“Hell yes we are going to take your AR-15”

[Uncensored2008]

No dummy, under this law you would not become a felon unless you specifically refuse to sell-back your AR-15 and then get convicted for it.

Just stop opening your mouth, time and time again you have no idea what the **** you are talking about.

Unless you do nothing...

As you say, what is legal today, becomes a felony under the ex post facto law that Beta and you demand.

**** you, criminal.

Retroactive punishment is so... Liberal.

Stupid nonsense completely detached from reality seems to be the foremost rightwing flavor nowadays.

I swear, living in Trumplandia has taken your collective IQ down a few notches. I don't remember it being THIS bad.

Still lying fucktard?

I suspect you are a psychopath and failed to develop the mental capacity to feel shame when you are exposed for your pathological lies.

 

[AntonToo]

It is a political reality

Parents fear for their children’s safety.
Thoughts and prayers doesn’t cut it

So passing ineffective laws will? **** off troll.

They work elsewhere in the world

A law does not have to be 100 percent effective to make a difference
We have laws against murder and rape yet they still occur. Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have laws

They don't work in our top cities with very strict gun control now do they?

And we have gun laws and gun violence still occurs. Do you ever think before snarking/trolling off?

Has worked in our biggest city...NYC

Point to what I posted that is either snarky or trolling. That seems to be coming from your side

We spent all last night in deep factual debate. You come in with your bullshit wnarky ass trolling bullshit n now go NUH UHN YOU TROLL! as a response.

About 90% of your posts are emotional 1 line snark shit that add nothing of substance to even a random sneeze. You just want to pad your post count for being "most active" OF WHICH "most fullnof shit" should go you many of you also.

You have the power of quoting me, right?

So go ahead and show a single post of mine here that did not contain a substantive argument.

If you can’t, take your bullshit and shove it back where it came from.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You have the power of quoting me, right?

So go ahead and show a single post of mine here that did not contain substantive argument.

Pathological lying is not a "substantive argument" Comrade.

You directly lie about ex post facto laws, making you nothing but a troll, like your buddy shitflinger.

 

[AntonToo]

You have the power of quoting me, right?

So go ahead and show a single post of mine here that did not contain substantive argument.

Pathological lying is not a "substantive argument" Comrade.

You directly lie about ex post facto laws, making you nothing but a troll, like your buddy shitflinger.

Amazing, what did I lie about when I SUBSTANTIVELY explained to you multiple times (I’m a charitable guy that way) that ex post facto does not apply in any shape or form?

 

[iceberg]

So passing ineffective laws will? **** off troll.

They work elsewhere in the world

A law does not have to be 100 percent effective to make a difference
We have laws against murder and rape yet they still occur. Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have laws

They don't work in our top cities with very strict gun control now do they?

And we have gun laws and gun violence still occurs. Do you ever think before snarking/trolling off?

Has worked in our biggest city...NYC

Point to what I posted that is either snarky or trolling. That seems to be coming from your side

We spent all last night in deep factual debate. You come in with your bullshit wnarky ass trolling bullshit n now go NUH UHN YOU TROLL! as a response.

About 90% of your posts are emotional 1 line snark shit that add nothing of substance to even a random sneeze. You just want to pad your post count for being "most active" OF WHICH "most fullnof shit" should go you many of you also.

You have the power of quoting me, right?

So go ahead and show a single post of mine here that did not contain a substantive argument.

If you can’t, take your bullshit and shove it back where it came from.

See any of your posts for reference.

Now **** off.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You have the power of quoting me, right?

So go ahead and show a single post of mine here that did not contain substantive argument.

Pathological lying is not a "substantive argument" Comrade.

You directly lie about ex post facto laws, making you nothing but a troll, like your buddy shitflinger.

Amazing, what did I lie about when I SUBSTANTIVELY explained to you multiple times (I’m a charitable guy that way) that ex post facto does not apply in any shape or form?

You mean when you pathologically lied in the face of contrary fact?

The demand you have makes acts done today that are legal into retroactive felony acts - fact.

If I buy a perfectly legal gun today, and tomorrow you declare my purchase a crime, that is ex post facto - fact.

Yes, you're stupid, I get it. But more, you are adamantly dishonest. You are a pathological liar - fact.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Nobody is talking about criminalizing past acts, it's still just some made up nonsense in your head. Beto proposed criminalizing CURRENT possession, not past purchase or ownership.

I bought my first AR 20 years ago, new, during the 1994 'assault weapon' ban.
Bobby wants to make possession of that AR illegal and take it away from me.
So... you're lying to yourself.

 

[AntonToo]

Nobody is talking about criminalizing past acts, it's still just some made up nonsense in your head. Beto proposed criminalizing CURRENT possession, not past purchase or ownership.

I bought my first AR 20 years ago, new, during the 1994 'assault weapon' ban.
Bobby wants to make possession of that AR illegal and take it away from me.
So... you're lying to yourself.

Thats right, he does, but you would not be in breach of the law for PAST ownership.

 

[AntonToo]

You have the power of quoting me, right?

So go ahead and show a single post of mine here that did not contain substantive argument.

Pathological lying is not a "substantive argument" Comrade.

You directly lie about ex post facto laws, making you nothing but a troll, like your buddy shitflinger.

Amazing, what did I lie about when I SUBSTANTIVELY explained to you multiple times (I’m a charitable guy that way) that ex post facto does not apply in any shape or form?

You mean when you pathologically lied in the face of contrary fact?

The demand you have makes acts done today that are legal into retroactive felony acts - fact.

If I buy a perfectly legal gun today, and tomorrow you declare my purchase a crime, that is ex post facto - fact.

Yes, you're stupid, I get it. But more, you are adamantly dishonest. You are a pathological liar - fact.

I'm not lying, you are just too stupid to understand what is being explained to you.

The breach of law would be AFTER THE LAW PASSES AND A TIME WINDOW FOR FORFIETURE EXPIRES.

You would NOT be in breach of the law for past ownership, before the law mandated window for you to sell off your weapon expires.

This is the last time I will explian to you this very simple concept.

 

[AntonToo]

They work elsewhere in the world

A law does not have to be 100 percent effective to make a difference
We have laws against murder and rape yet they still occur. Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have laws

They don't work in our top cities with very strict gun control now do they?

And we have gun laws and gun violence still occurs. Do you ever think before snarking/trolling off?

Has worked in our biggest city...NYC

Point to what I posted that is either snarky or trolling. That seems to be coming from your side

We spent all last night in deep factual debate. You come in with your bullshit wnarky ass trolling bullshit n now go NUH UHN YOU TROLL! as a response.

About 90% of your posts are emotional 1 line snark shit that add nothing of substance to even a random sneeze. You just want to pad your post count for being "most active" OF WHICH "most fullnof shit" should go you many of you also.

You have the power of quoting me, right?

So go ahead and show a single post of mine here that did not contain a substantive argument.

If you can’t, take your bullshit and shove it back where it came from.

See any of your posts for reference.

Now **** off.

Oh I see them just fine and they all contain substantive points, so **** off with your bullshit about me only posting insults (that are well earned btw).

 

[Thinker101]

Comrade;

{At a minimum, ex post facto prohibits legislatures from passing laws which retroactively criminalize behavior. However, this prohibition does not attach as strictly to judicial decisions. Appellate courts sometimes announce a new rule of law, but will not apply it to the case in front of it, in order to attempt to comply with ex post facto prohibitions. }

Ex Post Facto

Wtf does that have to do with anything?

We’ve had the assault weapon ban for a decade and it was never ruled unconstitutional.

Yeah stupid, it's illegal to pass laws that criminalize acts in the past. If you try to make people who legally own AR-15's into felons, it's YOU who are the criminals, and you'll be treated accordingly.

Hey nutbag the only one talking about criminalizing past acts is you, not me.

I swear, something really ain’t right with you righties.

No, actually Beta the Dork said he would criminalize past acts, you ******* moron.

Unbelivable. You keep saying retarded bullshit and calling someone else a moron? I guess you are just too ******* dumb to know when to put that little tail between your legs and run along.

Nobody is talking about criminalizing past acts, it's still just some made up nonsense in your head. Beto proposed criminalizing CURRENT possession, not past purchase or ownership.

Criminalizing current POSSESSION, not past purchase or ownership...Christ sake, talk about retarded bullshit. If anyone purchased one in the past, chances are pretty good they still possess it now....fricken liberal idiot.

 

[AntonToo]

Wtf does that have to do with anything?

We’ve had the assault weapon ban for a decade and it was never ruled unconstitutional.

Yeah stupid, it's illegal to pass laws that criminalize acts in the past. If you try to make people who legally own AR-15's into felons, it's YOU who are the criminals, and you'll be treated accordingly.

Hey nutbag the only one talking about criminalizing past acts is you, not me.

I swear, something really ain’t right with you righties.

No, actually Beta the Dork said he would criminalize past acts, you ******* moron.

Unbelivable. You keep saying retarded bullshit and calling someone else a moron? I guess you are just too ******* dumb to know when to put that little tail between your legs and run along.

Nobody is talking about criminalizing past acts, it's still just some made up nonsense in your head. Beto proposed criminalizing CURRENT possession, not past purchase or ownership.

Criminalizing current POSSESSION, not past purchase or ownership...Christ sake, talk about retarded bullshit. If anyone purchased one in the past, chances are pretty good they still possess it now....fricken liberal idiot.

Chances? What chances moron?

You either own the gun at time when the law will be passed and forfeiture window will expire or you won't and will not be violating this law. You will have zero liability for owning a gun before this law goes in effect. DUH

It's never ending with these fools.

 

[Thinker101]

Yeah stupid, it's illegal to pass laws that criminalize acts in the past. If you try to make people who legally own AR-15's into felons, it's YOU who are the criminals, and you'll be treated accordingly.

Hey nutbag the only one talking about criminalizing past acts is you, not me.

I swear, something really ain’t right with you righties.

No, actually Beta the Dork said he would criminalize past acts, you ******* moron.

Unbelivable. You keep saying retarded bullshit and calling someone else a moron? I guess you are just too ******* dumb to know when to put that little tail between your legs and run along.

Nobody is talking about criminalizing past acts, it's still just some made up nonsense in your head. Beto proposed criminalizing CURRENT possession, not past purchase or ownership.

Criminalizing current POSSESSION, not past purchase or ownership...Christ sake, talk about retarded bullshit. If anyone purchased one in the past, chances are pretty good they still possess it now....fricken liberal idiot.

Chances? What chances moron?

You either own the gun at time when the law will be passed and forfeiture window will expire or you won't and will not be violating this law. You will have zero liability for owning a gun before this law goes in effect. DUH

It's never ending with these fools.

The point is, beto wants to TAKE the gun from those that OWN them, he doesn't fricken care when it was purchased...idiot.

 

[AntonToo]

Hey nutbag the only one talking about criminalizing past acts is you, not me.

I swear, something really ain’t right with you righties.

No, actually Beta the Dork said he would criminalize past acts, you ******* moron.

Unbelivable. You keep saying retarded bullshit and calling someone else a moron? I guess you are just too ******* dumb to know when to put that little tail between your legs and run along.

Nobody is talking about criminalizing past acts, it's still just some made up nonsense in your head. Beto proposed criminalizing CURRENT possession, not past purchase or ownership.

Criminalizing current POSSESSION, not past purchase or ownership...Christ sake, talk about retarded bullshit. If anyone purchased one in the past, chances are pretty good they still possess it now....fricken liberal idiot.

Chances? What chances moron?

You either own the gun at time when the law will be passed and forfeiture window will expire or you won't and will not be violating this law. You will have zero liability for owning a gun before this law goes in effect. DUH

It's never ending with these fools.

The point is, beto wants to TAKE the gun from those that OWN them, he doesn't fricken care when it was purchased...idiot.

No that is not the point.

If it was, there would be no disagreement. Beto wants to require people to sell-back (not the same as simply take away) specific types of guns that excel at mass murdering.

The original point was specifically about this being unconstitutional because supposedly there is an ex post facto in play here.

Is this rocket science level complex to rightwingers? You guys can’t seem to get it right.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No that is not the point. If it was, there would be no disagreement. Beto wants to require people to sell-back (not the same as simply take away) specific types of guns that are better at mass murder.

"...specific types of guns that are better at mass murder...."

Another example of anti-gun loons preying on the emotions of the ignorant.

 

[pismoe]

No, actually Beta the Dork said he would criminalize past acts, you ******* moron.

Unbelivable. You keep saying retarded bullshit and calling someone else a moron? I guess you are just too ******* dumb to know when to put that little tail between your legs and run along.

Nobody is talking about criminalizing past acts, it's still just some made up nonsense in your head. Beto proposed criminalizing CURRENT possession, not past purchase or ownership.

Criminalizing current POSSESSION, not past purchase or ownership...Christ sake, talk about retarded bullshit. If anyone purchased one in the past, chances are pretty good they still possess it now....fricken liberal idiot.

Chances? What chances moron?

You either own the gun at time when the law will be passed and forfeiture window will expire or you won't and will not be violating this law. You will have zero liability for owning a gun before this law goes in effect. DUH

It's never ending with these fools.

The point is, beto wants to TAKE the gun from those that OWN them, he doesn't fricken care when it was purchased...idiot.

No that is not the point.

If it was, there would be no disagreement. Beto wants to require people to sell-back (not the same as simply take away) specific types of guns that excel at mass murdering.

The original point was specifically about this being unconstitutional because supposedly there is an ex post facto in play here.

Is this rocket science level complex to rightwingers? You guys can’t seem to get it right.

-------------------------------------------------- very small point in the dangerous scheme of things that are happening in the USA but I never bought a gun from USA government so how can they buy the gun back . And Whose money will the GOV use to buy back private property Anton ??

 

[Thinker101]

No, actually Beta the Dork said he would criminalize past acts, you ******* moron.

Unbelivable. You keep saying retarded bullshit and calling someone else a moron? I guess you are just too ******* dumb to know when to put that little tail between your legs and run along.

Nobody is talking about criminalizing past acts, it's still just some made up nonsense in your head. Beto proposed criminalizing CURRENT possession, not past purchase or ownership.

Criminalizing current POSSESSION, not past purchase or ownership...Christ sake, talk about retarded bullshit. If anyone purchased one in the past, chances are pretty good they still possess it now....fricken liberal idiot.

Chances? What chances moron?

You either own the gun at time when the law will be passed and forfeiture window will expire or you won't and will not be violating this law. You will have zero liability for owning a gun before this law goes in effect. DUH

It's never ending with these fools.

The point is, beto wants to TAKE the gun from those that OWN them, he doesn't fricken care when it was purchased...idiot.

No that is not the point.

If it was, there would be no disagreement. Beto wants to require people to sell-back (not the same as simply take away) specific types of guns that excel at mass murdering.

The original point was specifically about this being unconstitutional because supposedly there is an ex post facto in play here.

Is this rocket science level complex to rightwingers? You guys can’t seem to get it right.

Fricken idiot, not much difference between TAKE AWAY and REQUIRE people to sell back. End result is the folks that currently have one would no longer have one. You loons can word it anyway you'd like, the outcome is still the same.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You have the power of quoting me, right?

So go ahead and show a single post of mine here that did not contain substantive argument.

Pathological lying is not a "substantive argument" Comrade.

You directly lie about ex post facto laws, making you nothing but a troll, like your buddy shitflinger.

Amazing, what did I lie about when I SUBSTANTIVELY explained to you multiple times (I’m a charitable guy that way) that ex post facto does not apply in any shape or form?

You mean when you pathologically lied in the face of contrary fact?

The demand you have makes acts done today that are legal into retroactive felony acts - fact.

If I buy a perfectly legal gun today, and tomorrow you declare my purchase a crime, that is ex post facto - fact.

Yes, you're stupid, I get it. But more, you are adamantly dishonest. You are a pathological liar - fact.

I'm not lying, you are just too stupid to understand what is being explained to you.

The breach of law would be AFTER THE LAW PASSES AND A TIME WINDOW FOR FORFIETURE EXPIRES.

You would NOT be in breach of the law for past ownership, before the law mandated window for you to sell off your weapon expires.

This is the last time I will explian to you this very simple concept.

You're a ******* liar - fact.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You have the power of quoting me, right?

So go ahead and show a single post of mine here that did not contain substantive argument.

Pathological lying is not a "substantive argument" Comrade.

You directly lie about ex post facto laws, making you nothing but a troll, like your buddy shitflinger.

Amazing, what did I lie about when I SUBSTANTIVELY explained to you multiple times (I’m a charitable guy that way) that ex post facto does not apply in any shape or form?

You mean when you pathologically lied in the face of contrary fact?

The demand you have makes acts done today that are legal into retroactive felony acts - fact.

If I buy a perfectly legal gun today, and tomorrow you declare my purchase a crime, that is ex post facto - fact.

Yes, you're stupid, I get it. But more, you are adamantly dishonest. You are a pathological liar - fact.

I'm not lying, you are just too stupid to understand what is being explained to you.

The breach of law would be AFTER THE LAW PASSES AND A TIME WINDOW FOR FORFIETURE EXPIRES.

You would NOT be in breach of the law for past ownership, before the law mandated window for you to sell off your weapon expires.

This is the last time I will explian to you this very simple concept.

You CANNOT pass a law that makes past actions, buying a gun, illegal. You cannot compel people to surrender legally obtained property save for imminent domain.

Have you ever even HEARD of the United States Constitution? You bitterly fight to destroy something you have zero familiarity with.

Stop lying.

 

[Uncensored2008]

No that is not the point.

If it was, there would be no disagreement. Beto wants to require people to sell-back (not the same as simply take away) specific types of guns that excel at mass murdering.

The original point was specifically about this being unconstitutional because supposedly there is an ex post facto in play here.

Is this rocket science level complex to rightwingers? You guys can’t seem to get it right.

If Beta can produce a bill of sale demonstrating that he sold me a weapon he could buy it back, if I agree to sell. Otherwise, it is confiscation, you ******* pathological liar.