Gun Control question for liberals?

[Blues Man]

If New Zealand's gun confiscation compliance rate is 1% what do you think it would be in the US, .0000001%?

This reminds me of when the Canadians tried to get all their guns registered. The compliance rate was like 3%. They finally dropped it.


New Zealand Compliance Rate for Gun Buyback Program Stands at Less than 1 Percent - GunsAmerica Digest

New Zealand Compliance Rate for Gun Buyback Program Stands at Less than 1 Percent

That is not confiscation you brainwashed functional idiot.

And no one is talking about confiscation except a few fringe lefties and you brainwashed functional GOP morons. Hunting rifles and shotguns will never be a problem except for felons and the insane.

until they are used in a mass shooting

 

[Pogo]

[Q


Registration is necessary for enforcement of many needed reforms.

You are confused. Registration is not necessary for anything except as a step towards confiscation. It is none of the government's business what guns I own. It is none of your business. If I use a gun in a crime then it becomes a law enforcement issue. Until then mind your own business.

Izzat right.

How come cars haven't been "confiscated"? They've had over a century to do it.

Yanno what, this is a perfect illustration of why I compare gun fetishists to babies with their pacifiers.

I don't give a shit if idiots like you don't like my "gun fetish". You are not important enough to give a shit. Just go mind your own ******* business. Your mother is probably calling you so go see what she wants.

Actually I posted nothing about what anybody "likes" or "gives a shit" about. I made a psychological observation.

Also deconstructed your claim about "Registration is not necessary for anything except as a step towards confiscation". Clearly that's not the case.

 

[Flash]

The tenure among most Liberals is that they don’t like private citizens owning guns. Yet, if you had your way and everyone turned over their guns, that would leave police and criminals having guns. Liberals are also the first to attack the police. How is it you are okay with police having guns and how would you get guns from criminals?

Actually brainwashed functional moron, liberals would like to have background checks on all sales and would like to ban the sales of military-style weapons because they seem to drive idiots crazy...

**** backround checks. Only a moron supports them. They are useless and against the Bill of Rights. You don't have to get permission from the shitass government before being allowed to enjoy a Liberty spelled out in the Bill of Rights, do you? If you do then the Bill of Rights isn't worth jackshit, is it?

I will go with the Supreme Court who says they are just fine, not brainwashed functional moron ignoramuses like you.

Just go **** yourself Moon Bat. You are a confused asshole that doesn't believe in individual Liberty or the Bill of Rights or anything else except the free stuff you want to get by making this country a socialist shithole.

You have no concept of Liberty, only greed.

Only a dumbass like you thinks you have to get permission from the government to enjoy a right enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Background checks are nothing more than filthy ass permission from the government and they are wrong and there has been no real court case about it.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I'm not calling it a mandatory anything accept a background check.

The mandatory background check where New Zealanders are riquired to surrender their firearms?

So, to you, "mandatory background check" is where we are forced to surrender our firearms?

Like I said, you DO want a complete ban and confiscation. You just lie about it because you are a filthy, dishonest piece of shit.

These fuckers cannot be trusted.

NOTHING BUT REPEAL. START A WAR BEFORE AGREEING TO ANY MORE BULLSHIT "GUN CONTROL".

 

[Pogo]

Izzat right.

How come cars haven't been "confiscated"? They've had over a century to do it.

Yanno what, this is a perfect illustration of why I compare gun fetishists to babies with their pacifiers.

Why confiscate cars? Our government needs its little slaves to drive to work and do its bidding.

Firearms are a direct threat and check on government power. Cars serve the almighty government.

Why indeed.

Let's watch an instant replay.
HIM: "Registration is not necessary for anything except as a step towards confiscation."
ME: "Then why haven't they confiscated cars?"

Let me know if what I just did there begins to sink in.

Let me type slower so you can understand.

Because our all-powerful government has no reason to confiscate cars and needs us to be productive little slaves. Cars get us to and from work.

Firearms act to put our all-powerful government in check. The powerful all want the same thing---MORE POWER.

Of COURSE they will use it to confiscate. They want more power. It is RETARDED to think they will do anything else with registration.

Perhaps you have been ignoring the habits or behavior of the powerful. We have not.

You let me know when that begins to sink in, ummkay buddy.

.

Nope, still not getting it. Leave us reduce even further.

HIM "ANYTHING"
ME: "CARS"

Are "cars" part of "anything" yes or no? Are you telling us a "car" is not a "thing"?

Not sure I can dumb this down any further, nun so blind.

In that sentence "anything" refers to what registration of guns will do, not the object (guns or cars) that will be registered.

I am not sure how you could make your comments any dumber either. That's about as dumb as they get.

Apparently the English language is challenging for some.

In the phrase, "Registration is not necessary for anything", the word anything refers to ---- well ANYTHING. That include guns, cars, coconuts, Golden retrievers, even those blinders on your head.

And I disproved his claim, and you can't handle it.

 

[Pogo]

The tenure among most Liberals is that they don’t like private citizens owning guns. Yet, if you had your way and everyone turned over their guns, that would leave police and criminals having guns. Liberals are also the first to attack the police. How is it you are okay with police having guns and how would you get guns from criminals?

Actually brainwashed functional moron, liberals would like to have background checks on all sales and would like to ban the sales of military-style weapons because they seem to drive idiots crazy...

**** backround checks. Only a moron supports them. They are useless and against the Bill of Rights. You don't have to get permission from the shitass government before being allowed to enjoy a Liberty spelled out in the Bill of Rights, do you? If you do then the Bill of Rights isn't worth jackshit, is it?

I will go with the Supreme Court who says they are just fine, not brainwashed functional moron ignoramuses like you.

Just go **** yourself Moon Bat. You are a confused asshole that doesn't believe in individual Liberty or the Bill of Rights or anything else except the free stuff you want to get by making this country a socialist shithole.

You have no concept of Liberty, only greed.

Only a dumbass like you thinks you have to get permission from the government to enjoy a right enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Background checks are nothing more than filthy ass permission from the government and they are wrong and there has been no real court case about it.

See how angry a baby gets when he thinks somebody's eyeing his pacifier. QED.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Actually brainwashed functional moron, liberals would like to have background checks on all sales and would like to ban the sales of military-style weapons because they seem to drive idiots crazy...

In other words - needlessly and mindlessly restrict the rights of the law abiding for no reason other than you hate guns.
Got it.

 

[Pogo]

Izzat right.

How come cars haven't been "confiscated"? They've had over a century to do it.

Yanno what, this is a perfect illustration of why I compare gun fetishists to babies with their pacifiers.

Why confiscate cars? Our government needs its little slaves to drive to work and do its bidding.

Firearms are a direct threat and check on government power. Cars serve the almighty government.

Why indeed.

Let's watch an instant replay.
HIM: "Registration is not necessary for anything except as a step towards confiscation."
ME: "Then why haven't they confiscated cars?"

Let me know if what I just did there begins to sink in.

Let me type slower so you can understand.

Because our all-powerful government has no reason to confiscate cars and needs us to be productive little slaves. Cars get us to and from work.

Firearms act to put our all-powerful government in check. The powerful all want the same thing---MORE POWER.

Of COURSE they will use it to confiscate. They want more power. It is RETARDED to think they will do anything else with registration.

Perhaps you have been ignoring the habits or behavior of the powerful. We have not.

You let me know when that begins to sink in, ummkay buddy.

.

Nope, still not getting it. Leave us reduce even further.

HIM "ANYTHING"
ME: "CARS"

Are "cars" part of "anything" yes or no? Are you telling us a "car" is not a "thing"?

Not sure I can dumb this down any further, nun so blind.

So are you saying cars or any other property for that matter for which the government has a record of has never been confiscated by the government so we have no need to think registering guns would lead to confiscation?

I've got two of them in my driveway right now. They've never been 'confiscated'.

Matter of fact I've owned cars all the way back to the 1960s that were never 'confiscated', yet they were all registered.
How'd that not happen?

Oh wait --- maybe the premise is fucked up. But I already proved that.

 

[M14 Shooter]

**** backround checks. Only a moron supports them. They are useless and against the Bill of Rights. You don't have to get permission from the shitass government before being allowed to enjoy a Liberty spelled out in the Bill of Rights, do you? If you do then the Bill of Rights isn't worth jackshit, is it?

I will go with the Supreme Court who says they are just fine,...

Your statement, above, is a lie.

 

[Blues Man]

Why confiscate cars? Our government needs its little slaves to drive to work and do its bidding.

Firearms are a direct threat and check on government power. Cars serve the almighty government.

Why indeed.

Let's watch an instant replay.
HIM: "Registration is not necessary for anything except as a step towards confiscation."
ME: "Then why haven't they confiscated cars?"

Let me know if what I just did there begins to sink in.

Let me type slower so you can understand.

Because our all-powerful government has no reason to confiscate cars and needs us to be productive little slaves. Cars get us to and from work.

Firearms act to put our all-powerful government in check. The powerful all want the same thing---MORE POWER.

Of COURSE they will use it to confiscate. They want more power. It is RETARDED to think they will do anything else with registration.

Perhaps you have been ignoring the habits or behavior of the powerful. We have not.

You let me know when that begins to sink in, ummkay buddy.

.

Nope, still not getting it. Leave us reduce even further.

HIM "ANYTHING"
ME: "CARS"

Are "cars" part of "anything" yes or no? Are you telling us a "car" is not a "thing"?

Not sure I can dumb this down any further, nun so blind.

So are you saying cars or any other property for that matter for which the government has a record of has never been confiscated by the government so we have no need to think registering guns would lead to confiscation?

I've got two of them in my driveway right now. They've never been 'confiscated'.

Matter of fact I've owned cars all the way back to the 1960s that were never 'confiscated', yet they were all registered.
How'd that not happen?

Oh wait --- maybe the premise is fucked up. But I already proved that.

So what?

Is it your assertion that the government has never confiscated a registered vehicle?

I don't care about your anecdotes because we all know there is more to the world than the limited number of things you may have experienced.

 

[Pogo]

Why indeed.

Let's watch an instant replay.
HIM: "Registration is not necessary for anything except as a step towards confiscation."
ME: "Then why haven't they confiscated cars?"

Let me know if what I just did there begins to sink in.

Let me type slower so you can understand.

Because our all-powerful government has no reason to confiscate cars and needs us to be productive little slaves. Cars get us to and from work.

Firearms act to put our all-powerful government in check. The powerful all want the same thing---MORE POWER.

Of COURSE they will use it to confiscate. They want more power. It is RETARDED to think they will do anything else with registration.

Perhaps you have been ignoring the habits or behavior of the powerful. We have not.

You let me know when that begins to sink in, ummkay buddy.

.

Nope, still not getting it. Leave us reduce even further.

HIM "ANYTHING"
ME: "CARS"

Are "cars" part of "anything" yes or no? Are you telling us a "car" is not a "thing"?

Not sure I can dumb this down any further, nun so blind.

So are you saying cars or any other property for that matter for which the government has a record of has never been confiscated by the government so we have no need to think registering guns would lead to confiscation?

I've got two of them in my driveway right now. They've never been 'confiscated'.

Matter of fact I've owned cars all the way back to the 1960s that were never 'confiscated', yet they were all registered.
How'd that not happen?

Oh wait --- maybe the premise is fucked up. But I already proved that.

So what?

Is it your assertion that the government has never confiscated a registered vehicle?

I don't care about your anecdotes because we all know there is more to the world than the limited number of things you may have experienced.

Great. Build your own strawman and then knock it down.

I don't have an assertion here, Evelyn Wood. Flush does. And I flushed it down the crapper where it belongs.

Don't like it? Tough shit. Prove it wrong or watch it swirl down the toilet.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Why confiscate cars? Our government needs its little slaves to drive to work and do its bidding.

Firearms are a direct threat and check on government power. Cars serve the almighty government.

Why indeed.

Let's watch an instant replay.
HIM: "Registration is not necessary for anything except as a step towards confiscation."
ME: "Then why haven't they confiscated cars?"

Let me know if what I just did there begins to sink in.

Let me type slower so you can understand.

Because our all-powerful government has no reason to confiscate cars and needs us to be productive little slaves. Cars get us to and from work.

Firearms act to put our all-powerful government in check. The powerful all want the same thing---MORE POWER.

Of COURSE they will use it to confiscate. They want more power. It is RETARDED to think they will do anything else with registration.

Perhaps you have been ignoring the habits or behavior of the powerful. We have not.

You let me know when that begins to sink in, ummkay buddy.

.

Nope, still not getting it. Leave us reduce even further.

HIM "ANYTHING"
ME: "CARS"

Are "cars" part of "anything" yes or no? Are you telling us a "car" is not a "thing"?

Not sure I can dumb this down any further, nun so blind.

So are you saying cars or any other property for that matter for which the government has a record of has never been confiscated by the government so we have no need to think registering guns would lead to confiscation?

I've got two of them in my driveway right now. They've never been 'confiscated'.

Matter of fact I've owned cars all the way back to the 1960s that were never 'confiscated', yet they were all registered.
How'd that not happen?

Oh wait --- maybe the premise is fucked up. But I already proved that.

The only thing you proved is that cars that are not driven on government roads are NOT registered and that those cars that are registered are registered with State governments, not the Federal Government.

So, how about this:

We will agree to register with our individual states, any firearms that we intent to take into a government building.

Otherwise, **** off.

Deal?

.

 

[Blues Man]

Let me type slower so you can understand.

Because our all-powerful government has no reason to confiscate cars and needs us to be productive little slaves. Cars get us to and from work.

Firearms act to put our all-powerful government in check. The powerful all want the same thing---MORE POWER.

Of COURSE they will use it to confiscate. They want more power. It is RETARDED to think they will do anything else with registration.

Perhaps you have been ignoring the habits or behavior of the powerful. We have not.

You let me know when that begins to sink in, ummkay buddy.

.

Nope, still not getting it. Leave us reduce even further.

HIM "ANYTHING"
ME: "CARS"

Are "cars" part of "anything" yes or no? Are you telling us a "car" is not a "thing"?

Not sure I can dumb this down any further, nun so blind.

So are you saying cars or any other property for that matter for which the government has a record of has never been confiscated by the government so we have no need to think registering guns would lead to confiscation?

I've got two of them in my driveway right now. They've never been 'confiscated'.

Matter of fact I've owned cars all the way back to the 1960s that were never 'confiscated', yet they were all registered.
How'd that not happen?

Oh wait --- maybe the premise is fucked up. But I already proved that.

So what?

Is it your assertion that the government has never confiscated a registered vehicle?

I don't care about your anecdotes because we all know there is more to the world than the limited number of things you may have experienced.

Great. Build your own strawman and then knock it down.

I don't have an assertion here, Evelyn Wood. Flush does. And I flushed it down the crapper where it belongs.

Don't like it? Tough shit. Prove it wrong or watch it swirl down the toilet.

All I have to do is prove that the government, state or federal has confiscated a registered car right?

 

[Pogo]

Nope, still not getting it. Leave us reduce even further.

HIM "ANYTHING"
ME: "CARS"

Are "cars" part of "anything" yes or no? Are you telling us a "car" is not a "thing"?

Not sure I can dumb this down any further, nun so blind.

So are you saying cars or any other property for that matter for which the government has a record of has never been confiscated by the government so we have no need to think registering guns would lead to confiscation?

I've got two of them in my driveway right now. They've never been 'confiscated'.

Matter of fact I've owned cars all the way back to the 1960s that were never 'confiscated', yet they were all registered.
How'd that not happen?

Oh wait --- maybe the premise is fucked up. But I already proved that.

So what?

Is it your assertion that the government has never confiscated a registered vehicle?

I don't care about your anecdotes because we all know there is more to the world than the limited number of things you may have experienced.

Great. Build your own strawman and then knock it down.

I don't have an assertion here, Evelyn Wood. Flush does. And I flushed it down the crapper where it belongs.

Don't like it? Tough shit. Prove it wrong or watch it swirl down the toilet.

All I have to do is prove that the government, state or federal has confiscated a registered car right?

No. You have to prove that the only reason any government (state included) required car registration was to confiscate them. That was the claim.

 

[Blues Man]

So are you saying cars or any other property for that matter for which the government has a record of has never been confiscated by the government so we have no need to think registering guns would lead to confiscation?

I've got two of them in my driveway right now. They've never been 'confiscated'.

Matter of fact I've owned cars all the way back to the 1960s that were never 'confiscated', yet they were all registered.
How'd that not happen?

Oh wait --- maybe the premise is fucked up. But I already proved that.

So what?

Is it your assertion that the government has never confiscated a registered vehicle?

I don't care about your anecdotes because we all know there is more to the world than the limited number of things you may have experienced.

Great. Build your own strawman and then knock it down.

I don't have an assertion here, Evelyn Wood. Flush does. And I flushed it down the crapper where it belongs.

Don't like it? Tough shit. Prove it wrong or watch it swirl down the toilet.

All I have to do is prove that the government, state or federal has confiscated a registered car right?

No. You have to prove that the only reason any government (state included) required car registration was to confiscate them. That was the claim.

It is a reason it might not be the only one but it is a reason.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

So are you saying cars or any other property for that matter for which the government has a record of has never been confiscated by the government so we have no need to think registering guns would lead to confiscation?

I've got two of them in my driveway right now. They've never been 'confiscated'.

Matter of fact I've owned cars all the way back to the 1960s that were never 'confiscated', yet they were all registered.
How'd that not happen?

Oh wait --- maybe the premise is fucked up. But I already proved that.

So what?

Is it your assertion that the government has never confiscated a registered vehicle?

I don't care about your anecdotes because we all know there is more to the world than the limited number of things you may have experienced.

Great. Build your own strawman and then knock it down.

I don't have an assertion here, Evelyn Wood. Flush does. And I flushed it down the crapper where it belongs.

Don't like it? Tough shit. Prove it wrong or watch it swirl down the toilet.

All I have to do is prove that the government, state or federal has confiscated a registered car right?

No. You have to prove that the only reason any government (state included) required car registration was to confiscate them. That was the claim.

Who gives a **** about the reason governments register cars?

There is only one reason a government would require gun registration, as history has proved repeatedly.

But again, we will register guns just like we register cars.

We will register with our State government, any gun that we intend to carry into a government building.

Deal?

.

 

[Pogo]

I've got two of them in my driveway right now. They've never been 'confiscated'.

Matter of fact I've owned cars all the way back to the 1960s that were never 'confiscated', yet they were all registered.
How'd that not happen?

Oh wait --- maybe the premise is fucked up. But I already proved that.

So what?

Is it your assertion that the government has never confiscated a registered vehicle?

I don't care about your anecdotes because we all know there is more to the world than the limited number of things you may have experienced.

Great. Build your own strawman and then knock it down.

I don't have an assertion here, Evelyn Wood. Flush does. And I flushed it down the crapper where it belongs.

Don't like it? Tough shit. Prove it wrong or watch it swirl down the toilet.

All I have to do is prove that the government, state or federal has confiscated a registered car right?

No. You have to prove that the only reason any government (state included) required car registration was to confiscate them. That was the claim.

Who gives a **** about the reason governments register cars?

Flush does. He sat on this board forty-three posts ago and claimed the only reason it registers ANYTHING is to confiscate it.

And I proved him wrong, and you're STILL butthurt about my doing that.

Here's a complete list of what you can do about that:



(end of list)

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Flush does. He sat on this board forty-three posts ago and claimed the only reason it registers ANYTHING is to confiscate it.

Here is what he said:

You are confused. Registration is not necessary for anything except as a step towards confiscation. It is none of the government's business what guns I own. It is none of your business. If I use a gun in a crime then it becomes a law enforcement issue. Until then mind your own business.

Let me fill in the context for you in parenthetical format:
Registration (of firearms) is not necessary for anything except as a step towards confiscation (of firearms). It is none of your business (what firearms I own). If I use a gun in a crime then it becomes a law enforcement issue (that still does not require the registration of firearms). Until then (when I have used a firearm in a crime) mind your own business.

Then, you started talking about car registration, which is a completely different animal all together.

Then, I said that I would agree to registration in the same fashion as that done for cars. Any firearm that we intend to carry into a government building will be registered with the State government.

.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

So are you saying cars or any other property for that matter for which the government has a record of has never been confiscated by the government so we have no need to think registering guns would lead to confiscation?

I've got two of them in my driveway right now. They've never been 'confiscated'.

Matter of fact I've owned cars all the way back to the 1960s that were never 'confiscated', yet they were all registered.
How'd that not happen?

Oh wait --- maybe the premise is fucked up. But I already proved that.

So what?

Is it your assertion that the government has never confiscated a registered vehicle?

I don't care about your anecdotes because we all know there is more to the world than the limited number of things you may have experienced.

Great. Build your own strawman and then knock it down.

I don't have an assertion here, Evelyn Wood. Flush does. And I flushed it down the crapper where it belongs.

Don't like it? Tough shit. Prove it wrong or watch it swirl down the toilet.

All I have to do is prove that the government, state or federal has confiscated a registered car right?

No. You have to prove that the only reason any government (state included) required car registration was to confiscate them. That was the claim.

It's to locate the owner of a vehicle that's why vehicles are registered.

 

[Pogo]

Flush does. He sat on this board forty-three posts ago and claimed the only reason it registers ANYTHING is to confiscate it.

Here is what he said:

You are confused. Registration is not necessary for anything except as a step towards confiscation. It is none of the government's business what guns I own. It is none of your business. If I use a gun in a crime then it becomes a law enforcement issue. Until then mind your own business.

Let me fill in the context for you in parenthetical format:
Registration (of firearms) is not necessary for anything except as a step towards confiscation (of firearms). It is none of your business (what firearms I own). If I use a gun in a crime then it becomes a law enforcement issue (that still does not require the registration of firearms). Until then (when I have used a firearm in a crime) mind your own business.

Then, you started talking about car registration, which is a completely different animal all together.

Then, I said that I would agree to registration in the same fashion as that done for cars. Any firearm that we intend to carry into a government building will be registered with the State government.

.

GOOD GODS


an·y·thing
/ˈenēˌTHiNG/
Learn to pronounce
pronoun

1. used to refer to a thing, no matter what.
   "nobody was saying anything"

IS or IS NOT a car a "thing"?

WELL?