Agree? Disagree?

[nodoginnafight]

As I explained to another clueless hack, the BATF never had the authority, that authority resides with the FBI and the attempt to have it applied to the BATF, pushed by Bloomberg and the Brady Campaign in order to have access to that information for purposes other than what it was intended for. Even the BATF was opposed to it.
Care to try again?

I don't have to try again. You can make up all the B.S. you want. Doesn't change the facts. And the FACTS are as I have presented them. Your cluelessness is not MY responsibility.

No they're not but don't let me stop your trip into wonderland. Try researching something other than the Brady Campaign site........ Clueless...... Try looking in a mirror.....

Actually - I've never seen the Brady Campaign site. One more erroneous assumption you've made in addition to plenty of made up "facts."
(btw - the cutesy emoticans REALLY drive your point home - maybe your time would be better spent researching some arguments against my specific reccomendations rather than scrolling the emoticon offerings - just a suggestion)

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Ah, so you do advocate restricting free speech. Good to know.

I advocate restricting lies.

Uummmmm, that would be restricting free speech.......

Oh well, gun control is a lie that has done more damage than good. Lying should not be a protected form of speech especially when it does harm.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Nothing there that I disagree with. I just wish there was more there.

1) Hire more ATF agents
2) Allow the ATF to database and track gun sales so they can target the 1% of gun dealers who make 100% of the illegal sales.
3) Require gun dealers to maintain an inventory.
4) Require gun dealers to deny sales to anyone who is obviously intoxicated
5) Background check and register every gun sale
6) Make it easier for victims to sue gun owners who are grossly neglegent in securing their firearms.
7) Get mental health professionals into our schools and give them power to require at risk students to get counseling.
8) Protect teachers and school staff from liability for reporting, suspending, and requiring counseling for students who demonstrate behavior consistent with bullying and/or shooting.

So, I take it that you think it would be OK to sue the owner of a car, who had their car stolen and was involved in a drunk driving wreck that killed people?

 

[Ringel05]

I advocate restricting lies.

Uummmmm, that would be restricting free speech.......

Oh well, gun control is a lie that has done more damage than good. Lying should not be a protected form of speech especially when it does harm.

There are other laws that relate to lying, particularly in a court of law.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Uummmmm, that would be restricting free speech.......

Oh well, gun control is a lie that has done more damage than good. Lying should not be a protected form of speech especially when it does harm.

There are other laws that relate to lying, particularly in a court of law.

There are no laws stopping people from lying out side a court of lying. Once again the lie that keep's pushing gun control has done more harm than good. In my opinion that from of speech should be restricted.

 

[Mortimer]

agree.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Oh well, gun control is a lie that has done more damage than good. Lying should not be a protected form of speech especially when it does harm.

There are other laws that relate to lying, particularly in a court of law.

There are no laws stopping people from lying out side a court of lying. Once again the lie that keep's pushing gun control has done more harm than good. In my opinion that from of speech should be restricted.

So lying should be a crime?
Or just the lies that piss YOU off?

 

[Ringel05]

I don't have to try again. You can make up all the B.S. you want. Doesn't change the facts. And the FACTS are as I have presented them. Your cluelessness is not MY responsibility.

No they're not but don't let me stop your trip into wonderland. Try researching something other than the Brady Campaign site........ Clueless...... Try looking in a mirror.....

Actually - I've never seen the Brady Campaign site. One more erroneous assumption you've made in addition to plenty of made up "facts."
(btw - the cutesy emoticans REALLY drive your point home - maybe your time would be better spent researching some arguments against my specific reccomendations rather than scrolling the emoticon offerings - just a suggestion)

Look up the bill then look up the non-partisan sites that explain the bill and everything associated with it. The only one who doesn't have their facts right are you. The one's who specifically claim what you claim are the Brady Campaign and Bloomberg's Mayors Against Guns sham, so it's a reasonable assumption as to where you were probably getting your information. Your "recommendations" are almost their platform, verbatim.
Any rational person would know those recommendations would do little to nothing other than put feathers in some politician's hats and provide tort lawyers with more income. You're not a tort lawyer are you?

 

[Harry Dresden]

Interesting how few sheeples will admit they really don't want safer schools and how few are too cowardly to just answer the two questions. As always, they hide behind name calling.

it always amazes me when one of the biggest SHEEP here calls someone else a sheep....geezus Dudley.....will you ever pop your head out of the Democrats collective ass's?........

 

[Harry Dresden]

I love dudleys logic. If a =b and b=c, then a=g.

Dudleys logic is......"if its to my right it must be something bad.....and they must be Republicans.....what else can they be?.....Democrats never have hurt anyone"......

 

[Harry Dresden]

Luddley? You there boy?.....



Just crickets.

Oh he'll be back. He couldn't let his own unreasoned, partisan political rant go if he tried. It's his life blood.

When?

Luddley got only feeble support from his comrades, so has bailed yet again.

He'll reword the same drivel, or find a new graphic that sends a thrill up his leg and start a new thread, but I doubt he'll come back to this one.
(unless it's in a feeble attempt to prove me wrong)

Dudley has stated he does not have to come back to the threads HE STARTS to answer questions HE ASKED......my question is.....WHY START THE FUCKING THING if your not going to see it through?......of course he did not answer that one either....

 

[nodoginnafight]

No they're not but don't let me stop your trip into wonderland. Try researching something other than the Brady Campaign site........ Clueless...... Try looking in a mirror.....

Actually - I've never seen the Brady Campaign site. One more erroneous assumption you've made in addition to plenty of made up "facts."
(btw - the cutesy emoticans REALLY drive your point home - maybe your time would be better spent researching some arguments against my specific reccomendations rather than scrolling the emoticon offerings - just a suggestion)

Look up the bill then look up the non-partisan sites that explain the bill and everything associated with it. The only one who doesn't have their facts right are you. The one's who specifically claim what you claim are the Brady Campaign and Bloomberg's Mayors Against Guns sham, so it's a reasonable assumption as to where you were probably getting your information. Your "recommendations" are almost their platform, verbatim.
Any rational person would know those recommendations would do little to nothing other than put feathers in some politician's hats and provide tort lawyers with more income. You're not a tort lawyer are you?

So after writing numerous paragraphs the only thing you've come up with to counter my proposals is "every rational person knows..."

Ewww.... crucial blow.

 

[Ringel05]

Actually - I've never seen the Brady Campaign site. One more erroneous assumption you've made in addition to plenty of made up "facts."
(btw - the cutesy emoticans REALLY drive your point home - maybe your time would be better spent researching some arguments against my specific reccomendations rather than scrolling the emoticon offerings - just a suggestion)

Look up the bill then look up the non-partisan sites that explain the bill and everything associated with it. The only one who doesn't have their facts right are you. The one's who specifically claim what you claim are the Brady Campaign and Bloomberg's Mayors Against Guns sham, so it's a reasonable assumption as to where you were probably getting your information. Your "recommendations" are almost their platform, verbatim.
Any rational person would know those recommendations would do little to nothing other than put feathers in some politician's hats and provide tort lawyers with more income. You're not a tort lawyer are you?

So after writing numerous paragraphs the only thing you've come up with to counter my proposals is "every rational person knows..."

Ewww.... crucial blow.

Da tovaritch!

 

[FJO]

Do not agree.

Actually, I admire you (a very tiny bit) for telling the truth. I'm sick of the rw's saying they want safer schools when we all know they're lying. Its like being anti-abortion. rw's don't care about abortion. They just want big government to control every move we make.

As for Obama ...

Nothing illustrates better why this asshole got booted out in 2010 than his own words.

Nothing illustrates better the utter sheer stupidity of those who voted him back in office in 2012 than his own words.

 

[FJO]

So now I am somehow negligent if someone breaks into my home and steals my firearm that you think isn't secure enough? Really guy!

Yup - really.
If you are grossly neglegent (look it up if you don't know what it means).

In MY house I can keep ANYTHING ANYWHERE openly, freely, without hiding it, without fear of anyone stealing it, and without fear of getting punished and persecuted if I don't.

No matter what is stolen from MY house, no matter what crime is committed with what is stolen from my house, it is the criminal who did the stealing who is guilty, NOT ME.

 

[daveman]

The NRA has fanned the flames of hysteria.

Absolutely, 100% wrong.

It's deflection, he and his ilk are the ones fanning those flames. They don't want anyone to know it.

They really SUCK at hiding it, don't they?

 

[daveman]

So now I am somehow negligent if someone breaks into my home and steals my firearm that you think isn't secure enough? Really guy!

Yup - really.
If you are grossly neglegent (look it up if you don't know what it means).

In MY house I can keep ANYTHING ANYWHERE openly, freely, without hiding it, without fear of anyone stealing it, and without fear of getting punished and persecuted if I don't.

No matter what is stolen from MY house, no matter what crime is committed with what is stolen from my house, it is the criminal who did the stealing who is guilty, NOT ME.

It's not progressive to hold criminals accountable for their actions.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yup - really.
If you are grossly neglegent (look it up if you don't know what it means).

In MY house I can keep ANYTHING ANYWHERE openly, freely, without hiding it, without fear of anyone stealing it, and without fear of getting punished and persecuted if I don't.

No matter what is stolen from MY house, no matter what crime is committed with what is stolen from my house, it is the criminal who did the stealing who is guilty, NOT ME.

It's not progressive to hold criminals accountable for their actions.

All the more reason to do it.

 

[Freewill]

which one of those would have stopped the Newtown shooting?

 

[Charles_Main]

Ever notice how Obama is all platitudes, and speeches?

His Idea's sound fine on the surface, but the Devil is always in the details.