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

originally posted by: burntheships

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 variation on "I know you are but what am I" ... you say nothing, you make a baseless charge of misdirection.

Members of Congress own guns. They participated in a demonstration regarding background checks and keeping terrorists from having guns. To imply that contravenes the Second Amendment is ridiculous without any evidence.

But go on with the pointless ad hom.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Course I did, but its a constitutional right. Unlike you I wont use a derogatory conotation of a pleasantry like"buddy."

Its people like yourself that arent thinking things through.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Gryphon66

Just out of curiosity have anything other than Red herrings?

My guess is no.

Red Herrings? Because I suggested we talk about

a) any one of the 26 members of Congress that the OP is "calling out"?

b) because I asked why they are hypocrites when there is zero evidence presented here that they haven't fully complied with the laws?

c) because I pointed out that your criteria for TERRORIST would disqualify every Republican member of Congress from serving (or buying a gun)?

d) because I want to talk about the legislation these folks were calling attention to with their protests?

I find your argument lacking, Neo. Try again.

originally posted by: BlueJacket
a reply to: Gryphon66

Course I did, but its a constitutional right. Unlike you I wont use a derogatory conotation of a pleasantry like"buddy."

Its people like yourself that arent thinking things through.

You don't like being called buddy back? LOL Do unto others ...

Yeah, you make the accusation but you offer no argument and zero proof.

/shrug

a reply to: Gryphon66

You're not ever going to stop tertorists from getting guns to inflict mayhem so long as our dumbarsed politicians keep arming "moderates" and cartels in Mexico.

Why dont you answer that tough guy talking behind a keyboard?

a reply to: xuenchen

Of course. Why can't you get this through your thick skull? It's not about taking guns from legitimate people, and it never has been. I would tell you what it's about but you already know. If you didn't before this thread Gryphon has explained it to you again. You're not that dense, are you?

But what are you complaining about? The sit-in protest is over. There will be no vote.
Terrorists and other assorted killers can still buy guns, so you got what you want. Congratulations.

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.

Ah....but every president in recent memory has armed terrorists, killed children and propped up two bit dictators as has every congress-both Republican and Democrat. I think you accidentally put the fantasy partisan blinders on again. (pretending that there is a difference between republicans and democrats) LOL

originally posted by: BlueJacket
a reply to: Gryphon66

Yourr not ever going to stop tertorists from getting guns to inflict mayhem so long as our dumbarsed politicians keep arming "moderates" and cartels in Mexico.

Why dont you answer that tough guy talking behind a keyboard?

What are you talking from behind, tough guy? You're starting to look a bit hypocritical here.

Explain how cartels in Mexico have to do with terrorists in the Middle East for starters.

a reply to: Gryphon66

What I take away from this story, and how people have responded to it, is that they assume a legal gun owner could not be in favor of background checks or keeping firearms out of the hands of terrorists.

That's absurd.

Wasn't there a poll that stated upwards of 80% of Americans favor expanded background checks? Surely there are many pro-2nd, legal firearm owners in that 80%.

a reply to: ladyinwaiting

Because WE GIVE THEM TO THEM AND PROVIDE FREE ACCESS THROUGH IMMIGRATION and Turkey ...gezziz talk about THICK SKULLS.

a reply to: introvert

Go buy a gun... you will see the truth, expanded my ass.

originally posted by: BlueJacket
a reply to: introvert

Go buy a gun... you will see the truth, expanded my ass.

I own several.

What truth am I missing?

originally posted by: BlueJacket
These folks seem determined to help the authoritarians take all of their own rights...

Makes you wonder what rock they crawled out from....

They certainly are versed well on how to cast aspersions on
constitutional rights, almost as if we should be ashamed.

Funny that....

a reply to: Gryphon66

Well for starters we know people of bad intent are crossing borders all over the globe. Criminals like mayhem and money so one sells to another.

You act like a teenager. Whats the pay to sell out you're own people?

a reply to: burntheships

Amen

I don't understand much of this but even I understand that all they want is to keep guns out of terrorists' hands.

originally posted by: amazing

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.

Ah....but every president in recent memory has armed terrorists, killed children and propped up two bit dictators as has every congress-both Republican and Democrat. I think you accidentally put the fantasy partisan blinders on again. (pretending that there is a difference between republicans and democrats) LOL

And there is only one group of people since FDR has consistently targeted them for Banning.

Those ARMED people in the op.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Gryphon66

What I take away from this story, and how people have responded to it, is that they assume a legal gun owner could not be in favor of background checks or keeping firearms out of the hands of terrorists.

That's absurd.

Wasn't there a poll that stated upwards of 80% of Americans favor expanded background checks? Surely there are many pro-2nd, legal firearm owners in that 80%.

Yes, but when polls demonstrate something that doesn't square with the transmissions from the echo-chamber, some folks get confused.

It's been shown time and time again that most Americans favor expanding background checks to all 50 states and all sales of weapons.

But, as is the case with many repressed authoritarians, they don't care what Americans want.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Red Herrings? B

Yeah RED HERRING.

Because THIS:

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?

Doesn't have jack snip to do with THIS:

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

a reply to: Gryphon66

You used the term as an accusation, I just turned your finger back at you.

Second Amendment touchy are you,... that is what this is about.