Ohio's DeWine does not crumble before the anti-gun loons

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

NEW DETAILS: Gov. DeWine outlines plan to tackle gun violence

I have to say I am mildly surprised by this - when I heard he had a plan for changes in Ohio's gun control laws, I figured we'd see a proposal for a red-flag law and universal background checks -- instead, he presented something I can support.

Good job, Mike!

DeWine caved. His plan sucks. The income tax was one of those laws that started out as "voluntary." Look at what it's become. There is something inherently wrong with any law that requires a background check in order to exercise a constitutional right.

I have the ONLY plan that would reduce mass shootings by 90 percent (and significantly reduce other types of shootings) without any new taxes, tax increases, bureaucracies or gun control.

People who have mental issues bad enough to prohibit them from owning weapons have no business running around unsupervised in our society. You catch them early, BEFORE they commit an act of violence and either rehabilitate them or keep them in a supervised environment.

I have an even MORE effective solution that will also reduce the cost and not trample on the rights of those with mental illnesses.

Assume everyone is bat-shit crazy, and EVERYBODY with capacity to do so, takes up arms and is responsible for his/her own personal security instead of relying on the state to protect them.

Problem solved.

.

Not really helpful, but I do have the only solution that will reduce mass shootings without gun control.

No, mine will reduce mass shootings with the REMOVAL of gun control.

.

How come everybody here is opposed to realistically addressing the dangers of gun control?

What do you mean?

The main reason criminals use guns to commit crimes is because they believe they will be met with little or no resistance.

Remove all obstructions or restrictions to all firearms for everyone of legal capacity and force people to take responsibility for their own security.

If everyone is armed, no one has an advantage.

.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

When the pro-gun factions will try to eat their own as opposed to having a civil conversation and work toward realistic solutions, you know they're pretty well screwed.

The left wants background checks, registration and eventual confiscation. The right wing likes the idea of a POLICE STATE with its National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify, 27 / 7 / 365 womb to the tomb monitoring, prove this, prove that agenda, so the right and the left are simply two hands washing each other while bitching about which hand is the dirtiest.

My way removes the necessity of a police state.

No firearm restrictions on anyone with legal capacity (adults who are not retarded), including released felons, and let people take responsibility for their own security (something police cannot possibly provide).

.

 

[M14 Shooter]

What do you mean?
The main reason criminals use guns to commit crimes is because they believe they will be met with little or no resistance.
Remove all obstructions or restrictions to all firearms for everyone of legal capacity and force people to take responsibility for their own security.
If everyone is armed, no one has an advantage.

The very best way to reduce violent crime is to make it as simple as possible for the law abiding to defined themselves.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

No sir, I'm wasting my time with you.

What's that?
You cannot cite the text of the statute and the case law that supports your claim?
This means you don't have shit.
I accept your concession of the points you tried to make.

Your post makes NO sense. The cite for the statute is different from any cites to case law. And, no, dumbass, my ego is not big enough to get me to do your legal research for free. I spoke generically about this topic, not specifically. IF it meant that you were man enough to admit you were wrong, I'd do your research. But, you aren't man enough. You're too egotistical. That is one of the reasons I don't work for the gun lobby any longer. You guys know more than those of who work in the legal field and would rather argue than fight the freaking enemies. Y'all are pretty much fucked, son.

You don't have shit. A statute is meaningless until you research the case law and that is not what this thread is about.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

DeWine caved. His plan sucks. The income tax was one of those laws that started out as "voluntary." Look at what it's become. There is something inherently wrong with any law that requires a background check in order to exercise a constitutional right.

I have the ONLY plan that would reduce mass shootings by 90 percent (and significantly reduce other types of shootings) without any new taxes, tax increases, bureaucracies or gun control.

People who have mental issues bad enough to prohibit them from owning weapons have no business running around unsupervised in our society. You catch them early, BEFORE they commit an act of violence and either rehabilitate them or keep them in a supervised environment.

I have an even MORE effective solution that will also reduce the cost and not trample on the rights of those with mental illnesses.

Assume everyone is bat-shit crazy, and EVERYBODY with capacity to do so, takes up arms and is responsible for his/her own personal security instead of relying on the state to protect them.

Problem solved.

.

Not really helpful, but I do have the only solution that will reduce mass shootings without gun control.

No, mine will reduce mass shootings with the REMOVAL of gun control.

.

How come everybody here is opposed to realistically addressing the dangers of gun control?

What do you mean?

The main reason criminals use guns to commit crimes is because they believe they will be met with little or no resistance.

Remove all obstructions or restrictions to all firearms for everyone of legal capacity and force people to take responsibility for their own security.

If everyone is armed, no one has an advantage.

.

What you say is fact. Getting it passed in the legislature is not going to happen.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

When the pro-gun factions will try to eat their own as opposed to having a civil conversation and work toward realistic solutions, you know they're pretty well screwed.

The left wants background checks, registration and eventual confiscation. The right wing likes the idea of a POLICE STATE with its National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify, 27 / 7 / 365 womb to the tomb monitoring, prove this, prove that agenda, so the right and the left are simply two hands washing each other while bitching about which hand is the dirtiest.

My way removes the necessity of a police state.

No firearm restrictions on anyone with legal capacity (adults who are not retarded), including released felons, and let people take responsibility for their own security (something police cannot possibly provide).

.

I'm with you in theory. But, it isn't going to happen. Hell, I'm being trolled by a guy whose board name is the same as one of America's best battle rifles. Some gun owners want more gun control than the liberals want it.

Between the left wanting background checks and the right with all your info tied to an SSN based National ID Card, the Ds and Rs are the same - just one hand washing the other.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No sir, I'm wasting my time with you.

What's that?
You cannot cite the text of the statute and the case law that supports your claim?
This means you don't have shit.
I accept your concession of the points you tried to make.

Your post makes NO sense.

It does to anyone with even a cursory understanding of English.

You believe a misdemeanor charge of, well, something, that stemmed from a fight between two siblings and warranted a $50 fine from the JoP falls under "domestic violence" as the term is defined in the Lautenburg Amendment
-You cannot cite the text of the law (already provided) that supports your claim
-You cannot cite federal case law that supports your claim.

You believe a mutual restraining law, as defined in GA law, qualifies as a disqualifying restraining order as the term is defined in the Lautenburg Amendment
-You cannot cite the text of the law (already provided) that supports your claim
-You cannot federal case law that supports your claim.

UNTIL YOU HAVE THE TEXT OF THE LAW AND SOME CASE CITATIONS TO BACK YOUR CLAIMS ABOUT WHAT THE LAW MEANS, YOU DON'T HAVE SHIT.

I continue to accept your concession of the points you tried to make.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

No sir, I'm wasting my time with you.

What's that?
You cannot cite the text of the statute and the case law that supports your claim?
This means you don't have shit.
I accept your concession of the points you tried to make.

Your post makes NO sense.

It does to anyone with even a cursory understanding of English.

You believe a misdemeanor charge of, well, something, that stemmed from a fight between two siblings and warranted a $50 fine from the JoP falls under "domestic violence" as the term is defined in the Lautenburg Amendment
-You cannot cite the text of the law (already provided) that supports your claim
-You cannot cite federal case law that supports your claim.

You believe a mutual restraining law, as defined in GA law, qualifies as a disqualifying restraining order as the term is defined in the Lautenburg Amendment
-You cannot cite the text of the law (already provided) that supports your claim
-You cannot federal case law that supports your claim.

UNTIL YOU HAVE THE TEXT OF THE LAW AND SOME CASE CITATIONS TO BACK YOUR CLAIMS ABOUT WHAT THE LAW MEANS, YOU DON'T HAVE SHIT.

I continue to accept your concession of the points you tried to make.

What you're talking is utter bullshit. The "text" of the law is totally meaningless in this context. You have statutes and you have case law. Just because I won't do your legal research for you is not proof of a damn thing.

It is not up to you to determine who a guardian is, for example. I can tell you that I once fined a 19 year old who was taking care of his younger brother while the parents were out of town. The younger sibling did minor property damage and an altercation occurred and the 19 year old paid for it and was fined. A liberal hack could call that domestic violence and that guy would have to argue it in court.

Any idiot on this board can look up what a Mutual Restraining Order is. If the accused does not challenge it (and they have every Right to exercise their legal Rights and do so) then silence is consent. The courts are under no obligation to explain your Rights to you.

Damn your ego dude. Get a freaking life.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No sir, I'm wasting my time with you.

What's that?
You cannot cite the text of the statute and the case law that supports your claim?
This means you don't have shit.
I accept your concession of the points you tried to make.

Your post makes NO sense.

It does to anyone with even a cursory understanding of English.

You believe a misdemeanor charge of, well, something, that stemmed from a fight between two siblings and warranted a $50 fine from the JoP falls under "domestic violence" as the term is defined in the Lautenburg Amendment
-You cannot cite the text of the law (already provided) that supports your claim
-You cannot cite federal case law that supports your claim.

You believe a mutual restraining law, as defined in GA law, qualifies as a disqualifying restraining order as the term is defined in the Lautenburg Amendment
-You cannot cite the text of the law (already provided) that supports your claim
-You cannot federal case law that supports your claim.

UNTIL YOU HAVE THE TEXT OF THE LAW AND SOME CASE CITATIONS TO BACK YOUR CLAIMS ABOUT WHAT THE LAW MEANS, YOU DON'T HAVE SHIT.

I continue to accept your concession of the points you tried to make.

What you're talking is utter bullshit.

Did you or did you not say:

UNTIL YOU HAVE SOME CASE CITATIONS TO BACK YOUR CLAIMS ABOUT WHAT THE LAW MEANS, YOU DON'T HAVE SHIT.

Where are the case citations that back your assertions?
Where is the text of the statute that back your assertion?

Absent them, under your standard, you don't have shit.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

No sir, I'm wasting my time with you.

What's that?
You cannot cite the text of the statute and the case law that supports your claim?
This means you don't have shit.
I accept your concession of the points you tried to make.

Your post makes NO sense.

It does to anyone with even a cursory understanding of English.

You believe a misdemeanor charge of, well, something, that stemmed from a fight between two siblings and warranted a $50 fine from the JoP falls under "domestic violence" as the term is defined in the Lautenburg Amendment
-You cannot cite the text of the law (already provided) that supports your claim
-You cannot cite federal case law that supports your claim.

You believe a mutual restraining law, as defined in GA law, qualifies as a disqualifying restraining order as the term is defined in the Lautenburg Amendment
-You cannot cite the text of the law (already provided) that supports your claim
-You cannot federal case law that supports your claim.

UNTIL YOU HAVE THE TEXT OF THE LAW AND SOME CASE CITATIONS TO BACK YOUR CLAIMS ABOUT WHAT THE LAW MEANS, YOU DON'T HAVE SHIT.

I continue to accept your concession of the points you tried to make.

What you're talking is utter bullshit.

Did you or did you not say:

UNTIL YOU HAVE SOME CASE CITATIONS TO BACK YOUR CLAIMS ABOUT WHAT THE LAW MEANS, YOU DON'T HAVE SHIT.

Where are the case citations that back your assertions?
Where is the text of the statute that back your assertion?

Absent them, under your standard, you don't have shit.

I don't have to prove anything to you because:

1) Your dumb ass cannot figure out this thread is not about your ego or that side issue

2) You nor I can anticipate HOW the courts will interpret the law years down the road (I don't need a cite for what I did as a JP; neither can I rule out since the 19 year old was a guardian, it could be construed the way liberals want)

3) I'm not doing your legal research for free.

YOU FAILED TO PROVE ANYTHING. Well, you have proven one thing: You're more worried about your fragile ego than you are about saving this country.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I don't have to prove anything to you because:

You made two specific claims, and its up to you to back them.

UNTIL YOU HAVE SOME CASE CITATIONS TO BACK YOUR CLAIMS ABOUT WHAT THE LAW MEANS, YOU DON'T HAVE SHIT.

Thus, you don't have shit.
Be a man- admit it and move on.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

When the pro-gun factions will try to eat their own as opposed to having a civil conversation and work toward realistic solutions, you know they're pretty well screwed.

The left wants background checks, registration and eventual confiscation. The right wing likes the idea of a POLICE STATE with its National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify, 27 / 7 / 365 womb to the tomb monitoring, prove this, prove that agenda, so the right and the left are simply two hands washing each other while bitching about which hand is the dirtiest.

My way removes the necessity of a police state.

No firearm restrictions on anyone with legal capacity (adults who are not retarded), including released felons, and let people take responsibility for their own security (something police cannot possibly provide).

.

I'm with you in theory. But, it isn't going to happen. Hell, I'm being trolled by a guy whose board name is the same as one of America's best battle rifles. Some gun owners want more gun control than the liberals want it.

Between the left wanting background checks and the right with all your info tied to an SSN based National ID Card, the Ds and Rs are the same - just one hand washing the other.

I'm with you in theory. But, it isn't going to happen.

As long as we resign the issue, it will never happen.

On the other side, they refuse to accept surrender and will never quit trying to confiscate all firearms from private citizens. It should be met with equal resolve and anything (including murder) is justified.

Machine guns, or Valhalla!!!

We will get all gun laws repeal, die trying, or die shooting it out when they come for our weapons. Dying with a gun in hand gives one a trip to Valhalla to feast, fight, and fuck forever!!! (I don't really believe it, but I love the fearless motivation and resolve it brings.)

So, every American who enjoys ANY measure of liberty should be willing to do anything necessary. We are morally justified in this righteous cause.

Die fighting.

Kill.

Steal.

Lie.

Cheat.

Back-stab.

Infiltrate and destroy.

Kill innocent children.

ANYTHING GOES!!!

It's all on the table because the other side took that position first. So be it. Now they're gonna pay.

.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

I don't have to prove anything to you because:

You made two specific claims, and its up to you to back them.

UNTIL YOU HAVE SOME CASE CITATIONS TO BACK YOUR CLAIMS ABOUT WHAT THE LAW MEANS, YOU DON'T HAVE SHIT.

Thus, you don't have shit.
Be a man- admit it and move on.

You need to get a life. I made an observation and a claim. The one regarding Mutual Restraining Orders is indisputable; the other is a good possibility. If you cannot accept that, you would only try to deny any case law I researched. That is why I won't do it for free. You are not mature enough to admit it when you are proven wrong. I'm not wasting my time on your dumbassery.

Take $50 and go to the dog pound. Buy yourself a dog. Name it Life. That way you can say you have one.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

When the pro-gun factions will try to eat their own as opposed to having a civil conversation and work toward realistic solutions, you know they're pretty well screwed.

The left wants background checks, registration and eventual confiscation. The right wing likes the idea of a POLICE STATE with its National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify, 27 / 7 / 365 womb to the tomb monitoring, prove this, prove that agenda, so the right and the left are simply two hands washing each other while bitching about which hand is the dirtiest.

My way removes the necessity of a police state.

No firearm restrictions on anyone with legal capacity (adults who are not retarded), including released felons, and let people take responsibility for their own security (something police cannot possibly provide).

.

I'm with you in theory. But, it isn't going to happen. Hell, I'm being trolled by a guy whose board name is the same as one of America's best battle rifles. Some gun owners want more gun control than the liberals want it.

Between the left wanting background checks and the right with all your info tied to an SSN based National ID Card, the Ds and Rs are the same - just one hand washing the other.

I'm with you in theory. But, it isn't going to happen.

As long as we resign the issue, it will never happen.

On the other side, they refuse to accept surrender and will never quit trying to confiscate all firearms from private citizens. It should be met with equal resolve and anything (including murder) is justified.

Machine guns, or Valhalla!!!

We will get all gun laws repeal, die trying, or die shooting it out when they come for our weapons. Dying with a gun in hand gives one a trip to Valhalla to feast, fight, and fuck forever!!! (I don't really believe it, but I love the fearless motivation and resolve it brings.)

So, every American who enjoys ANY measure of liberty should be willing to do anything necessary. We are morally justified in this righteous cause.

Die fighting.

Kill.

Steal.

Lie.

Cheat.

Back-stab.

Infiltrate and destroy.

Kill innocent children.

ANYTHING GOES!!!

It's all on the table because the other side took that position first. So be it. Now they're gonna pay.

.

How can you recompense evil for evil and hope to win?

 

[M14 Shooter]

I don't have to prove anything to you because:

You made two specific claims, and its up to you to back them.

UNTIL YOU HAVE SOME CASE CITATIONS TO BACK YOUR CLAIMS ABOUT WHAT THE LAW MEANS, YOU DON'T HAVE SHIT.

Thus, you don't have shit.
Be a man- admit it and move on.

I made an observation and a claim.

That you cannot back up. I know.
Do you often make claims you cannot back up and then throw a tantrum when someone call you on it?
I bet so.

UNTIL YOU HAVE SOME CASE CITATIONS TO BACK YOUR CLAIMS ABOUT WHAT THE LAW MEANS, YOU DON'T HAVE SHIT.

You don't have shit.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

When the pro-gun factions will try to eat their own as opposed to having a civil conversation and work toward realistic solutions, you know they're pretty well screwed.

The left wants background checks, registration and eventual confiscation. The right wing likes the idea of a POLICE STATE with its National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify, 27 / 7 / 365 womb to the tomb monitoring, prove this, prove that agenda, so the right and the left are simply two hands washing each other while bitching about which hand is the dirtiest.

My way removes the necessity of a police state.

No firearm restrictions on anyone with legal capacity (adults who are not retarded), including released felons, and let people take responsibility for their own security (something police cannot possibly provide).

.

I'm with you in theory. But, it isn't going to happen. Hell, I'm being trolled by a guy whose board name is the same as one of America's best battle rifles. Some gun owners want more gun control than the liberals want it.

Between the left wanting background checks and the right with all your info tied to an SSN based National ID Card, the Ds and Rs are the same - just one hand washing the other.

I'm with you in theory. But, it isn't going to happen.

As long as we resign the issue, it will never happen.

On the other side, they refuse to accept surrender and will never quit trying to confiscate all firearms from private citizens. It should be met with equal resolve and anything (including murder) is justified.

Machine guns, or Valhalla!!!

We will get all gun laws repeal, die trying, or die shooting it out when they come for our weapons. Dying with a gun in hand gives one a trip to Valhalla to feast, fight, and fuck forever!!! (I don't really believe it, but I love the fearless motivation and resolve it brings.)

So, every American who enjoys ANY measure of liberty should be willing to do anything necessary. We are morally justified in this righteous cause.

Die fighting.

Kill.

Steal.

Lie.

Cheat.

Back-stab.

Infiltrate and destroy.

Kill innocent children.

ANYTHING GOES!!!

It's all on the table because the other side took that position first. So be it. Now they're gonna pay.

.

How can you recompense evil for evil and hope to win?

Evil would be ALLOWING the enemy to destroy us because we refuse to fight them with equal force and fervor.

Evil would be sacrificing all liberty on the bullshit alter of moral high-ground.

We are at war.

.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

I don't have to prove anything to you because:

You made two specific claims, and its up to you to back them.

UNTIL YOU HAVE SOME CASE CITATIONS TO BACK YOUR CLAIMS ABOUT WHAT THE LAW MEANS, YOU DON'T HAVE SHIT.

Thus, you don't have shit.
Be a man- admit it and move on.

I made an observation and a claim.

That you cannot back up. I know.
Do you often make claims you cannot back up and then throw a tantrum when someone call you on it?
I bet so.

UNTIL YOU HAVE SOME CASE CITATIONS TO BACK YOUR CLAIMS ABOUT WHAT THE LAW MEANS, YOU DON'T HAVE SHIT.

You don't have shit.

You're the one throwing the tantrum dumbass. I did back up what I said. You are discussing the facts with the source. I don't need a link for a decision I made. Not all legal decisions have a cite you can access via the Internet and I won't do legal research for you for free. Pay me and I'll gladly do it so you will quit bitching.

YOU DON'T HAVE SHIT.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

When the pro-gun factions will try to eat their own as opposed to having a civil conversation and work toward realistic solutions, you know they're pretty well screwed.

The left wants background checks, registration and eventual confiscation. The right wing likes the idea of a POLICE STATE with its National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify, 27 / 7 / 365 womb to the tomb monitoring, prove this, prove that agenda, so the right and the left are simply two hands washing each other while bitching about which hand is the dirtiest.

My way removes the necessity of a police state.

No firearm restrictions on anyone with legal capacity (adults who are not retarded), including released felons, and let people take responsibility for their own security (something police cannot possibly provide).

.

I'm with you in theory. But, it isn't going to happen. Hell, I'm being trolled by a guy whose board name is the same as one of America's best battle rifles. Some gun owners want more gun control than the liberals want it.

Between the left wanting background checks and the right with all your info tied to an SSN based National ID Card, the Ds and Rs are the same - just one hand washing the other.

I'm with you in theory. But, it isn't going to happen.

As long as we resign the issue, it will never happen.

On the other side, they refuse to accept surrender and will never quit trying to confiscate all firearms from private citizens. It should be met with equal resolve and anything (including murder) is justified.

Machine guns, or Valhalla!!!

We will get all gun laws repeal, die trying, or die shooting it out when they come for our weapons. Dying with a gun in hand gives one a trip to Valhalla to feast, fight, and fuck forever!!! (I don't really believe it, but I love the fearless motivation and resolve it brings.)

So, every American who enjoys ANY measure of liberty should be willing to do anything necessary. We are morally justified in this righteous cause.

Die fighting.

Kill.

Steal.

Lie.

Cheat.

Back-stab.

Infiltrate and destroy.

Kill innocent children.

ANYTHING GOES!!!

It's all on the table because the other side took that position first. So be it. Now they're gonna pay.

.

How can you recompense evil for evil and hope to win?

Evil would be ALLOWING the enemy to destroy us because we refuse to fight them with equal force and fervor.

Evil would be sacrificing all liberty on the bullshit alter of moral high-ground.

We are at war.

.

We are at war, but I would go about a different way.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I don't have to prove anything to you because:

You made two specific claims, and its up to you to back them.

UNTIL YOU HAVE SOME CASE CITATIONS TO BACK YOUR CLAIMS ABOUT WHAT THE LAW MEANS, YOU DON'T HAVE SHIT.

Thus, you don't have shit.
Be a man- admit it and move on.

I made an observation and a claim.

That you cannot back up. I know.
Do you often make claims you cannot back up and then throw a tantrum when someone call you on it?
I bet so.

UNTIL YOU HAVE SOME CASE CITATIONS TO BACK YOUR CLAIMS ABOUT WHAT THE LAW MEANS, YOU DON'T HAVE SHIT.

You don't have shit.

I don't have to prove anything to you because:

You made two specific claims, and its up to you to back them.

UNTIL YOU HAVE SOME CASE CITATIONS TO BACK YOUR CLAIMS ABOUT WHAT THE LAW MEANS, YOU DON'T HAVE SHIT.

Thus, you don't have shit.
Be a man- admit it and move on.

I made an observation and a claim.

That you cannot back up. I know.
Do you often make claims you cannot back up and then throw a tantrum when someone call you on it?
I bet so.

UNTIL YOU HAVE SOME CASE CITATIONS TO BACK YOUR CLAIMS ABOUT WHAT THE LAW MEANS, YOU DON'T HAVE SHIT.

You don't have shit.

I did back up what I said

This is a lie, as -nowhere- did you present case citations to back you claims abut what the law means.

As we know,.

UNTIL YOU HAVE SOME CASE CITATIONS TO BACK YOUR CLAIMS ABOUT WHAT THE LAW MEANS, YOU DON'T HAVE SHIT.

Thus, you have shit.

Please - throw another tantrum.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

I don't have to prove anything to you because:

You made two specific claims, and its up to you to back them.

UNTIL YOU HAVE SOME CASE CITATIONS TO BACK YOUR CLAIMS ABOUT WHAT THE LAW MEANS, YOU DON'T HAVE SHIT.

Thus, you don't have shit.
Be a man- admit it and move on.

I made an observation and a claim.

That you cannot back up. I know.
Do you often make claims you cannot back up and then throw a tantrum when someone call you on it?
I bet so.

UNTIL YOU HAVE SOME CASE CITATIONS TO BACK YOUR CLAIMS ABOUT WHAT THE LAW MEANS, YOU DON'T HAVE SHIT.

You don't have shit.

I don't have to prove anything to you because:

You made two specific claims, and its up to you to back them.

UNTIL YOU HAVE SOME CASE CITATIONS TO BACK YOUR CLAIMS ABOUT WHAT THE LAW MEANS, YOU DON'T HAVE SHIT.

Thus, you don't have shit.
Be a man- admit it and move on.

I made an observation and a claim.

That you cannot back up. I know.
Do you often make claims you cannot back up and then throw a tantrum when someone call you on it?
I bet so.

UNTIL YOU HAVE SOME CASE CITATIONS TO BACK YOUR CLAIMS ABOUT WHAT THE LAW MEANS, YOU DON'T HAVE SHIT.

You don't have shit.

I did back up what I said

This is a lie, as -nowhere- did you present case citations to back you claims abut what the law means.

As we know,.

UNTIL YOU HAVE SOME CASE CITATIONS TO BACK YOUR CLAIMS ABOUT WHAT THE LAW MEANS, YOU DON'T HAVE SHIT.

Thus, you have shit.

Please - throw another tantrum.

You're the one throwing a temper tantrum, dumbass. I'm not going to work for you for free. My ego won't allow you to goad me, so go right on with your dumbassery.

When I am the citing source, then I don't need to quote one. Besides that, we're talking about laws on the books that have yet to be interpreted many times. Bet your ass in 40,000 laws there is something to nail even YOUR ignorant ass on.

You're so stupid, you derailed your own thread arguing with someone who wants less gun control. How fucking stupid was that? Your ego won't allow you to move on and be more productive. I noticed that tv shows like Blue Bloods, FBI and a couple of others have had episodes wherein people like you are the subject of tv entertainment as tv cops try to profile you. Amazingly they are pretty good at it.


You're letting your ego ruin your life. Now it's me, you and maybe two posters on this thread. If your dumb ass saw a fraction of the shit I've been through over the years, your attitude would be much different. Besides, you wouldn't act the way you do publicly that you are doing on this board.

It's unfortunate that you lost this round. You alienated at least one person that was on your side. You derailed your own thread so that even the liberals don't have to bother with it. They won. You took an opportunity to benefit off of hard earned experience and turned it into a a pissing match. You will probably walk away thinking you "won" something because after pissing me off, I won't do free legal work for you. Could a man be any more fucked up!

It's your thread. You'll have the last word, but with the liberals laughing their ass off at you, if you think you "won" anything, the libs will rest easy tonight saying that kind of delusional and divisive way of interacting with your own guarantees the liberals an easy victory.

I won't come back to even read your response, so it will only serve to amuse the left.