Universal background checks... really?

[Rustic]

Actually bans makes the "problem" worse. Today, firearms can be built from scratch by monkeys with hand tools. The liberals are going to con Trump into signing another bill that will take dollars from one place to divert into this newly created criminal enterprise.

Ooohhhh, the Fear, feel the Fear. Study up on how our Grand Fathers handled the Thompson Model 1921. They did it without confiscating (except for criminals), no house to house searches. None of the fear things you keep bringing up. It was actually very benign. And for the same reasons that we are looking at the AR and the AK. At 200 bucks a gun, there were a LOT of them. IT took about 10 years to finally get them under control. Time works wonders. Did they actually Ban them? Nope. You wanted a Thompson Model 1921, you could still have one. Even today, if you want a Thompson Model 1921 or Thompson M1A1 you can have one. So another "Let's scare Johnny" bites the dust.

And they don't "Ban" all the parts. They do "Regulate" the uppers which is what makes the gun go bang. The Uppers is also the main difference between the AR and the M-16. And I would say that the "Regulation" of the M-16 uppers has worked pretty damned good. When was the last time a fully auto AR was used in a crime? The way to "Regulate" the AR is to regulate the Upper. The same they did with the Thompson Model 1921 and the same they did with the M-16. BTW, I can own a fully auto M-16 if I wish even today. They aren't "Banned" they are regulated.

At some point, your Grand Father got sick and tired of his children getting mowed down by stray shots from mobsters killing each other and did something about it. AT some point, WE are going to have to do something about the sickos mowing down our children with ARs.

More absolute bullshit from an uneducated and ill informed moron. Uppers have never been regulated on an AR15. Blow smoke up somebody else's ass.

Pay attention, little Johnny,
Inside the colt factory, the AR-15 Model 601, 602, 602 and 604 have always been sold only to previously approved Law Enforcement and Military. The part that is different that is controlled is the upper. That means that all the other parts can be purchased commercially or copied save that one pert. Your lack of knowledge is astounding. When you buy a Colt Model LE6920 or Model 750, that is the only real difference except for the rail system. And ALL civilian AR-15s are either those two models OR copies or clones of those two models in either the long version or the carbine (M-4) style.

Okay, lil' Johnny, you can resume eating your own boogers now.

You are a complete and total, stark raving idiot. You've never even seen an AR where you live. Any dumb ass who has served some time in the military or worked on an AR knows that the serial number is on the LOWER receiver and upper receivers can be bought as easily as a carton of milk. The LOWER receiver is the "firearm" as per BATFE regulations.

Thank you for the correction. I was wondering if one of you gunnutters was going to catch that. The way to lead a mad dog to the cage is with a nice juicy steak. And you fall for it. That means that the one part that is the difference between the AR and the M is the lower receiver. Everything else is the same or at least interchangeable. The way to "Regulate" the AR is to regulate the one item with the SN exactly like the M series. It works. Then you can sit in the dark, gnash your teeth, pound the floor and sand to your hearts content and in 10 years or so, the AR is a memory just like the Thompson Model 1921 became.

Or you can stop this nonsense and work to get a handle on things because it's not going to stay like it is. Either work with the regulation and make it common sense or watch the hard core regulation go into place. You do have a choice. Others will never have that choice.

Lol
It Ain’t broke… Don’t fix it

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Actually bans makes the "problem" worse. Today, firearms can be built from scratch by monkeys with hand tools. The liberals are going to con Trump into signing another bill that will take dollars from one place to divert into this newly created criminal enterprise.

Ooohhhh, the Fear, feel the Fear. Study up on how our Grand Fathers handled the Thompson Model 1921. They did it without confiscating (except for criminals), no house to house searches. None of the fear things you keep bringing up. It was actually very benign. And for the same reasons that we are looking at the AR and the AK. At 200 bucks a gun, there were a LOT of them. IT took about 10 years to finally get them under control. Time works wonders. Did they actually Ban them? Nope. You wanted a Thompson Model 1921, you could still have one. Even today, if you want a Thompson Model 1921 or Thompson M1A1 you can have one. So another "Let's scare Johnny" bites the dust.

And they don't "Ban" all the parts. They do "Regulate" the uppers which is what makes the gun go bang. The Uppers is also the main difference between the AR and the M-16. And I would say that the "Regulation" of the M-16 uppers has worked pretty damned good. When was the last time a fully auto AR was used in a crime? The way to "Regulate" the AR is to regulate the Upper. The same they did with the Thompson Model 1921 and the same they did with the M-16. BTW, I can own a fully auto M-16 if I wish even today. They aren't "Banned" they are regulated.

At some point, your Grand Father got sick and tired of his children getting mowed down by stray shots from mobsters killing each other and did something about it. AT some point, WE are going to have to do something about the sickos mowing down our children with ARs.

More absolute bullshit from an uneducated and ill informed moron. Uppers have never been regulated on an AR15. Blow smoke up somebody else's ass.

Pay attention, little Johnny,
Inside the colt factory, the AR-15 Model 601, 602, 602 and 604 have always been sold only to previously approved Law Enforcement and Military. The part that is different that is controlled is the upper. That means that all the other parts can be purchased commercially or copied save that one pert. Your lack of knowledge is astounding. When you buy a Colt Model LE6920 or Model 750, that is the only real difference except for the rail system. And ALL civilian AR-15s are either those two models OR copies or clones of those two models in either the long version or the carbine (M-4) style.

Okay, lil' Johnny, you can resume eating your own boogers now.

You are a complete and total, stark raving idiot. You've never even seen an AR where you live. Any dumb ass who has served some time in the military or worked on an AR knows that the serial number is on the LOWER receiver and upper receivers can be bought as easily as a carton of milk. The LOWER receiver is the "firearm" as per BATFE regulations.

Thank you for the correction. I was wondering if one of you gunnutters was going to catch that. The way to lead a mad dog to the cage is with a nice juicy steak. And you fall for it. That means that the one part that is the difference between the AR and the M is the lower receiver. Everything else is the same or at least interchangeable. The way to "Regulate" the AR is to regulate the one item with the SN exactly like the M series. It works. Then you can sit in the dark, gnash your teeth, pound the floor and sand to your hearts content and in 10 years or so, the AR is a memory just like the Thompson Model 1921 became.

Or you can stop this nonsense and work to get a handle on things because it's not going to stay like it is. Either work with the regulation and make it common sense or watch the hard core regulation go into place. You do have a choice. Others will never have that choice.

OMG. You're a lying son of a ***** that just outed yourself and trying to pretend you led me into a trap. Gun nutter my ass. I'm the man you hate, loathe and despise because I stand for Liberty and Freedom. You stand for socialism, tyranny and a government god. Don't ever try to make this discussion about something other than what it is.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Nothing circular about it. Over the years, it's been proven again and again that trying to ban things does not solve problems. Prohibition and the War on Drugs, have CREATED more problems than they hoped to solve. The ONLY thing that is effective is to control the PEOPLE who create the problems.

Actually bans makes the "problem" worse. Today, firearms can be built from scratch by monkeys with hand tools. The liberals are going to con Trump into signing another bill that will take dollars from one place to divert into this newly created criminal enterprise.

They were always made by hand about. 200 years ago. Nothing new.

Yes, even today, there are some real craftsmen making those old Rifles. They hand make all the parts except for one part, the barrel and the combustion chamber. You want one of those, you are going to have to cast it or mill it. Back then, you utilized Founderies. Today, you will either have a complete machine shop that is well outside the common persons means or you will buy the barrel with the combustion chamber.

Tell me, why are you making a damned fool of yourself like this. You can't make a decent gun to save your own life. Even with all my hand tools, I can't either. I don't have a complete machine shop and the skills to go with it. The best I can hope for is to either buy all the parts and assemble it or make a zip gun. Same goes for you. Once again, your remarkable fairy tail has no attachment to reality.

Now you've really outdone yourself. If you had a machine shop you could turn out an AR from scratch in two days with just a basic machine shop.

And Pigs could fly if they had wings. You certainly think more of me than I do of myself. Or you are really, really over estimating your own ability.

I know what I can do. I know you're a lying ass bullshitter that never finished high school.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

You don't like anything about America. You spend most of your time talking shit against it... talking trash you don't have the balls to down on street corners with your signs and say in public.

Wow, good reflection you have there, cupcake. I happen to like my little part of America. I live in a primarily Red area. I can walk down the street at 2 am without fear of being shot, beaten, arrested, mugged, kidnapped. Outside of the occasional quickstop holdups, crime is pretty low. Our schools are safe. Almost no one is strutting down the street wearing their Gun ALA Billy the Kid. AR-15s are here but you never see them because they aren't a cult and it's really bad manners to display them in public. Cost of Living is low compared to most places. I would say we have it pretty damned good. But you wouldn't like it here. This is too much like middle America and you want America remade in whatever sick image you have in your twisted head. No thanks, I'll pass and just stay here.

I don't care where you stay. You're too much of a coward to venture too far from your computer and your insults only say, you have NOTHING to say. The value of your posts only demonstrate how little you really know. You aren't even good enough to be called a bull shit artist - it would be an insult to the term.

One small admission: If you aren't in a loony bin, you make a compelling case for a background check - so they can find you and return the village idiot to whatever piece of America you ran away from.

Thank you for supporting Universal Background Checks. You did find a use for them afterall. Please fill out yours honestly as we are in need of new village idiot since the last one was stolen by the town two towns over.

I have reported you as stolen; Seems Nancy Pelosi needed a house *****, but didn't pay for you, bit it was stated you are worthless. Son, it will be a cold day in Hell before I support any Universal Background Check.

Furthermore, I fully advocate passive resistance toward that and Red Flag Laws.

At least you are advocating passive resistance. Unlike some of your real fruitcake buddies. When the Universal Background checks and Red Flag Laws do happen (and we both know they will) at least I would be willing to work with you to keep it from going much deeper than that. But to those that advocate direct violence, I would be one of the first to help round them up under the Red Flag Laws.

I will not obey unconstitutional laws. If an attempt is made to jail people and / or take their guns for not complying with unconstitutional laws, I'd support a civilian militia response.

How do you think America came into being? Do you really think that our forefathers fought and died for Liberty so that we could play the tyrant's fool?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Ooohhhh, the Fear, feel the Fear. Study up on how our Grand Fathers handled the Thompson Model 1921. They did it without confiscating (except for criminals), no house to house searches. None of the fear things you keep bringing up. It was actually very benign. And for the same reasons that we are looking at the AR and the AK. At 200 bucks a gun, there were a LOT of them. IT took about 10 years to finally get them under control. Time works wonders. Did they actually Ban them? Nope. You wanted a Thompson Model 1921, you could still have one. Even today, if you want a Thompson Model 1921 or Thompson M1A1 you can have one. So another "Let's scare Johnny" bites the dust.

And they don't "Ban" all the parts. They do "Regulate" the uppers which is what makes the gun go bang. The Uppers is also the main difference between the AR and the M-16. And I would say that the "Regulation" of the M-16 uppers has worked pretty damned good. When was the last time a fully auto AR was used in a crime? The way to "Regulate" the AR is to regulate the Upper. The same they did with the Thompson Model 1921 and the same they did with the M-16. BTW, I can own a fully auto M-16 if I wish even today. They aren't "Banned" they are regulated.

At some point, your Grand Father got sick and tired of his children getting mowed down by stray shots from mobsters killing each other and did something about it. AT some point, WE are going to have to do something about the sickos mowing down our children with ARs.

More absolute bullshit from an uneducated and ill informed moron. Uppers have never been regulated on an AR15. Blow smoke up somebody else's ass.

Pay attention, little Johnny,
Inside the colt factory, the AR-15 Model 601, 602, 602 and 604 have always been sold only to previously approved Law Enforcement and Military. The part that is different that is controlled is the upper. That means that all the other parts can be purchased commercially or copied save that one pert. Your lack of knowledge is astounding. When you buy a Colt Model LE6920 or Model 750, that is the only real difference except for the rail system. And ALL civilian AR-15s are either those two models OR copies or clones of those two models in either the long version or the carbine (M-4) style.

Okay, lil' Johnny, you can resume eating your own boogers now.

You are a complete and total, stark raving idiot. You've never even seen an AR where you live. Any dumb ass who has served some time in the military or worked on an AR knows that the serial number is on the LOWER receiver and upper receivers can be bought as easily as a carton of milk. The LOWER receiver is the "firearm" as per BATFE regulations.

Thank you for the correction. I was wondering if one of you gunnutters was going to catch that. The way to lead a mad dog to the cage is with a nice juicy steak. And you fall for it. That means that the one part that is the difference between the AR and the M is the lower receiver. Everything else is the same or at least interchangeable. The way to "Regulate" the AR is to regulate the one item with the SN exactly like the M series. It works. Then you can sit in the dark, gnash your teeth, pound the floor and sand to your hearts content and in 10 years or so, the AR is a memory just like the Thompson Model 1921 became.

Or you can stop this nonsense and work to get a handle on things because it's not going to stay like it is. Either work with the regulation and make it common sense or watch the hard core regulation go into place. You do have a choice. Others will never have that choice.

OMG. You're a lying son of a ***** that just outed yourself and trying to pretend you led me into a trap. Gun nutter my ass. I'm the man you hate, loathe and despise because I stand for Liberty and Freedom. You stand for socialism, tyranny and a government god. Don't ever try to make this discussion about something other than what it is.

If I hate, loath and despise you it's not due to your stance on Liberty and Freedom. It's from your denying others their liberty, freedom and free speech. But, like by respect, you have to earn my hate, loathe and despite and you just haven't made that grade yet.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Wow, good reflection you have there, cupcake. I happen to like my little part of America. I live in a primarily Red area. I can walk down the street at 2 am without fear of being shot, beaten, arrested, mugged, kidnapped. Outside of the occasional quickstop holdups, crime is pretty low. Our schools are safe. Almost no one is strutting down the street wearing their Gun ALA Billy the Kid. AR-15s are here but you never see them because they aren't a cult and it's really bad manners to display them in public. Cost of Living is low compared to most places. I would say we have it pretty damned good. But you wouldn't like it here. This is too much like middle America and you want America remade in whatever sick image you have in your twisted head. No thanks, I'll pass and just stay here.

I don't care where you stay. You're too much of a coward to venture too far from your computer and your insults only say, you have NOTHING to say. The value of your posts only demonstrate how little you really know. You aren't even good enough to be called a bull shit artist - it would be an insult to the term.

One small admission: If you aren't in a loony bin, you make a compelling case for a background check - so they can find you and return the village idiot to whatever piece of America you ran away from.

Thank you for supporting Universal Background Checks. You did find a use for them afterall. Please fill out yours honestly as we are in need of new village idiot since the last one was stolen by the town two towns over.

I have reported you as stolen; Seems Nancy Pelosi needed a house *****, but didn't pay for you, bit it was stated you are worthless. Son, it will be a cold day in Hell before I support any Universal Background Check.

Furthermore, I fully advocate passive resistance toward that and Red Flag Laws.

At least you are advocating passive resistance. Unlike some of your real fruitcake buddies. When the Universal Background checks and Red Flag Laws do happen (and we both know they will) at least I would be willing to work with you to keep it from going much deeper than that. But to those that advocate direct violence, I would be one of the first to help round them up under the Red Flag Laws.

I will not obey unconstitutional laws. If an attempt is made to jail people and / or take their guns for not complying with unconstitutional laws, I'd support a civilian militia response.

How do you think America came into being? Do you really think that our forefathers fought and died for Liberty so that we could play the tyrant's fool?

Then that is your choice. And mine is to be armed on the other side to stop you. You see, it works both ways. You have the right to die for your convictions no matter how misplaced they might be.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

I don't care where you stay. You're too much of a coward to venture too far from your computer and your insults only say, you have NOTHING to say. The value of your posts only demonstrate how little you really know. You aren't even good enough to be called a bull shit artist - it would be an insult to the term.

One small admission: If you aren't in a loony bin, you make a compelling case for a background check - so they can find you and return the village idiot to whatever piece of America you ran away from.

Thank you for supporting Universal Background Checks. You did find a use for them afterall. Please fill out yours honestly as we are in need of new village idiot since the last one was stolen by the town two towns over.

I have reported you as stolen; Seems Nancy Pelosi needed a house *****, but didn't pay for you, bit it was stated you are worthless. Son, it will be a cold day in Hell before I support any Universal Background Check.

Furthermore, I fully advocate passive resistance toward that and Red Flag Laws.

At least you are advocating passive resistance. Unlike some of your real fruitcake buddies. When the Universal Background checks and Red Flag Laws do happen (and we both know they will) at least I would be willing to work with you to keep it from going much deeper than that. But to those that advocate direct violence, I would be one of the first to help round them up under the Red Flag Laws.

I will not obey unconstitutional laws. If an attempt is made to jail people and / or take their guns for not complying with unconstitutional laws, I'd support a civilian militia response.

How do you think America came into being? Do you really think that our forefathers fought and died for Liberty so that we could play the tyrant's fool?

Then that is your choice. And mine is to be armed on the other side to stop you. You see, it works both ways. You have the right to die for your convictions no matter how misplaced they might be.

And you have a right to be misguided. If all Hell breaks loose it will be fate, destiny, or more likely the will of God that decides the victor.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Thank you for supporting Universal Background Checks. You did find a use for them afterall. Please fill out yours honestly as we are in need of new village idiot since the last one was stolen by the town two towns over.

I have reported you as stolen; Seems Nancy Pelosi needed a house *****, but didn't pay for you, bit it was stated you are worthless. Son, it will be a cold day in Hell before I support any Universal Background Check.

Furthermore, I fully advocate passive resistance toward that and Red Flag Laws.

At least you are advocating passive resistance. Unlike some of your real fruitcake buddies. When the Universal Background checks and Red Flag Laws do happen (and we both know they will) at least I would be willing to work with you to keep it from going much deeper than that. But to those that advocate direct violence, I would be one of the first to help round them up under the Red Flag Laws.

I will not obey unconstitutional laws. If an attempt is made to jail people and / or take their guns for not complying with unconstitutional laws, I'd support a civilian militia response.

How do you think America came into being? Do you really think that our forefathers fought and died for Liberty so that we could play the tyrant's fool?

Then that is your choice. And mine is to be armed on the other side to stop you. You see, it works both ways. You have the right to die for your convictions no matter how misplaced they might be.

And you have a right to be misguided. If all Hell breaks loose it will be fate, destiny, or more likely the will of God that decides the victor.

Or the rule of law. Either you have the rule of law on your side or you are a criminal and should be dealt as such.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

I have reported you as stolen; Seems Nancy Pelosi needed a house *****, but didn't pay for you, bit it was stated you are worthless. Son, it will be a cold day in Hell before I support any Universal Background Check.

Furthermore, I fully advocate passive resistance toward that and Red Flag Laws.

At least you are advocating passive resistance. Unlike some of your real fruitcake buddies. When the Universal Background checks and Red Flag Laws do happen (and we both know they will) at least I would be willing to work with you to keep it from going much deeper than that. But to those that advocate direct violence, I would be one of the first to help round them up under the Red Flag Laws.

I will not obey unconstitutional laws. If an attempt is made to jail people and / or take their guns for not complying with unconstitutional laws, I'd support a civilian militia response.

How do you think America came into being? Do you really think that our forefathers fought and died for Liberty so that we could play the tyrant's fool?

Then that is your choice. And mine is to be armed on the other side to stop you. You see, it works both ways. You have the right to die for your convictions no matter how misplaced they might be.

And you have a right to be misguided. If all Hell breaks loose it will be fate, destiny, or more likely the will of God that decides the victor.

Or the rule of law. Either you have the rule of law on your side or you are a criminal and should be dealt as such.

Which "rule of law?"

"On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823


"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun." - Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

"For it is a truth, which the experience of ages has attested, that the people are always most in danger when the means of injuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 25, December 21, 1787

"f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, January 10, 1788

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of."
- James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

"...the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone..."
- James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788

"To disarm the people...s the most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788

"Arms in the hands of citizens (may) be used at individual discretion...in private self-defense..." -John Adams,

1788 A Defense of the Constitution of the Government of the USA, p.471

"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.” Thomas Jefferson

And you oppose that?

 

[Porter Rockwell]

More absolute bullshit from an uneducated and ill informed moron. Uppers have never been regulated on an AR15. Blow smoke up somebody else's ass.

Pay attention, little Johnny,
Inside the colt factory, the AR-15 Model 601, 602, 602 and 604 have always been sold only to previously approved Law Enforcement and Military. The part that is different that is controlled is the upper. That means that all the other parts can be purchased commercially or copied save that one pert. Your lack of knowledge is astounding. When you buy a Colt Model LE6920 or Model 750, that is the only real difference except for the rail system. And ALL civilian AR-15s are either those two models OR copies or clones of those two models in either the long version or the carbine (M-4) style.

Okay, lil' Johnny, you can resume eating your own boogers now.

You are a complete and total, stark raving idiot. You've never even seen an AR where you live. Any dumb ass who has served some time in the military or worked on an AR knows that the serial number is on the LOWER receiver and upper receivers can be bought as easily as a carton of milk. The LOWER receiver is the "firearm" as per BATFE regulations.

Thank you for the correction. I was wondering if one of you gunnutters was going to catch that. The way to lead a mad dog to the cage is with a nice juicy steak. And you fall for it. That means that the one part that is the difference between the AR and the M is the lower receiver. Everything else is the same or at least interchangeable. The way to "Regulate" the AR is to regulate the one item with the SN exactly like the M series. It works. Then you can sit in the dark, gnash your teeth, pound the floor and sand to your hearts content and in 10 years or so, the AR is a memory just like the Thompson Model 1921 became.

Or you can stop this nonsense and work to get a handle on things because it's not going to stay like it is. Either work with the regulation and make it common sense or watch the hard core regulation go into place. You do have a choice. Others will never have that choice.

OMG. You're a lying son of a ***** that just outed yourself and trying to pretend you led me into a trap. Gun nutter my ass. I'm the man you hate, loathe and despise because I stand for Liberty and Freedom. You stand for socialism, tyranny and a government god. Don't ever try to make this discussion about something other than what it is.

If I hate, loath and despise you it's not due to your stance on Liberty and Freedom. It's from your denying others their liberty, freedom and free speech. But, like by respect, you have to earn my hate, loathe and despite and you just haven't made that grade yet.

You're an idiot. I don't have the luxury of denying even those I hate the unalienable Rights . You've now stated you would stand against me for doing just that. So you are a liar and a bullshit artist that should be in a prison for being a seditionist.

 

[candycorn]

Ok. Circular logic gets you nowhere

Nothing circular about it. Over the years, it's been proven again and again that trying to ban things does not solve problems. Prohibition and the War on Drugs, have CREATED more problems than they hoped to solve. The ONLY thing that is effective is to control the PEOPLE who create the problems.

Ok. Circular logic gets you nowhere

So you would rather we legalize cocaine and heroin?

You’re insane.

If you pass a law tomorrow that you can’t keep a gun in your house if someone is PS, will you have every household moving their guns off premises? No. Would some who don’t wish to violate the law? Yes. Eventually more and more people would. Would you ever get 100% compliance? No.

Also in the cases you cite about alcohol and drug use, you do realize that in those cases the distribution channel is being shut down and criminals step in To reopen it. In the case of passing a law that households with a mentally troubled person must keep their weapons off site...no such distribution channel is being shut down. So your examples are not applicable.

Candy, your whole argument about "gun show loopholes" (which really don't exist, but that is another argument) presupposes that those who cannot legally obtain firearms will get them illegally, so your dismissal of prohibition and the war on drugs as irrelevant is actually refuted by your own argument.. You are just so focused on "pieces" of the argument that you have lost sight of your point.

No…

The question is about background checks which fosters the loophole. Not a prohibition of weapons. Its not the same thing unless you take the position that Im sponsoring prohibiting firearms…which I am not.

And because of our war on drugs and to some extent prohibition…there were people who didn’t take illegal drugs or drink which probably fostered a better life for them and their communities.

As for gun show loopholes, there are ample YouTube videos proving its existence.

The federal government does not de jure constitutional authority to violate the Fourth Amendment and force background checks. The NRA was wrong to ever have agreed to them.

Losing position on all fronts

 

[hunarcy]

I would say that what needs to be expanded is the control society exerts over those who would infringe on the rights of the rest of us.

Ok. Circular logic gets you nowhere

Nothing circular about it. Over the years, it's been proven again and again that trying to ban things does not solve problems. Prohibition and the War on Drugs, have CREATED more problems than they hoped to solve. The ONLY thing that is effective is to control the PEOPLE who create the problems.

I would say that what needs to be expanded is the control society exerts over those who would infringe on the rights of the rest of us.

Ok. Circular logic gets you nowhere

So you would rather we legalize cocaine and heroin?

You’re insane.

If you pass a law tomorrow that you can’t keep a gun in your house if someone is PS, will you have every household moving their guns off premises? No. Would some who don’t wish to violate the law? Yes. Eventually more and more people would. Would you ever get 100% compliance? No.

Also in the cases you cite about alcohol and drug use, you do realize that in those cases the distribution channel is being shut down and criminals step in To reopen it. In the case of passing a law that households with a mentally troubled person must keep their weapons off site...no such distribution channel is being shut down. So your examples are not applicable.

Candy, your whole argument about "gun show loopholes" (which really don't exist, but that is another argument) presupposes that those who cannot legally obtain firearms will get them illegally, so your dismissal of prohibition and the war on drugs as irrelevant is actually refuted by your own argument.. You are just so focused on "pieces" of the argument that you have lost sight of your point.

No…

The question is about background checks which fosters the loophole. Not a prohibition of weapons. Its not the same thing unless you take the position that Im sponsoring prohibiting firearms…which I am not.

And because of our war on drugs and to some extent prohibition…there were people who didn’t take illegal drugs or drink which probably fostered a better life for them and their communities.

As for gun show loopholes, there are ample YouTube videos proving its existence.

Geez, why watch propaganda? Whether you buy a firearm from a dealer at his store or at his table at a gun show, it still has to go through a background check.

 

[candycorn]

Ok. Circular logic gets you nowhere

Nothing circular about it. Over the years, it's been proven again and again that trying to ban things does not solve problems. Prohibition and the War on Drugs, have CREATED more problems than they hoped to solve. The ONLY thing that is effective is to control the PEOPLE who create the problems.

Ok. Circular logic gets you nowhere

So you would rather we legalize cocaine and heroin?

You’re insane.

If you pass a law tomorrow that you can’t keep a gun in your house if someone is PS, will you have every household moving their guns off premises? No. Would some who don’t wish to violate the law? Yes. Eventually more and more people would. Would you ever get 100% compliance? No.

Also in the cases you cite about alcohol and drug use, you do realize that in those cases the distribution channel is being shut down and criminals step in To reopen it. In the case of passing a law that households with a mentally troubled person must keep their weapons off site...no such distribution channel is being shut down. So your examples are not applicable.

Candy, your whole argument about "gun show loopholes" (which really don't exist, but that is another argument) presupposes that those who cannot legally obtain firearms will get them illegally, so your dismissal of prohibition and the war on drugs as irrelevant is actually refuted by your own argument.. You are just so focused on "pieces" of the argument that you have lost sight of your point.

No…

The question is about background checks which fosters the loophole. Not a prohibition of weapons. Its not the same thing unless you take the position that Im sponsoring prohibiting firearms…which I am not.

And because of our war on drugs and to some extent prohibition…there were people who didn’t take illegal drugs or drink which probably fostered a better life for them and their communities.

As for gun show loopholes, there are ample YouTube videos proving its existence.

Geez, why watch propaganda? Whether you buy a firearm from a dealer at his store or at his table at a gun show, it still has to go through a background check.

Mmmmm not so much.

 

[hunarcy]

Nothing circular about it. Over the years, it's been proven again and again that trying to ban things does not solve problems. Prohibition and the War on Drugs, have CREATED more problems than they hoped to solve. The ONLY thing that is effective is to control the PEOPLE who create the problems.

So you would rather we legalize cocaine and heroin?

You’re insane.

If you pass a law tomorrow that you can’t keep a gun in your house if someone is PS, will you have every household moving their guns off premises? No. Would some who don’t wish to violate the law? Yes. Eventually more and more people would. Would you ever get 100% compliance? No.

Also in the cases you cite about alcohol and drug use, you do realize that in those cases the distribution channel is being shut down and criminals step in To reopen it. In the case of passing a law that households with a mentally troubled person must keep their weapons off site...no such distribution channel is being shut down. So your examples are not applicable.

Candy, your whole argument about "gun show loopholes" (which really don't exist, but that is another argument) presupposes that those who cannot legally obtain firearms will get them illegally, so your dismissal of prohibition and the war on drugs as irrelevant is actually refuted by your own argument.. You are just so focused on "pieces" of the argument that you have lost sight of your point.

No…

The question is about background checks which fosters the loophole. Not a prohibition of weapons. Its not the same thing unless you take the position that Im sponsoring prohibiting firearms…which I am not.

And because of our war on drugs and to some extent prohibition…there were people who didn’t take illegal drugs or drink which probably fostered a better life for them and their communities.

As for gun show loopholes, there are ample YouTube videos proving its existence.

Geez, why watch propaganda? Whether you buy a firearm from a dealer at his store or at his table at a gun show, it still has to go through a background check.

Mmmmm not so much.

You'll have to forgive me laughing at you. That guy was NOT a dealer. He could have sold it out of his garage or out of his trunk on the street. Not a "gun show" loophole. Sorry

 

[candycorn]

I don't care where you stay. You're too much of a coward to venture too far from your computer and your insults only say, you have NOTHING to say. The value of your posts only demonstrate how little you really know. You aren't even good enough to be called a bull shit artist - it would be an insult to the term.

One small admission: If you aren't in a loony bin, you make a compelling case for a background check - so they can find you and return the village idiot to whatever piece of America you ran away from.

Thank you for supporting Universal Background Checks. You did find a use for them afterall. Please fill out yours honestly as we are in need of new village idiot since the last one was stolen by the town two towns over.

I have reported you as stolen; Seems Nancy Pelosi needed a house *****, but didn't pay for you, bit it was stated you are worthless. Son, it will be a cold day in Hell before I support any Universal Background Check.

Furthermore, I fully advocate passive resistance toward that and Red Flag Laws.

At least you are advocating passive resistance. Unlike some of your real fruitcake buddies. When the Universal Background checks and Red Flag Laws do happen (and we both know they will) at least I would be willing to work with you to keep it from going much deeper than that. But to those that advocate direct violence, I would be one of the first to help round them up under the Red Flag Laws.

I will not obey unconstitutional laws. If an attempt is made to jail people and / or take their guns for not complying with unconstitutional laws, I'd support a civilian militia response.

How do you think America came into being? Do you really think that our forefathers fought and died for Liberty so that we could play the tyrant's fool?

Then that is your choice. And mine is to be armed on the other side to stop you. You see, it works both ways. You have the right to die for your convictions no matter how misplaced they might be.

By all measure the gun nuts are hysterical little girls

 

[candycorn]

So you would rather we legalize cocaine and heroin?

You’re insane.

If you pass a law tomorrow that you can’t keep a gun in your house if someone is PS, will you have every household moving their guns off premises? No. Would some who don’t wish to violate the law? Yes. Eventually more and more people would. Would you ever get 100% compliance? No.

Also in the cases you cite about alcohol and drug use, you do realize that in those cases the distribution channel is being shut down and criminals step in To reopen it. In the case of passing a law that households with a mentally troubled person must keep their weapons off site...no such distribution channel is being shut down. So your examples are not applicable.

Candy, your whole argument about "gun show loopholes" (which really don't exist, but that is another argument) presupposes that those who cannot legally obtain firearms will get them illegally, so your dismissal of prohibition and the war on drugs as irrelevant is actually refuted by your own argument.. You are just so focused on "pieces" of the argument that you have lost sight of your point.

No…

The question is about background checks which fosters the loophole. Not a prohibition of weapons. Its not the same thing unless you take the position that Im sponsoring prohibiting firearms…which I am not.

And because of our war on drugs and to some extent prohibition…there were people who didn’t take illegal drugs or drink which probably fostered a better life for them and their communities.

As for gun show loopholes, there are ample YouTube videos proving its existence.

Geez, why watch propaganda? Whether you buy a firearm from a dealer at his store or at his table at a gun show, it still has to go through a background check.

Mmmmm not so much.

You'll have to forgive me laughing at you. That guy was NOT a dealer. He could have sold it out of his garage or out of his trunk on the street. Not a "gun show" loophole. Sorry

Meanwhile back in reality, the guy selling a rifle no questions asked was a dealer at a gun show clearly demonstrating the very real gun show loophole. Say hi to Mr Roark on your Fantasy Island.

 

[hunarcy]

Candy, your whole argument about "gun show loopholes" (which really don't exist, but that is another argument) presupposes that those who cannot legally obtain firearms will get them illegally, so your dismissal of prohibition and the war on drugs as irrelevant is actually refuted by your own argument.. You are just so focused on "pieces" of the argument that you have lost sight of your point.

No…

The question is about background checks which fosters the loophole. Not a prohibition of weapons. Its not the same thing unless you take the position that Im sponsoring prohibiting firearms…which I am not.

And because of our war on drugs and to some extent prohibition…there were people who didn’t take illegal drugs or drink which probably fostered a better life for them and their communities.

As for gun show loopholes, there are ample YouTube videos proving its existence.

Geez, why watch propaganda? Whether you buy a firearm from a dealer at his store or at his table at a gun show, it still has to go through a background check.

Mmmmm not so much.

You'll have to forgive me laughing at you. That guy was NOT a dealer. He could have sold it out of his garage or out of his trunk on the street. Not a "gun show" loophole. Sorry

Meanwhile back in reality, the guy selling a rifle no questions asked was a dealer at a gun show clearly demonstrating the very real gun show loophole. Say hi to Mr Roark on your Fantasy Island.

You are not usually so deliberately obtuse. Honestly, I'm embarrassed for you. Please follow the link below so you might discuss things rationally in the future.

Private Gun Sale Laws by State - FindLaw

 

[The Purge]

TheHill.com ^ | 09/16/19

Prospects for a bipartisan deal on gun control legislation have dimmed significantly as President Trump and Democratic leaders appear to be far apart on the key issue of expanding background checks.

Republicans expect Trump to put forward a proposal addressing gun violence later this week, but Democrats predict it is likely to fall far short of what is needed and that they may not vote for it.

Democrats are pressing Trump to agree to a gun control bill already approved by the House, but the president has yet to even signal support for a scaled-down background check bill sponsored by Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Pat Toomey (R-Pa.).

“I don’t think anyone thinks he’s going to endorse the Toomey bill, which is weaker than the House bill,” said a senior Democratic aide, expressing growing doubt on Capitol Hill that Trump will strike a bipartisan deal.

As a result, the likelihood that Congress will fail to take action on gun violence a month after a new spate of shootings across the country appears to be growing.

Republicans say the political momentum within their party to expand background checks suffered a blow last week when Democratic presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke declared, “hell yes, we’re going to take your AR-15s, your AK-47s” at Thursday’s primary debate.

It was a big moment for O’Rourke’s campaign, but it underscored long-standing arguments from gun rights proponents that Democratic efforts on gun control are really aimed at the confiscation of firearms.

“This rhetoric undermines and hurts bipartisan efforts to actually make progress on commonsense gun safety efforts, like expanding background checks,” Toomey, who has been at the center of Senate negotiations, warned Friday.

It’s still possible the two parties could agree on some lower-hanging measures.

White House officials last week floated the idea of a new smartphone app that would be connected to the National

Instant Criminal Background Check System, which could be used to conduct background checks for sales between individuals who are not licensed dealers.

But it will be difficult for Democrats to agree to that proposal if it is a high watermark of what can be accepted by Republicans.

Manchin dismissed the idea of the smartphone app.

“The app’s crazy, totally crazy,” he said, arguing that the National Instant Criminal Background Check System works well as it is. “We have something that’s not broken, and they want to fix it and throw something at it. To throw that into a bill would be wrong.”

Similarly, Democrats are signaling that just passing “red flag” legislation that would empower law enforcement officials to confiscate firearms from people judged to be dangerous is not enough.

Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) argued on the Senate floor Monday that without an expansion of background check requirements, even a person who had his or her firearm confiscated by the police could immediately purchase another one from an individual who is not a federally licensed dealer.

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), a key negotiator who has had discussions with Trump on gun control, told reporters that the president needed to give them an affirmative sign by the end of last week in order to keep momentum from dying in Congress.

“My worry is that the forces inside the White House that are representing the gun lobby may be prevailing,” Murphy told reporters Monday. “I think that’s a shame.”

“They told us we would hear back by Thursday and we didn’t hear anything on Thursday or Friday or Saturday or Sunday,” he added. “Silence is probably indicative that they’re not willing to move.”

Manchin also sounded a pessimistic note.

“I haven’t heard back from their staff,” said Manchin, who panned the idea of creating a new smartphone app to conduct background checks.

Senate Republican Whip John Thune (S.D.) said Monday afternoon that Trump is still reviewing his options, and a senior Republican aide said the White House is expected to present a plan to GOP leaders later this week.

“I think they’re looking at that and a whole range of issues, but I don’t think they’ve come to any conclusions,”

Thune, who met with Trump last week, said when asked about the prospect of the president endorsing expanded background checks.

Still, as more days pass without progress, gun control advocates in the Senate are growing increasingly pessimistic.

“It’s typical of the president and his statements on controversial issues. He’s on the side of the American people until he’s on the side of the special interest,” said Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (Ill.).

Conservatives are already warning the White House and GOP leaders of a backlash from gun rights advocates if Trump endorses a proposal to expand background checks to all online and gun show sales, as envisioned by the Manchin-Toomey bill.

“If Republicans abandon the Second Amendment and demoralize millions of Americans who care deeply about Second Amendment rights, that could go a long way to electing a President Elizabeth Warren,” Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) warned last week, referring to the liberal Massachusetts senator, who is running for president.

A senior Republican aide on Monday expressed skepticism that Trump will endorse legislation that would significantly expand background checks, such as the Manchin-Toomey bill or the universal background check measure passed by the House in February.

In a call on Sunday with Schumer and Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Trump made no commitment on the House bill, according to two officials familiar with the call.

 

[candycorn]

No…

The question is about background checks which fosters the loophole. Not a prohibition of weapons. Its not the same thing unless you take the position that Im sponsoring prohibiting firearms…which I am not.

And because of our war on drugs and to some extent prohibition…there were people who didn’t take illegal drugs or drink which probably fostered a better life for them and their communities.

As for gun show loopholes, there are ample YouTube videos proving its existence.

Geez, why watch propaganda? Whether you buy a firearm from a dealer at his store or at his table at a gun show, it still has to go through a background check.

Mmmmm not so much.

You'll have to forgive me laughing at you. That guy was NOT a dealer. He could have sold it out of his garage or out of his trunk on the street. Not a "gun show" loophole. Sorry

Meanwhile back in reality, the guy selling a rifle no questions asked was a dealer at a gun show clearly demonstrating the very real gun show loophole. Say hi to Mr Roark on your Fantasy Island.

You are not usually so deliberately obtuse. Honestly, I'm embarrassed for you. Please follow the link below so you might discuss things rationally in the future.

Private Gun Sale Laws by State - FindLaw

GEEZ, why read propaganda? You’ll have to forgive me laughing at you….at your denying something the video shows happening.

You probably think there were explosives in the twin towers, no arabs on the planes, and a missile hit the Pentagon too, right?

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Nothing circular about it. Over the years, it's been proven again and again that trying to ban things does not solve problems. Prohibition and the War on Drugs, have CREATED more problems than they hoped to solve. The ONLY thing that is effective is to control the PEOPLE who create the problems.

So you would rather we legalize cocaine and heroin?

You’re insane.

If you pass a law tomorrow that you can’t keep a gun in your house if someone is PS, will you have every household moving their guns off premises? No. Would some who don’t wish to violate the law? Yes. Eventually more and more people would. Would you ever get 100% compliance? No.

Also in the cases you cite about alcohol and drug use, you do realize that in those cases the distribution channel is being shut down and criminals step in To reopen it. In the case of passing a law that households with a mentally troubled person must keep their weapons off site...no such distribution channel is being shut down. So your examples are not applicable.

Candy, your whole argument about "gun show loopholes" (which really don't exist, but that is another argument) presupposes that those who cannot legally obtain firearms will get them illegally, so your dismissal of prohibition and the war on drugs as irrelevant is actually refuted by your own argument.. You are just so focused on "pieces" of the argument that you have lost sight of your point.

No…

The question is about background checks which fosters the loophole. Not a prohibition of weapons. Its not the same thing unless you take the position that Im sponsoring prohibiting firearms…which I am not.

And because of our war on drugs and to some extent prohibition…there were people who didn’t take illegal drugs or drink which probably fostered a better life for them and their communities.

As for gun show loopholes, there are ample YouTube videos proving its existence.

The federal government does not de jure constitutional authority to violate the Fourth Amendment and force background checks. The NRA was wrong to ever have agreed to them.

Losing position on all fronts

You are delusional and following around a seditionist. You'd be the loser.