What if she didn't have a gun?

[Brain357]

Of course you haven't, it is someone else that keeps bring it up using your account.

Show where I said we should have a ban on guns then.

Show me where I said you said that. What I said is that you keep bringing it up, like you did here.

You making an argument for all guns being banned?

That is me asking a question. Not making a statement. Try again.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Show where I said we should have a ban on guns then.

Show me where I said you said that. What I said is that you keep bringing it up, like you did here.

You making an argument for all guns being banned?

That is me asking a question. Not making a statement. Try again.

Why do you want me to prove you said something I never said you said? Is it because you know you have lost the debate, so the only thing you have left is to lie about what I said?

 

[Pogo]

Show me where I said you said that. What I said is that you keep bringing it up, like you did here.

That is me asking a question. Not making a statement. Try again.

Why do you want me to prove you said something I never said you said? Is it because you know you have lost the debate, so the only thing you have left is to lie about what I said?

This is what Windy does -- writes something that's still on the page, and then denies it's sitting there-- while it's still sitting there.

Here it is Wackobag:

How would banning all guns affect only criminals?

Have not proposed that.

Of course you haven't, it is someone else that keeps bring it up using your account.

-- unless it is your contention that sarcasm suddenly does not exist.

squirm squirm squirm....

He pulls the same shit on me all the time, even with the same wording. I call him on it and he always loses, yet keeps doing it somehow expecting different results. Bizarro.

 

[Brain357]

Show me where I said you said that. What I said is that you keep bringing it up, like you did here.

That is me asking a question. Not making a statement. Try again.

Why do you want me to prove you said something I never said you said? Is it because you know you have lost the debate, so the only thing you have left is to lie about what I said?

I've lost no part of this debate so far. It's been an easy one.

 

[Brain357]

That is me asking a question. Not making a statement. Try again.

Why do you want me to prove you said something I never said you said? Is it because you know you have lost the debate, so the only thing you have left is to lie about what I said?

This is what Windy does -- writes something that's still on the page, and then denies it's sitting there-- while it's still sitting there.

Here it is Wackobag:

Have not proposed that.

Of course you haven't, it is someone else that keeps bring it up using your account.

-- unless it is your contention that sarcasm suddenly does not exist.

squirm squirm squirm....

He pulls the same shit on me all the time, even with the same wording. I call him on it and he always loses, yet keeps doing it somehow expecting different results. Bizarro.

He really makes almost no sense most of the time. These guys keep arguing the definition of loophole for no known reason. They seem to not realize that the definition doesn't matter. The fact remains that all gun sales don't require a background check. That was my initial point and it is still true. Was funny when lonestar tried to cover his lies with more lies.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I've lost no part of this debate so far. It's been an easy one.

Suffer from delusions of adequacy much?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That is me asking a question. Not making a statement. Try again.

Why do you want me to prove you said something I never said you said? Is it because you know you have lost the debate, so the only thing you have left is to lie about what I said?

This is what Windy does -- writes something that's still on the page, and then denies it's sitting there-- while it's still sitting there.

Here it is Wackobag:

Have not proposed that.

Of course you haven't, it is someone else that keeps bring it up using your account.

-- unless it is your contention that sarcasm suddenly does not exist.

squirm squirm squirm....

He pulls the same shit on me all the time, even with the same wording. I call him on it and he always loses, yet keeps doing it somehow expecting different results. Bizarro.

Aren't you the idiot that insists that the fact that he posts something, and then argues in favor of it, is not evidence that he actually supports the very thing he posted? Did Brain call you in for advice? Is that why he is actually daring me to prove he said something I actually didn't say he said?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That is me asking a question. Not making a statement. Try again.

Why do you want me to prove you said something I never said you said? Is it because you know you have lost the debate, so the only thing you have left is to lie about what I said?

I've lost no part of this debate so far. It's been an easy one.

Not even the part where you said background checks stop mass shootings, or the part where you where you claimed a loophole that doesn't exist actually exists, or even the part where you claimed that a guy that built a bomb and owned an assault rifle wouldn't have been able to kill his wife if the fake loophole didn't exist?

 

[Brain357]

Why do you want me to prove you said something I never said you said? Is it because you know you have lost the debate, so the only thing you have left is to lie about what I said?

I've lost no part of this debate so far. It's been an easy one.

Not even the part where you said background checks stop mass shootings, or the part where you where you claimed a loophole that doesn't exist actually exists, or even the part where you claimed that a guy that built a bomb and owned an assault rifle wouldn't have been able to kill his wife if the fake loophole didn't exist?

Lets see:
Gave an example of a mass shooting where the guy went around background checks with a private sale. Check.
All gun sales do not require a background check. True.
Nope I still win.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Why do you want me to prove you said something I never said you said? Is it because you know you have lost the debate, so the only thing you have left is to lie about what I said?

This is what Windy does -- writes something that's still on the page, and then denies it's sitting there-- while it's still sitting there.

Here it is Wackobag:

Of course you haven't, it is someone else that keeps bring it up using your account.

-- unless it is your contention that sarcasm suddenly does not exist.

squirm squirm squirm....

He pulls the same shit on me all the time, even with the same wording. I call him on it and he always loses, yet keeps doing it somehow expecting different results. Bizarro.

He really makes almost no sense most of the time. These guys keep arguing the definition of loophole for no known reason. They seem to not realize that the definition doesn't matter. The fact remains that all gun sales don't require a background check. That was my initial point and it is still true. Was funny when lonestar tried to cover his lies with more lies.

Excuse me, I'm making perfect sense. You just aren't keeping up.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I've lost no part of this debate so far. It's been an easy one.

Not even the part where you said background checks stop mass shootings, or the part where you where you claimed a loophole that doesn't exist actually exists, or even the part where you claimed that a guy that built a bomb and owned an assault rifle wouldn't have been able to kill his wife if the fake loophole didn't exist?

Lets see:
Gave an example of a mass shooting where the guy went around background checks with a private sale. Check.
All gun sales do not require a background check. True.
Nope I still win.

You gave an example of a guy who already owned an assault weapon not using it to shoot people, yet you want to ban assault weapons because they are scary. Check.

No one ever said all sales require a background check, which is why there is no loophole.

You claim you win even though you haven't. Check

 

[Brain357]

Not even the part where you said background checks stop mass shootings, or the part where you where you claimed a loophole that doesn't exist actually exists, or even the part where you claimed that a guy that built a bomb and owned an assault rifle wouldn't have been able to kill his wife if the fake loophole didn't exist?

Lets see:
Gave an example of a mass shooting where the guy went around background checks with a private sale. Check.
All gun sales do not require a background check. True.
Nope I still win.

You gave an example of a guy who already owned an assault weapon not using it to shoot people, yet you want to ban assault weapons because they are scary. Check.

No one ever said all sales require a background check, which is why there is no loophole.

You claim you win even though you haven't. Check

You have never shown that anyone had an assault rifle so not sure what your talking about.

You ignore the other examples I posted of shooters going around background checks.

Lonestar did claim that all gun sales require a background check. When in fact ALL gun sales do not require a background check.

You lose again.

 

[Brain357]

What a load of horse shit!

First of all moron, when you purchase a gun you go through a background check. Magazine capacity would not stop anyone from mass murdering lots of people in gun free zones, they would simply have to slide in a fresh mag, takes about one second.

The 2nd Amendment does not contain the words "well ordered".

Now your not being honest. Is there a background check if you buy a gun from your neighbor?

One second maybe at the range with the magazine sitting perfectly in front of you. Much longer if your grabbing it off your person in a high stress situation. You might even drop it. And as the Giffords shooting shows, shooters are stopped at reload.

Would you sell a gun to your neighbor if he was a nut job or a criminal?

No, one second is average for me under any circumstance. It's second nature for me to drop a magazine and have one re-inserted in almost no time. Practice makes perfect.

BTW. While I have enjoyed your discussions on the definition of loophole and how you were all confused because there is no loophole. And lonestar didn't know I was talking about private sales because I was calling it a loophole... Well I didn't actually start calling it a loophole till I realized how ridiculous you guys were about it being a loophole. I didn't use the word loophole and even used the example of buying a gun from a neighbor. You'd have to be pretty dumb to not know I was talking about private sales not needing a background check.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Lets see:
Gave an example of a mass shooting where the guy went around background checks with a private sale. Check.
All gun sales do not require a background check. True.
Nope I still win.

You gave an example of a guy who already owned an assault weapon not using it to shoot people, yet you want to ban assault weapons because they are scary. Check.

No one ever said all sales require a background check, which is why there is no loophole.

You claim you win even though you haven't. Check

You have never shown that anyone had an assault rifle so not sure what your talking about.

You ignore the other examples I posted of shooters going around background checks.

Lonestar did claim that all gun sales require a background check. When in fact ALL gun sales do not require a background check.

You lose again.

No one on the planet has assault rifles? I bet they don't have IEDs either.

Lonestar said that all gun checks through dealers go through background checks.

They do.

 

[Brain357]

You gave an example of a guy who already owned an assault weapon not using it to shoot people, yet you want to ban assault weapons because they are scary. Check.

No one ever said all sales require a background check, which is why there is no loophole.

You claim you win even though you haven't. Check

You have never shown that anyone had an assault rifle so not sure what your talking about.

You ignore the other examples I posted of shooters going around background checks.

Lonestar did claim that all gun sales require a background check. When in fact ALL gun sales do not require a background check.

You lose again.

No one on the planet has assault rifles? I bet they don't have IEDs either.

Lonestar said that all gun checks through dealers go through background checks.

They do.

 

[Jarlaxle]

You support background checks on dealer sales and support criminals buying guns in private sales. Doesn't make sense but get it.

Wow, you are incredibly dishonest.

I think he might actually not be bright enough to figure out why that is such a stupid statement.

 

[Jarlaxle]

So sure we could save some lives, but if not all we shouldn't bother doing it? Sorry but I value life more than that. Do you also call yourself pro life?

I find your logic less than compelling. You want to deny everyone freedom on the off chance that you might save their lives, yet you refuse to admit that guns actually do save lives. Not to mention that, without guns, women, like the one in the link in the OP, would be at the mercy of other people.

Why do you hate women?

What are you talking about? Everything I've suggested would only effect criminals.

Now you're just lying again...

 

[Jarlaxle]

That is me asking a question. Not making a statement. Try again.

Why do you want me to prove you said something I never said you said? Is it because you know you have lost the debate, so the only thing you have left is to lie about what I said?

I've lost no part of this debate so far. It's been an easy one.

Dude, you're having more delusions of adequacy!

 

[hunarcy]

Why do you want me to prove you said something I never said you said? Is it because you know you have lost the debate, so the only thing you have left is to lie about what I said?

I've lost no part of this debate so far. It's been an easy one.

Dude, you're having more delusions of adequacy!

He is quite the legend in his own mind.

 

[hunarcy]

I find your logic less than compelling. You want to deny everyone freedom on the off chance that you might save their lives, yet you refuse to admit that guns actually do save lives. Not to mention that, without guns, women, like the one in the link in the OP, would be at the mercy of other people.

Why do you hate women?

What are you talking about? Everything I've suggested would only effect criminals.

How would banning all guns affect only criminals?

He's obviously expecting that banning guns would make everyone a criminal.