“We’re not coming for your guns” - they said

Author: TWS1405_2
Liberals
Biden
Guns
Democrats
2a

Posts

Total: 30
Topic's author
#1
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
First is HR 698: this is Biden’s ‘assault weapons’ ban which would effectively disarm the American people by banning the sale of AR-15s and hundreds of similar rifles.
This bill already has 205 cosponsors. 218 are needed to pass the bill in the House. And we KNOW there are RINOs who will vote for this if it gets to the floor.
If this legislation passes, we’ll never get these guns back

Second is H.R. 715; this is Biden’s attempt to criminalize the private sale of firearms in America and institute a national firearms registry, so the feds know which Americans own guns.

This bill also has 205 cosponsors. But it’s extra dangerous in that the lead sponsor is a RINO traitor (Brian Fitzpatrick, R-PA) which makes it far easier to pass the GOP controlled House.

We all know the purpose of this bill: to facilitate future gun confiscation.

Third is H.R. 2392; this is Biden’s legislation to mandate significant waiting periods before the American people can buy firearms. Criminals would ignore this, of course.

Remember 2020’s ‘mostly peaceful protests’ where we saw mobs of protestors burn, shoot, and murder their way across American cities? Imagine being unable to buy a gun during that time?

Waiting periods get innocent people killed. Period.

If one of these bills passes, it would be a disaster. If all three of these bills pass, it would mean the end of America as we know it because ‘We the People’ would be disarmed!

The Left knows this, and they are going ‘all in’ on these bills.

#2
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
If one of these bills passes, it would be a disaster. If all three of these bills pass, it would mean the end of America as we know it because ‘We the People’ would be disarmed!
Lol

Having an AR-15 isn’t going to make you any less impotent. You still won’t be able to father a child.

#3
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,288
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@TWS1405_2
Guy is clearly on his 3rd wife, battling the lies his first wife plants in his kids, taking out his failures on strangers on the internet through projection.
#4
Rieka
Rieka's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 131
0
2
6
Rieka's avatar
Rieka
0
2
6
-->
@TWS1405_2
There's no doubt they're trying to get rid of the constitution. The 2nd amendment was made to protect the first amendment, and if they successfully take away the right of free speech... Communism is coming our way, and our guns will quickly be taken after. And these bills are their ticket to doing so.
#5
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
Guy is clearly on his 3rd wife,
Just had my 30th anniversary, dummy. My wife got a 2 carat diamond ring. You, on the other hand….just have your hand. Loser!

Trump is on his 3rd wife. Plus all those women he raped and sexually assaulted. 

#6
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@Rieka
There's no doubt they're trying to get rid of the constitution. The 2nd amendment was made to protect the first amendment, and if they successfully take away the right of free speech... Communism is coming our way, and our guns will quickly be taken after. And these bills are their ticket to doing so.
Don’t be an idiot.

Topic's author
#7
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
Don’t be an idiot.
Says the idiot. 

#8
Rieka
Rieka's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 131
0
2
6
Rieka's avatar
Rieka
0
2
6
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
No, I'm being a realist. I suggest you become awake instead of woke.
#9
Public-Choice
Public-Choice's avatar
Debates: 19
Posts: 1,065
3
4
8
Public-Choice's avatar
Public-Choice
3
4
8
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
My wife got a 2 carat diamond ring

#10
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,363
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@TWS1405_2
We all know the purpose of this bill: to facilitate future gun confiscation.
Do you have any evidence or rational argument to back that up, or just projection?
Topic's author
#11
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
-->
@Double_R
Read the bills. They’re the evidence. 
#12
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,363
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@TWS1405_2
If you believe that then you don't know what evidence means.

Banning the sale of something, and going around confiscating that something from people who already have it and bought it legally are not remotely the same thing.
Topic's author
#13
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
-->
@Double_R
If you believe that then you don't know what evidence means.
You're right. Having worked in federal law enforcement, county Sheriff, county DA, and obtaining two degrees in the legal/CJS fields left me ignorant on knowing what evidence means. *FP*

Banning the sale of something, and (sic) going around confiscating that something from people who already have it and bought it legally are not remotely the same thing.






All of these attempts are whittling away at our 2A rights. It's the Federal Government testing how little or how far they can go without resistance which will eventually lead into full blown confiscation through fear and force of (patently unconstitutional) laws concocted to disarm the citizenry and turn America into a socialist/communist state.    
#14
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,363
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@TWS1405_2

If you believe that then you don't know what evidence means.
You're right. Having worked in federal law enforcement, county Sheriff, county DA, and obtaining two degrees in the legal/CJS fields left me ignorant on knowing what evidence means. *FP*
*FP* is absolutely right. If you really have all that experience, you should know better. That's like a math metician who can't multiply or divide, it makes it so much worse.

It's the Federal Government testing how little or how far they can go without resistance which will eventually lead into full blown confiscation through fear and force of (patently unconstitutional) laws concocted to disarm the citizenry and turn America into a socialist/communist state.   
Not one thing you've posted supports that conclusion.

Topic's author
#15
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
-->
@Double_R

If you believe that then you don't know what evidence means.
You're right. Having worked in federal law enforcement, county Sheriff, county DA, and obtaining two degrees in the legal/CJS fields left me ignorant on knowing what evidence means. *FP*
*FP* is absolutely right. If you really have all that experience, you should know better. That's like a math metician who can't multiply or divide, it makes it so much worse.

Easy to claim, harder to prove your patently offensive ad hominem attack. 

It's the Federal Government testing how little or how far they can go without resistance which will eventually lead into full blown confiscation through fear and force of (patently unconstitutional) laws concocted to disarm the citizenry and turn America into a socialist/communist state.   
Not one thing you've posted supports that conclusion.
Again, easy to claim harder to prove. 

Your emotively driven subjective opinion is worthless.  
Topic's author
#16
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
Banning the sale of something, and (sic) going around confiscating that something from people who already have it and bought it legally are not remotely the same thing.






All of these attempts are whittling away at our 2A rights. It's the Federal Government testing how little or how far they can go without resistance which will eventually lead into full blown confiscation through fear and force of (patently unconstitutional) laws concocted to disarm the citizenry and turn America into a socialist/communist state.    

ALL DROPPED BY DOUBLE_R

No surprise. 
#17
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,363
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@TWS1405_2
ALL DROPPED BY DOUBLE_R
You didn't make an argument, so there was nothing for me to drop.

Would you prefer I just did what you did and post a bunch of links in response so we can go back and forth on a link battle?

Or if you'd like, pick just one of your links and I'll explain *why* it doesn't lead to the conclusion you went on to state. I'll even do it on good faith instead of the usual waiting for you to prove that you are willing to type words of your own to defend your position.
Topic's author
#18
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
-->
@Double_R
That’s okay. We get it. You have no leg to stand on so you make the usual piss poor lazy ass excuses not to engage. You’re just too intimidated by the evidence so you limp up (impotent), as usual. 
#19
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@Double_R
Or if you'd like, pick just one of your links and I'll explain *why* it doesn't lead to the conclusion you went on to state. I'll even do it on good faith instead of the usual waiting for you to prove that you are willing to type words of your own to defend your position.
He’s link lazy. He has no idea what his sources say, that’s why he makes no reference to anything in them.

#20
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,288
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
grats on being a successful gay.
#21
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,363
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@TWS1405_2
That’s okay. We get it. You have no leg to stand on so you make the usual piss poor lazy ass excuses not to engage. You’re just too intimidated by the evidence so you limp up (impotent), as usual. 
lol

So I challenge you to select one link to focus on and all you do is run away at the prospect of actually having to type words to defense your position.

But I'm the lazy one who has no argument.

Let me know when you decide that you're going to try something other than posting links to other people's thoughts.
Topic's author
#22
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
-->
@Double_R
The titles of each citation are self-explanatory, with each one (just like the three bills noted in the OP) giving evidence to the fact Biden and his cronies are making any and all efforts to test the waters in seeing how far they can go until ultimate gun confiscation is implemented in full force. 

But hey, we know, you’re just a denialist liberal excuse artist whom can’t handle the truth, so you obfuscate by trying to dwindle down the reality of the issue to one single piece of evidence (that you’ll infamously play strawman with) whilst ignoring all the rest. 

Got it. 

PS. You could have just as easily (cherry) picked one article of evidence and did your obfuscation with it. 
#23
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,819
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8


"When You Have to Shoot, Shoot. Don't talk."
#24
ponikshiy
ponikshiy's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 604
3
3
6
ponikshiy's avatar
ponikshiy
3
3
6
-->
@Greyparrot
Guy is clearly on his 3rd wife, battling the lies his first wife plants in his kids, taking out his failures on strangers on the internet through projection
Why does everyone think she is guy. I have seen this type of woman hundreds of times. They are usually post menopausal cat ladies . The insults are a clue. What do men care about? 

Men care about things like

1. Personal honor
2. The good of mankind
3. Women, mainly how to sex them

What does she care about

1. Not personal honor but how society thinks of a person.  A man would insult you by calling you weak. A Western Cat lady would insinuate that others think you are weak. 

2. Not the good of mankind but the social status of people. The media say you should vote one way or think one thing, then a lady will agree because we care about our social status not what is right or good


3. She cares about women, but only how to compete. She is ugly cat lady so she attacks beautiful women by attacking the fact they have danced for men or have had sex out of wedlock. They hope men will see these women as less pure because they had the ability to get laid or were pretty enough to make money off their body. The cat lady cannot compete with pretty ladies so they try to make them sound impure. When this does not work, then they insult the men who fuck them.

Melania Ttump is very pretty Slavic lady, so despite the fact Trump had similar policies to FDR despite opposite rhetoric, she opposes Trump. 

If you want to know why it is because of Jealousy of the beautiful lady on his arm. She (IWRA) wants to have sex with Trump, but since she can not sleep with billionaire she lashes out I'm anger at her own ugliness 
#25
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,288
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ponikshiy
why can't she be a successful gay man?
#26
ponikshiy
ponikshiy's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 604
3
3
6
ponikshiy's avatar
ponikshiy
3
3
6
-->
@Greyparrot
She might be lesbianism, but mind is of a woman. 
#27
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,288
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ponikshiy
Many gay mans adopt the mind of woman.
#28
ponikshiy
ponikshiy's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 604
3
3
6
ponikshiy's avatar
ponikshiy
3
3
6
-->
@Greyparrot
They are not good enough to be men so mistakenly think being woman is easier. To be a real woman like me is not possible for gay guys or any man. Even with my body they would be broke because of their inferior mind. I came from very poor village in Russia and had to harden mind and heart to take a local boy and bring him to city to manipulate him to become gangster and make lots of money, then I had to put him in dangerous situations so he would die. Fortunately before the war start I take all of his money out of bitcoin Wallet. I am 22 and retired in a poor country. I am millionaire by American standards but when the war is over I will seduce an even wealthier American man and destroy him and make his children hate him. My networth will be no less than 10 million American dollars when my new husband dies. 

Here is my plan.

1. Seduce old man, maybe even IWRA's husband

2. Give him great sex and blow job's everyday

3. Isoolate him from kids so they mutually disown him

4. Encourage him to engage in reckless behavior and also cook him high sodium and high fat diet. Maybe encourage dri king and smoking if possible. 

5. Get in will

6. Take all money and pro.ise to give his kids some but never do. 

7. Repeat all steps u til I am billio aire

8. Get a boy toy to control and eat my pussy
#29
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,363
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@TWS1405_2
The titles of each citation are self-explanatory
Sure, but you have to read them to determine whether they actually say what the title claims and whether it in it's totality supports the conclusion you are drawing from it.

so you obfuscate by trying to dwindle down the reality of the issue to one single piece of evidence
No, I'm combating your shotgun argumentation fallacy. Listing 100 pieces of invalid evidence do not prove your case, because 100 invalid points do not add up to one valid point.

I ask you to pick one so we could focus on it and have a much clearer and much more productive conversation than if we were to try and go back and forth on every single one simultaneously. Anyone who stands by their position and argues in good faith would welcome that.
Topic's author
#30
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
-->
@Double_R
Listing 100 pieces of invalid evidence do not prove your case
You have to prove they’re invalid before you can arbitrarily claim they are invalid. 

Sure, but you have to read them
That’s the point of investigative journalism and authoring articles and/or books on subjects. You have to read them to determine the validity of the context given.