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

[Pumpkin Row]

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

I’m still trying to figure out what they mean when they say “universal background checks “. Every libtard says they need them, but can’t say specifically what it is.

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.

Are you really that dumb? Background checks are only required for licensed dealers. You already knew that, but you seem to enjoy posting lies instead. I guess childish RWNJs can't help themselves.

In that case, we should require drug dealers to have permits, and have them perform background checks on their buyers. I promise it makes just as much sense.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

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

I’m still trying to figure out what they mean when they say “universal background checks “. Every libtard says they need them, but can’t say specifically what it is.

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.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

http://www.bradycampaign.org/sites/default/files/TheTruthAboutGunDealersInAmerica_0.pdf

As long as there are people who are willing to break the rules, there will be others who are willing to help them in order to make a quick buck, no matter who gets hurt in the process. While the vast majority of gun sellers in the U.S. make a good-faith effort to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, a small number of them see supplying felons and violent abusers as just another way to make a profit.

These “bad apple” gun dealers are few in number, but have a huge and deadly impact. Research shows that 90% of guns used in crimes were supplied by just 5% of dealers. These unethical businesses enable gun-wielding criminals to victimize our communities every day.

Many criminals and other dangerous people can’t pass a Brady background check, but “bad apple” gun dealers look the other way while their customers buy guns for others (straw purchasing) or purchase in bulk to illegally resell (gun trafficking). Some go even further by falsifying sales records, turning off security cameras, and skipping legally-required background checks entirely.

Thanks for reinforcing that laws don't stop criminals. You're dismissed<3

Yep.

That's why we don't have laws against murder, kidnapping, rape - Because we know there are people who will still kill, kidnap and rape.

Also why we don't require car owners to carry minimum insurance - Because, of course, there is no one who wouldn't pay the bill if the damage was their fault.

IOW, that argument is nonsense. Worthless.

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.

 

[BULLDOG]

I’m still trying to figure out what they mean when they say “universal background checks “. Every libtard says they need them, but can’t say specifically what it is.

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.

Are you really that dumb? Background checks are only required for licensed dealers. You already knew that, but you seem to enjoy posting lies instead. I guess childish RWNJs can't help themselves.

In that case, we should require drug dealers to have permits, and have them perform background checks on their buyers. I promise it makes just as much sense.

Perhaps that does make to a fool.

 

[BULLDOG]

I’m still trying to figure out what they mean when they say “universal background checks “. Every libtard says they need them, but can’t say specifically what it is.

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.

 

[BULLDOG]

http://www.bradycampaign.org/sites/default/files/TheTruthAboutGunDealersInAmerica_0.pdf

As long as there are people who are willing to break the rules, there will be others who are willing to help them in order to make a quick buck, no matter who gets hurt in the process. While the vast majority of gun sellers in the U.S. make a good-faith effort to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, a small number of them see supplying felons and violent abusers as just another way to make a profit.

These “bad apple” gun dealers are few in number, but have a huge and deadly impact. Research shows that 90% of guns used in crimes were supplied by just 5% of dealers. These unethical businesses enable gun-wielding criminals to victimize our communities every day.

Many criminals and other dangerous people can’t pass a Brady background check, but “bad apple” gun dealers look the other way while their customers buy guns for others (straw purchasing) or purchase in bulk to illegally resell (gun trafficking). Some go even further by falsifying sales records, turning off security cameras, and skipping legally-required background checks entirely.

Thanks for reinforcing that laws don't stop criminals. You're dismissed<3

Yep.

That's why we don't have laws against murder, kidnapping, rape - Because we know there are people who will still kill, kidnap and rape.

Also why we don't require car owners to carry minimum insurance - Because, of course, there is no one who wouldn't pay the bill if the damage was their fault.

IOW, that argument is nonsense. Worthless.

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.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

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.

Are you really that dumb? Background checks are only required for licensed dealers. You already knew that, but you seem to enjoy posting lies instead. I guess childish RWNJs can't help themselves.

In that case, we should require drug dealers to have permits, and have them perform background checks on their buyers. I promise it makes just as much sense.

Perhaps that does make to a fool.

It's the same problem. The government can't prevent citizens from doing things under the table, it's impossible. That's why universal background checks is a buzzword. Of course, you can't think for yourself, so you can't figure this out on your own<3

 

[Pumpkin Row]

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.

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.

 

[BULLDOG]

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.

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.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

http://www.bradycampaign.org/sites/default/files/TheTruthAboutGunDealersInAmerica_0.pdf

As long as there are people who are willing to break the rules, there will be others who are willing to help them in order to make a quick buck, no matter who gets hurt in the process. While the vast majority of gun sellers in the U.S. make a good-faith effort to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, a small number of them see supplying felons and violent abusers as just another way to make a profit.

These “bad apple” gun dealers are few in number, but have a huge and deadly impact. Research shows that 90% of guns used in crimes were supplied by just 5% of dealers. These unethical businesses enable gun-wielding criminals to victimize our communities every day.

Many criminals and other dangerous people can’t pass a Brady background check, but “bad apple” gun dealers look the other way while their customers buy guns for others (straw purchasing) or purchase in bulk to illegally resell (gun trafficking). Some go even further by falsifying sales records, turning off security cameras, and skipping legally-required background checks entirely.

Thanks for reinforcing that laws don't stop criminals. You're dismissed<3

Yep.

That's why we don't have laws against murder, kidnapping, rape - Because we know there are people who will still kill, kidnap and rape.

Also why we don't require car owners to carry minimum insurance - Because, of course, there is no one who wouldn't pay the bill if the damage was their fault.

IOW, that argument is nonsense. Worthless.

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.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

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.

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.

 

[Marion Morrison]

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.

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?

 

[BULLDOG]

http://www.bradycampaign.org/sites/default/files/TheTruthAboutGunDealersInAmerica_0.pdf

As long as there are people who are willing to break the rules, there will be others who are willing to help them in order to make a quick buck, no matter who gets hurt in the process. While the vast majority of gun sellers in the U.S. make a good-faith effort to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, a small number of them see supplying felons and violent abusers as just another way to make a profit.

These “bad apple” gun dealers are few in number, but have a huge and deadly impact. Research shows that 90% of guns used in crimes were supplied by just 5% of dealers. These unethical businesses enable gun-wielding criminals to victimize our communities every day.

Many criminals and other dangerous people can’t pass a Brady background check, but “bad apple” gun dealers look the other way while their customers buy guns for others (straw purchasing) or purchase in bulk to illegally resell (gun trafficking). Some go even further by falsifying sales records, turning off security cameras, and skipping legally-required background checks entirely.

Thanks for reinforcing that laws don't stop criminals. You're dismissed<3

Yep.

That's why we don't have laws against murder, kidnapping, rape - Because we know there are people who will still kill, kidnap and rape.

Also why we don't require car owners to carry minimum insurance - Because, of course, there is no one who wouldn't pay the bill if the damage was their fault.

IOW, that argument is nonsense. Worthless.

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.

 

[BULLDOG]

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.

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.

I'm not debating you. I'm laughing at your goofy posts.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

"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.

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.

 

[BULLDOG]

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.

We all do, and that's kinda sad.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Thanks for reinforcing that laws don't stop criminals. You're dismissed<3

Yep.

That's why we don't have laws against murder, kidnapping, rape - Because we know there are people who will still kill, kidnap and rape.

Also why we don't require car owners to carry minimum insurance - Because, of course, there is no one who wouldn't pay the bill if the damage was their fault.

IOW, that argument is nonsense. Worthless.

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.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

"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.

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.

I'm not debating you. I'm laughing at your goofy posts.

You're right, you're not debating me. You have no argument, so you're just spamming content-less posts.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

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.

We all do, and that's kinda sad.

Actually, I'm willing to believe everyone wishes they were that smart.

 

[BULLDOG]

Yep.

That's why we don't have laws against murder, kidnapping, rape - Because we know there are people who will still kill, kidnap and rape.

Also why we don't require car owners to carry minimum insurance - Because, of course, there is no one who wouldn't pay the bill if the damage was their fault.

IOW, that argument is nonsense. Worthless.

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.