M14 Shooter
The Light of Truth
Oh look... an anti-gun loon, arguing from emotion.
Why is she arguing from emotion?
Because she knows she doesn't otherwise have a response to the point.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Oh look... an anti-gun loon, arguing from emotion.
Nice kids. Who are they?Total and complete failure. When time for renewal came Democrats swore up and down we'd be awash in evil assault weapons and children would die in droves if it wasnt renewed. That didnt happen either.It was called an Assault Weapons Ban. Fact. It didnt ban much but it did ban some things. Of course your pitifully small brain can't distinguish these things so you spend hours looking at my old posts to come up with a "gotcha" when in fact it makes you look like the drooling retard you are.lol, I knew I could get you to say that. To say the assault weapons ban wasn't a ban.
You said the opposite last year:
"Bill Clinton passed the Assault Weapons Ban in 1994."
If we banned all guns | Page 5 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
And it did nothing to lower the gun crime rate....
I figured.Nice kids. Who are they?Total and complete failure. When time for renewal came Democrats swore up and down we'd be awash in evil assault weapons and children would die in droves if it wasnt renewed. That didnt happen either.It was called an Assault Weapons Ban. Fact. It didnt ban much but it did ban some things. Of course your pitifully small brain can't distinguish these things so you spend hours looking at my old posts to come up with a "gotcha" when in fact it makes you look like the drooling retard you are.
And it did nothing to lower the gun crime rate....
Oh look... an anti-gun loon, arguing from emotion.
Why is she arguing from emotion?
Because she knows she doesn't otherwise have a response to the point.
Using dead kids as a prop to win an argument on USMB--Priceless!Oh look... an anti-gun loon, arguing from emotion.
Why is she arguing from emotion?
Because she knows she doesn't otherwise have a response to the point.
Oh look... an anti-gun loon, arguing from emotion yet again.
I figured.Nice kids. Who are they?Total and complete failure. When time for renewal came Democrats swore up and down we'd be awash in evil assault weapons and children would die in droves if it wasnt renewed. That didnt happen either.And it did nothing to lower the gun crime rate....
You know that Connecticut retained the ban on assault weapons, right? So if you were thinking this was a "gotcha" where you posted pics of dead kids to win an argument, you've proven the opposite. An AWB doesnt make anyone any safer.
Looks like you've been pwned like the little ignorant bitch you are.
CC only helps to prove that anti-gun loons are more than happy to use the blood of innocent children in their mindless attempts to further restrict the rights of the law abiding.[
Using dead kids as a prop to win an argument on USMB--Priceless!
Further proof that anti-gun loons are more than happy to use the blood of innocent children in their mindless attempts to further restrict the rights of the law abiding.
They havce nothing. And when you point out what the want wont help anyone they respond we need to "do something." Libs are driven by intentions. Conservatives are driven by results.Further proof that anti-gun loons are more than happy to use the blood of innocent children in their mindless attempts to further restrict the rights of the law abiding.
They havce nothing. And when you point out what the want wont help anyone they respond we need to "do something." Libs are driven by intentions. Conservatives are driven by results.Further proof that anti-gun loons are more than happy to use the blood of innocent children in their mindless attempts to further restrict the rights of the law abiding.
Thank you for continuing to prove that anti-gun loons are more than happy to use the blood of innocent children in their mindless attempts to further restrict the rights of the law abiding.And body counts.They havce nothing. And when you point out what the want wont help anyone they respond we need to "do something." Libs are driven by intentions. Conservatives are driven by results.Further proof that anti-gun loons are more than happy to use the blood of innocent children in their mindless attempts to further restrict the rights of the law abiding.
Further proof that anti-gun loons are more than happy to use the blood of innocent children in their mindless attempts to further restrict the rights of the law abiding.
Thank you for continuing to prove that anti-gun loons are more than happy to use the blood of innocent children in their mindless attempts to further restrict the rights of the law abiding.Further proof that anti-gun loons are more than happy to use the blood of innocent children in their mindless attempts to further restrict the rights of the law abiding.
Yes libs are drivenby body counts too. It creates that "crisis" atmosphere that allows them to "do something.:They havce nothing. And when you point out what the want wont help anyone they respond we need to "do something." Libs are driven by intentions. Conservatives are driven by results.Further proof that anti-gun loons are more than happy to use the blood of innocent children in their mindless attempts to further restrict the rights of the law abiding.
And body counts.
Thanks for reminding us that libs' views are shaped by cartoons, fiction, and talking heads like that ugly dyke Rachel Maddow.Further proof that anti-gun loons are more than happy to use the blood of innocent children in their mindless attempts to further restrict the rights of the law abiding.
It was called an Assault Weapons Ban. Fact. It didnt ban much but it did ban some things. Of course your pitifully small brain can't distinguish these things so you spend hours looking at my old posts to come up with a "gotcha" when in fact it makes you look like the drooling retard you are.You're an idiot.You clearly didnt understand the post. There was no ban. Any individual can become a firearms dealer and acquire machine guns.lol,
So I'm right. The average individual, as I said, cannot buy a post 1986.
You say that's not a gun ban.
I guess then if a law were passed that said private citizens could no longer buy handguns, unless they were made before 2016,
you wouldn't call that a gun ban? Hilarious.
You're comically trying to defend Reagan.
So now you're also declaring that the so-called assault weapons ban was never a ban?
So now you're also declaring that Chicago's handgun ban should not have been ruled unconstitutional because it wasn't actually a ban?
You're funny.
The Assault Weapons Ban wasnt really a ban either. You could buy anything you wanted, it just cost a lot more. It was a total failure, as any such ban would be.
A total failure. Just like you.
lol, I knew I could get you to say that. To say the assault weapons ban wasn't a ban.
You said the opposite last year:
"Bill Clinton passed the Assault Weapons Ban in 1994."
If we banned all guns | Page 5 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Nice kids. Who are they?Total and complete failure. When time for renewal came Democrats swore up and down we'd be awash in evil assault weapons and children would die in droves if it wasnt renewed. That didnt happen either.It was called an Assault Weapons Ban. Fact. It didnt ban much but it did ban some things. Of course your pitifully small brain can't distinguish these things so you spend hours looking at my old posts to come up with a "gotcha" when in fact it makes you look like the drooling retard you are.
And it did nothing to lower the gun crime rate....
It was called an Assault Weapons Ban. Fact. It didnt ban much but it did ban some things. Of course your pitifully small brain can't distinguish these things so you spend hours looking at my old posts to come up with a "gotcha" when in fact it makes you look like the drooling retard you are.You're an idiot.You clearly didnt understand the post. There was no ban. Any individual can become a firearms dealer and acquire machine guns.
You're comically trying to defend Reagan.
So now you're also declaring that the so-called assault weapons ban was never a ban?
So now you're also declaring that Chicago's handgun ban should not have been ruled unconstitutional because it wasn't actually a ban?
You're funny.
The Assault Weapons Ban wasnt really a ban either. You could buy anything you wanted, it just cost a lot more. It was a total failure, as any such ban would be.
A total failure. Just like you.
lol, I knew I could get you to say that. To say the assault weapons ban wasn't a ban.
You said the opposite last year:
"Bill Clinton passed the Assault Weapons Ban in 1994."
If we banned all guns | Page 5 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Ok, so the Bill Clinton 'ban' didn't really ban anything,
but the Ronald Reagan ban did.
So why keep accusing the liberals of being the gun grabbers?
What? You are even less coherent tonight than usual. Reagan didnt ban anything.It was called an Assault Weapons Ban. Fact. It didnt ban much but it did ban some things. Of course your pitifully small brain can't distinguish these things so you spend hours looking at my old posts to come up with a "gotcha" when in fact it makes you look like the drooling retard you are.You're an idiot.You clearly didnt understand the post. There was no ban. Any individual can become a firearms dealer and acquire machine guns.
You're comically trying to defend Reagan.
So now you're also declaring that the so-called assault weapons ban was never a ban?
So now you're also declaring that Chicago's handgun ban should not have been ruled unconstitutional because it wasn't actually a ban?
You're funny.
The Assault Weapons Ban wasnt really a ban either. You could buy anything you wanted, it just cost a lot more. It was a total failure, as any such ban would be.
A total failure. Just like you.
lol, I knew I could get you to say that. To say the assault weapons ban wasn't a ban.
You said the opposite last year:
"Bill Clinton passed the Assault Weapons Ban in 1994."
If we banned all guns | Page 5 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Ok, so the Bill Clinton 'ban' didn't really ban anything,
but the Ronald Reagan ban did.
So why keep accusing the liberals of being the gun grabbers?