At the end of April, Sen. Adam Schiff introduced legislation to ban those big old scary 'assault weapons' because Democrats hate our Second Amendment rights.
Senator Tammy Duckworth jumped on the unconstitutional bandwagon, equating AR-15s (the most popular rifle in the U.S.) with the weapons she carried in war:
The lethal high-powered rifles I carried during my military service were designed for war.
— Tammy Duckworth (@SenDuckworth) May 2, 2025
Not our streets.
Not our neighborhoods.
Certainly not our schools.
Senate Democrats introduced legislation to revive the nationwide assault weapons ban.
It’s long overdue.
Run on this. Democrats will keep losing.
You’re beyond annoying - and, in fact, insulting - with your repeated claim that you were some kind of combat infantryman in the GWOT.
— Mike Kilo (@Mike___Kilo) May 2, 2025
Even if you were - and you weren’t - it would be relevant.
If they’re “weapons of war” why are you allowing the police to carry them? Who are…
They're not getting our guns. Ever.
Allow tens of millions of illegals into our country and then try to disarm us? What exactly do you have planned, Tammy?
— Bleu Cheque (@VERBAL_CHANCLA) May 2, 2025
Nothing good.
You never carried a rifle. All weapons are meant for war, that’s the entire point. We the people were always intended to be MORE powerful than the government. Only tyrants who want to oppress people want those people disarmed. You’re a disgrace.
— Jo the Banlaoch. 🇺🇸 (@cailleach_feasa) May 3, 2025
We've been sending billions in weapons packages to Ukraine.
The people have every right to own weapons of war. pic.twitter.com/y7wNtPDoxi
— The Second Amendment (@USCons_Amend_II) May 2, 2025
'Shall not be infringed' is pretty darned clear.
District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) ruled that the government cannot enact blanket bans on firearms.
— Among the Wildflowers (@deaflibertarian) May 2, 2025
Case. Closed.
You’re an embarrassment.
— Queen Velvet (@TMIWITW) May 4, 2025
Very much so.
What, exactly, is your plan when tens of millions of Americans simply say "No" to allowing the government to take their guns under threat of lethal force? https://t.co/xzCL5jThXs
— Tom Gresham (@Guntalk) May 3, 2025
Tell us, Tammy.
So honest question: there are over 500 million guns in the US, and over 30 million “assault weapons”, how exactly do you plan to remove these weapons from the potential millions of Americans who simply say “No”? https://t.co/oHodilvSlM
— Colin Mott (@StgMott) May 4, 2025
Lots of people want to know the answer to that question.
Why would we give up our guns?
— Gooner T (@Redleg94) May 2, 2025
You’ve repeatedly said the current administration is full of Nazis and a wannabe dictator. https://t.co/PWfZBWWuZo
Bingo.
Trump is an existential threat to our freedoms, or something (he's not, but that's what Democrats tell us daily).
But then they'll turn around and take away our guns.
So the former argument must be a lie.
Me with your opinion https://t.co/5ri0foBcDS pic.twitter.com/jiPaNCOXnd
— 1800s Man of Taste (@1800smanoftaste) May 2, 2025
It's not even worth the paper it's written on.
Newsflash: All rifles are lethal
— rider writer® (@HBwriterMike) May 3, 2025
The 2nd amendment was designed for lethality. https://t.co/HvBfwL9dAX
The goal is a total ban on all firearms.
They think the incrementalism will fool us.
It won't.
Read the Constitution and get back to me. https://t.co/qUjsZGoIWr
— Buzz Patterson (@BuzzPatterson) May 2, 2025
It's right there, in black and white.
Join the Conversation
VIP members get the ability to comment on articles.