Current Events > Tucker Carlson: If cops tried to buy our guns back we would shoot them

(+) Yeah! (+)

pls posted...

Anyone remember when Dems insisted they just wanted more regulations?

The Democrats' stance is that if you can go through some sort of potentially difficult process to acquire some sort of firearm (that might not even be good for simple home defense), even if it requires extra licenses, payments/fees and monitoring by the government (via a registry), then the second amendment hasn't been violated. Meanwhile, the idea of having to show a driver's license or state ID when you vote is somehow horribly and blatantly unconstitutional.
---

DifferentialEquation posted...

The Democrats' stance is that if you can go through some sort of potentially difficult process to acquire some sort of firearm (that might not even be good for simple home defense), even if it requires extra licenses, payments/fees and monitoring by the government (via a registry), then the second amendment hasn't been violated. Meanwhile, the idea of having to show a driver's license or state ID when you vote is somehow horribly and blatantly unconstitutional.

They are hypocrites. They hate America and freedom.

HypnoCoosh posted...

You can't Cuck the Tuck!

Tucker is legit.

Well, now I know he's garbage.
---

MrMallard posted...

Well, now I know he's garbage.

Why do you support taking away rights?

pls posted...

MrMallard posted...

Well, now I know he's garbage.

Why do you support taking away rights?

why do you support a white nationalist?
---

Hanky_Bannister posted...

why do you support a white nationalist?

Why do you conflate supporting the Constitution and the west with white nationalism?

pls posted...

Hanky_Bannister posted...

why do you support a white nationalist?

Why do you conflate supporting the Constitution and the west with white nationalism?

why are you defending a white nationalist?
---

Why did you go straight into attack mode like an insecure butthole, lmao
---

MrMallard posted...

Why did you go straight into attack mode like an insecure butthole, lmao

Do you really think Hypno would ever secure his butthole?
---

Marked

CableZL posted...

Republicans say a lot of things will lead to a civil war.

Really interesting how only one group brings up those words
---

hockeybub89 posted...

Really interesting how only one group brings up those words

What was it the comrades always say about guillotines

And give cops a reason to take their guns away.

---

creativerealms posted...

And give cops a reason to take their guns away.

Nah the only guns we should take away are the ones owned by law abiding citizens exercising a right

Tucker is awesome. Seeing the usual suspects try to slander him doesnt even surprise me anymore. Some posters you just know theyre going to be calling someone a racist or a nationalist or something dumb. Why do they do it?

Tucker is worth 50 of any of you haters.

Hanky_Bannister posted...

pls posted...

Hanky_Bannister posted...

why do you support a white nationalist?

Why do you conflate supporting the Constitution and the west with white nationalism?

why are you defending a white nationalist?

What!? That man is far from a white nationalist. He backs the radical left. I'm surprised he still has a position with Fox News.
---

pls posted...

Nah the only guns we should take away are the ones owned by law abiding citizens exercising a right

Keith_Valentine posted...

Tucker is awesome. Seeing the usual suspects try to slander him doesnt even surprise me anymore. Some posters you just know theyre going to be calling someone a racist or a nationalist or something dumb. Why do they do it?

Tucker is worth 50 of any of you haters.

He is worth 50 haters I give you that. He has enough hate for fifty people.

---

Keith_Valentine posted...

Tucker is awesome.

How is Tucker "immigrants make America dirty" Carlson awesome, exactly?
---

We love when cops infringe on peoples right. What? Mine? No, only other people

---

Phantom_Nook posted...

How is Tucker "immigrants make America dirty" Carlson awesome, exactly?

What did he really say tho

If this topic is any indication you guys literally make shit up about people

pls posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

Really interesting how only one group brings up those words

What was it the comrades always say about guillotines

i think it was "if you shoot at the cops they'll fucking murder you and we'll all point and laugh at your corpse as it bleeds out"

not sure though
---

Sackgurl posted...

i think it was "if you shoot at the cops they'll fucking murder you and we'll all point and laugh at your corpse as it bleeds out"

not sure though

You should seek professional help for those weird voices you hear

that's just reality, you shoot at the cops, they kill you

maybe dont shoot at the cops
---

KingArthur3D posted...

This poster is just all kinds of awesome. But seriously when will those clowns learn.
---

pls posted...

If this topic is any indication you guys literally make s*** up about people

How

Southernfatman posted...

But to be fair, many on the left hate and mistrust cops (for valid reasons) yet say only they should own guns.

The problem is that right now the system is messed up, and in fact for decades if not always there has been a history of abuse by law enforcement, which has only gotten worse (some decades it's not as bad, other times like now it's pretty bad). That's why there's so much mistrust and even hate for police.

Anytime the system is trying to defend or hide their actions or members, that's a very bad sign. Police need to be most strict with themselves. Yes it's a tough job, it's very tough, but this is the only way the system will work. When the system works, the community will respect and trust the law. We need to turn a negative loop into a positive loop.
---

A cancerous growth is a better allocation of biomass than Tucker Carlson
---

Tucker is trash, but he was right in that Tweet.
---

If you do not support the 2nd amendment you are an authoritarian and should be on a watch list.

Nuff said. 2nd amendment is the only and last line of defense common folk like you and me have against tyranny. Get that through your thick fucking skulls.

butthole666 posted...

A cancerous growth is a better allocation of biomass than Tucker Carlson

Based on what? What did he do that makes him worse than ass cancer. Seriously, one example.

AlphaCuck posted...

pls posted...

If this topic is any indication you guys literally make s*** up about people

How

You misrepresented what the fucking video says for starters

Keith_Valentine posted...

Based on what? What did he do that makes him worse than ass cancer. Seriously, one example.

You misrepresented what the fucking video says for starters

How

pls posted...

2nd amendment is the only and last line of defense common folk like you and me have against tyranny.

Nah, it's really not. The 2nd amendment is outdated, it was devised for a time when there were still a lot of enemies both outside and within the nation. The purpose of the 2nd amendment is now actually fulfilled precisely by a well adjusted, well integrated into the community police force (and the army). The 2nd amendment right now is working against the principle of the 2nd amendment, because it creates two clashing forces, creating an unhealthy relationship between police and community, and actually empowering criminals. Police (or any citizen) shouldn't have to be wary of where they step just because some fucking gun nut thinks it's their right to shoot at any perceived threat at their rights.
---

paerarru posted...

Nah, it's really not.

Yes it really is. Read a fucking history book. Armed civilians historically have been trouble for every authoritarian regime or invading force

Like in Vietnam or Iraq or America

The Vietnam or the Iraq, really.
---

paerarru posted...

The Vietnam or the Iraq, really.

Da fuck you talking bout Willis?

My mind is just blown right now, sorry. I can't continue this one. Cheers?
---

Cuba? Iunno, good game?
---

paerarru posted...

My mind is just blown right now, sorry. I can't continue this one. Cheers?

Finally, a fucking ceman admits he was wrong about something. Cheers. It takes a backbone to admit you were wrong. Within 24 hours you'll be a 2nd amendment supporter. Congrats.

Basically he's right. If the government tried to seize everybody's guns ("buyback" or not) a lot of people wouldn't play along. The second amendment guarantees our right to bear arms.

I don't think it would ever get that far, honestly. The Supreme Court would obliterate any kind of mass gun ban/mandatory buyback.
---

Gobstoppers12 posted...

The second amendment guarantees our right to bear arms.

I don't think it would ever get that far, honestly. The Supreme Court would obliterate any kind of mass gun ban/mandatory buyback.

God bless

paerarru posted...

Nah, it's really not. The 2nd amendment is outdated, it was devised for a time when there were still a lot of enemies both outside and within the nation. The purpose of the 2nd amendment is now actually fulfilled precisely by a well adjusted, well integrated into the community police force (and the army). The 2nd amendment right now is working against the principle of the 2nd amendment, because it creates two clashing forces, creating an unhealthy relationship between police and community, and actually empowering criminals. Police (or any citizen) shouldn't have to be wary of where they step just because some fucking gun nut thinks it's their right to shoot at any perceived threat at their rights.

"When the founding fathers wrote 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed' they were actually talking about how the government should be the only ones allowed to keep and bear arms"

Talk about mental gymnastics.

thrashmetal14 posted...

"When the founding fathers wrote 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed' they were actually talking about how the government should be the only ones allowed to keep and bear arms"

Talk about mental gymnastics.

Yes because when they wrote A WELL REGULATED Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State the founding fathers were simply providing an assurance for the safety of the states and their citizens against enemies within and without, including invaders, criminals, and even a possible tyrannical government. They did not mean that anybody for any reason was free to own however many whatever arms they wished, much less bear and use them however they wished. That's fucking ridiculous.

Again, for people who just can't seem to understand for some reason... the spirit of the amendment is to defend the states and their citizens. Back then law enforcement and the federal army were much less developed, so most defense had to be enacted by citizens themselves. Nowadays the army is sufficient to deal with outside threats, and the police should be more than enough to deal with those within. The army and the police ARE the well regulated militia the states and their citizens need. And as for a tyrannical government, it's much less of a threat today, or rather still as much a threat as always... but a threat which is much, much more practical (not to mention rational) to combat through means other than violence.

A civilian militia like back then is not only not needed anymore, it's not only impractical and unwieldy to maintain, but it's actually doing the complete opposite of what it was intended to. It's now a DANGER to society. It makes complete sense. You can't have a well regulated militia and then also a bunch of fucking nuts who still think they can take the law into their hands (and that's for the better intentions).

Talk about mental deficiency.
---

thrashmetal14 posted...

paerarru posted...

Nah, it's really not. The 2nd amendment is outdated, it was devised for a time when there were still a lot of enemies both outside and within the nation. The purpose of the 2nd amendment is now actually fulfilled precisely by a well adjusted, well integrated into the community police force (and the army). The 2nd amendment right now is working against the principle of the 2nd amendment, because it creates two clashing forces, creating an unhealthy relationship between police and community, and actually empowering criminals. Police (or any citizen) shouldn't have to be wary of where they step just because some fucking gun nut thinks it's their right to shoot at any perceived threat at their rights.

"When the founding fathers wrote 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed' they were actually talking about how the government should be the only ones allowed to keep and bear arms"

Talk about mental gymnastics.

Man, your type is really good at ignoring very specific contexts.
---

paerarru posted...

Yes because when they wrote A WELL REGULATED Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State the founding fathers were simply providing an assurance for the safety of the states and their citizens against enemies within and without, including invaders, criminals, and even a possible tyrannical government. They did not mean that anybody for any reason was free to own however many whatever arms they wished, much less bear and use them however they wished. That's fucking ridiculous.

Again, for people who just can't seem to understand for some reason... the spirit of the amendment is to defend the states and their citizens. Back then law enforcement and the federal army were much less developed, so most defense had to be enacted by citizens themselves. Nowadays the army is sufficient to deal with outside threats, and the police should be more than enough to deal with those within. The army and the police ARE the well regulated militia the states and their citizens need. And as for a tyrannical government, it's much less of a threat today, or rather still as much a threat as always... but a threat which is much, much more practical (not to mention rational) to combat through means other than violence.

A civilian militia like back then is not only not needed anymore, it's not only impractical and unwieldy to maintain, but it's actually doing the complete opposite of what it was intended to. It's now a DANGER to society. It makes complete sense. You can't have a well regulated militia and then also a bunch of fucking nuts who still think they can take the law into their hands (and that's for the better intentions).

Talk about mental deficiency.

The military and police are not enough to protect every individual. Think about how many times citizens defending their home have shot intruders long before police ever showed up. You're just making assumptions about what the founding fathers would think nowadays to justify your own opinions.

thrashmetal14 posted...

You're just making assumptions about what the founding fathers would think nowadays to justify your own opinions.

You're making assumptions about what the fathers would think of automatic weapons in our society

AlphaCuck posted...

You're making assumptions about what the fathers would think of automatic weapons in our society

No I'm not. I have no idea what they would think, and it doesnt matter anyways because they're dead.

AlphaCuck posted...

https://twitter.com/ndrew_lawrence/status/1169040648139345921?s=19

wow that is treasonous.

Do you remember when people said they opposed BLM because they didn't like cops? Now this cucker character is suggesting they get shot and the right doesn't care one bit

thrashmetal14 posted...

No I'm not. I have no idea what they would think, and it doesnt matter anyways because they're dead.

Then we can rethink the second amendment

Solution: every gun owner reports their guns as stolen. Ergo, no guns to seize.

AlphaCuck posted...

Then we can rethink the second amendment

You can rethink it if you want, but millions of gun-owning Americans will not be