Biden on Gun Control

[Ame®icano]

Right... give her little time before she starts putting words in your mouth, saying that you lied, demanding that you provide answers... and good luck getting answers from her.

Smart? Yeah... LOL

Seen that before. Still giving her a chance. Fun to banter, others get a hoot. No skin off my dick anyway!

You're not only one that has given her a chance. Well, she has already labeled you "little gun nut", and you know that there is no conversation with her without prejudices. You can't reason with leftists, regardless how they appear to sound "normal" at first.

 

[Ame®icano]

Simplified, but honest truth. Good post.

With every of their action leftists are revealing their true intentions. Socialists everywhere, are the same, weather is Stalin, or Hitler, or Mao, or Castro, they all followed the same template. Confiscate weapons, restrict rights, suppress speech, and total control. Those who resist... we know what happens to them.

Every place where people lost capability to pick up the rifle, they turn from being citizen, to being subject.

Thanks, got to simplify. I'm too old to hold a thought more than a couple minutes. But I can hold my M1 Garrand on some fucktards chest all day. Till I forget and pull the trigger.

Yes. It is simple to go to the Hitler accusations. I had hoped for something a little more mature than that. I should have known better..

Every dictatorship starts with disarming citizens. Every socialist did it, from Lenin, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, Chavez. Now American socialists are proposing the same, disarming the citizens that are in the way of their dictatorship. Looking back in history, weather you like it or not, her accusation is spot on, because if you leftists get it your way, that is exactly what you going to do. History repeats itself, and your leftist rhetoric is exactly where rhetoric of people I named above was before they get it their way.

 

[Ame®icano]

Typical. I specifically said I don't advocate registration, and certainly not banning or out right confiscation, but being the good little gun nut that you are, you hear what the voices in your head are telling you instead of what is actually said. I've often heard it said that it is easier to fool your type than it is to convince
you that you have been fooled. They are right. Seems like with you everything always comes down to some comparison to Hitler or Stalin, and you wonder why everybody calls you nuts.
I'm cot concerned with Chicgo, or Baltimore, or NYC, you dumb ass. I'm concerned with my little town. You don't get that, do you?

No I don't get it, convo done.

coward.

Still waiting for the "regulations," that aren't infringements........

That's how it goes with left. They demand all answers, right away. We kept replying to all her posts, and she keep pushing for more. We patiently answer every post, while waiting for answers to simple questions.

I am still waiting for the reason why regulations are needed.

Knowing leftists, we're not going to get it. At some point, this has to stop.

 

[Ame®icano]

coward.

Yeah that's it.

Now you got it.

 

[Shawnee_b]

You're not only one that has given her a chance. Well, she has already labeled you "little gun nut", and you know that there is no conversation with her without prejudices. You can't reason with leftists, regardless how they appear to sound "normal" at first.

You are completely right, tried to make sense, she wouldn't listen. Not even what I have learned about 30 years dealing with BATF.

I don't put anyone on ignore but I can still ignore them regardless,

Can't confuse libs with fact

 

[Shawnee_b]

Every dictatorship starts with disarming citizens. Every socialist did it, from Lenin, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, Chavez. Now American socialists are proposing the same, disarming the citizens that are in the way of their dictatorship. Looking back in history, weather you like it or not, her accusation is spot on, because if you leftists get it your way, that is exactly what you going to do. History repeats itself, and your leftist rhetoric is exactly where rhetoric of people I named above was before they get it their way.

Edzachary. But them isn't this what leftists want?

 

[Shawnee_b]

coward.

Yeah that's it.

Now you got it.

Thanks, hugs back to you too. I tried, tried for many months with her, now. Wouldn't piss on her if she was on fire. Poison, fukin snake. Gave her every chance. That last post, gun nut and more? Bye bitch, have a nice life.

 

[Shawnee_b]

That's how it goes with left. They demand all answers, right away. We kept replying to all her posts, and she keep pushing for more. We patiently answer every post, while waiting for answers to simple questions.

I am still waiting for the reason why regulations are needed.

Knowing leftists, we're not going to get it. At some point, this has to stop.

Cause there is no answer. Just a desire to disarm us all.

Not gonna happen. We have seen what has happened all over the world.

I'm so sorry I even tried to talk to the bitch. I'm that way I guess. Sorry

 

[BULLDOG]

Simplified, but honest truth. Good post.

With every of their action leftists are revealing their true intentions. Socialists everywhere, are the same, weather is Stalin, or Hitler, or Mao, or Castro, they all followed the same template. Confiscate weapons, restrict rights, suppress speech, and total control. Those who resist... we know what happens to them.

Every place where people lost capability to pick up the rifle, they turn from being citizen, to being subject.

Thanks, got to simplify. I'm too old to hold a thought more than a couple minutes. But I can hold my M1 Garrand on some fucktards chest all day. Till I forget and pull the trigger.

Yes. It is simple to go to the Hitler accusations. I had hoped for something a little more mature than that. I should have known better..

Every dictatorship starts with disarming citizens. Every socialist did it, from Lenin, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, Chavez. Now American socialists are proposing the same, disarming the citizens that are in the way of their dictatorship. Looking back in history, weather you like it or not, her accusation is spot on, because if you leftists get it your way, that is exactly what you going to do. History repeats itself, and your leftist rhetoric is exactly where rhetoric of people I named above was before they get it their way.

I've made it clear to any sane person that I have no desire to disarm anybody but those who should not be near a gun. It's a shame that your brainwashing doesn't even allow you to hear what I say, much less acknowledge it.

 

[Ame®icano]

Simplified, but honest truth. Good post.

With every of their action leftists are revealing their true intentions. Socialists everywhere, are the same, weather is Stalin, or Hitler, or Mao, or Castro, they all followed the same template. Confiscate weapons, restrict rights, suppress speech, and total control. Those who resist... we know what happens to them.

Every place where people lost capability to pick up the rifle, they turn from being citizen, to being subject.

Thanks, got to simplify. I'm too old to hold a thought more than a couple minutes. But I can hold my M1 Garrand on some fucktards chest all day. Till I forget and pull the trigger.

Yes. It is simple to go to the Hitler accusations. I had hoped for something a little more mature than that. I should have known better..

Every dictatorship starts with disarming citizens. Every socialist did it, from Lenin, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, Chavez. Now American socialists are proposing the same, disarming the citizens that are in the way of their dictatorship. Looking back in history, weather you like it or not, her accusation is spot on, because if you leftists get it your way, that is exactly what you going to do. History repeats itself, and your leftist rhetoric is exactly where rhetoric of people I named above was before they get it their way.

I've made it clear to any sane person that I have no desire to disarm anybody but those who should not be near a gun. It's a shame that your brainwashing doesn't even allow you to hear what I say, much less acknowledge it.

Oh, we wanted to hear you and gave you so many chances.

You've been asked several times what regulation would achieve what you're proposing that is not already regulated, and you refused to answer.

I asked you several times why hew regulations are needed, and you refused to answer that too.

The only one that's not sane here is you, because everything you're proposing is to limit or eliminate rights of the law abiding citizens, which government constitutionally is forbidden to do. In fact, calling that part of the constitution "meaningless remark" you shown complete disrespect to all of us who still appreciate our rights.

 

[BULLDOG]

Simplified, but honest truth. Good post.

With every of their action leftists are revealing their true intentions. Socialists everywhere, are the same, weather is Stalin, or Hitler, or Mao, or Castro, they all followed the same template. Confiscate weapons, restrict rights, suppress speech, and total control. Those who resist... we know what happens to them.

Every place where people lost capability to pick up the rifle, they turn from being citizen, to being subject.

Thanks, got to simplify. I'm too old to hold a thought more than a couple minutes. But I can hold my M1 Garrand on some fucktards chest all day. Till I forget and pull the trigger.

Yes. It is simple to go to the Hitler accusations. I had hoped for something a little more mature than that. I should have known better..

Every dictatorship starts with disarming citizens. Every socialist did it, from Lenin, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, Chavez. Now American socialists are proposing the same, disarming the citizens that are in the way of their dictatorship. Looking back in history, weather you like it or not, her accusation is spot on, because if you leftists get it your way, that is exactly what you going to do. History repeats itself, and your leftist rhetoric is exactly where rhetoric of people I named above was before they get it their way.

I've made it clear to any sane person that I have no desire to disarm anybody but those who should not be near a gun. It's a shame that your brainwashing doesn't even allow you to hear what I say, much less acknowledge it.

Oh, we wanted to hear you and gave you so many chances.

You've been asked several times what regulation would achieve what you're proposing that is not already regulated, and you refused to answer.

I asked you several times why hew regulations are needed, and you refused to answer that too.

The only one that's not sane here is you, because everything you're proposing is to limit or eliminate rights of the law abiding citizens, which government constitutionally is forbidden to do. In fact, calling that part of the constitution "meaningless remark" you shown complete disrespect to all of us who still appreciate our rights.

And I have repeatedly said what and how any reguations might be enacted is another discussion. My only focus up to now is that the phrase "Shall not be infringed is not a blanket roadblock preventing any regulations whatsoever. In fact it is a dodge. If you are ready to concede that point, we can move to another subject, but one thing at a time is the only way I care to continue.

I did offer that universal background checks would be a good place to start, even though no specific regulaion can be 100% effective, just as no law is 100% effective.

 

[2aguy]

Thanks, got to simplify. I'm too old to hold a thought more than a couple minutes. But I can hold my M1 Garrand on some fucktards chest all day. Till I forget and pull the trigger.

Yes. It is simple to go to the Hitler accusations. I had hoped for something a little more mature than that. I should have known better..

Every dictatorship starts with disarming citizens. Every socialist did it, from Lenin, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, Chavez. Now American socialists are proposing the same, disarming the citizens that are in the way of their dictatorship. Looking back in history, weather you like it or not, her accusation is spot on, because if you leftists get it your way, that is exactly what you going to do. History repeats itself, and your leftist rhetoric is exactly where rhetoric of people I named above was before they get it their way.

I've made it clear to any sane person that I have no desire to disarm anybody but those who should not be near a gun. It's a shame that your brainwashing doesn't even allow you to hear what I say, much less acknowledge it.

Oh, we wanted to hear you and gave you so many chances.

You've been asked several times what regulation would achieve what you're proposing that is not already regulated, and you refused to answer.

I asked you several times why hew regulations are needed, and you refused to answer that too.

The only one that's not sane here is you, because everything you're proposing is to limit or eliminate rights of the law abiding citizens, which government constitutionally is forbidden to do. In fact, calling that part of the constitution "meaningless remark" you shown complete disrespect to all of us who still appreciate our rights.

And I have repeatedly said what and how any reguations might be enacted is another discussion. My only focus up to now is that the phrase "Shall not be infringed is not a blanket roadblock preventing any regulations whatsoever. In fact it is a dodge. If you are ready to concede that point, we can move to another subject, but one thing at a time is the only way I care to continue.

I did offer that universal background checks would be a good place to start, even though no specific regulaion can be 100% effective, just as no law is 100% effective.

Wrong....you need to show us the regulation, then we determine if it violates "Shall not infringe..."

We showed you that Universal Background Checks are dumb, and simply a back door way to attack normal gun owners.

 

[BULLDOG]

Yes. It is simple to go to the Hitler accusations. I had hoped for something a little more mature than that. I should have known better..

Every dictatorship starts with disarming citizens. Every socialist did it, from Lenin, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, Chavez. Now American socialists are proposing the same, disarming the citizens that are in the way of their dictatorship. Looking back in history, weather you like it or not, her accusation is spot on, because if you leftists get it your way, that is exactly what you going to do. History repeats itself, and your leftist rhetoric is exactly where rhetoric of people I named above was before they get it their way.

I've made it clear to any sane person that I have no desire to disarm anybody but those who should not be near a gun. It's a shame that your brainwashing doesn't even allow you to hear what I say, much less acknowledge it.

Oh, we wanted to hear you and gave you so many chances.

You've been asked several times what regulation would achieve what you're proposing that is not already regulated, and you refused to answer.

I asked you several times why hew regulations are needed, and you refused to answer that too.

The only one that's not sane here is you, because everything you're proposing is to limit or eliminate rights of the law abiding citizens, which government constitutionally is forbidden to do. In fact, calling that part of the constitution "meaningless remark" you shown complete disrespect to all of us who still appreciate our rights.

And I have repeatedly said what and how any reguations might be enacted is another discussion. My only focus up to now is that the phrase "Shall not be infringed is not a blanket roadblock preventing any regulations whatsoever. In fact it is a dodge. If you are ready to concede that point, we can move to another subject, but one thing at a time is the only way I care to continue.

I did offer that universal background checks would be a good place to start, even though no specific regulaion can be 100% effective, just as no law is 100% effective.

Wrong....you need to show us the regulation, then we determine if it violates "Shall not infringe..."

We showed you that Universal Background Checks are dumb, and simply a back door way to attack normal gun owners.

As always, your claim that background checks are an attack on ownership is not proof of anything. Doesn't matter how many times you say it.

 

[2aguy]

Every dictatorship starts with disarming citizens. Every socialist did it, from Lenin, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, Chavez. Now American socialists are proposing the same, disarming the citizens that are in the way of their dictatorship. Looking back in history, weather you like it or not, her accusation is spot on, because if you leftists get it your way, that is exactly what you going to do. History repeats itself, and your leftist rhetoric is exactly where rhetoric of people I named above was before they get it their way.

I've made it clear to any sane person that I have no desire to disarm anybody but those who should not be near a gun. It's a shame that your brainwashing doesn't even allow you to hear what I say, much less acknowledge it.

Oh, we wanted to hear you and gave you so many chances.

You've been asked several times what regulation would achieve what you're proposing that is not already regulated, and you refused to answer.

I asked you several times why hew regulations are needed, and you refused to answer that too.

The only one that's not sane here is you, because everything you're proposing is to limit or eliminate rights of the law abiding citizens, which government constitutionally is forbidden to do. In fact, calling that part of the constitution "meaningless remark" you shown complete disrespect to all of us who still appreciate our rights.

And I have repeatedly said what and how any reguations might be enacted is another discussion. My only focus up to now is that the phrase "Shall not be infringed is not a blanket roadblock preventing any regulations whatsoever. In fact it is a dodge. If you are ready to concede that point, we can move to another subject, but one thing at a time is the only way I care to continue.

I did offer that universal background checks would be a good place to start, even though no specific regulaion can be 100% effective, just as no law is 100% effective.

Wrong....you need to show us the regulation, then we determine if it violates "Shall not infringe..."

We showed you that Universal Background Checks are dumb, and simply a back door way to attack normal gun owners.

As always, your claim that background checks are an attack on ownership is not proof of anything. Doesn't matter how many times you say it.

It isn't a claim, I have shown you the laws they want passed and how they will directly effect normal gun owners while doing nothing you claim they will do to stop criminals or mass shooters....

 

[BULLDOG]

I've made it clear to any sane person that I have no desire to disarm anybody but those who should not be near a gun. It's a shame that your brainwashing doesn't even allow you to hear what I say, much less acknowledge it.

Oh, we wanted to hear you and gave you so many chances.

You've been asked several times what regulation would achieve what you're proposing that is not already regulated, and you refused to answer.

I asked you several times why hew regulations are needed, and you refused to answer that too.

The only one that's not sane here is you, because everything you're proposing is to limit or eliminate rights of the law abiding citizens, which government constitutionally is forbidden to do. In fact, calling that part of the constitution "meaningless remark" you shown complete disrespect to all of us who still appreciate our rights.

And I have repeatedly said what and how any reguations might be enacted is another discussion. My only focus up to now is that the phrase "Shall not be infringed is not a blanket roadblock preventing any regulations whatsoever. In fact it is a dodge. If you are ready to concede that point, we can move to another subject, but one thing at a time is the only way I care to continue.

I did offer that universal background checks would be a good place to start, even though no specific regulaion can be 100% effective, just as no law is 100% effective.

Wrong....you need to show us the regulation, then we determine if it violates "Shall not infringe..."

We showed you that Universal Background Checks are dumb, and simply a back door way to attack normal gun owners.

As always, your claim that background checks are an attack on ownership is not proof of anything. Doesn't matter how many times you say it.

It isn't a claim, I have shown you the laws they want passed and how they will directly effect normal gun owners while doing nothing you claim they will do to stop criminals or mass shooters....

You've shown nothing dumb ass. You've made a bunch of claims and accusations, but that's it.

 

[Ame®icano]

Thanks, got to simplify. I'm too old to hold a thought more than a couple minutes. But I can hold my M1 Garrand on some fucktards chest all day. Till I forget and pull the trigger.

Yes. It is simple to go to the Hitler accusations. I had hoped for something a little more mature than that. I should have known better..

Every dictatorship starts with disarming citizens. Every socialist did it, from Lenin, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, Chavez. Now American socialists are proposing the same, disarming the citizens that are in the way of their dictatorship. Looking back in history, weather you like it or not, her accusation is spot on, because if you leftists get it your way, that is exactly what you going to do. History repeats itself, and your leftist rhetoric is exactly where rhetoric of people I named above was before they get it their way.

I've made it clear to any sane person that I have no desire to disarm anybody but those who should not be near a gun. It's a shame that your brainwashing doesn't even allow you to hear what I say, much less acknowledge it.

Oh, we wanted to hear you and gave you so many chances.

You've been asked several times what regulation would achieve what you're proposing that is not already regulated, and you refused to answer.

I asked you several times why hew regulations are needed, and you refused to answer that too.

The only one that's not sane here is you, because everything you're proposing is to limit or eliminate rights of the law abiding citizens, which government constitutionally is forbidden to do. In fact, calling that part of the constitution "meaningless remark" you shown complete disrespect to all of us who still appreciate our rights.

And I have repeatedly said what and how any reguations might be enacted is another discussion. My only focus up to now is that the phrase "Shall not be infringed is not a blanket roadblock preventing any regulations whatsoever. In fact it is a dodge. If you are ready to concede that point, we can move to another subject, but one thing at a time is the only way I care to continue.

I did offer that universal background checks would be a good place to start, even though no specific regulaion can be 100% effective, just as no law is 100% effective.

It doesn't matter what you repeated, because to discuss regulation you first have to present that regulation is needed, which you refused, and what you're trying to achieve with regulation, which you also refused. Once you present why regulation is needed, and what you want to regulate, than you ask question, is it constitutional.

But no, since your switch is stuck on stupid, you keep saying that government has blank power to regulate, and that means they can regulate anything they want. No, they don't. They can't regulate individual rights. They're specifically forbidden from doing so by, what you call, "meaningless remark".

Universal background check already exists with NICS. You said NICS only covers licensed dealers, which is true, and you want government to expand it to include every sale. What you want is irrelevant, because it's overreaching government powers and it's infringing individual rights, and that mean's it's unconstitutional. Government power to regulate stops where my rights begin. They have zero power to regulate individual rights. You and your leftists gun grabbers can't accept that? Too bad, I couldn't care less.

Unless you finally answer question I asked: "Why the regulation is needed?", this conversation for me is over.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The fact that there will never be another Federal AWB won’t stop conservatives from lying about it, of course.

Dishonest demagogues on the right will continue to propagate the myth of ‘gun control,’ that ‘bans’ and ‘confiscation’ are imminent, and that a president – whomever that might be – has the authority to regulate firearms.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Yes. It is simple to go to the Hitler accusations. I had hoped for something a little more mature than that. I should have known better..

Every dictatorship starts with disarming citizens. Every socialist did it, from Lenin, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, Chavez. Now American socialists are proposing the same, disarming the citizens that are in the way of their dictatorship. Looking back in history, weather you like it or not, her accusation is spot on, because if you leftists get it your way, that is exactly what you going to do. History repeats itself, and your leftist rhetoric is exactly where rhetoric of people I named above was before they get it their way.

I've made it clear to any sane person that I have no desire to disarm anybody but those who should not be near a gun. It's a shame that your brainwashing doesn't even allow you to hear what I say, much less acknowledge it.

Oh, we wanted to hear you and gave you so many chances.

You've been asked several times what regulation would achieve what you're proposing that is not already regulated, and you refused to answer.

I asked you several times why hew regulations are needed, and you refused to answer that too.

The only one that's not sane here is you, because everything you're proposing is to limit or eliminate rights of the law abiding citizens, which government constitutionally is forbidden to do. In fact, calling that part of the constitution "meaningless remark" you shown complete disrespect to all of us who still appreciate our rights.

And I have repeatedly said what and how any reguations might be enacted is another discussion. My only focus up to now is that the phrase "Shall not be infringed is not a blanket roadblock preventing any regulations whatsoever. In fact it is a dodge. If you are ready to concede that point, we can move to another subject, but one thing at a time is the only way I care to continue.

I did offer that universal background checks would be a good place to start, even though no specific regulaion can be 100% effective, just as no law is 100% effective.

It doesn't matter what you repeated, because to discuss regulation you first have to present that regulation is needed, which you refused, and what you're trying to achieve with regulation, which you also refused. Once you present why regulation is needed, and what you want to regulate, than you ask question, is it constitutional.

But no, since your switch is stuck on stupid, you keep saying that government has blank power to regulate, and that means they can regulate anything they want. No, they don't. They can't regulate individual rights. They're specifically forbidden from doing so by, what you call, "meaningless remark".

Universal background check already exists with NICS. You said NICS only covers licensed dealers, which is true, and you want government to expand it to include every sale. What you want is irrelevant, because it's overreaching government powers and it's infringing individual rights, and that mean's it's unconstitutional. Government power to regulate stops where my rights begin. They have zero power to regulate individual rights. You and your leftists gun grabbers can't accept that? Too bad, I couldn't care less.

Unless you finally answer question I asked: "Why the regulation is needed?", this conversation for me is over.

Wrong.

This is errant, subjective opinion, not a fact of law.

The courts have consistently upheld UBCs to be perfectly Constitutional – no government overreach, no infringement of individual rights, no violation of the Second Amendment.

Government has the authority to place limits and restriction on individual rights provided those limits and restrictions comport with Constitutional case law.

 

[Ame®icano]

The fact that there will never be another Federal AWB won’t stop conservatives from lying about it, of course.

Dishonest demagogues on the right will continue to propagate the myth of ‘gun control,’ that ‘bans’ and ‘confiscation’ are imminent, and that a president – whomever that might be – has the authority to regulate firearms.

Really...

Democrats have spent years denying ACA is not about government control over health care. Now they openly saying that their goal is complete control over healthcare. Every single Democratic candidate is proposing that.

Democrats have spent years denying they'll take people guns. Not anymore. Republicans were warning that Democrats are lying about their intentions and they were right. Today Democrats are openly supporting flat out ban on guns. They're not even trying to hide or wrap it into some slippery slope, every single Democratic candidate is openly proposing their version of gun control, weather is complete ban, confiscation, or forced buyout.

If we were wrong, and if Democrats intentions were true and honest, they would still be denying it. Why don't they? Because we knew all along what their end game is, just as we know what happens every single time when people lose their guns right. If we let them take our guns, how long before they come clean again about their true intentions?

 

[Ame®icano]

Every dictatorship starts with disarming citizens. Every socialist did it, from Lenin, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, Chavez. Now American socialists are proposing the same, disarming the citizens that are in the way of their dictatorship. Looking back in history, weather you like it or not, her accusation is spot on, because if you leftists get it your way, that is exactly what you going to do. History repeats itself, and your leftist rhetoric is exactly where rhetoric of people I named above was before they get it their way.

I've made it clear to any sane person that I have no desire to disarm anybody but those who should not be near a gun. It's a shame that your brainwashing doesn't even allow you to hear what I say, much less acknowledge it.

Oh, we wanted to hear you and gave you so many chances.

You've been asked several times what regulation would achieve what you're proposing that is not already regulated, and you refused to answer.

I asked you several times why hew regulations are needed, and you refused to answer that too.

The only one that's not sane here is you, because everything you're proposing is to limit or eliminate rights of the law abiding citizens, which government constitutionally is forbidden to do. In fact, calling that part of the constitution "meaningless remark" you shown complete disrespect to all of us who still appreciate our rights.

And I have repeatedly said what and how any reguations might be enacted is another discussion. My only focus up to now is that the phrase "Shall not be infringed is not a blanket roadblock preventing any regulations whatsoever. In fact it is a dodge. If you are ready to concede that point, we can move to another subject, but one thing at a time is the only way I care to continue.

I did offer that universal background checks would be a good place to start, even though no specific regulaion can be 100% effective, just as no law is 100% effective.

It doesn't matter what you repeated, because to discuss regulation you first have to present that regulation is needed, which you refused, and what you're trying to achieve with regulation, which you also refused. Once you present why regulation is needed, and what you want to regulate, than you ask question, is it constitutional.

But no, since your switch is stuck on stupid, you keep saying that government has blank power to regulate, and that means they can regulate anything they want. No, they don't. They can't regulate individual rights. They're specifically forbidden from doing so by, what you call, "meaningless remark".

Universal background check already exists with NICS. You said NICS only covers licensed dealers, which is true, and you want government to expand it to include every sale. What you want is irrelevant, because it's overreaching government powers and it's infringing individual rights, and that mean's it's unconstitutional. Government power to regulate stops where my rights begin. They have zero power to regulate individual rights. You and your leftists gun grabbers can't accept that? Too bad, I couldn't care less.

Unless you finally answer question I asked: "Why the regulation is needed?", this conversation for me is over.

Wrong.

This is errant, subjective opinion, not a fact of law.

The courts have consistently upheld UBCs to be perfectly Constitutional – no government overreach, no infringement of individual rights, no violation of the Second Amendment.

Government has the authority to place limits and restriction on individual rights provided those limits and restrictions comport with Constitutional case law.

This is the part where you provide the link that support your claim. Law is pretty clear whose rights and what rights can be limited, and we discussed that earlier. Government has no authority over individual rights of law abiding citizens.