractive candidate? Cue the Benny Hill theme, lingerie, & clown-horns.

    1. avatar Dan W. says:

      That really doesn’t hurt. And not wanting to invade every country in the middle east helps too.

      1. avatar barnbwt says:

        It’s “OMG, IVANKA IS SO HAWT!” dumbasses all over again…

        Seeing as both sides now want to avoid wars in the Mid East, I think we can safely say there’s no appetite for it regardless of party. Unless even allegedly “wanting” it is somehow grounds for something, lol. The debate has shifted from how much offense to go on, to how much damage we are willing to endure before responding, LOL.

      2. avatar B7 says:

        she was PLENTY happy to invade when the time came for her to do so. Now that it is not in her interest she is waflfing.

        She is just the most attractive and successful waffler in he line up. Essentially more dishonest than anyone there at that debate — which in left wing politics, works.

        Read Christopher Hitchens “No One Left to Lie To: The Triangulations of William Jefferson Clinton. it is amazing how much “Tulsi” fits that model.

  29. avatar Ark says:

    So an entire political party is in open treason against the Constitution of the United States. Got it.

    1. avatar enuf says:

      Neither of our two big political parties are shining examples of Patriotism and love of the Constitution. The True Believers of these parties are Citizens of their Party, that is by all practical measures they are “Party Citizens” not “American Citizens”.

      The fervor of Party Membership in America has attained the fervor and devotion of Communist Party scum in foreign countries and various dark periods of history. The emotional hot button issues they trigger on vary, but the mental state of extremism and absolutism are deeply linked.

      1. avatar B7 says:

        STFU. you keep purveying objective lies.

        The data clearly show Republican legislators and voters are orders of magnitude more likely to support the second amendment than either Democrats or independents, that is clearly established in voting records and surveys.

  30. Funny how none of these Democrats ever acknowledge that criminal homicide rates are at an all-time low, half of what it was in 1993.

    Back in the 1990’s, Democrats overwhelmingly voted for a bill to deal with then-all-time-high rates of criminal homicide and other violent crime. And yet, today, so many Democrats are walking away from support of that law.

    I wonder why.

    1. avatar enuf says:

      Walking away from the crime bill heavy handedness of the Clinton Error is common to both sides. It stuffed prisons with a whole lot of non-dangerous minor offenders. Whether or not this also took many major, repeat offenders and locked them up too is a question mixed in with all the hundreds of thousands of cases of excessive punishment.

      Thus the reforms being talked about today are mired in the partisan routine. One side champions correcting a wrong of the past while ignoring the benefits. The opposing side ignores the negatives and promotes the positives far out of proportion to actual effectiveness.

      1. It is just that the Democrats either fail to realize, or simply ignore, that these same negatives will result if these “common sense”, “sensible” gun laws are enacted.

      2. avatar barnbwt says:

        Considering the Dems’ recent penchant for re-activating felons’ voting rights, I think you are giving their motivations WAY too much credit. Same for the RNC, which makes more than a trifling bit of money on the prison complex.

        1. avatar B7 says:

          The data clearly show Republican legislators and voters are orders of magnitude more likely to support the second amendment than either Democrats or independents, that is clearly established in voting records and surveys.

          The critics of the GOP on this cherry pick things like a GOP state legislator in a purple district supporting a red flag that has been successfully altered to reduce effect, and therefore better than the rd flag that would normally pass.

          but the fact is in the last five years you have about 10,000 committee and subcommittee votes, amendment votes, full votes in state capitals and Us congress and they line up 98:2 by party. They used to line up more like 70:30.

          anyone saying the parties are the same or even similar on Second Amendments is stone cold ignorant or a sock puppet working for the antis.

  31. avatar Mister Fleas says:

    Dustin said: “That is disgusting. Guns do not belong in schools.”

    How are those Gun Free/Predator Friendly Zones working out?

  32. avatar Time is running out! The Communist will win the White House/Congress/Scotus in 20xx. says:

    My having open borders and invasion of communist immigrates from crap hole countries who have no clue what this country( & Brain Washing) is about or how it was founded… who are just selfish and greedy seeing only dollar signs and free stuff to get theirs while the getting is good.. then just crap on it and turn it into another Venezuela Crap Hole eating from garbage cans with no electricity or running clean water! This invasion has changed our country for the Extreme extent of BAD! These people don’t know or respect freedom if it hit them up side the head with a loaded baseball bat!

    We already have those communist elected in congress causing serious trouble and its just a matter of time until they take over all 3 branches of government! We will have no choice but, to have a civil war unless we can deport them all ASAP!

    A Civil War may not go well for true Americans who founded and built this country if we are outnumbered..20 to 1.

    It has to stop! Until the 90+% wake up WE ARE DOOMED FOR FAILURE like history has proven in every case!

  33. avatar Billy says:

    “Senator Spartacus says he hears gunfire in his neighborhood all the time.”
    Let’s get suppressors off the NFA then.

    1. avatar barnbwt says:

      He’s dodging sniper fire alongside Hillary, no doubt…

  34. avatar Mad says:

    Democrats really believe potg will be the only ones to die joke’s on them

  35. avatar Donald Carlson says:

    Doesn’t anybody remember we had an “assault weapons” ban for 10 years? Luckily, for gun owners, the law had a sunset provision. It was determined that it had no discernible effect and was allowed to expire. It was always a dumb law because the only differences between semi-automatic rifles and so-called assault rifles are cosmetic.

    The AR-15 is now the most popular and arguably the most versatile rifle available. It is available in a staggering variety of calibers and is used for almost any purpose including hunting. When an anti-gunner asks “why do you need and AR-15?” I reply that it can do nearly anything and is adaptable to almost any purpose. It has spawned a whole industry to manufacture the rifles and the myriad accessories.

  36. avatar Michael Hayes says:

    The dems try to take guns, they will start something that will be there end, totally.

  37. avatar Timothy Toroian says:

    They need to prove to us they have read the Constitution and understand their oath of office and do the one thing I’ve NEVER heard a Dem do and that is give a philosophical reason why a law abiding populace should be disarmed. What don’t they understand about the words ‘honor this Constitution”. Article 6, clauses 2 and 3.

  38. avatar Wally1 says:

    So, I just watched the democratic debates, there was a clear winner, TRUMP. One word covers all the democratic candidates, “Delusional”. All they talked about was governmental control for citizens benefits, really” Gov’t health care control is about control. With baby boomers living longer they will be able to drain the bank accounts of the baby boomer generation. Want to see Gov’t health care right now, just talk to a veteran dealing with the V.A. Huge Fail.

    Demo congressman Swalwell (Ca) openly advocated a gun confiscation and “Buy Back” for all Assault type rifles. This guy is so crazy he doesn’t realize this will start a all out civil war, None of the dem candidates had a rational thought between them.

  39. avatar David Andrews says:

    Warrens statistics on children killed by gunfire are a blatant LIES!

  40. avatar Don Lindsey says:

    From the assignation of Abraham Lincoln up through today the majority of those killing people have all been against American, to day that is the democratic party. Reason being for the Almont of killing of American children by the democrats is because they do not want anyone arrested, tried or convicted of any crimes.
    The demos like Adolf Hither want only the true socialist to own a gun and like Hitler are so willingly to shoot anyone who disagrees with theses A-hole’s.
    Demos are for open boarders allowing anyone who hates Americans the opportunity to walk in and kill who every they please, this includes our babies, our children and the demos do not want any American to stop theses committing the crimes including MURDER. That a FACT that been proven of the few years under Clinton and Obama

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email