Harris Promises to TRAMPLE 2nd+4th Amendment Rights, Violate

[Holland&Holland]

You do you.

Of course. I'll not be the one who votes for the gun grabber then cries when the leopard eats my face.

https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/leopards ... aces-party

No, you will just vote for someone who can't win so when they do take your guns you can say you were not part of it. Good strategy.

[Lumpy]

when they do take your guns you can say you were not part of it. Good strategy.

"♫ But I never picked cotton… ♪"

[Ranb]

No, you will just vote for someone who can't win so when they do take your guns you can say you were not part of it. Good strategy.

What did you say to the bump stock owners who destroyed or surrendered their newly contraband machine guns? You call them suckers for voting for Trump?

[Markemp]

The odds of the government taking away our rifles and handguns is far higher under Trump than Harris.

The democrats see what happened to the republicans when Roe v Wade was overturned. Their desire to step on that third rail is pretty much near zero. They would never consider a new AWB.

[Holland&Holland]

The odds of the government taking away our rifles and handguns is far higher under Trump than Harris.

The democrats see what happened to the republicans when Roe v Wade was overturned. Their desire to step on that third rail is pretty much near zero. They would never consider a new AWB.

I guess smoking it is legal now…

[Holland&Holland]

No, you will just vote for someone who can't win so when they do take your guns you can say you were not part of it. Good strategy.

What did you say to the bump stock owners who destroyed or surrendered their newly contraband machine guns? You call them suckers for voting for Trump?

I would not tell them anything on a public forum.

[Rip Van Winkle]

The odds of the government taking away our rifles and handguns is far higher under Trump than Harris.

The democrats see what happened to the republicans when Roe v Wade was overturned. Their desire to step on that third rail is pretty much near zero. They would never consider a new AWB.

[Ranb]

I would not tell them anything on a public forum.

Why not? What would you say in private that would be different than on a public forum? Does any law abiding person ever deserve to lose the property they legally acquired, when possessing it is not a threat to anyone else?

[Holland&Holland]

I would not tell them anything on a public forum.

Why not? What would you say in private that would be different than on a public forum? Does any law abiding person ever deserve to lose the property they legally acquired, when possessing it is not a threat to anyone else?

My choice. Or don’t you believe in the 1st amendment either?

[Bearcatrp]

Someone pass me some pop corn. This is getting good.

[xd ED]

[Ranb]

My choice. Or don’t you believe in the 1st amendment either?

Is this how you claim to not know what the 1st Amendment is? If I had the power to stop you from speaking your mind here as a private citizen, it would not be a violation of your 1st Amendment rights. The 1st Amendment protects you from the government suppressing your freedom of speech.

The owner or moderators of this forum could delete my posts or ban me; it would not be a violation of my 1st Amendment rights unless MN GunTalk was owned by the government.

Does any law abiding person ever deserve to lose the property they legally acquired, when possessing it is not a threat to anyone else?

[Markemp]

Is this how you claim to not know what the 1st Amendment is? If I had the power to stop you from speaking your mind here as a private citizen, it would not be a violation of your 1st Amendment rights. The 1st Amendment protects you from the government suppressing your freedom of speech.

The owner or moderators of this forum could delete my posts or ban me; it would not be a violation of my 1st Amendment rights unless MN GunTalk was owned by the government.

Exactly. It's amazing how the people who claim to care about the Constitution the most seem to be the ones who understand it the least.

[crbutler]

You two seem to mix up the principle of free speech and what is legally enforceable.

Also, the 1st amendment does carry some authority in non governmental situations. if something is considered a "public space", and debatably an internet forum could be considered as such, you need to prove violation of some agreed upon code of rules, not censorship solely on the basis of disagreement on topic of speech.

[Bearcatrp]

Now that’s cool. Got a jack and coke to go along with the pop corn?