Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Deadric

Quote from a Democratic co-sponsor on a gun ban bill.

Recommended Posts

“Assault weapons were designed for one purpose: to kill people in war. Ordinary citizens should not own or have access to assault weapons,” Rep. Frederica Wilson (D-Fla.)

 

Since the bill she is co-signing does not include the police, that can only mean one of two things:

 

A - She is lying about these weapons being only for war

 

or

 

B - She feels the police are at war with us and need to kill lots of us in their war on us; and it would be a damned shame if we had “assault weapons” of our own to prevent that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"can only mean one of two things:"

 

 

It can mean a lot of things not just the two narrowly defined and incredibly biased interpretations given by the OP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

"can only mean one of two things:"

 

 

It can mean a lot of things not just the two narrowly defined and incredibly biased interpretations given by the OP

 

While you are technically correct...this "lady" is a world class dingbat and the OP probably nailed it.

 

Image result for frederica wilson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, BatteryPowered said:

 

While you are technically correct...this "lady" is a world class dingbat and the OP probably nailed it.

 

Image result for frederica wilson

If I was limited to only the two biased options given by the OP, i would go with the former. Occam's Razor gets in the way of the second one being realistic. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

"can only mean one of two things:"

 

 

It can mean a lot of things not just the two narrowly defined and incredibly biased interpretations given by the OP

 

How else could it be interpreted? If these weapons are only for war, and the police are allowed to keep them while we are not allowed to keep them, then they must be at war with us for having a weapon deemed “only good for war”.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The  police should not have  full auto weapons either.

 

Policing is not war

 

I am a   pro  second amendment too.   and pro  police.

 

 

 

Automatic  weapons are for  two things only.

 

1. Having a lot of  fun

2.  Killing a lot of people

 

 

Neither is the   job of  police.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Deadric said:

 

How else could it be interpreted? If these weapons are only for war, and the police are allowed to keep them while we are not allowed to keep them, then they must be at war with us for having a weapon deemed “only good for war”.  

Words are subjective... if you can't grasp that concept then there is no hope for you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, impartialobserver said:

Words are subjective... if you can't grasp that concept then there is no hope for you. 

 

Then the weapons aren’t only good for war. If she is not saying what she means, then a question for that would be “why be so shady with your wording?”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Deadric said:

 

Then the weapons aren’t only good for war. If she is not saying what she means, then a question for that would be “why be so shady with your wording?”

Why are ALL politicians so shady/vague/nebulous in their wording? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, impartialobserver said:

Why are ALL politicians so shady/vague/nebulous in their wording? 

So they can’t be held to anything 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Imgreatagain said:

So they can’t be held to anything 

Acknowledging that all of their rhetoric is shady/nebulous/vague implies greater accountability. Simply buying into it hook, line, and sinker or in this case, filling in the blanks with grand assumptions, feeds the machine. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

Acknowledging that all of their rhetoric is shady/nebulous/vague implies greater accountability. Simply buying into it hook, line, and sinker or in this case, filling in the blanks with grand assumptions, feeds the machine. 

Politics are full of empty promises , fake hand shakes , crooked smiles.. 

trump is the first transparent president 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Imgreatagain said:

Politics are full of empty promises , fake hand shakes , crooked smiles.. 

trump is the first transparent president 

 

And that's what terrifies them so.

 

 

46 minutes ago, Deadric said:

“Assault weapons were designed for one purpose: to kill people in war. Ordinary citizens should not own or have access to assault weapons,” Rep. Frederica Wilson (D-Fla.)

 

 

She is obviously both ignorant and illiterate.

 

Second-_Amendment--620x358.jpg

 

 

the-second-amendment-george-washington-b

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

Why are ALL politicians so shady/vague/nebulous in their wording? 

 

Because the vast majority of them are narcissistic sociopaths.

 

This politician in particular is completely unhinged; she thinks anyone who badmouths her online should be prosecuted for it; i.e. she doesn't understand the First Amendment any more than she understands the Second.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Spartan said:

 

Because the vast majority of them are narcissistic sociopaths.

 

This politician in particular is completely unhinged; she thinks anyone who badmouths her online should be prosecuted for it; i.e. she doesn't understand the First Amendment any more than she understands the Second.

I did not know about the first item that you mentioned. It amazes me how thin skinned most of today's politicians are (Trump included). There is this item called the Internet... and EVERYBODY has an opinion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Deadric said:

 

How else could it be interpreted? If these weapons are only for war, and the police are allowed to keep them while we are not allowed to keep them, then they must be at war with us for having a weapon deemed “only good for war”.  

Especially after the dems and their munchkins have accused the cops of being killers.

 

Will the left EVER get anyting right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, impartialobserver said:

"can only mean one of two things:"

 

 

It can mean a lot of things not just the two narrowly defined and incredibly biased interpretations given by the OP

I’ll say. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...