Universal background checks... really?

[Rustic]

Fortunately after a week or so sometimes less, progressives quit lighting their hair on fire about these shootings.
But the drum beat goes on for frivolous gun control laws...

But the last two shooters in Texas were absolutely no different than these shit stains...

Mass shooting is color blind... Both with the shooter and the ones being shot apparently. Lol

As a gun dealer you might be biased. People don't need military style weapons. They should ban the sales. and we do need a mental health system. What we need is to tax the rich more than the rest of us for crying out loud this is ridiculous. The Democratic Rich know- only assholes don't. oh and you dupes....

Military style weapons are full auto, and they have been illegal for most people since 1986.
And AR-15 is NOT a military style weapon, and just looks similar.
There are no full auto assault weapons available to most people.
There is just a lot of lying going on.
The reality is that at close urban ranges, the most dangerous firearm is a shotgun.

Good. Then you won't need to be buying military-style weapons. Military style means what they look like dumbass. And there are plenty of ways to turn them automatic.

Wrong.
While the most dangerous firearm at close ranges is a shotgun, most people do not need or want the most dangerous firearm for close ranges.
They don't want a shotgun because it is too likely to harm unintended victims because they always spread out where they are going to hit.
Appearance is a military style.
Military weapons have lots of different appearances.
And the AR line was not originally designed for the military.
Nor is appearance a valid means or reason to legislate.
And NO, it requires a full machine shop and professionals to make an AR fully automatic.
There are lots of much easier firearms to make fully automatic.

They should all be banned for sale.

Lol
Good luck bedwetter

 

[Rigby5]

Not permanently.

How would you determine who should be denied guns and votes?

Simple for their group. Anyone that agrees with them will have those rights. Anyone that does not should be denied those privileges.

By what mechanism?

You are doing nothing but trying to find a loophole and find a gotcha. Sorry, won't play your stupid game.

How would a gun seller know if a person's gun rights have been suspended? Maybe a background check? Shouldn't such checks be performed at every sale?

No, anyone to dangerous to be allowed a firearm is too dangerous to allow to be free on the streets, to drive a car, buy fertilizer, flammables, etc.

 

[francoHFW]

Fortunately after a week or so sometimes less, progressives quit lighting their hair on fire about these shootings.
But the drum beat goes on for frivolous gun control laws...

But the last two shooters in Texas were absolutely no different than these shit stains...

Mass shooting is color blind... Both with the shooter and the ones being shot apparently. Lol

As a gun dealer you might be biased. People don't need military style weapons. They should ban the sales. and we do need a mental health system. What we need is to tax the rich more than the rest of us for crying out loud this is ridiculous. The Democratic Rich know- only assholes don't. oh and you dupes....

Military style weapons are full auto, and they have been illegal for most people since 1986.
And AR-15 is NOT a military style weapon, and just looks similar.
There are no full auto assault weapons available to most people.
There is just a lot of lying going on.
The reality is that at close urban ranges, the most dangerous firearm is a shotgun.

Good. Then you won't need to be buying military-style weapons. Military style means what they look like dumbass. And there are plenty of ways to turn them automatic.

Wrong.
While the most dangerous firearm at close ranges is a shotgun, most people do not need or want the most dangerous firearm for close ranges.
They don't want a shotgun because it is too likely to harm unintended victims because they always spread out where they are going to hit.
Appearance is a military style.
Military weapons have lots of different appearances.
And the AR line was not originally designed for the military.
Nor is appearance a valid means or reason to legislate.
And NO, it requires a full machine shop and professionals to make an AR fully automatic.
There are lots of much easier firearms to make fully automatic.

Walmart is now just selling deer rifles and shotguns. handguns should be more regulated than they are now anyway my goodness. This is out of control.

 

[francoHFW]

Fortunately after a week or so sometimes less, progressives quit lighting their hair on fire about these shootings.
But the drum beat goes on for frivolous gun control laws...

But the last two shooters in Texas were absolutely no different than these shit stains...

Mass shooting is color blind... Both with the shooter and the ones being shot apparently. Lol

As a gun dealer you might be biased. People don't need military style weapons. They should ban the sales. and we do need a mental health system. What we need is to tax the rich more than the rest of us for crying out loud this is ridiculous. The Democratic Rich know- only assholes don't. oh and you dupes....

Military style weapons are full auto, and they have been illegal for most people since 1986.
And AR-15 is NOT a military style weapon, and just looks similar.
There are no full auto assault weapons available to most people.
There is just a lot of lying going on.
The reality is that at close urban ranges, the most dangerous firearm is a shotgun.

Good. Then you won't need to be buying military-style weapons. Military style means what they look like dumbass. And there are plenty of ways to turn them automatic.

Wrong.
While the most dangerous firearm at close ranges is a shotgun, most people do not need or want the most dangerous firearm for close ranges.
They don't want a shotgun because it is too likely to harm unintended victims because they always spread out where they are going to hit.
Appearance is a military style.
Military weapons have lots of different appearances.
And the AR line was not originally designed for the military.
Nor is appearance a valid means or reason to legislate.
And NO, it requires a full machine shop and professionals to make an AR fully automatic.
There are lots of much easier firearms to make fully automatic.

Walmart is now just selling deer rifles and shotguns. handguns should be more regulated than they are now anyway my goodness. This is out of control.

Also our country is stressed out and 26% mentally ill. We need better vacations and a mental health system. Basically we need the Democrats desperately.

 

[Rigby5]

Fortunately after a week or so sometimes less, progressives quit lighting their hair on fire about these shootings.
But the drum beat goes on for frivolous gun control laws...

But the last two shooters in Texas were absolutely no different than these shit stains...

Mass shooting is color blind... Both with the shooter and the ones being shot apparently. Lol

As a gun dealer you might be biased. People don't need military style weapons. They should ban the sales. and we do need a mental health system. What we need is to tax the rich more than the rest of us for crying out loud this is ridiculous. The Democratic Rich know- only assholes don't. oh and you dupes....

lol
More frivolous gun control laws will not save a single soul, redistribution is for pussies

89% of the country is for good background checks. This last guy was turned down before for federal background check but loopholes.

The number of people who believe something means nothing.
Not only did most people believe Iraq had stockpiles of WMD, but over 60% thought Saddam was behind the 9/11 attack.

The person turned down at one time, would no longer have been denied with a background check.
The 2 charges were misdemeanors.
That does not prevent a firearm purchase once the charge has been through court and the sentence over.

But do you really believe that a person intent on committing a mass murder/suicide is going to be deterred by the minor charge of buying a firearm illegally?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Then you won't need to be buying military-style weapons. Military style means what they look like.

Why do you want to ban firearms based on what they look like?

And there are plenty of ways to turn them automatic.

All of which are a federal felony.

 

[Rigby5]

Fortunately after a week or so sometimes less, progressives quit lighting their hair on fire about these shootings.
But the drum beat goes on for frivolous gun control laws...

But the last two shooters in Texas were absolutely no different than these shit stains...

Mass shooting is color blind... Both with the shooter and the ones being shot apparently. Lol

As a gun dealer you might be biased. People don't need military style weapons. They should ban the sales. and we do need a mental health system. What we need is to tax the rich more than the rest of us for crying out loud this is ridiculous. The Democratic Rich know- only assholes don't. oh and you dupes....

Military style weapons are full auto, and they have been illegal for most people since 1986.
And AR-15 is NOT a military style weapon, and just looks similar.
There are no full auto assault weapons available to most people.
There is just a lot of lying going on.
The reality is that at close urban ranges, the most dangerous firearm is a shotgun.

Good. Then you won't need to be buying military-style weapons. Military style means what they look like dumbass. And there are plenty of ways to turn them automatic.

Wrong.
While the most dangerous firearm at close ranges is a shotgun, most people do not need or want the most dangerous firearm for close ranges.
They don't want a shotgun because it is too likely to harm unintended victims because they always spread out where they are going to hit.
Appearance is a military style.
Military weapons have lots of different appearances.
And the AR line was not originally designed for the military.
Nor is appearance a valid means or reason to legislate.
And NO, it requires a full machine shop and professionals to make an AR fully automatic.
There are lots of much easier firearms to make fully automatic.

They should all be banned for sale.

If all firearms are banned for sale, then you would be moving the clock back to before firearms were invented, and that means we would revert back to a monarchy and feudalism.
That is because the only reason we got rid of monarchies and feudal barons was that firearms gave the democracy the ability to fight for their rights, equal to the mercenary who was being paid to suppress your rights.
Face facts, firearms are the liberator of the entire human race.
And if it were possible to control firearms to deny them to the public, the result would be a return to dictatorships.

 

[Rigby5]

Fortunately after a week or so sometimes less, progressives quit lighting their hair on fire about these shootings.
But the drum beat goes on for frivolous gun control laws...

But the last two shooters in Texas were absolutely no different than these shit stains...

Mass shooting is color blind... Both with the shooter and the ones being shot apparently. Lol

As a gun dealer you might be biased. People don't need military style weapons. They should ban the sales. and we do need a mental health system. What we need is to tax the rich more than the rest of us for crying out loud this is ridiculous. The Democratic Rich know- only assholes don't. oh and you dupes....

Military style weapons are full auto, and they have been illegal for most people since 1986.
And AR-15 is NOT a military style weapon, and just looks similar.
There are no full auto assault weapons available to most people.
There is just a lot of lying going on.
The reality is that at close urban ranges, the most dangerous firearm is a shotgun.

Good. Then you won't need to be buying military-style weapons. Military style means what they look like dumbass. And there are plenty of ways to turn them automatic.

Wrong.
While the most dangerous firearm at close ranges is a shotgun, most people do not need or want the most dangerous firearm for close ranges.
They don't want a shotgun because it is too likely to harm unintended victims because they always spread out where they are going to hit.
Appearance is a military style.
Military weapons have lots of different appearances.
And the AR line was not originally designed for the military.
Nor is appearance a valid means or reason to legislate.
And NO, it requires a full machine shop and professionals to make an AR fully automatic.
There are lots of much easier firearms to make fully automatic.

Walmart is now just selling deer rifles and shotguns. handguns should be more regulated than they are now anyway my goodness. This is out of control.

So you do not believe in a democratic republic, where the general population is the source of all authority and power?
Do you actually trust the corrupt government and want them to have an absolute monopoly on power?
Don't you realize that is what Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn specifically warned us against, in the "Gulag Archipelago"?
And Thomas Jefferson would be pretty pissed at your ignorance as well.

 

[Rigby5]

As a gun dealer you might be biased. People don't need military style weapons. They should ban the sales. and we do need a mental health system. What we need is to tax the rich more than the rest of us for crying out loud this is ridiculous. The Democratic Rich know- only assholes don't. oh and you dupes....

Military style weapons are full auto, and they have been illegal for most people since 1986.
And AR-15 is NOT a military style weapon, and just looks similar.
There are no full auto assault weapons available to most people.
There is just a lot of lying going on.
The reality is that at close urban ranges, the most dangerous firearm is a shotgun.

Good. Then you won't need to be buying military-style weapons. Military style means what they look like dumbass. And there are plenty of ways to turn them automatic.

Wrong.
While the most dangerous firearm at close ranges is a shotgun, most people do not need or want the most dangerous firearm for close ranges.
They don't want a shotgun because it is too likely to harm unintended victims because they always spread out where they are going to hit.
Appearance is a military style.
Military weapons have lots of different appearances.
And the AR line was not originally designed for the military.
Nor is appearance a valid means or reason to legislate.
And NO, it requires a full machine shop and professionals to make an AR fully automatic.
There are lots of much easier firearms to make fully automatic.

Walmart is now just selling deer rifles and shotguns. handguns should be more regulated than they are now anyway my goodness. This is out of control.

Also our country is stressed out and 26% mentally ill. We need better vacations and a mental health system. Basically we need the Democrats desperately.

Fine, but gun control is not a solution at all.
In fact, the only way to make things better, like vacations, job stability, health care access, etc., is by there being more outbeaks, until it finally forced things to be made better.
If you allow them to just suppress the symptoms with gun control, they will NEVER actually make anything at all better.

 

[Rustic]

As a gun dealer you might be biased. People don't need military style weapons. They should ban the sales. and we do need a mental health system. What we need is to tax the rich more than the rest of us for crying out loud this is ridiculous. The Democratic Rich know- only assholes don't. oh and you dupes....

Military style weapons are full auto, and they have been illegal for most people since 1986.
And AR-15 is NOT a military style weapon, and just looks similar.
There are no full auto assault weapons available to most people.
There is just a lot of lying going on.
The reality is that at close urban ranges, the most dangerous firearm is a shotgun.

Good. Then you won't need to be buying military-style weapons. Military style means what they look like dumbass. And there are plenty of ways to turn them automatic.

Wrong.
While the most dangerous firearm at close ranges is a shotgun, most people do not need or want the most dangerous firearm for close ranges.
They don't want a shotgun because it is too likely to harm unintended victims because they always spread out where they are going to hit.
Appearance is a military style.
Military weapons have lots of different appearances.
And the AR line was not originally designed for the military.
Nor is appearance a valid means or reason to legislate.
And NO, it requires a full machine shop and professionals to make an AR fully automatic.
There are lots of much easier firearms to make fully automatic.

Walmart is now just selling deer rifles and shotguns. handguns should be more regulated than they are now anyway my goodness. This is out of control.

Also our country is stressed out and 26% mentally ill. We need better vacations and a mental health system. Basically we need the Democrats desperately.

lol
You are a weak minded fool…

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Progressives want Background checks on all private sales. Why? Who pays for that? Paying for an right?
That is definitely unconstitutional and absolutely ridiculous.

Any type of waiting period on an right? I don’t think so, definitely unconstitutional and absolutely ridiculous.
No one should have to wait more than seconds to purchase their firearms.

Obviously universal background checks I have nothing to do with firearms… Like always... it’s always been about control.
The ******* spineless gun grabbers can pound sand... lol

All our rights have limitations. You think you can just marry 10 year old girls and sacrifice bald eagles because of freedom of religion. ?

Lol
Quit falling down the well...
Marring 10-year-old girls is illegal and not an right, sacrificing bold eagles is illegal and not a right.

Gun Control is never been about guns, it’s always been about control.

You can't pick and choose.

This conversation is stupid.

Though it mainly stems from thinking of rights as a permission rather than inherent to self-owning agents, and demonstrable through individual autonomy. Your rights only end where those of another self-owning agent begins.

You can't marry a 10-year-old, not because the Government says you can't, but because a 10-year-old can't consent, due to not being developed enough to understand what they're consenting to. This would make the action unethical.

Sacrificing a Bald Eagle is not comparable in any way, much like marrying a 10-year-old, to owning a fire arm. Sacrificing a Bald Eagle is not unethical, as they are not self-owning agents. Making it illegal does not make it wrong.

Neither of these are comparable to owning a firearm, as owning a firearm is passive. Owning property is not unethical. Preventing someone from owning a firearm or stealing it, however, is an active position which infringes on the property rights of another individual.

Note: I only quoted Daryl's pointless non-argument of a post because I didn't feel like looking for Timmy's post, it just isn't worth the effort.

Like I said, you can't have it both ways. It's is or it isn't.

Yes, and like I said, you apparently don't know what rights are or where they come from, otherwise you'd have realized that I already refuted your post and Timmy's.

Not that there was any content in yours.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Not permanently.

How would you determine who should be denied guns and votes?

Simple for their group. Anyone that agrees with them will have those rights. Anyone that does not should be denied those privileges.

By what mechanism?

You are doing nothing but trying to find a loophole and find a gotcha. Sorry, won't play your stupid game.

How would a gun seller know if a person's gun rights have been suspended? Maybe a background check? Shouldn't such checks be performed at every sale?

One word answer. And you already knew the answer before you asked the question. You are still trying to play gotcha.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

All our rights have limitations. You think you can just marry 10 year old girls and sacrifice bald eagles because of freedom of religion. ?

Lol
Quit falling down the well...
Marring 10-year-old girls is illegal and not an right, sacrificing bold eagles is illegal and not a right.

Gun Control is never been about guns, it’s always been about control.

You can't pick and choose.

This conversation is stupid.

Though it mainly stems from thinking of rights as a permission rather than inherent to self-owning agents, and demonstrable through individual autonomy. Your rights only end where those of another self-owning agent begins.

You can't marry a 10-year-old, not because the Government says you can't, but because a 10-year-old can't consent, due to not being developed enough to understand what they're consenting to. This would make the action unethical.

Sacrificing a Bald Eagle is not comparable in any way, much like marrying a 10-year-old, to owning a fire arm. Sacrificing a Bald Eagle is not unethical, as they are not self-owning agents. Making it illegal does not make it wrong.

Neither of these are comparable to owning a firearm, as owning a firearm is passive. Owning property is not unethical. Preventing someone from owning a firearm or stealing it, however, is an active position which infringes on the property rights of another individual.

Note: I only quoted Daryl's pointless non-argument of a post because I didn't feel like looking for Timmy's post, it just isn't worth the effort.

Like I said, you can't have it both ways. It's is or it isn't.

Yes, and like I said, you apparently don't know what rights are or where they come from, otherwise you'd have realized that I already refuted your post and Timmy's.

Not that there was any content in yours.

Oh, you did. Now exactly where do you get those rights? Do you get them from your God? What if I don't worship the same God, does that mean I don't have the same rights? Or how about an athiest, does that mean they have none of those rights? Where do you get those rights, who gives them to you? Let's face it, the Rights you harbor aren't really in the Constitution of the United States the way you keep bringing it up. That means you must be getting them from somewhere else?

 

[Nosmo King]

How would you determine who should be denied guns and votes?

Simple for their group. Anyone that agrees with them will have those rights. Anyone that does not should be denied those privileges.

By what mechanism?

You are doing nothing but trying to find a loophole and find a gotcha. Sorry, won't play your stupid game.

How would a gun seller know if a person's gun rights have been suspended? Maybe a background check? Shouldn't such checks be performed at every sale?

One word answer. And you already knew the answer before you asked the question. You are still trying to play gotcha.

I'm trying to understand the opposition to universal background checks.

 

[hunarcy]

Still waiting for the solutions from the right wing on how to stop our near weekly massacres.

Put offenders in jail to prevent them from becoming repeat offenders. Chicago Police Department

Okay…would that have stopped the massacres in El Paso or Midland just this Month?

Perhaps not, but if you are really interested in stopping murders, that's where you should start.

 

[hunarcy]

Still waiting for the solutions from the right wing on how to stop our near weekly massacres.

lol
Shit happens, Only a fool thinks more frivolous gun control laws will save a single soul

There is no way to measure how many lives were saved by the waiting period, the current insufficient background checks, etc…. We should at least try something instead of being resigned to shrugging our shoulders at the massacres.

Ah, so you don't know if anything you suggest would stop anything, but you're determined to do "something".

 

[Nosmo King]

Still waiting for the solutions from the right wing on how to stop our near weekly massacres.

lol
Shit happens, Only a fool thinks more frivolous gun control laws will save a single soul

There is no way to measure how many lives were saved by the waiting period, the current insufficient background checks, etc…. We should at least try something instead of being resigned to shrugging our shoulders at the massacres.

Ah, so you don't know if anything you suggest would stop anything, but you're determined to do "something".

What's the solution?

 

[Leo123]

Oh, you did. Now exactly where do you get those rights? Do you get them from your God? What if I don't worship the same God, does that mean I don't have the same rights? Or how about an athiest, does that mean they have none of those rights? Where do you get those rights, who gives them to you? Let's face it, the Rights you harbor aren't really in the Constitution of the United States the way you keep bringing it up. That means you must be getting them from somewhere else?

Your Queen is your 'god' ain't she Daryl? All rights come from the Crown. Right?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Oh, you did. Now exactly where do you get those rights? Do you get them from your God? What if I don't worship the same God, does that mean I don't have the same rights? Or how about an athiest, does that mean they have none of those rights? Where do you get those rights, who gives them to you? Let's face it, the Rights you harbor aren't really in the Constitution of the United States the way you keep bringing it up. That means you must be getting them from somewhere else?

Your Queen is your 'god' ain't she Daryl? All rights come from the Crown. Right?

I didn't ask where I get MY rights from. I asked where YOU get YOUR rights from. Now answer that question.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Lol
Quit falling down the well...
Marring 10-year-old girls is illegal and not an right, sacrificing bold eagles is illegal and not a right.

Gun Control is never been about guns, it’s always been about control.

You can't pick and choose.

This conversation is stupid.

Though it mainly stems from thinking of rights as a permission rather than inherent to self-owning agents, and demonstrable through individual autonomy. Your rights only end where those of another self-owning agent begins.

You can't marry a 10-year-old, not because the Government says you can't, but because a 10-year-old can't consent, due to not being developed enough to understand what they're consenting to. This would make the action unethical.

Sacrificing a Bald Eagle is not comparable in any way, much like marrying a 10-year-old, to owning a fire arm. Sacrificing a Bald Eagle is not unethical, as they are not self-owning agents. Making it illegal does not make it wrong.

Neither of these are comparable to owning a firearm, as owning a firearm is passive. Owning property is not unethical. Preventing someone from owning a firearm or stealing it, however, is an active position which infringes on the property rights of another individual.

Note: I only quoted Daryl's pointless non-argument of a post because I didn't feel like looking for Timmy's post, it just isn't worth the effort.

Like I said, you can't have it both ways. It's is or it isn't.

Yes, and like I said, you apparently don't know what rights are or where they come from, otherwise you'd have realized that I already refuted your post and Timmy's.

Not that there was any content in yours.

Oh, you did. Now exactly where do you get those rights? Do you get them from your God? What if I don't worship the same God, does that mean I don't have the same rights? Or how about an athiest, does that mean they have none of those rights? Where do you get those rights, who gives them to you? Let's face it, the Rights you harbor aren't really in the Constitution of the United States the way you keep bringing it up. That means you must be getting them from somewhere else?

Nowhere in my post did I mention God, stop trying to construct a strawman.

Nobody can give rights, that's actually retarded. A person cannot give what they don't have, so claiming they have to come from someone else is circular logic. I specifically stated that they're inherent to the individual, and demonstrable by their agency. The fact that people can act of their own free will shows that they are self-owning agents, and being a self-owning agent demonstrates that they have individual rights.

I never mentioned the Constitution, either. Quote one sentence in any recent post of mine in which I claim that the Constitution grants rights. Just one.

I'll go ahead and save you some time; The Constitution does not grant rights. Just like someone else cannot give something they don't have, a piece of paper cannot do that either. The Constitution isn't even a legitimate document, nobody consented to it, and implicit consent does not exist.

I understand your english comprehension may be sorely lacking, since you apparently don't understand the word "inherent" or "demonstrable". Try reading my previous posts again, and use Google to understand the words I used so that you don't keep making the same mistake, champ.