RE: CA attempts backdoor gun ban

RE: CA attempts backdoor gun ban (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

BamaD -> RE: CA attempts backdoor gun ban (11/4/2016 2:17:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 bama im wondering how youre enjoying having vile critter parts on hide? Mixed, I don't read most of his posts but I see in what other people re-post of his posts he still attacks me and still tells tells lies about me. wouldn't expect anything less from a moral reprobate And the kind of coward who tells all kind of lies about someone he knows is unaware of the exact timing of the lies and cannot fight back. The lies he tells about me are so stupid that they should brand him to anyone who reads them for the liar and scum that he is. However I have seen post by left wing wackos using his lies as an excuse to dismis anything I say.

BamaD -> RE: CA attempts backdoor gun ban (11/4/2016 3:02:26 AM)
I believe that certain regulations are necessary if it is to survive the negativity that goes along with unnecessary gun deaths. The problem with this argument, and I do not doubt your sincerity, is that it is the flip side of te threat I have heard since you were in junior high school. Give us what we want or we will take everything. Every time we give up something it weakens the 2nd amendment defenders, it doesn't strengthen them. The anti gunners never say they are working on the problem, it is always well this is a good start. People like Hillary will not be happy untill there are no privately owned guns in the country. Then they will say they haven't banned guns, it is just that there are so few people who can satisfy the "common sense" saftey measures and that the nation is better off without guns any way.

thompsonx -> RE: CA attempts backdoor gun ban (11/4/2016 4:27:42 AM)
ORIGINAL: BamaD Also this would cause people like me to spend an extra 50-100 dollars extra for the privilege of exercising a right. That is the moral equivalent of bringing back the poll tax. Like voter i.d.? You are against voter i.d., glad you have finally seen the light on this issue.

thompsonx -> RE: CA attempts backdoor gun ban (11/4/2016 4:31:18 AM)
ORIGINAL: BamaD And the kind of coward who tells all kind of lies about someone he knows is unaware of the exact timing of the lies and cannot fight back. That would be your cowardly choice. The lies he tells about me are so stupid that they should brand him to anyone who reads them for the liar and scum that he is. However I have seen post by left wing wackos using his lies as an excuse to dismis anything I say. The content of your post is sufficient to dismiss them as the rantings of a moron.

thompsonx -> RE: CA attempts backdoor gun ban (11/4/2016 4:35:26 AM)
ORIGINAL: BamaD The problem with this argument, and I do not doubt your sincerity, is that it is the flip side of te threat I have heard since you were in junior high school. Give us what we want or we will take everything. That you were a coward in jr. high school seems to have followed you into adulthood. Every time we give up something it weakens the 2nd amendment defenders, it doesn't strengthen them. The anti gunners never say they are working on the problem, it is always well this is a good start. How does "working on a problem" differ from "a good start"?

thompsonx -> RE: CA attempts backdoor gun ban (11/4/2016 4:59:44 AM)
ORIGINAL: BamaD I guess that I am a bit of a purist on these things. No you are not a purist you are a lying sack of shit. Who sells guns without having a ffl by using the gunshow loophole. By referring to this as a gun show loophole it reinforces the widespread misconception that the dealers at gun shows don't have to do background checks which is, as you know false. If you "claim" not to be a licensed dealeer it is legal for you to sell guns at a gunshow and not do any background check. That is the kind of purist you are. One who uses the gunshow loophole to evade the law. When I personally sell a firearm How else would you sell a gun except personally? I insist on seeing a Alabama pistol permit, as that proves they have already been checked out and have a clean record. Anyone can fake a document. A responsible person utilizing the gunshow loophole would check the document with the alabama state officials to verify it was not a forgery? You do not, which proves that you don't care about who you sell guns to just so long as you get your profit from the sale.

thompsonx -> RE: CA attempts backdoor gun ban (11/4/2016 5:01:10 AM)
ORIGINAL: BamaD We keep our guns in the same cabinet, and have access to the same exact set of firearms but if we want to use the others shotgun to go hunting in CA I one of us would have to get a background check both we he took it hunting and when he returned it. Cite please

thompsonx -> RE: CA attempts backdoor gun ban (11/4/2016 5:08:11 AM)
ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr There are a number of posters, here who could raise the level of discourse just by not showing up, anymore. Perthaps you should take your own advice? I have found that any number of them show their true, cowardly, colors once they know they're on ignore. The coward is the one who puts people on ignore and then claims victimhood. they know that by having them on "HIDE", I am, essentially, "defenseless". Oh the poor pitiful victim wallows in his victim-hood

thompsonx -> RE: CA attempts backdoor gun ban (11/4/2016 11:46:23 AM)
ORIGINAL: BamaD In particular they want the mental health information entered which the gun grabbers fight on "privacy" grounds. When will you make your medical records public? Do you feel that insurance companies might use that information to deny/revoke coverage?

BamaD -> RE: CA attempts backdoor gun ban (11/7/2016 8:21:41 AM)
welfare patient Cite please

BamaD -> RE: CA attempts backdoor gun ban (11/7/2016 8:24:02 AM)
welfare patient. Cite please

mnottertail -> RE: CA attempts backdoor gun ban (11/7/2016 8:25:27 AM)
waiting on your cites welfare patient. I have cited your welfare patientness repeatedly. You have yet to credibly cite any fucking thing you slobber regarding reasonable restrictions, or actual gun law, or enforcement or 'gungrabbers' You have me on hide, remember RIF boy?

BamaD -> RE: CA attempts backdoor gun ban (11/7/2016 8:26:17 AM)
the only reason they exist is to deliver arms to criminals. They should be run out of business and charged under RICO and TREASON statutes. You just said that the only way these can exist is as criminal enterprises Other than that they provide competition for you cite please.

BamaD -> RE: CA attempts backdoor gun ban (11/7/2016 8:27:43 AM)
welfare patient Cite please.

BamaD -> RE: CA attempts backdoor gun ban (11/7/2016 8:29:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail No, they are not trying to mislead you, welfare patient is trying to mislead you and as always is full of shit. There are many many people at gunshows who are running a fucking ongoing operation in guns. It is a loophole in the law. I vote we seize all guns from anyone who is at a gunshow without an FFL and have them demonstrate that they do not regularly engage in that business. Otherwise, incarcerate them for gun running and terrorism. They are already breaking the law so it isn't a loophole. So you want to arrest all of the people who are there to buy a gun, or just look at them.

BamaD -> RE: CA attempts backdoor gun ban (11/7/2016 8:31:00 AM)
welfare patient Cite please

BamaD -> RE: CA attempts backdoor gun ban (11/7/2016 8:32:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 bama im wondering how youre enjoying having vile critter parts on hide? Mixed, I don't read most of his posts but I see in what other people re-post of his posts he still attacks me and still tells tells lies about me. Oh, welfare patient lying again, no doubt he got cheating on his sister with his mother again, And they made him stop waving his little peener around on the porch at the pizza guy for the election. Cite please

BamaD -> RE: CA attempts backdoor gun ban (11/7/2016 8:34:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD AGREED. It needs to a priority, and as I stated earlier, I think the gun industry should be a part of making that happen. A fact that has been ignored is that the gun industry has been pushing for these things, but since they prefer this to bans all you here is that they oppose taking action. In particular they want the mental health information entered which the gun grabbers fight on "privacy" grounds. Absolutely not, welfare patient, part of all the patriots universal background checks proposals. The nutsuckers refuse to fund it. They dont have the money because they got to name post offices after St. Wrinklemeat, and keep all you welfare states on the dole. Cite highlighted part As for the rest cut the propaganda

BamaD -> RE: CA attempts backdoor gun ban (11/7/2016 8:37:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx ORIGINAL: BamaD ORIGINAL: bounty44 bama im wondering how youre enjoying having vile critter parts on hide? Mixed, I don't read most of his posts but I see in what other people re-post of his posts he still attacks me and still tells tells lies about me. Cowards claim to have people on hide. That way they feel they can snark and claim they do not see responses except in other's repost. Jesus you are phoquing stupid. No cowards attack people who have them on hide. And the only way I saw your post was when someone else answered them. You need to check what I responded to and everyone will see what a liar you are.

BamaD -> RE: CA attempts backdoor gun ban (11/7/2016 8:39:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx ORIGINAL: BamaD Also this would cause people like me to spend an extra 50-100 dollars extra for the privilege of exercising a right. That is the moral equivalent of bringing back the poll tax. Like voter i.d.? You are against voter i.d., glad you have finally seen the light on this issue. It may cost 50-100 dollars to get a voter ID in a backwater state like CA but in Alabama they are free, maybe you should try that.

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

6.054688E-02