I'm Sure Everyone Knows This, But Here's a Reminder

Twat troll. You haven't proven anything. All you have done is repeat the same tired old RWNJ lines.
Ohhh, am I also a "Freaking gaywad"? You're only resorting to name calling because you can't debate me. You're pathetic.

Should we change your name to Dale Smith er wut?
I wish I was as smart as Dale Smith.

We all do, and that's kinda sad.
Actually, I'm willing to believe everyone wishes they were that smart.

Fits right in with all the other silly crap you claim to believe.
 




For everyone who forgot leftists are liars and/or have no idea what they're talking about. Or any combination of both.
images




Guns do not kill... People on psych meds kills.



Devin Kelley, the man we now know killed more than two dozen people at a Texas church on Sunday, escaped a mental health facility before the Air Force could try him on charges that he beat his wife and baby stepson back in 2012.

And President Trump, like many people before him, is pointing to mental health — not guns — as the cause of the church massacre.

"Mental health is your problem here. This was a very, based on preliminary reports, this was a very deranged individual, a lot of problems over a long period of time. We have a lot of mental health problems in our country, as do other countries," he said in a news conference in Japan on Monday. Texas Shooter's History Raises Questions About Mental Health And Mass Murder

Texas Gunman Once Escaped From Mental Health Facility

Pat Robertson is wrong. Antidepressants are probably not the "causative factor" in mass killings

Shooter Eric Harris was taking the antidepressant Luvox at the time he and Dylan Klebold opened fire at Columbine High School, killing 12 students and a teacher and wounding 26 others before killing themselves. The Real Lesson of Columbine: Psychiatric Drugs Induce Violence – Citizens Commission on Human Rights of Colorado

http://nypost.com/2017/10/04/las-vegas-shooter-was-prescribed-anti-anxiety-meds-over-the-summer/


images
 
Your opponents are not lying. You are repeating the right wing lies perfectly. Good little troll.
I was making fun of Clayton for implying that statement. If you bothered reading, you would know that.

You wish I was a troll, because then it would mean I wasn't proving you wrong.

Twat troll. You haven't proven anything. All you have done is repeat the same tired old RWNJ lines.
Ohhh, am I also a "Freaking gaywad"? You're only resorting to name calling because you can't debate me. You're pathetic.

Should we change your name to Dale Smith er wut?
I wish I was as smart as Dale Smith.
After years of drug abuse you too can be like Dale..
 
I'm assuming it's just a buzzword with no meaning, Democrats love those. They can repeat them over and over, then pretend the meaning is obvious, everyone knows, and anyone who doesn't is stupid, inherently.

Well, yes, the meaning is obvious to anyone with a 3rd grade education. If you don't understand that universal background checks means everyone who buys a gun should be required to go through a background check, then you are stupid, inherently. Are you proud of that trait?
I guess Leftists see proving me right as some sort of victory. People are already required to get background checks, which makes that a buzzword.


The only thing you’ve proven is that you’re wrong and that you and most others on the right are dishonest and liars.

The issue is Federal law that allows private intrastate firearms transactions between two state residents to be conducted absent a background check.

The law needs to be amended to require checks for private intrastate sales as well: universal background checks.

Some states have already implemented UBCs, such as Colorado, where the courts have upheld that measure as Constitutional.

The right’s opposition to UBCs is unwarranted, nothing but a slippery slope fallacy.

"My opponents are liars."
Gee, Clayton, you haven't already proven yourself to be biased and dishonest, so we should just take your word for this. The real question is whether anyone left on this site takes you seriously.

It's not slippery slope fallacy, not only is the measure utterly pointless, but it further restricts a right that the government never should have been tampering with in the first place. the war on drugs is a perfect example of the government's inability to control what changes hands between residents. If the government could prevent under the table sales, there would no longer be a war on drugs, as drug use would be totally eradicated.


Your opponents are not lying. You are repeating the right wing lies perfectly. Good little troll.




No lying. It once politition has have ever defined WHAT a “ universal background check is, and no, it’s not making one fill out a 4473 on a private purchase. What EXACTLY IS a “universal background check and what would it include that would have to revent d there’s mass shootings ?
 
Well, yes, the meaning is obvious to anyone with a 3rd grade education. If you don't understand that universal background checks means everyone who buys a gun should be required to go through a background check, then you are stupid, inherently. Are you proud of that trait?
I guess Leftists see proving me right as some sort of victory. People are already required to get background checks, which makes that a buzzword.


The only thing you’ve proven is that you’re wrong and that you and most others on the right are dishonest and liars.

The issue is Federal law that allows private intrastate firearms transactions between two state residents to be conducted absent a background check.

The law needs to be amended to require checks for private intrastate sales as well: universal background checks.

Some states have already implemented UBCs, such as Colorado, where the courts have upheld that measure as Constitutional.

The right’s opposition to UBCs is unwarranted, nothing but a slippery slope fallacy.

"My opponents are liars."
Gee, Clayton, you haven't already proven yourself to be biased and dishonest, so we should just take your word for this. The real question is whether anyone left on this site takes you seriously.

It's not slippery slope fallacy, not only is the measure utterly pointless, but it further restricts a right that the government never should have been tampering with in the first place. the war on drugs is a perfect example of the government's inability to control what changes hands between residents. If the government could prevent under the table sales, there would no longer be a war on drugs, as drug use would be totally eradicated.


Your opponents are not lying. You are repeating the right wing lies perfectly. Good little troll.




No lying. It once politition has have ever defined WHAT a “ universal background check is, and no, it’s not making one fill out a 4473 on a private purchase. What EXACTLY IS a “universal background check and what would it include that would have to revent d there’s mass shootings ?


Universal background checks have been defined at least as well as that giveaway to the rich that the republicans are calling a tax bill, but you RWNJs seem to be all for that.
 
Oh, look, another person with their head FIRMLY planted DEEP in their rectum.

Laws against murder, kidnapping, and rape don't prevent a person from protecting themselves, it punishes criminals AFTER they break those laws. Gun laws only affect law abiding citizens, because they're the only ones who follow the law in the first place. For example, drug laws drastically increased sales within the black market and has no prevented people from illegally selling and obtaining drugs, all it did was cause the state to waste LOTS of money trying to control it.

Says the person making a worthless argument. Please explain to me how laws have stopped people from raping, murdering, kidnapping, and selling/using illegal drugs. Go ahead.

Again,are you claiming that those laws have no purpose? Are you claiming that those laws shouldn't exist? Quit trolling.
Oh, you didn't bother reading my post. That or the words I used were too big and hurt your brain.

Laws against murder, kidnapping, and rape don't prevent people from defending themselves. Gun laws do. Gun laws disarm law-abiding citizens and do not affect criminals, aside from making it easier to hurt said disarmed law-abiding citizens.

That's A difference. If you can't understand that, you're a hopeless case, because I can't speak caveman for you.

I'm sure you have trouble speaking anything but Alex Jones/Breitbart propaganda.
The best you have, and it's not even a website I go to. Of course, you have to make that accusation because you have no argument.


Sure, I believe you. It's coincidence that lots of your posts are almost direct quotes from them.
If you were confident in that statement, you would have shown me screenshots proving your case. The fact that you provided no evidence shows that you're making things up.
 
Again,are you claiming that those laws have no purpose? Are you claiming that those laws shouldn't exist? Quit trolling.
Oh, you didn't bother reading my post. That or the words I used were too big and hurt your brain.

Laws against murder, kidnapping, and rape don't prevent people from defending themselves. Gun laws do. Gun laws disarm law-abiding citizens and do not affect criminals, aside from making it easier to hurt said disarmed law-abiding citizens.

That's A difference. If you can't understand that, you're a hopeless case, because I can't speak caveman for you.

I'm sure you have trouble speaking anything but Alex Jones/Breitbart propaganda.
The best you have, and it's not even a website I go to. Of course, you have to make that accusation because you have no argument.


Sure, I believe you. It's coincidence that lots of your posts are almost direct quotes from them.
If you were confident in that statement, you would have shown me screenshots proving your case. The fact that you provided no evidence shows that you're making things up.

You silly thing you. No need to show you proof of anything. Be both know the truth. As far as others, they can see where you get your goofy talking points from.
 
Oh, you didn't bother reading my post. That or the words I used were too big and hurt your brain.

Laws against murder, kidnapping, and rape don't prevent people from defending themselves. Gun laws do. Gun laws disarm law-abiding citizens and do not affect criminals, aside from making it easier to hurt said disarmed law-abiding citizens.

That's A difference. If you can't understand that, you're a hopeless case, because I can't speak caveman for you.

I'm sure you have trouble speaking anything but Alex Jones/Breitbart propaganda.
The best you have, and it's not even a website I go to. Of course, you have to make that accusation because you have no argument.


Sure, I believe you. It's coincidence that lots of your posts are almost direct quotes from them.
If you were confident in that statement, you would have shown me screenshots proving your case. The fact that you provided no evidence shows that you're making things up.

You silly thing you. No need to show you proof of anything. Be both know the truth. As far as others, they can see where you get your goofy talking points from.
Ah, the "Everyone knows" fallacy, because you have no proof, and are incorrect. You have no proof, and therefor have no case. Don't let the door hit you in the rump on the way out.
 
I'm sure you have trouble speaking anything but Alex Jones/Breitbart propaganda.
The best you have, and it's not even a website I go to. Of course, you have to make that accusation because you have no argument.


Sure, I believe you. It's coincidence that lots of your posts are almost direct quotes from them.
If you were confident in that statement, you would have shown me screenshots proving your case. The fact that you provided no evidence shows that you're making things up.

You silly thing you. No need to show you proof of anything. Be both know the truth. As far as others, they can see where you get your goofy talking points from.
Ah, the "Everyone knows" fallacy, because you have no proof, and are incorrect. You have no proof, and therefor have no case. Don't let the door hit you in the rump on the way out.

No, I don't have documentation that you are a dittohead, or a Hannity listener, or an Alex Jones listener, but you do support the exact same things, and repeat the exact same talking points. In other words, you're just another lost RWNJ without the ability to recognize facts or even understand they are different than accusations.
 
The best you have, and it's not even a website I go to. Of course, you have to make that accusation because you have no argument.


Sure, I believe you. It's coincidence that lots of your posts are almost direct quotes from them.
If you were confident in that statement, you would have shown me screenshots proving your case. The fact that you provided no evidence shows that you're making things up.

You silly thing you. No need to show you proof of anything. Be both know the truth. As far as others, they can see where you get your goofy talking points from.
Ah, the "Everyone knows" fallacy, because you have no proof, and are incorrect. You have no proof, and therefor have no case. Don't let the door hit you in the rump on the way out.

No, I don't have documentation that you are a dittohead, or a Hannity listener, or an Alex Jones listener, but you do support the exact same things, and repeat the exact same talking points. In other words, you're just another lost RWNJ without the ability to recognize facts or even understand they are different than accusations.
Ahahahahaha. So, you have only your assertions and no evidence, much like everything ELSE the left supports. Thanks for proving my point.
 
The best you have, and it's not even a website I go to. Of course, you have to make that accusation because you have no argument.


Sure, I believe you. It's coincidence that lots of your posts are almost direct quotes from them.
If you were confident in that statement, you would have shown me screenshots proving your case. The fact that you provided no evidence shows that you're making things up.

You silly thing you. No need to show you proof of anything. Be both know the truth. As far as others, they can see where you get your goofy talking points from.
Ah, the "Everyone knows" fallacy, because you have no proof, and are incorrect. You have no proof, and therefor have no case. Don't let the door hit you in the rump on the way out.

No, I don't have documentation that you are a dittohead, or a Hannity listener, or an Alex Jones listener, but you do support the exact same things, and repeat the exact same talking points. In other words, you're just another lost RWNJ without the ability to recognize facts or even understand they are different than accusations.

th


But it's pretty obvious that Pumpkin Row is correct since you have to resort to standard progressive abusive tactics as you lose the argument instead of presenting a valid counterpoint.

*****CHUCKLE*****



:)
 

Forum List

Back
Top