To Confiscate Guns You First Need to Create a Crisis

[kaz]

The most effective crisis that sold the most guns was Obama talking about gun legislation. That triggered an eight year wave of gun purchases.

Good job

No, what caused the surge was scared white people hoarding guns and ammo because a black man was president.

So, how’s long do you think the surge will last after Trump’s comments about taking guns without due process?

Bam! And JED goes down!

He's losing, badly, and he knows it. When leftists have lost and are hysterically desperate, you go to, you're a racist!

Kaching. And another one bites the dust

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The Justice Department under Barack Obama directed the FBI to drop more than 500,000 names of fugitives with outstanding arrest warrants from the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.

Anyone willing to step forward and inform us how this helped the kids the left says it cares about?

The removal of names from the list happened in April of 2017 at the direction of one Jeff Sessions. Who was the president in 2017? Who appointed Jeff Sessions?

Liar. Read the link and if you want more references to it google it further. It was under Obama

Poor little Kaz, you try so hard but you lack the basic intelligence to look beyond what the alt right feeds you.

The article in the OP lied to you...this took place in April 2017...who was the president in April 2017?

Thousands of wanted fugitives were removed from the US gun control database

Trump Administration Gave 500,000 Fugitives the Right to Buy Guns



Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

That's hilarious. The original post said 500K, and you provided articles that said tens of K and it never occurred to you to look any deeper.

You crack me up. I'll esplain it to you.

The Justice department and ATF disagreed on the definition of a "fugitive."

- The Justice department said a "fugitive" is someone who had an outstanding arrest warrant

- ATF said a "fugitive" is someone who has an outstanding arrest warrant AND has crossed a State line.

Under Obama, they decided on the ATF definition and removed 500K people from the database, the ones who had not crossed State lines.

What you did is point to that they continued to use that definition from the Obama administration in 2017 when Trump took over and of the new arrest warrants, the ones who had not crossed State lines were not added per the Obama definition of fugitive.

In your articles, they made it sound like a Trump policy. But re-read your articles more carefully and you'll see they are all spin consistent with what I just told you. You're gulping fake news, compadre.

BTW, it doesn't mean those people aren't in the database, it just means they aren't being put in the database as a Federal definition of "fugitive"

Reading is not your strong point I see. The second article gave the 500k number.

You just try too hard, and fail 100% of the time.

You are the little engine that can’t.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[J.E.D]

The most effective crisis that sold the most guns was Obama talking about gun legislation. That triggered an eight year wave of gun purchases.

Good job

No, what caused the surge was scared white people hoarding guns and ammo because a black man was president.

So, how’s long do you think the surge will last after Trump’s comments about taking guns without due process?

Bam! And JED goes down!

He's losing, badly, and he knows it. When leftists have lost and are hysterically desperate, you go to, you're a racist!

Kaching. And another one bites the dust

So, Trimp wanting to skip due process and confiscate your guns gets no response.

 

[kaz]

The Justice Department under Barack Obama directed the FBI to drop more than 500,000 names of fugitives with outstanding arrest warrants from the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.

Anyone willing to step forward and inform us how this helped the kids the left says it cares about?

The removal of names from the list happened in April of 2017 at the direction of one Jeff Sessions. Who was the president in 2017? Who appointed Jeff Sessions?

Liar. Read the link and if you want more references to it google it further. It was under Obama

Poor little Kaz, you try so hard but you lack the basic intelligence to look beyond what the alt right feeds you.

The article in the OP lied to you...this took place in April 2017...who was the president in April 2017?

Thousands of wanted fugitives were removed from the US gun control database

Trump Administration Gave 500,000 Fugitives the Right to Buy Guns



Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

That's hilarious. The original post said 500K, and you provided articles that said tens of K and it never occurred to you to look any deeper.

You crack me up. I'll esplain it to you.

The Justice department and ATF disagreed on the definition of a "fugitive."

- The Justice department said a "fugitive" is someone who had an outstanding arrest warrant

- ATF said a "fugitive" is someone who has an outstanding arrest warrant AND has crossed a State line.

Under Obama, they decided on the ATF definition and removed 500K people from the database, the ones who had not crossed State lines.

What you did is point to that they continued to use that definition from the Obama administration in 2017 when Trump took over and of the new arrest warrants, the ones who had not crossed State lines were not added per the Obama definition of fugitive.

In your articles, they made it sound like a Trump policy. But re-read your articles more carefully and you'll see they are all spin consistent with what I just told you. You're gulping fake news, compadre.

BTW, it doesn't mean those people aren't in the database, it just means they aren't being put in the database as a Federal definition of "fugitive"

Reading is not your strong point I see. The second article gave the 500k number.

You just try too hard, and fail 100% of the time.

You are the little engine that can’t.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

You just suffer from Trump derangement system. You have the information at this point. That you don't care is on you.

Get Trump! That's your life now. Fake news leads you by the nose

 

[kaz]

The most effective crisis that sold the most guns was Obama talking about gun legislation. That triggered an eight year wave of gun purchases.

Good job

No, what caused the surge was scared white people hoarding guns and ammo because a black man was president.

So, how’s long do you think the surge will last after Trump’s comments about taking guns without due process?

Bam! And JED goes down!

He's losing, badly, and he knows it. When leftists have lost and are hysterically desperate, you go to, you're a racist!

Kaching. And another one bites the dust

So, Trimp wanting to skip due process and confiscate your guns gets no response.

Is it because he's white? When you went to the color of Obama's dick, you ended any productive conversation. No one gives a shit what color Obama's dick is except you, Meatloaf

 

[CowboyTed]

Here is a little known fact....there were more than two candidates....now I will watch your tiny little brain explode

And why waste my time voting for the 3rd 4th or 5th candidate?

We are a defacto 2 party country

only because people have been brainwashed into thinking a 3rd party vote is a waste of a vote.

It is a waste since 3rd parties never even get a fraction of a percent of the votes

That is because nobody will vote for them because they never get enough votes, and they never get enough votes because nobody will vote for them...do you see the circular reasoning in play here?

What I finally realized was that while Republicans and Democrats say radically different things, they don't actually do anything different. Notice how the Republican congress is the one slow walking Trump on immigration, tax cuts, ... It's not just the Democrats. The Democrats are as militaristic as the Republicans and the Republicans spend like Democrats.

Until people realize it just doesn't matter between them, they won't vote third party and nothing will change. For me that was almost 30 years ago. I left the Republican party circa 1990 and stopped voting for them. And nothing has changed

Kaz,

We don't agree much but do agree here... The only way US gets more than two parties is to change the method of voting... Look into

• Single Transfer Vote
• Proportional Representation

Here is the problem:


Here is the Solutions:



This would create a diverse set off candidates in multiple parties...

 

[jc456]

BTW, I still believe today that the Las Vegas shooter had help from the Hotel and cops.

Of course you do. The first thing the Las Vegas cops and the hotel thought about was "Hey, Vegas isn't exciting enough, we've got this great idea to generate some publicity."

naw they hated christians and country music. we know this.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

BTW, I still believe today that the Las Vegas shooter had help from the Hotel and cops.

Of course you do. The first thing the Las Vegas cops and the hotel thought about was "Hey, Vegas isn't exciting enough, we've got this great idea to generate some publicity."

naw they hated christians and country music. we know this.

 

[Skull Pilot]

It is a waste since 3rd parties never even get a fraction of a percent of the votes

That is because nobody will vote for them because they never get enough votes, and they never get enough votes because nobody will vote for them...do you see the circular reasoning in play here?

It's not circular reasoning at all.

If I lived in a state that showed strong support for a third party I would vote if the candidate was a good choice. I don't live in such a state and my vote means nothing because I live in a Democratic stronghold so I don't waste my time voting in any national elections or even state elections I will vote in local elections because that is where my vote has the most effect

But I refuse to vote simply for the sake of voting

Fair point. However, I view when I vote for bad third party candidates that I am not voting for the candidate, I am voting for the third party. That's why I voted for Nadar in 2008. I shared one view with him. When he was criticized for helping McCain, he asked what difference does it make?

You see my point? People have to believe in third party candidates to get people to vote third party and to get people to vote for them. Look at Perot in 1992, they can rock the two party system's world.

If you vote third party, you are saying you vote and you aren't happy with the two choices. If you don't vote, your message is you just don't give a shit. Whatever you meant, that's the message you sent. You aren't going to be bothered voting. It's too much like work

Voting is not like work at all.

I see tangible results form my work.

Really? Like what? By not voting, no one thinks you give a shit. How is that a tangible result?

I really don't give a shit what people think of me.

I will not vote for the sake of voting. I will vote for a person I sincerely believe in and as not no one like that has run for any office

Voting for the sake of voting or fighting not to puke all over the voting booth because all the candidates suck is not something I will not do

 

[kaz]

That is because nobody will vote for them because they never get enough votes, and they never get enough votes because nobody will vote for them...do you see the circular reasoning in play here?

It's not circular reasoning at all.

If I lived in a state that showed strong support for a third party I would vote if the candidate was a good choice. I don't live in such a state and my vote means nothing because I live in a Democratic stronghold so I don't waste my time voting in any national elections or even state elections I will vote in local elections because that is where my vote has the most effect

But I refuse to vote simply for the sake of voting

Fair point. However, I view when I vote for bad third party candidates that I am not voting for the candidate, I am voting for the third party. That's why I voted for Nadar in 2008. I shared one view with him. When he was criticized for helping McCain, he asked what difference does it make?

You see my point? People have to believe in third party candidates to get people to vote third party and to get people to vote for them. Look at Perot in 1992, they can rock the two party system's world.

If you vote third party, you are saying you vote and you aren't happy with the two choices. If you don't vote, your message is you just don't give a shit. Whatever you meant, that's the message you sent. You aren't going to be bothered voting. It's too much like work

Voting is not like work at all.

I see tangible results form my work.

Really? Like what? By not voting, no one thinks you give a shit. How is that a tangible result?

I really don't give a shit what people think of me.

I will not vote for the sake of voting. I will vote for a person I sincerely believe in and as not no one like that has run for any office

Voting for the sake of voting or fighting not to puke all over the voting booth because all the candidates suck is not something I will not do

Strawman. I gave you a reason to vote third party, I didn't say vote for the sake of voting. If you disagree with me, that's fine. But don't ignore my argument

 

[HappyJoy]

BTW, I still believe today that the Las Vegas shooter had help from the Hotel and cops.

Of course you do. The first thing the Las Vegas cops and the hotel thought about was "Hey, Vegas isn't exciting enough, we've got this great idea to generate some publicity."

naw they hated christians and country music. we know this.

^Prime example of what USMB has become. Good job mods!

 

[MisterBeale]

Leftists want our guns so that we couldn't defend ourselves against tyranny.

That's all there is to it, kids? They don't give a shit... 50.000 die of drug overdoses yearly and they want more drugs.

Actually, nobody really wants more drugs, but legalization of marijuana isn't advocating for drugs because marijuana isn't a drug.

It's a plant.

And, if we legalized marijuana, it would reduce the amount of people using opiates for pain relief.

So since opium comes from a plant that's ok too? Is that how you justify drugs?

Actually, if you don't do anything to chemically refine the plant, it's not a drug.

If you want to chew cocoa leaves, go ahead. They help you keep alert and also help with O2 uptake at high altitude and are not physically addictive. However, refine them into cocaine, then you have made a drug and that should be illegal.

If you want to harvest sap from an opium poppy and smoke it, go ahead, it's still all natural and hasn't been chemically altered. Refine it into heroin or opiates, and you've just made a drug.

Plants aren't drugs, they are naturally occurring things that grow all by themselves. Drugs are things that are chemically created and refined by man to extract only the active substance.

Not a lot of folks know this, but that analogy could even be extended to alcohol.

Yeast dies at a certain specific gravity in beers and wines. It is completely natural.

Animals in nature have tasted fermented fruits.

It must be DISTILLED to create spirits and liquor.

As far as I know, in every state, beer and wine is freely sold at competitive pricing, while liquor is tightly controlled by the state at set price controls and licenses.

I quit distilled alcohol a long time ago, it is unnatural, it is a drug.