Originally posted by Radar
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Robert(Beto) O'rourke in Lampasas
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by texansfan View PostMaybe s/he is OK with the general public having a 6 shot revolver or 13 capacity mag Glock
But s/he doesn't think the public should possess a 100 round drum of armor piercing rounds.
It is not all or nothing.
There is a lot of grey and nuance in there.
It gets really messy when you have to define "weapon of war". It's somewhere between a P22 and a Bazooka
And what if I want to run a 15 round Glock 19? Or something larger? Why should the feds be able to regulate that? Do you believe in the 2A? To me, our 2A is all encompassing. As a stout constitutionalist, it’s my belief that the government should have zero ability to regulate styles or specs of firearmsLast edited by JLivi1224; 09-11-2018, 01:43 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by texansfan View PostMaybe s/he is OK with the general public having a 6 shot revolver or 13 capacity mag Glock
But s/he doesn't think the public should possess a 100 round drum of armor piercing rounds.
It is not all or nothing.
There is a lot of grey and nuance in there.
It gets really messy when you have to define "weapon of war". It's somewhere between a P22 and a Bazooka
It is all or nothing!!! And I don’t want any politician regulating anything for me...The govt has proven it can’t do anything right as far as regulations. My tax dollars should go to infrastructure and the military, that’s it. That means no more free rides for you and your little worthless homies!
Comment
-
Originally posted by JLivi1224 View PostAnd what if I want to run a 15 round Glock 19? Or something larger? Why should the feds be able to regulate that? Do you believe in the 2A? To me, our 2A is all encompassing. As a stout constitutionalist, it’s my belief that the government should have zero ability to regulate styles or specs of firearms
Yep, same here. When this country was founded we ALL had the same weapons. We’ve let the government water our rights down, in the name of safety you know. [emoji57]
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mike D View PostYep, same here. When this country was founded we ALL had the same weapons. We’ve let the government water our rights down, in the name of safety you know. [emoji57]
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Comment
-
Originally posted by texansfan View PostMaybe s/he is OK with the general public having a 6 shot revolver or 13 capacity mag Glock
But s/he doesn't think the public should possess a 100 round drum of armor piercing rounds.
It is not all or nothing.
There is a lot of grey and nuance in there.
It gets really messy when you have to define "weapon of war". It's somewhere between a P22 and a Bazooka
If it goes bang or has the ability to kill it can be considered a weapon of war. People like you are just fine playing the liberal sheep and fall right in step with the liberal agenda. They don't give a rats *** about what is a weapon of war, they care about the total disarming of America. It's obvious what the agenda is but some are to **** dense headed to see it.
Comment
-
Originally posted by BrandonA View PostIf it goes bang or has the ability to kill it can be considered a weapon of war. People like you are just fine playing the liberal sheep and fall right in step with the liberal agenda. They don't give a rats *** about what is a weapon of war, they care about the total disarming of America. It's obvious what the agenda is but some are to **** dense headed to see it.
Comment
-
On Wednesday's broadcast of CBS' "The Late Show," Democratic Senate nominee Representative Beto O'Rourke (D-TX) stated he would not take a deal trading a | Clips
Democratic Senate nominee Representative Beto O’Rourke (D-TX) stated he would not take a deal trading a border wall for passage of the DREAM Act and said, “we can free DREAMers from the fear of deportation by making them US citizens today, so they can contribute to their maximum capacity, to their full potential.”
Comment
-
Comment