Hypocrisy: List of 26 gun-owning Democrats who participated in anti-gun sit-in

Looks like many of the Democrats in the House of Representatives that are advocating for big time gun control laws are hypocrites.

Seems many of them are actually gun owners themselves !!

Don't know where this article got the info, but I bet it's true.

Many politicians are of the variety that want you to do what they say but not what they themselves do.

What goes around comes around.

The "List" is in the story.

Hypocrisy: List of 26 gun-owning Democrats who participated in anti-gun sit-in

Democrats don’t want you to own guns, and for that matter, don’t think the constitutional right of due process applies to you, which is why they violated House rules to engage in an hours-long sit-in in the House of Representatives.

But, Heat Street reported Thursday, at least 26 Democrats who participated in the sit-in are gun owners.

Can you say, “hypocrisy?”

Sit In ..

or Shoot Out ?

a reply to: xuenchen

I expect as much.

So not only they own.

They hide behind armed security.

What I want to know is why they think THEIR life in more important than Mr. and Mrs. Americans.

On another note. I am pretty sure that is an ETHICS violation.

You can add this HYPOCRITE too.



'Liberal' logic.

Terrorists tried to bomb her so she went, and bought a gun, and now campaigns against them.

Absolutely PRICELESS!

They would only be hypocrites if they obtain their firearms through illegal methods or are purchasing the weapons they want restricted such as an ar15.

a reply to: xuenchen

They own guns.

They had a background check.

They aren't terrorists.

More misdirection teetering on the edge of dishonesty.

a reply to: xuenchen

I am not surprised. The AR 15 argument is just the ice breaker. We all heard it today in Obamas speach at Stanford..."globalization " is the agenda, and global citizens having any guns doesnt really fit the desired controls.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: xuenchen

They own guns.

They had a background check.

They aren't terrorists.

More misdirection teetering on the edge of dishonesty.

More like rights for me but not for thee.

a reply to: Gryphon66

How do you figure ?

When they go around arming two bit dictators, and TERRORISTS in the Middle East, and Drug Cartels in Mexico.

That is the very definition of a TERRORIST.

originally posted by: netwarrior

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: xuenchen

They own guns.

They had a background check.

They aren't terrorists.

More misdirection teetering on the edge of dishonesty.

More like rights for me but not for thee.

How so?

They own guns. They had background checks (one of the points for voting). They aren't terrorists (another point.)

How do you figure that's them claiming rights for themselves that they're trying to deny to others?

a reply to: neo96

Rep. John Garamendi has armed two bit dictators?

Sen. Tammy Baldwin has armed Terrorists?

I say that you are mistaken. What proof do you have?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
They had a background check.

They aren't terrorists

As the absolute majority of gun owners in the U.S.


The Second Amendment is part of The Constituion.

Gun owners have rights under The Constitution.



Now tell me who is misdirecting with dishonesty...

a reply to: Gryphon66

We all had background checks if we purchased guns buddy, seriously I have answered the same 5 pages of inane questions everytime I have bought a gun.

How are you so sure these senators did? I mean they can go to gun shows or inherit them too. Remember that Democrat senator from San Fran that got busyed importing illegal arms (asian decent gentman)?

Applying a liberal spreading of trust butter on politicians is kind of counter intuitive.

a reply to: xuenchen

Take theirs and disarm or remove entirely the security provided them, see how fast that tune changes.

originally posted by: burntheships

originally posted by: Gryphon66
They had a background check.

They aren't terrorists

So the absolute majority of gun owners in the U.S.

The Second Amendment is part of The Constituion.
Gun owners have rights under The Constitution.

Now tell me who is More misdirecting with dishonesty....

YOu haven't said anything about a) the people on the list in the article, b) why they are hypocrites, c) how they are taking away Constitutional rights.

Why don't you start there?

a reply to: burntheships

Absolutely. These folks seem determined to help the authoritarians take all of their own rights, it amazes me.

originally posted by: BlueJacket
a reply to: Gryphon66

We all had background checks if we purchased guns buddy, seriously I have answered the same 5 pages of inane questions everytime I have bought a gun.

How are you so sure these senators did? I mean they can go to gun shows or inherit them too. Remember that Democrat senator from San Fran that got busyed importing illegal arms (asian decent gentman)?

Applying a liberal spreading of trust butter on politicians is kind of counter intuitive.

Background checks are required in 30 states, not 50. "Buddy."

So, why do you distrust them, simply because they're Democrats ... (i.e. the same thing you're citing me for trusting them? didn't think that through, eh?)

a reply to: Gryphon66

I am mistaken about NOTHING.

Those MORONS actually manage to pass no fly,no buy.

They would have to put themselves on it.

Between arming AQ, and Syria, and Manpads in Libya, to the way back machine of Operation Cyclone and their brother Charlie Wison.

And a companion piece to the OP.

His other thread.

Reminder: More Than 500 AR-15’s Were Smuggled in Eric Holder’s Fast and Furious Scheme

Their HYPOCRISY is

EPIC.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Gryphon66

How do you figure ?

When they go around arming two bit dictators, and TERRORISTS in the Middle East, and Drug Cartels in Mexico.

That is the very definition of a TERRORIST.

Just out of curiosity, and to play along in the partisan game ... can you name a Republican past or present that doesn't qualify as a TERRORIST under your criteria?

originally posted by: Gryphon66

YOu haven't said anything about a) the people on the list in the article, b) why they are hypocrites, c) how they are taking away Constitutional rights.

Why don't you start there?

No need to, that would be following your misdirection.



The Constitutional Amendment applies, regardless of names.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Just out of curiosity have anything other than Red herrings?

My guess is no.