CPAC. The gun free zone where you complain about gun free zones

[EGR one]

Limited within a strict interpretation of the 2nd amendment, and only the most unobtrusive regulations allowed.

So that seems awfully subjective, vague, and ambiguous. Limited, how? What constitutes obtrusive?

Let me ask you a question, NYC requires 3-6 months of waiting, and paying $600 or so in fees just to keep a revolver in your own apartment.Is that infringement or not?

No, because you're still able to get a gun. Your ability to get a gun was not infringed. If it was, you wouldn't be able to get a gun at all. Because "infringe" means what it means; "actively break the terms of" and/or "act so as to limit or undermine". You getting the gun in the end doesn't mean you were undermined or limited, nor does it mean any terms were broken.

No issue with parks. If libraries want to be gun free, then they create a secure space and have armed guards onsite at all times.

So you don't really support individual gun rights because if you did, you'd support an individuals right to carry a gun wherever they want, and any private business that refuses you to bring a gun in violates your rights. So that's why your "public places" argument is a load of horseshit. If you're arguing that it's a Constitutional right that you get to carry your gun wherever you want, then that means a private business is violating your rights if they ban guns. So CPAC violated Conservatives' gun rights.

Public transit is a tough one, due to the confined nature of most of it.

Why should that matter?

If some place doesn't want to me bring a gun with me, if they are a government facility or agency, or a public space, they need to take responsibility to making sure everyone follows the same rules, and there is security in place to replace my own defense ability.In Airports there is secure areas and security, in courts and most public buildings the same thing.

So your gun rights aren't universal or Constitutionally-protected if you're saying a private business can infringe on what you also describe as a civil right.

But I am limited arbitrarily by some government agency which delays the process.
So how about we impose a 2 week wait period and $100 in fees to get an abortion?

Or a fee and a wait period to vote?

It is infringement, and you not seeing that tells me all about you.

Constitutional rights are not absolute, you can't yell "fire in a crowded theater" and expect the 1st to protect you.

Because I am not an absolutist.

Again you are dealing with absolutes because it's probably the only thing you can understand.

Try to keep up.

Your comprehension of constitutional principles, appears to be right on par with your comprehension of logical discussion. Infringement of constitutional rights applies only to government actions, not private actions. When you enter my house, you enter under my rules, or you don't enter my house. Simple enough for you?

Government has a right to limit constitutional rights only when the government can show a compelling public need to do so, and then, only to the extent that the compelling public need is met. Otherwise, you have dumbass left wing nut cases determining what size sodas you are allowed to buy, or what style semi-automatic rifles you are allowed to buy.

Large conventions, such as CPAC, have many things to comply with. Rules of the convention hall, and rules of the state and local governments, determine what security considerations are applicable. Add in the secret service, because of the presidential visit, and you have a venue where carry is not permitted. However the venue is well protected by armed security personnel, police officers, and the secret service.

BTW, you are not allowed to carry in any courthouse, or any government building. They are not gun free zones because they are protected by many people with guns. Conservatives, NRA members, and Republicans follow the rules, just like everyone else.

Several years ago, I and my daughter, were in a hole in the wall bar when a fight broke out between two drunks over a woman. I stopped the fight when one had the other down and was banging his head into the concrete floor. About that time, someone hollered that the police were coming. Guns began passing over the bar, with the bar tender tucking them away behind the bar. The two combatants were also armed, and their guns went over the bar. After the police took the two out, the guns went back to their owners. My daughter and I were the only two in the place not carrying a gun, and neither of us felt unsafe because of the guns. They were the same people we were not afraid of before we knew they carried guns.

 

[EGR one]

Parkland was a 'Gun Free Zone.' In fact, it even had a police officer permanently stationed there. Many schools have so-called 'Resource Officers' stationed. But the one at Parkland proved to be a coward by running and hiding when the children needed him most. What good was he? He could have saved many kids' lives.

So, you had a school which was a 'Gun Free Zone' and had an armed police officer permanently stationed there. Folks didn't do their jobs. If they had, more kids would be alive today. It's why i strongly urge parents to avoid the Government School System at all costs. They should seriously consider all education alternatives. Government Schools are only gonna get worse. They aren't the best option for children.

Conservatives ulaimtely want to destroy public schools, which is why they want to pour hundreds of thousands of guns into them.

I don't wanna destroy Government Schools. I just want parents to have as many education alternatives available as possible. No one should be forced to send their children into the Government School System nightmare. They should have many other options.

That plethora of options has seen a steady slide in education rankings in the US, since they were introduced, even as costs increase and Americans pay more out of their own pockets to educate their children than any other country in the world.

All you’ve done is syphon public funds away from public schools and into charter schools. Charter schools cherry pick the smart kids (to keep their rankings high), and dump the underachievers. Their schools aren’t better, their test results make it appear that way because no one who could make them look bad is allowed to stay.

Religious schools are just a new and better way to segregate. No blacks, no gays, no evolution, no science.

Surely, you are not attempting to infer that predominately black churches do not sponsor religious schools? And, it would be pretty had to tell if a six year old is gay or not.

BTW, individual schools receive funding according to the number of students in class. Whether John or Sue is in a private school, a charter school, or a school in another district, the public school only gets funds for the children attending that school.

And, since the purpose of public education is to educate children, and not supply jobs for incompetent educators, the money for that student should follow the student, and not the other way around.

 

[kaz]

Sure buddy, when you can't bring you're own gun it's a gun free zone. They are not mutually exclusive.

A request? U B Silly.

Anyway, semantics. I'm for security guards, metal detectors and other measures that make schools safe. Like not giving guns to kids and comprehensive background checks.

Most of today's gun free zones just state it without doing anything to assure it. That's the problem, it's wishful thinking.

They put a sign out saying "no weapons beyond this point" and it's up to you to decide if you want to enter or not.

It's worked out well for those deranged lunatics looking for a soft target though!

It always does. They know they got 10 minutes or so to get their mayhem done before the cops roll in.

Most of today's gun free zones just state it without doing anything to assure it. That's the problem, it's wishful thinking.

They put a sign out saying "no weapons beyond this point" and it's up to you to decide if you want to enter or not.

He's a liar anyway. He parroted the lie of his leftist idiot brethren that we want to arm children. They're so terrible at arguing, and they know it. So they have to pull stupid crap like that out of their ass.

Our choices are arming everyone including children or banning guns from school and hoping shooters follow the rules. Those are our only two choices. We have thusly been informed

Gun nuts are the Chicken Littles of politics.

Someone proposes background checks. They’re taking out guns! They’re taking our guns!

Raising age limits? They’re talking our guns, they’re taking our guns!

Banning sales semi-automatic rifles. They’re taking our guns! They’re taking our guns!

The left isn’t saying ban all guns or blaming all gun owners. They’re asking for the same things that all sane reasonable people want.

You, being neither sane nor reasonable, are just parroting the talking points.

How about NYC removes it's law that takes me 6 months and $600 to get a home use permit for a handgun?

Until laws like that are gone, why would any guns right person trust your side with anything?

WE DON'T TRUST YOU FUCKING ASSHOLES.

It's just that simple, and your sides recent behavior does nothing to make anyone on my side give up an inch.

You don't want to close background check loopholes because you feel you would be giving in? That seems pretty irresponsible.

What background check loopholes?

He thinks the six months and $600 is for a background check. Yes, he is that clueless

 

[NYcarbineer]

Sure buddy, when you can't bring you're own gun it's a gun free zone. They are not mutually exclusive.

A request? U B Silly.

Anyway, semantics. I'm for security guards, metal detectors and other measures that make schools safe. Like not giving guns to kids and comprehensive background checks.

Most of today's gun free zones just state it without doing anything to assure it. That's the problem, it's wishful thinking.

They put a sign out saying "no weapons beyond this point" and it's up to you to decide if you want to enter or not.

It's worked out well for those deranged lunatics looking for a soft target though!

It always does. They know they got 10 minutes or so to get their mayhem done before the cops roll in.

Most of today's gun free zones just state it without doing anything to assure it. That's the problem, it's wishful thinking.

They put a sign out saying "no weapons beyond this point" and it's up to you to decide if you want to enter or not.

He's a liar anyway. He parroted the lie of his leftist idiot brethren that we want to arm children. They're so terrible at arguing, and they know it. So they have to pull stupid crap like that out of their ass.

Our choices are arming everyone including children or banning guns from school and hoping shooters follow the rules. Those are our only two choices. We have thusly been informed

Gun nuts are the Chicken Littles of politics.

Someone proposes background checks. They’re taking out guns! They’re taking our guns!

Raising age limits? They’re talking our guns, they’re taking our guns!

Banning sales semi-automatic rifles. They’re taking our guns! They’re taking our guns!

The left isn’t saying ban all guns or blaming all gun owners. They’re asking for the same things that all sane reasonable people want.

You, being neither sane nor reasonable, are just parroting the talking points.

How about NYC removes it's law that takes me 6 months and $600 to get a home use permit for a handgun?

Until laws like that are gone, why would any guns right person trust your side with anything?

WE DON'T TRUST YOU FUCKING ASSHOLES.

It's just that simple, and your sides recent behavior does nothing to make anyone on my side give up an inch.

You don't want to close background check loopholes because you feel you would be giving in? That seems pretty irresponsible.

What background check loopholes?

Why do these idiots keep asking this same question after it's been answered a zillion times?

 

[idb]

right wing phonies . Blaming gun free zones is a favorite diversion of the gun nuts .

Yet CPAC was gun free! Their hypocrisy knows no bounds.

Trump trashes gun-free schools at CPAC 2018 -- where people aren't allowed to bring in guns

At CPAC they use metal detectors before people can enter, and thus create a secure zone where NO ONE can bring in a gun. I'm also sure they spring for armed security in case some lefty nutter tries to shoot up the place.

Most gun free schools don't actually do anything to create a true secure space, nor do they have any real response plan set up involving onsite armed responders.

Nice try though.

Bend yourself into a pretzel much?

“They have metal detectors ...” please . Bunch of two faced phonies railing against gun free zones .

No bending at all. They created a secure zone, with controlled access, just like a court, or an airport. A secure zone means I can reasonably assume no one else except authorized security is armed within the zone.

What do schools do to create secure zones out of their campuses?

Isn't it safest if everyone is armed?

Dear idb Conservatives come armed with knowledge of the laws.

That's the common factor with effective law enforcement and lawful use of right to bear arms:
Commitment to uphold, enforce and defend Constitutional laws.

So yes, it is the safest deterrent against crime and abuse
if everyone is equally armed in this way. Exactly!

Wow...that was some impressive verbal gymnastics!
Gold star for you!!!

 

[idb]

We go though this same thing every year. The venues have their own rules and one of those rules is no guns permitted in the venues that they own. This has nothing to do with CPAC. They don't make the rules. This has nothing to do with the NRA. They don't make the rules.

So...why would CPAC hire a venue that's a no-gun free-fire killing-zone?
Have they lost their minds?!!!

 

[Rustic]

right wing phonies . Blaming gun free zones is a favorite diversion of the gun nuts .

Yet CPAC was gun free! Their hypocrisy knows no bounds.

Trump trashes gun-free schools at CPAC 2018 -- where people aren't allowed to bring in guns

Quit falling down the well

 

[martybegan]

Limited within a strict interpretation of the 2nd amendment, and only the most unobtrusive regulations allowed.

So that seems awfully subjective, vague, and ambiguous. Limited, how? What constitutes obtrusive?

Let me ask you a question, NYC requires 3-6 months of waiting, and paying $600 or so in fees just to keep a revolver in your own apartment.Is that infringement or not?

No, because you're still able to get a gun. Your ability to get a gun was not infringed. If it was, you wouldn't be able to get a gun at all. Because "infringe" means what it means; "actively break the terms of" and/or "act so as to limit or undermine". You getting the gun in the end doesn't mean you were undermined or limited, nor does it mean any terms were broken.

No issue with parks. If libraries want to be gun free, then they create a secure space and have armed guards onsite at all times.

So you don't really support individual gun rights because if you did, you'd support an individuals right to carry a gun wherever they want, and any private business that refuses you to bring a gun in violates your rights. So that's why your "public places" argument is a load of horseshit. If you're arguing that it's a Constitutional right that you get to carry your gun wherever you want, then that means a private business is violating your rights if they ban guns. So CPAC violated Conservatives' gun rights.

Public transit is a tough one, due to the confined nature of most of it.

Why should that matter?

If some place doesn't want to me bring a gun with me, if they are a government facility or agency, or a public space, they need to take responsibility to making sure everyone follows the same rules, and there is security in place to replace my own defense ability.In Airports there is secure areas and security, in courts and most public buildings the same thing.

So your gun rights aren't universal or Constitutionally-protected if you're saying a private business can infringe on what you also describe as a civil right.

But I am limited arbitrarily by some government agency which delays the process.
So how about we impose a 2 week wait period and $100 in fees to get an abortion?

Or a fee and a wait period to vote?

It is infringement, and you not seeing that tells me all about you.

Constitutional rights are not absolute, you can't yell "fire in a crowded theater" and expect the 1st to protect you.

Because I am not an absolutist.

Again you are dealing with absolutes because it's probably the only thing you can understand.

Try to keep up.

Your comprehension of constitutional principles, appears to be right on par with your comprehension of logical discussion. Infringement of constitutional rights applies only to government actions, not private actions. When you enter my house, you enter under my rules, or you don't enter my house. Simple enough for you?

Government has a right to limit constitutional rights only when the government can show a compelling public need to do so, and then, only to the extent that the compelling public need is met. Otherwise, you have dumbass left wing nut cases determining what size sodas you are allowed to buy, or what style semi-automatic rifles you are allowed to buy.

Large conventions, such as CPAC, have many things to comply with. Rules of the convention hall, and rules of the state and local governments, determine what security considerations are applicable. Add in the secret service, because of the presidential visit, and you have a venue where carry is not permitted. However the venue is well protected by armed security personnel, police officers, and the secret service.

BTW, you are not allowed to carry in any courthouse, or any government building. They are not gun free zones because they are protected by many people with guns. Conservatives, NRA members, and Republicans follow the rules, just like everyone else.

Several years ago, I and my daughter, were in a hole in the wall bar when a fight broke out between two drunks over a woman. I stopped the fight when one had the other down and was banging his head into the concrete floor. About that time, someone hollered that the police were coming. Guns began passing over the bar, with the bar tender tucking them away behind the bar. The two combatants were also armed, and their guns went over the bar. After the police took the two out, the guns went back to their owners. My daughter and I were the only two in the place not carrying a gun, and neither of us felt unsafe because of the guns. They were the same people we were not afraid of before we knew they carried guns.

I assume you are talking about derps understanding and not mine.

 

[martybegan]

Most of today's gun free zones just state it without doing anything to assure it. That's the problem, it's wishful thinking.

They put a sign out saying "no weapons beyond this point" and it's up to you to decide if you want to enter or not.

It's worked out well for those deranged lunatics looking for a soft target though!

It always does. They know they got 10 minutes or so to get their mayhem done before the cops roll in.

He's a liar anyway. He parroted the lie of his leftist idiot brethren that we want to arm children. They're so terrible at arguing, and they know it. So they have to pull stupid crap like that out of their ass.

Our choices are arming everyone including children or banning guns from school and hoping shooters follow the rules. Those are our only two choices. We have thusly been informed

Gun nuts are the Chicken Littles of politics.

Someone proposes background checks. They’re taking out guns! They’re taking our guns!

Raising age limits? They’re talking our guns, they’re taking our guns!

Banning sales semi-automatic rifles. They’re taking our guns! They’re taking our guns!

The left isn’t saying ban all guns or blaming all gun owners. They’re asking for the same things that all sane reasonable people want.

You, being neither sane nor reasonable, are just parroting the talking points.

How about NYC removes it's law that takes me 6 months and $600 to get a home use permit for a handgun?

Until laws like that are gone, why would any guns right person trust your side with anything?

WE DON'T TRUST YOU FUCKING ASSHOLES.

It's just that simple, and your sides recent behavior does nothing to make anyone on my side give up an inch.

You don't want to close background check loopholes because you feel you would be giving in? That seems pretty irresponsible.

What background check loopholes?

Why do these idiots keep asking this same question after it's been answered a zillion times?

Again, give me a specific loophole.

 

[kaz]

It's worked out well for those deranged lunatics looking for a soft target though!

It always does. They know they got 10 minutes or so to get their mayhem done before the cops roll in.

Gun nuts are the Chicken Littles of politics.

Someone proposes background checks. They’re taking out guns! They’re taking our guns!

Raising age limits? They’re talking our guns, they’re taking our guns!

Banning sales semi-automatic rifles. They’re taking our guns! They’re taking our guns!

The left isn’t saying ban all guns or blaming all gun owners. They’re asking for the same things that all sane reasonable people want.

You, being neither sane nor reasonable, are just parroting the talking points.

How about NYC removes it's law that takes me 6 months and $600 to get a home use permit for a handgun?

Until laws like that are gone, why would any guns right person trust your side with anything?

WE DON'T TRUST YOU FUCKING ASSHOLES.

It's just that simple, and your sides recent behavior does nothing to make anyone on my side give up an inch.

You don't want to close background check loopholes because you feel you would be giving in? That seems pretty irresponsible.

What background check loopholes?

Why do these idiots keep asking this same question after it's been answered a zillion times?

Again, give me a specific loophole.

Stupid Leftists tricks: Ignore a question over and over then start claiming it was already addressed over and over without ever addressing it

 

[NYcarbineer]

It's worked out well for those deranged lunatics looking for a soft target though!

It always does. They know they got 10 minutes or so to get their mayhem done before the cops roll in.

Gun nuts are the Chicken Littles of politics.

Someone proposes background checks. They’re taking out guns! They’re taking our guns!

Raising age limits? They’re talking our guns, they’re taking our guns!

Banning sales semi-automatic rifles. They’re taking our guns! They’re taking our guns!

The left isn’t saying ban all guns or blaming all gun owners. They’re asking for the same things that all sane reasonable people want.

You, being neither sane nor reasonable, are just parroting the talking points.

How about NYC removes it's law that takes me 6 months and $600 to get a home use permit for a handgun?

Until laws like that are gone, why would any guns right person trust your side with anything?

WE DON'T TRUST YOU FUCKING ASSHOLES.

It's just that simple, and your sides recent behavior does nothing to make anyone on my side give up an inch.

You don't want to close background check loopholes because you feel you would be giving in? That seems pretty irresponsible.

What background check loopholes?

Why do these idiots keep asking this same question after it's been answered a zillion times?

Again, give me a specific loophole.

Search Results for Query: background check | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[martybegan]

It always does. They know they got 10 minutes or so to get their mayhem done before the cops roll in.

How about NYC removes it's law that takes me 6 months and $600 to get a home use permit for a handgun?

Until laws like that are gone, why would any guns right person trust your side with anything?

WE DON'T TRUST YOU FUCKING ASSHOLES.

It's just that simple, and your sides recent behavior does nothing to make anyone on my side give up an inch.

You don't want to close background check loopholes because you feel you would be giving in? That seems pretty irresponsible.

What background check loopholes?

Why do these idiots keep asking this same question after it's been answered a zillion times?

Again, give me a specific loophole.

Search Results for Query: background check | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Dodge, duck, dip, dive and dodge.

Just give me one. you can do it.

 

[HappyJoy]

Most of today's gun free zones just state it without doing anything to assure it. That's the problem, it's wishful thinking.

They put a sign out saying "no weapons beyond this point" and it's up to you to decide if you want to enter or not.

It's worked out well for those deranged lunatics looking for a soft target though!

It always does. They know they got 10 minutes or so to get their mayhem done before the cops roll in.

He's a liar anyway. He parroted the lie of his leftist idiot brethren that we want to arm children. They're so terrible at arguing, and they know it. So they have to pull stupid crap like that out of their ass.

Our choices are arming everyone including children or banning guns from school and hoping shooters follow the rules. Those are our only two choices. We have thusly been informed

Gun nuts are the Chicken Littles of politics.

Someone proposes background checks. They’re taking out guns! They’re taking our guns!

Raising age limits? They’re talking our guns, they’re taking our guns!

Banning sales semi-automatic rifles. They’re taking our guns! They’re taking our guns!

The left isn’t saying ban all guns or blaming all gun owners. They’re asking for the same things that all sane reasonable people want.

You, being neither sane nor reasonable, are just parroting the talking points.

How about NYC removes it's law that takes me 6 months and $600 to get a home use permit for a handgun?

Until laws like that are gone, why would any guns right person trust your side with anything?

WE DON'T TRUST YOU FUCKING ASSHOLES.

It's just that simple, and your sides recent behavior does nothing to make anyone on my side give up an inch.

You don't want to close background check loopholes because you feel you would be giving in? That seems pretty irresponsible.

What background check loopholes?

He thinks the six months and $600 is for a background check. Yes, he is that clueless

What are you talking about?

Anyway, the background check loopholes are the sales and transfer of firearms that don't go through a background check. You two are really dull.

 

[HappyJoy]

You don't want to close background check loopholes because you feel you would be giving in? That seems pretty irresponsible.

What background check loopholes?

Why do these idiots keep asking this same question after it's been answered a zillion times?

Again, give me a specific loophole.

Search Results for Query: background check | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Dodge, duck, dip, dive and dodge.

Just give me one. you can do it.

Private sales.

 

[Rustic]

It's worked out well for those deranged lunatics looking for a soft target though!

It always does. They know they got 10 minutes or so to get their mayhem done before the cops roll in.

Gun nuts are the Chicken Littles of politics.

Someone proposes background checks. They’re taking out guns! They’re taking our guns!

Raising age limits? They’re talking our guns, they’re taking our guns!

Banning sales semi-automatic rifles. They’re taking our guns! They’re taking our guns!

The left isn’t saying ban all guns or blaming all gun owners. They’re asking for the same things that all sane reasonable people want.

You, being neither sane nor reasonable, are just parroting the talking points.

How about NYC removes it's law that takes me 6 months and $600 to get a home use permit for a handgun?

Until laws like that are gone, why would any guns right person trust your side with anything?

WE DON'T TRUST YOU FUCKING ASSHOLES.

It's just that simple, and your sides recent behavior does nothing to make anyone on my side give up an inch.

You don't want to close background check loopholes because you feel you would be giving in? That seems pretty irresponsible.

What background check loopholes?

He thinks the six months and $600 is for a background check. Yes, he is that clueless

What are you talking about?

Anyway, the background check loopholes are the sales and transfer of firearms that don't go through a background check. You two are really dull.

Lol
Private sales shouldn’t go through background checks asswipe… So go stick your fucking head in a beartrap

 

[HappyJoy]

It always does. They know they got 10 minutes or so to get their mayhem done before the cops roll in.

How about NYC removes it's law that takes me 6 months and $600 to get a home use permit for a handgun?

Until laws like that are gone, why would any guns right person trust your side with anything?

WE DON'T TRUST YOU FUCKING ASSHOLES.

It's just that simple, and your sides recent behavior does nothing to make anyone on my side give up an inch.

You don't want to close background check loopholes because you feel you would be giving in? That seems pretty irresponsible.

What background check loopholes?

He thinks the six months and $600 is for a background check. Yes, he is that clueless

What are you talking about?

Anyway, the background check loopholes are the sales and transfer of firearms that don't go through a background check. You two are really dull.

Lol
Private sales shouldn’t go through background checks asswipe… So go stick your fucking head in a beartrap

Why shouldn't they?

Speaking of beartraps, your head still caught in Trump's lap?

 

[Rustic]

You don't want to close background check loopholes because you feel you would be giving in? That seems pretty irresponsible.

What background check loopholes?

He thinks the six months and $600 is for a background check. Yes, he is that clueless

What are you talking about?

Anyway, the background check loopholes are the sales and transfer of firearms that don't go through a background check. You two are really dull.

Lol
Private sales shouldn’t go through background checks asswipe… So go stick your fucking head in a beartrap

Why shouldn't they?

Speaking of beartraps, your head still caught in Trump's lap?

It’s the law of the land

 

[HappyJoy]

What background check loopholes?

He thinks the six months and $600 is for a background check. Yes, he is that clueless

What are you talking about?

Anyway, the background check loopholes are the sales and transfer of firearms that don't go through a background check. You two are really dull.

Lol
Private sales shouldn’t go through background checks asswipe… So go stick your fucking head in a beartrap

Why shouldn't they?

Speaking of beartraps, your head still caught in Trump's lap?

It’s the law of the land

So was slavery and prohibition. Come back with an argument, k?

 

[Rustic]

He thinks the six months and $600 is for a background check. Yes, he is that clueless

What are you talking about?

Anyway, the background check loopholes are the sales and transfer of firearms that don't go through a background check. You two are really dull.

Lol
Private sales shouldn’t go through background checks asswipe… So go stick your fucking head in a beartrap

Why shouldn't they?

Speaking of beartraps, your head still caught in Trump's lap?

It’s the law of the land

So was slavery and prohibition. Come back with an argument, k?

Do private sales require a background check? Guess what? they do not so it’s the law of the land dumbass. LOL

 

[HappyJoy]

What are you talking about?

Anyway, the background check loopholes are the sales and transfer of firearms that don't go through a background check. You two are really dull.

Lol
Private sales shouldn’t go through background checks asswipe… So go stick your fucking head in a beartrap

Why shouldn't they?

Speaking of beartraps, your head still caught in Trump's lap?

It’s the law of the land

So was slavery and prohibition. Come back with an argument, k?

Do private sales require a background check? Guess what? they do not so it’s the law of the land dumbass. LOL

That's so ironclad.

Instead of repeating yourself how about coming up with a real reason why private gun sales shouldn't be checked. 'Law of the land' doesn't really cut it since laws change all the time.