The Gun Owner Database- Another Way To Skin The Cat

[Marion Morrison]

You think that if 80-90% of the people agreed with you, the Republicans in the Senate would not have pressured, if not forced, McConnell to bring it to the floor?

So let me get this straight -- you not only mindlessly repeat those talking points, but you BELIEVE them"?

We're back to "no -actual- reason, just the talking point you were fed a few moths ago"
Try again..

Then what's stopping Mitch from bringing it up or a vote?

Oh, sorry - you were about to tell us 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.

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.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You think that if 80-90% of the people agreed with you, the Republicans in the Senate would not have pressured, if not forced, McConnell to bring it to the floor?

So let me get this straight -- you not only mindlessly repeat those talking points, but you BELIEVE them"?

We're back to "no -actual- reason, just the talking point you were fed a few moths ago"
Try again..

Then what's stopping Mitch from bringing it up or a vote?

Oh, sorry - you were about to tell us 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.

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.

 

[jc456]

Could you be any more against America, *****?! Go **** yourself with a cactus and the day you try to break bad in America is the day you die, fucktarded leftist lemming. Try your bullshit and see what happens!

Ah, is Mary pissed off that she doesn't know Barr heads the DOJ or that ICE is allegedly infringing on your rights? Poor baby.

You're mad because I busted your Commie hustle, you traitor POS.

No because you seem to be a danger to others and yourself. I think you're a joke regardless, doesn't mean I want anyone including you to be harmed.

How?

Mabye it's the constant death threats to liberals. I'm pretty sure the mods had a talking to him awhile back.

or not

 

[Marion Morrison]

Not that you'll admit, anyway,.
You ARE, however, interesting in placing unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on his right to keep and bear arms.

I am a gun owner, so no I'm not interested in banning all guns or taking any unless the owners are mentall ill or criminals.

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.

IDGAF if your commie ass disagrees, that's the epitome of infringement.

 

[Vastator]

Not that you'll admit, anyway,.
You ARE, however, interesting in placing unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on his right to keep and bear arms.

I am a gun owner, so no I'm not interested in banning all guns or taking any unless the owners are mentall ill or criminals.

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.

Name one other enumerated right, endowed by our creator that requires a government background check...

 

[M14 Shooter]

Not that you'll admit, anyway,.
You ARE, however, interesting in placing unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on his right to keep and bear arms.

I am a gun owner, so no I'm not interested in banning all guns or taking any unless the owners are mentall ill or criminals.

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.

 

[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.

 

[HappyJoy]

Then what's stopping Mitch from bringing it up or a vote?

Oh, sorry - you were about to tell us 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.

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?

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

Their entire goal is to make it has hard as possible for the law abiding to exercise their right to keep and bear arms.
Thus, the inanity of whatever requirement they seek doesn't matter.

 

[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.

Uh-huh.
And what do you offer the gun owners in return?

A supermaj of gunowers are for BG checks. Why should anything be offered beyond a step that might, possibly, stop a mass attack and in known instances at least make them harder?

background checks exist.

 

[HappyJoy]

I am a gun owner, so no I'm not interested in banning all guns or taking any unless the owners are mentall ill or criminals.

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.

Name one other enumerated right, endowed by our creator that requires a government background check...

Why?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Oh, sorry - you were about to tell us 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.

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.

The only reason it's not up for a vote is because Mitch won't put it up.

You said this before; it was soundly dismissed in a rebuttal you cannot 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 no

 

[jc456]

Oh, sorry - you were about to tell us 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.

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?

polls aren't 80 to 90% they are less than .5%. so your strategy is in error.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Oh, sorry - you were about to tell us 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.

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?

 

[HappyJoy]

I am a gun owner, so no I'm not interested in banning all guns or taking any unless the owners are mentall ill or criminals.

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.

 

[hadit]

Yep, Barr heads the DOJ, that Marion didn't know this is fantastic.

What's even funnier is who in the DOJ made the request. Turns out it's ICE.

Why the data grab?

The Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) department is seeking information as part of a broad investigation into possible breaches of weapons export regulations. It’s looking into illegal exports of ATN’s scope, though the company itself isn’t under investigation, according to the order. As part of that, investigators are looking for a quick way to find out where the app is in use, as that will likely indicate where the hardware has been shipped. ICE has repeatedly intercepted illegal shipments of the scope, which is controlled under the International Traffic in Arms Regulation (ITAR), according to the government court filing. They included shipments to Canada, the Netherlands and Hong Kong where the necessary licenses hadn’t been obtained.

Could you be any more against America, *****?! Go **** yourself with a cactus and the day you try to break bad in America is the day you die, fucktarded leftist lemming. Try your bullshit and see what happens!

Ah, is Mary pissed off that she doesn't know Barr heads the DOJ or that ICE is allegedly infringing on your rights? Poor baby.

You're mad because I busted your Commie hustle, you traitor POS.

No because you seem to be a danger to others and yourself. I think you're a joke regardless, doesn't mean I want anyone including you to be harmed.

The good news is most these right wing nuts are deep in their 70s or older. They hardly have the energy to get out of their chair.

How do you know?

 

[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.

 

[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.

The only reason it's not up for a vote is because Mitch won't put it up.

You said this before; it was soundly dismissed in a rebuttal you cannot 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 no

What didn't I address?

 

[jc456]

I am a gun owner, so no I'm not interested in banning all guns or taking any unless the owners are mentall ill or criminals.

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.

just like transgender idiots and obammycare. they truly wish to fk with this country. I'd love to see a confrontation of some type at some point them us. wow, it would truly be wonderful.

 

[Marion Morrison]

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.

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". *****.