The Gun Owner Database- Another Way To Skin The Cat

[jc456]

No, the founding fathers had ideals and believed in compromise...

And you, don't.

Compromise? I do. Gun control for example, I'm for background checks as are most Americans, I think gun classification bans can be effective but I can also see both sides of that and while it is constitutional I'd be happy with just the background checks.

background checks exist. so, not sure what it is you think is next. you leftist always wish to punish 99% of the population for a 1% something, that we know a criminal will not obey anyway. so, your entire premise is false, and we already do background checks as I stated.

Not for all sales so....try to keep up.

yep, background checks exist today.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You ARE, however, interesting in placing unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on his - and everyone else's - right to keep and bear arms.

That's because you're an extremist incapable of compromise.

Nothing here changes the fact you seek to place unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on his - and everyone else's - right to keep and bear arms.

By going through a background check? I disagree.

You cannot demonstrate the necessity and efficacy of the requirement for a universal background check - thus, your disagreement means nothing, and does not change the fact you seek to place unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on his - and everyone else's - right to keep and bear arms.

I can't...

At all. I know.
Why does the fact you cannot demonstrate its necessity or efficacy of a restriction not in any way prevent you from supporting it?

 

[HappyJoy]

Yeah, there are several polls showing a high percentage for background checks...

Suuure.
Now, explain how and why, if 80-90% of the people -actually- agree with you, you don't you have what you want now
I mean other than that pathetic talking point you tried to regurgitate a moment ago.

Already answered, if you disagree then feel free to supply an opinion.

Already did, which you failed address.
So now we're back to your pending explanation as how and why, if 80-90% of the people -actually- agree with you, you don't you have what you want now.

80-90% do and I provided multiple polls to back me up. Also a link to a bill the house passed that would make background checks mandatory for all sales. The only reason it's not up for a vote is because Mitch won't put it up. What more do you want?

Here's a poll for you:

From 11/08/2016:

Punk. How accurate is/was it, hmm?

Mary, not only did you not know who was in charge of the DOJ, your retarded ass also does not know what a poll is.

 

[jc456]

You ARE, however, interesting in placing unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on his - and everyone else's - right to keep and bear arms.

That's because you're an extremist incapable of compromise.

Nothing here changes the fact you seek to place unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on his - and everyone else's - right to keep and bear arms.

By going through a background check? I disagree.

You cannot demonstrate the necessity and efficacy of the requirement for a universal background check - thus, your disagreement means nothing, and does not change the fact you seek to place unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on his - and everyone else's - right to keep and bear arms.

I can't to an extremist who is going to disagree with everything I say. But we did see a guy circumvent the background check system after failing by buying a gun from a private seller and then use that gun to kill 7 and wound over 20. Reason enough for me.

I tell you what, you solve the private seller issue first. obviously you know if that occurs, it is outside governance, right? tell me you're at least that fking smart.

 

[HappyJoy]

That's because you're an extremist incapable of compromise.

Nothing here changes the fact you seek to place unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on his - and everyone else's - right to keep and bear arms.

By going through a background check? I disagree.

You cannot demonstrate the necessity and efficacy of the requirement for a universal background check - thus, your disagreement means nothing, and does not change the fact you seek to place unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on his - and everyone else's - right to keep and bear arms.

I can't to an extremist who is going to disagree with everything I say. But we did see a guy circumvent the background check system after failing by buying a gun from a private seller and then use that gun to kill 7 and wound over 20. Reason enough for me.

Nobody cares what's reason enough for you. You are not some special snowflake.

Like I was told when I was a child:

"You're not the only pebble on the beach". *****.

Yeah, 80-90 out of a hundred pebbles agree with me, but Ok.

 

[Paulie]

I’m just going to explain the intent of the wording of the 2nd for the people in here who just don’t seem to get it, and then move on with my life.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The founders literally are saying that because the militia is necessary, the right of the people to own firearms shall not be infringed. They’re saying the people must be able to own weapons so that they can form militias. It doesn’t say who does or doesn’t get to form a militia or own a firearm. It’s simply saying that because the militia is necessary, the people (this word always refers to EVERYONE) must have the right to own firearms. If they had meant anything other than this they would have indicated who the militia can and can’t be, but because they knew full well that any able bodied person willing to fight was welcome in the militia, EVERYONE has the right to arms. As for the well regulated part, that’s a phrase that in military terms means to be of working order and ready. A well regulated militia was one that had fully functional weaponry, trained soldiers ready to fight. It has nothing to do with regulating the right to bear arms, that’s literally what “shall not be infringed” means.

Have a good day.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Suuure.
Now, explain how and why, if 80-90% of the people -actually- agree with you, you don't you have what you want now
I mean other than that pathetic talking point you tried to regurgitate a moment ago.

Already answered, if you disagree then feel free to supply an opinion.

Already did, which you failed address.
So now we're back to your pending explanation as how and why, if 80-90% of the people -actually- agree with you, you don't you have what you want now.

80-90% do and I provided multiple polls to back me up. Also a link to a bill the house passed that would make background checks mandatory for all sales. The only reason it's not up for a vote is because Mitch won't put it up. What more do you want?

Here's a poll for you:

From 11/08/2016:

Punk. How accurate is/was it, hmm?

Mary, not only did you not know who was in charge of the DOJ, your retarded ass also does not know what a poll is.

I'll leave it to a Democratic vote to decide who's right, commie ***.

 

[jc456]

Suuure.
Now, explain how and why, if 80-90% of the people -actually- agree with you, you don't you have what you want now
I mean other than that pathetic talking point you tried to regurgitate a moment ago.

Already answered, if you disagree then feel free to supply an opinion.

Already did, which you failed address.
So now we're back to your pending explanation as how and why, if 80-90% of the people -actually- agree with you, you don't you have what you want now.

80-90% do and I provided multiple polls to back me up. Also a link to a bill the house passed that would make background checks mandatory for all sales. The only reason it's not up for a vote is because Mitch won't put it up. What more do you want?

Here's a poll for you:

From 11/08/2016:

Punk. How accurate is/was it, hmm?

Mary, not only did you not know who was in charge of the DOJ, your retarded ass also does not know what a poll is.

what is a poll, a sample of 100 out of 330 million, and then you get to say 80 to 90%?

 

[HappyJoy]

No, the founding fathers had ideals and believed in compromise...

And you, don't.

Compromise? I do. Gun control for example, I'm for background checks as are most Americans, I think gun classification bans can be effective but I can also see both sides of that and while it is constitutional I'd be happy with just the background checks.

background checks exist. so, not sure what it is you think is next. you leftist always wish to punish 99% of the population for a 1% something, that we know a criminal will not obey anyway. so, your entire premise is false, and we already do background checks as I stated.

Not for all sales so....try to keep up.

yep, background checks exist today.

Not for private sales.

 

[HappyJoy]

That's because you're an extremist incapable of compromise.

Nothing here changes the fact you seek to place unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on his - and everyone else's - right to keep and bear arms.

By going through a background check? I disagree.

You cannot demonstrate the necessity and efficacy of the requirement for a universal background check - thus, your disagreement means nothing, and does not change the fact you seek to place unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on his - and everyone else's - right to keep and bear arms.

I can't...

At all. I know.
Why does the fact you cannot demonstrate its necessity or efficacy of a restriction not in any way prevent you from supporting it?

I did but you're an extremist who isn't going to accept anything I say.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Nothing here changes the fact you seek to place unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on his - and everyone else's - right to keep and bear arms.

By going through a background check? I disagree.

You cannot demonstrate the necessity and efficacy of the requirement for a universal background check - thus, your disagreement means nothing, and does not change the fact you seek to place unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on his - and everyone else's - right to keep and bear arms.

I can't to an extremist who is going to disagree with everything I say. But we did see a guy circumvent the background check system after failing by buying a gun from a private seller and then use that gun to kill 7 and wound over 20. Reason enough for me.

Nobody cares what's reason enough for you. You are not some special snowflake.

Like I was told when I was a child:

"You're not the only pebble on the beach". *****.

Yeah, 80-90 out of a hundred pebbles agree with me, but Ok.

And you, don't.

Compromise? I do. Gun control for example, I'm for background checks as are most Americans, I think gun classification bans can be effective but I can also see both sides of that and while it is constitutional I'd be happy with just the background checks.

background checks exist. so, not sure what it is you think is next. you leftist always wish to punish 99% of the population for a 1% something, that we know a criminal will not obey anyway. so, your entire premise is false, and we already do background checks as I stated.

Not for all sales so....try to keep up.

yep, background checks exist today.

Not for private sales.

How does that apply when a friend gives you a gun, hmm?

 

[jc456]

And you, don't.

Compromise? I do. Gun control for example, I'm for background checks as are most Americans, I think gun classification bans can be effective but I can also see both sides of that and while it is constitutional I'd be happy with just the background checks.

background checks exist. so, not sure what it is you think is next. you leftist always wish to punish 99% of the population for a 1% something, that we know a criminal will not obey anyway. so, your entire premise is false, and we already do background checks as I stated.

Not for all sales so....try to keep up.

yep, background checks exist today.

Not for private sales.

that's outside governance, you'll never control that, explain how you stop a somebody, you have no idea exists?

 

[HappyJoy]

Already answered, if you disagree then feel free to supply an opinion.

Already did, which you failed address.
So now we're back to your pending explanation as how and why, if 80-90% of the people -actually- agree with you, you don't you have what you want now.

80-90% do and I provided multiple polls to back me up. Also a link to a bill the house passed that would make background checks mandatory for all sales. The only reason it's not up for a vote is because Mitch won't put it up. What more do you want?

Here's a poll for you:

From 11/08/2016:

Punk. How accurate is/was it, hmm?

Mary, not only did you not know who was in charge of the DOJ, your retarded ass also does not know what a poll is.

I'll leave it to a Democratic vote to decide who's right, commie ***.

^wingnut mating call.

 

[HappyJoy]

Already answered, if you disagree then feel free to supply an opinion.

Already did, which you failed address.
So now we're back to your pending explanation as how and why, if 80-90% of the people -actually- agree with you, you don't you have what you want now.

80-90% do and I provided multiple polls to back me up. Also a link to a bill the house passed that would make background checks mandatory for all sales. The only reason it's not up for a vote is because Mitch won't put it up. What more do you want?

Here's a poll for you:

From 11/08/2016:

Punk. How accurate is/was it, hmm?

Mary, not only did you not know who was in charge of the DOJ, your retarded ass also does not know what a poll is.

what is a poll, a sample of 100 out of 330 million, and then you get to say 80 to 90%?

More than 100. Polls work, they've proven to be accurate and it's much better than the nothing you have.

 

[jc456]

Nothing here changes the fact you seek to place unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on his - and everyone else's - right to keep and bear arms.

By going through a background check? I disagree.

You cannot demonstrate the necessity and efficacy of the requirement for a universal background check - thus, your disagreement means nothing, and does not change the fact you seek to place unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on his - and everyone else's - right to keep and bear arms.

I can't...

At all. I know.
Why does the fact you cannot demonstrate its necessity or efficacy of a restriction not in any way prevent you from supporting it?

I did but you're an extremist who isn't going to accept anything I say.

cause you haven't said anything. you think you can monitor private sales! and you don't know they already do background checks. hmmmm what else you got?

 

[HappyJoy]

By going through a background check? I disagree.

You cannot demonstrate the necessity and efficacy of the requirement for a universal background check - thus, your disagreement means nothing, and does not change the fact you seek to place unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on his - and everyone else's - right to keep and bear arms.

I can't to an extremist who is going to disagree with everything I say. But we did see a guy circumvent the background check system after failing by buying a gun from a private seller and then use that gun to kill 7 and wound over 20. Reason enough for me.

Nobody cares what's reason enough for you. You are not some special snowflake.

Like I was told when I was a child:

"You're not the only pebble on the beach". *****.

Yeah, 80-90 out of a hundred pebbles agree with me, but Ok.

Compromise? I do. Gun control for example, I'm for background checks as are most Americans, I think gun classification bans can be effective but I can also see both sides of that and while it is constitutional I'd be happy with just the background checks.

background checks exist. so, not sure what it is you think is next. you leftist always wish to punish 99% of the population for a 1% something, that we know a criminal will not obey anyway. so, your entire premise is false, and we already do background checks as I stated.

Not for all sales so....try to keep up.

yep, background checks exist today.

Not for private sales.

How does that apply when a friend gives you a gun, hmm?

I guess via a background check, eh?

 

[Brain357]

You're an extremist because 80-90% of the population agrees with me. Who did you bring to the party, wingnut?

You may think that, break bad and get your hopes crushed into oblivion, Commie.

Oh, I know it. Weren't you busy yelling at the clouds or something?

Last I recall, I was challenging your commie self to break and let things play out where they may, baby boy.

Challenging me to break? Not really sure what that is or why I would be interested, Mary.

Try to take our weapons, commie leftist, you will rue the day, I bet that.

We will come during your nap time. Probably be weeks before you even notice.

 

[jc456]

Already did, which you failed address.
So now we're back to your pending explanation as how and why, if 80-90% of the people -actually- agree with you, you don't you have what you want now.

80-90% do and I provided multiple polls to back me up. Also a link to a bill the house passed that would make background checks mandatory for all sales. The only reason it's not up for a vote is because Mitch won't put it up. What more do you want?

Here's a poll for you:

From 11/08/2016:

Punk. How accurate is/was it, hmm?

Mary, not only did you not know who was in charge of the DOJ, your retarded ass also does not know what a poll is.

what is a poll, a sample of 100 out of 330 million, and then you get to say 80 to 90%?

More than 100. Polls work, they've proven to be accurate and it's much better than the nothing you have.

101? polls are a fking farce and interference in our lives. I shit on them

 

[jc456]

You cannot demonstrate the necessity and efficacy of the requirement for a universal background check - thus, your disagreement means nothing, and does not change the fact you seek to place unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on his - and everyone else's - right to keep and bear arms.

I can't to an extremist who is going to disagree with everything I say. But we did see a guy circumvent the background check system after failing by buying a gun from a private seller and then use that gun to kill 7 and wound over 20. Reason enough for me.

Nobody cares what's reason enough for you. You are not some special snowflake.

Like I was told when I was a child:

"You're not the only pebble on the beach". *****.

Yeah, 80-90 out of a hundred pebbles agree with me, but Ok.

background checks exist. so, not sure what it is you think is next. you leftist always wish to punish 99% of the population for a 1% something, that we know a criminal will not obey anyway. so, your entire premise is false, and we already do background checks as I stated.

Not for all sales so....try to keep up.

yep, background checks exist today.

Not for private sales.

How does that apply when a friend gives you a gun, hmm?

I guess via a background check, eh?

those exist, got something new?

 

[Brain357]

By going through a background check? I disagree.

You cannot demonstrate the necessity and efficacy of the requirement for a universal background check - thus, your disagreement means nothing, and does not change the fact you seek to place unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on his - and everyone else's - right to keep and bear arms.

I can't...

At all. I know.
Why does the fact you cannot demonstrate its necessity or efficacy of a restriction not in any way prevent you from supporting it?

I did but you're an extremist who isn't going to accept anything I say.

cause you haven't said anything. you think you can monitor private sales! and you don't know they already do background checks. hmmmm what else you got?

Seller is responsible if gun sold is used in a crime. That will fix that.