Democrats have turned on the American citizen

https://spectator.org/gun-confiscation-comes-to-virginia/

It’s infuriating that Democrats are so bold with this bs they are pulling!! It’s common knowledge that when any political party goes after our guns they want to take complete control over the people. They want us defenseless.
I mean really, how are taking guns from the law abiding citizens going to have any positive effect on crime? It’s only going to give criminals more free reign to go and do whatever they want. They can pick victims much easier because they know that no law abiding citizen is armed.
Our Founding Fathers put this right in the constitution to protect us, the citizens from our own government, to guarantee our elected leaders do not attempt to turn our democracy into a dictatorship.
The reason I say the Democrats have turned on the American citizen is they work harder to protect illegals than they do to protect us the taxpayers.
In California alone they have voted to give illegals free healthcare, the right to vote via a driver’s license, and they instruct them when ICE is going to raid they don’t have to answer the door!!
Now over in Virginia these same Democrats are threatening to call in the National Guard and go door to door to confiscate our legally purchased firearms. If banning firearms is such a good idea then why not ban politicians bodyguards from carrying them?
Anybody that thinks this is not the beginning of something extremely bad, take a good look at Venezuela.

https://www.louderwithcrowder.com/venezuela-gun-control-homicide/


https://fee.org/articles/gun-control-preceded-the-tyranny-in-venezuela/


https://www.newstarget.com/2019-12-...iminalize-owners-ar-15s-gun-confiscation.html

https://www.nraila.org/articles/201...ia-legislators-introduce-confiscatory-gun-ban

 

I do not see how anyone can support democrats. It is clear that all they want is power. Once they get it they throw folks under the bus. What does anyone think they will get from such a corrupt organization?

 

"Some" are foreign trolls

 

What a bunch of pus***s there are running around like their heads have been chopped off. The lawmakers are not trying to take your guns away from you. They're trying to do something to help make the United States not be the murder capital of the world. The article attached to the OP states that the law would eliminate: many pistols and shotguns in common use for personal defense, target shooting and hunting would be banned. That sentence failed to include one more category: mass killings. That's all they're doing. Trying to eliminate or reduce the number of mass killings, that's all. Don't be so f'ing paranoid. If you can't still target shot, defend yourself, or shoot game for the dinner table you're a sad group of people.

 

If they just did away with Blue States that have restrictive gun laws, we would not be "murder capital of the world." ....Prove me wrong!

 

I would rather be in the murder capital of the world (which definitely isn't true anyway) than live in a country where I had to rely on the government to keep me safe and have to depend on politicians to keep the government from becoming completely totalitarian. Once you give up one right, the others will start slipping away as well.

 

Anyone who thinks a politician can pass a law to stop killings is not thinking. Leave my guns alone so I can protect myself and my family from any and all bad guys. There are a lot of human predators out there with all kinds of weapons.

 

It's been going on for a long time. Americans have been strong enough and smart enough to resist. Just in the last few years, Obama and Holder put weapons in the hands of the drug cartels in hope that they would murder Americans and create an appetite for gun confiscation.

When that only killed one border agent and failed to stir anger, they decided dead school kids was the answer. They created the Opportunity Neighborhood program to bribe neighborhoods to keep police records of school kids clean, undermining the background check system. Holder, Alinsky student Obama and Arne Duncan as well as killed the Parkland victims themselves by enabling Nikolas Cruz, who had numerous (should have been) run-ins with the law, to pass a background check and buy firearms.

All they wanted was (want is) power. Imagine the disappointment when another Alinsky radical, Hillary Rodham lost in 2016. No wonder they hate Trump. 2016 was more than an election to them. It was the power to transform the US into a country of slaves with them being the ruling class. The Soviet Union reborn. All they needed was Alinsky's 3rd term.

 

Whose responsible for your hooking up your seat belt every time you get in your car? Who put up that traffic light you encounter every tie you're in town? The government (politicians) do a lot to keep you safe. Somalia seems to be a country with few, if any laws. Perhaps you'd like to live there. Get real for christ's sake.

 

Yep. Who makes sure that only criminals own firearms? Who makes sure large corporations don't have annoying S-Corps to compete with? Who has manufactured homelessness by enforcing rent controls that discourage developers from doing what they do? We have one on the way in Portland ,,, Portland, Oregon, like many cities on the left coast, is struggling with a growing homelessness crisis. But what can they do about it? One idea that’s now being floated is to change the building codes so that all new structures (including private property, not just government buildings) include spaces for people to “rest” and “feel welcome and safe.” This understandably has prospective property owners concerned, since the wording is all quite vague and suggests that they will be forced to allow the homeless to camp in and around their buildings.
https://hotair.com/archives/jazz-sh...datory-rest-spaces-homeless-private-property/

 

Mass killings is an excuse to ban firearms. Once you ban a certain type of firearm it sets a precedent for banning them all. This applies to any other part of the Constitution which has been under attack forever by the left. The second amendment states that our right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, that means any and all arms. Technically Americans have the right to own artillery if they so desire. (this would of course create a storm of legal challenges) Any lawful gun owner would question anyone's desire to possess such weapon because individually and collectively they understand the enormous amount of responsibility that would engender. That sort of responsibility is understood and accepted by every lawful gun owner and applies to every firearm they own. Banning sporting rifles like the AR15 and others is punitive to all lawful gun owners for the actions of a few. They are no more lethal than any other firearms. The fact that there are other firearms with the same rate of fire and capacity that are legal makes it obvious that such a ban is politically motivated. If they want to ban one particular firearm, they will find other excuses to ban them all. BTW the US is a long way from being the murder capital of the world and one of only three that allow it's citizens to arm themselves for self defense.The difference between the left and the right on this matter is the right understands that the government's job is to protect our rights, not take them away. The left has no interest in the Constitution or our rights their only interest is power and the second amendment is our best protection against the left.

 

Nope they are doing something wholly ineffectual. It's impact on violent street crime will be essentially nil. And it will be accompanied by a massive up tick in assaults rapes, home invasion crimes and most other categories.

 

Can't really distinguish an AR15 from any other widely owned firearm. They look nasty but, if you want to blame weapons for the acts of those who own them, you'd have to go after knives. 4 times as many people are killed with knives than all rifles combined.

 

They promise lots of "free shet."

 

Conservative hysterics.

 

Politicians don't have all the answers and sometimes they don't have the right answers. As our country becomes more and more populated we need laws to maintain a functioning society. If we are to retain most of our freedoms then we must realize freedoms come at a price -- yep, people are free to commit crimes. I just wish when a criminal is found guilty the punishment would be quick and harsh. Punishment is not effective when a mass murderer spends 25 years on death row. As Richard Speck once said in a prison interview, "If they knew how much fun I'm having they would release me." Speck was a mass murderer who systematically tortured, raped, and murdered eight student nurses from South Chicago Community Hospital in 1966. He did not use a gun.

 

Do you believe civilians should be allowed to own any weapon ever invented? No? Then there are going to be some restrictions on the 2nd amendment, aren't there?

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/359395002

 

I discount your example because it does not even mention Illinois where more are shot dead on a weekend than most states combined. Then again your example includes suicide which is self inflicted, for 50% of the deaths. Those people could just as well drink draino.

 

So we "According to you" live in the "Murder capital of the world" and you want to disarm the law abiding citizens. Well there is written reason not to take a leftist serious

 

They be tricky once! But they have over played those ridiculous tactics so often no one even takes them remotely serious anymore

 

Except for the south side of Chicago, one is twice as likely to be shot in Alabama than Illinois.

 

Doesn't your restrictive gun laws apply to the southside of Chicago? How is it fair to compare a section of a city to an entire state like Alabama? We have very open gun laws in Arizona. Why not so many deaths? Why are mass shootings generally committed in gun free zones?

 

That would be spin tactics See how quickly you caught the nonsense.. Like watching reruns of Gilligan's Island