“Mr. Chipman, how many people will you be willing to kill to carry out an ban on AR-15s?”

Spread the love

By J. Kb

7 thoughts on “We all knew that, Ted Cruz needs a follow-up question from Senator J.Kb”
  1. The answer is all of them. He would be willing to kill every single solitary United States citizen that owns an AR-15. Not only that but every single person in a home with an AR-15 since he also fully supports the killing of every single man woman and child in a home with an AR-15. Along with the killing of every single solitary United States citizen that owns any semi automatic rifle along with every Single solitary United States citizen in a home with a semi automatic rifle. But his wet dream might actually caused the majority of the country if not all the country to oppose the government. So he also supports completely complete and total extermination of the entire United States population that opposes that even if it means killing all human life in the United States minus Democrat party members and illegals. However the extermination of all human life in the United States minus Democrat party members and illegals is actually the end goal for Democrats. So not a big stretch if you think about how these people think and what they desire.

    Never forget: the Democrats end goal is the complete and total extermination of all human life in the United States minus themselves and illegals. They view the killing of over 300 million people as a justifiable action to bring about liberal progressive utopia. To them is the right thing to do. Absolutely correct in every sense, morally justified and absolutely necessary

  2. Waco. Chipman posed over the smoldering carnage and had his photo taken, smiling proudly. To Mr. Chipman, YOU and your ilk are the reason I need an AR-15. GFY you evil bastard.

  3. “Mr. Chipman, how many people will you be willing to kill to carry out an ban on AR-15s?”

    Question should have been how many agents are going to die to confiscate the AR-15s currently in use.

  4. The question I imagine myself asking if I could ask the questions: “Mr. Nominee, please tell me the specific words of the United States Constitution that authorize the office for which you have been nominated.” If the result is mumbling about SCOTUS, the pushback would be “the office requires you to swear an oath to obey the Constitution, which necessarily means that you have to understand what the Constitution permits you do to when holding this office — if anything. The oath isn’t ‘to obey the Supreme Court’, you are accountable for exercising your own judgment.”

Login or register to comment.