Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
80% of guys do not smash their truck into a building in a fit of anger.Candy, you described like 80% of all guys at one time or another.
Dateline Texas:
A jerk from Texas drove his truck into a hotel lobby to express his disappointment over a bill.
A second jerk from Texas ordered 2 of his students/players to cheap shot a referee during a game.
Obviously both Texicans have anger issues. Set aside the law for a moment since we all know background checks are a joke and you can get around them by buying a weapon from anyone willing to sell it to you.
Do the gun nuts who frequent this forum think these 2 men should still be allowed to own weapons/be in the same house where weapons are?
What about Adam Lanza's Father?
Good question. It'd be nice if a gun nut would actually take the time to answer it rather than deflect with "wut the fuk yu ask fer? ey dunt git it!!"
Their silence is answer enough. The profanity is music to my ears.
The silence is because I don't respond to the term gun nut. It is derogatory, intellectually dishonest, and indicative of a simpleton. Hello simpleton
Well, for what ever reason you might have, your silence is appreciated.
Only people who consider themselves to be "gun nuts" should reply?
Feel free but all I hear from gun nuts is that gun owners are all safe and responsible folks who are totally in charge of their faculties at any given moment in time. I think not myself. This question is set to gauge just how belligerent someone has to be before the gun nutjobs will agree..."yeah, the guy who turned the Comfort Inn into a drive-through probably shouldn't have a .357 on his hip" (next Month in Texas he'll be able to).
Are they under arrest?Do the gun nuts who frequent this forum think these 2 men should still be allowed to own weapons/be in the same house where weapons are?
Under indictment?
Are they fugitives from justice?
Have they been convicted of a felony or other disqualifying crime?
Incarcerated? Involuntarily committed?
If they answer is :no: to all of these things, they are then legally able to own a gun; if you have a problem with that, you then need to change the law.
First: the above is a lie. There is no loophole in the current federal laws regarding background checks as there is no legal way to avoid the background check prescribed by said law. None.FWIW, we do have a law that the NRA/Republicans insists on a loophole large enough to drive a truck through--much like he lobby of that hotel. Selling at gun shows by individuals....Are they under arrest?Do the gun nuts who frequent this forum think these 2 men should still be allowed to own weapons/be in the same house where weapons are?
Under indictment?
Are they fugitives from justice?
Have they been convicted of a felony or other disqualifying crime?
Incarcerated? Involuntarily committed?
If they answer is :no: to all of these things, they are then legally able to own a gun; if you have a problem with that, you then need to change the law.
First: the above is a lie. There is no loophole in the current federal laws regarding background checks as there is no legal way to avoid the background check prescribed by said law. None.FWIW, we do have a law that the NRA/Republicans insists on a loophole large enough to drive a truck through--much like he lobby of that hotel. Selling at gun shows by individuals....Are they under arrest?Do the gun nuts who frequent this forum think these 2 men should still be allowed to own weapons/be in the same house where weapons are?
Under indictment?
Are they fugitives from justice?
Have they been convicted of a felony or other disqualifying crime?
Incarcerated? Involuntarily committed?
If they answer is :no: to all of these things, they are then legally able to own a gun; if you have a problem with that, you then need to change the law.
.
Nothing here changes the fact you are lying, and you know you are lying, about a "loophole" in the federal laws regarding background checks.Yet we just saw a guy purchase an arsenal without so much as a pen to fill out paperwork for the background check.First: the above is a lie. There is no loophole in the current federal laws regarding background checks as there is no legal way to avoid the background check prescribed by said law. None.FWIW, we do have a law that the NRA/Republicans insists on a loophole large enough to drive a truck through--much like he lobby of that hotel. Selling at gun shows by individuals....Are they under arrest?Do the gun nuts who frequent this forum think these 2 men should still be allowed to own weapons/be in the same house where weapons are?
Under indictment?
Are they fugitives from justice?
Have they been convicted of a felony or other disqualifying crime?
Incarcerated? Involuntarily committed?
If they answer is :no: to all of these things, they are then legally able to own a gun; if you have a problem with that, you then need to change the law.
.
CC is incensed about the fact that people she thinks should not be able to own guns can still legally own them; she cannot. however, describe the changes she would make in the law, or how any changes she would make do not run afoul of the 5th/14th amendments,.Uhm.... I think CandyPorn must be losing it.. this thread makes no sense whatsofuckingever.
Nothing here changes the fact you are lying, and you know you are lying, about a "loophole" in the federal laws regarding background checks.Yet we just saw a guy purchase an arsenal without so much as a pen to fill out paperwork for the background check.First: the above is a lie. There is no loophole in the current federal laws regarding background checks as there is no legal way to avoid the background check prescribed by said law. None.FWIW, we do have a law that the NRA/Republicans insists on a loophole large enough to drive a truck through--much like he lobby of that hotel. Selling at gun shows by individuals....Are they under arrest?Do the gun nuts who frequent this forum think these 2 men should still be allowed to own weapons/be in the same house where weapons are?
Under indictment?
Are they fugitives from justice?
Have they been convicted of a felony or other disqualifying crime?
Incarcerated? Involuntarily committed?
If they answer is :no: to all of these things, they are then legally able to own a gun; if you have a problem with that, you then need to change the law.
.
Disagree?
Explain, with specifics, how he legally avoided the background check requirement of those laws.
And again:
You completely skipped over the part about needing to change the law. How do you propose to change the law to achieve the effect you desire? In your response, lease keep in mind the due process clauses of the 5th and 14th amendments.
Uhm.... I think CandyPorn must be losing it.. this thread makes no sense whatsofuckingever.
English gives you problems; always has.
Nothing here changes the fact you are lying, and you know you are lying, about a "loophole" in the federal laws regarding background checks.Yet we just saw a guy purchase an arsenal without so much as a pen to fill out paperwork for the background check.First: the above is a lie. There is no loophole in the current federal laws regarding background checks as there is no legal way to avoid the background check prescribed by said law. None.FWIW, we do have a law that the NRA/Republicans insists on a loophole large enough to drive a truck through--much like he lobby of that hotel. Selling at gun shows by individuals....Are they under arrest?
Under indictment?
Are they fugitives from justice?
Have they been convicted of a felony or other disqualifying crime?
Incarcerated? Involuntarily committed?
If they answer is :no: to all of these things, they are then legally able to own a gun; if you have a problem with that, you then need to change the law.
.
Disagree?
Explain, with specifics, how he legally avoided the background check requirement of those laws.
And again:
You completely skipped over the part about needing to change the law. How do you propose to change the law to achieve the effect you desire? In your response, lease keep in mind the due process clauses of the 5th and 14th amendments.
How? He simply showed up at a gunshow with a wad of cash. Several times. Heres the video once more:
Are you saying that the folks who run these shows do not know this is going on?
In any of these instances, did he legally avoid the federal requirement for a background check?How? He simply showed up at a gunshow with a wad of cash. Several times. Heres the video once more:Nothing here changes the fact you are lying, and you know you are lying, about a "loophole" in the federal laws regarding background checks.Yet we just saw a guy purchase an arsenal without so much as a pen to fill out paperwork for the background check.First: the above is a lie. There is no loophole in the current federal laws regarding background checks as there is no legal way to avoid the background check prescribed by said law. None.FWIW, we do have a law that the NRA/Republicans insists on a loophole large enough to drive a truck through--much like he lobby of that hotel. Selling at gun shows by individuals....Are they under arrest?
Under indictment?
Are they fugitives from justice?
Have they been convicted of a felony or other disqualifying crime?
Incarcerated? Involuntarily committed?
If they answer is :no: to all of these things, they are then legally able to own a gun; if you have a problem with that, you then need to change the law.
.
Disagree?
Explain, with specifics, how he legally avoided the background check requirement of those laws.
And again:
You completely skipped over the part about needing to change the law. How do you propose to change the law to achieve the effect you desire? In your response, lease keep in mind the due process clauses of the 5th and 14th amendments.
In his fake scenarios, the criminals are loose on the street and have no restrictions upon them. Which is typical of the lefty view of the way things should be.In any of these instances, did he legally avoid the federal requirement for a background check?How? He simply showed up at a gunshow with a wad of cash. Several times. Heres the video once more:Nothing here changes the fact you are lying, and you know you are lying, about a "loophole" in the federal laws regarding background checks.Yet we just saw a guy purchase an arsenal without so much as a pen to fill out paperwork for the background check.First: the above is a lie. There is no loophole in the current federal laws regarding background checks as there is no legal way to avoid the background check prescribed by said law. None.FWIW, we do have a law that the NRA/Republicans insists on a loophole large enough to drive a truck through--much like he lobby of that hotel. Selling at gun shows by individuals....
.
Disagree?
Explain, with specifics, how he legally avoided the background check requirement of those laws.
And again:
You completely skipped over the part about needing to change the law. How do you propose to change the law to achieve the effect you desire? In your response, lease keep in mind the due process clauses of the 5th and 14th amendments.
No?
No loophole.
You're lying and you know it.
Dateline Texas:
A jerk from Texas drove his truck into a hotel lobby to express his disappointment over a bill.
A second jerk from Texas ordered 2 of his students/players to cheap shot a referee during a game.
Obviously both Texicans have anger issues. Set aside the law for a moment since we all know background checks are a joke and you can get around them by buying a weapon from anyone willing to sell it to you.
Do the gun nuts who frequent this forum think these 2 men should still be allowed to own weapons/be in the same house where weapons are?
What about Adam Lanza's Father?
Good question. It'd be nice if a gun nut would actually take the time to answer it rather than deflect with "wut the fuk yu ask fer? ey dunt git it!!"
Their silence is answer enough. The profanity is music to my ears.
The silence is because I don't respond to the term gun nut. It is derogatory, intellectually dishonest, and indicative of a simpleton. Hello simpleton
Well, for what ever reason you might have, your silence is appreciated.
Of course. Simpleminded, ignorant silly people, such as yourself, can't stand honest discussion. You're not capable of honesty, nor are you intelligent enough to carry on anything greater than a 3rd grade level debate.
In any of these instances, did he legally avoid the federal requirement for a background check?How? He simply showed up at a gunshow with a wad of cash. Several times. Heres the video once more:Nothing here changes the fact you are lying, and you know you are lying, about a "loophole" in the federal laws regarding background checks.Yet we just saw a guy purchase an arsenal without so much as a pen to fill out paperwork for the background check.First: the above is a lie. There is no loophole in the current federal laws regarding background checks as there is no legal way to avoid the background check prescribed by said law. None.FWIW, we do have a law that the NRA/Republicans insists on a loophole large enough to drive a truck through--much like he lobby of that hotel. Selling at gun shows by individuals....
.
Disagree?
Explain, with specifics, how he legally avoided the background check requirement of those laws.
And again:
You completely skipped over the part about needing to change the law. How do you propose to change the law to achieve the effect you desire? In your response, lease keep in mind the due process clauses of the 5th and 14th amendments.
No?
No loophole.
You're lying and you know it.
Good question. It'd be nice if a gun nut would actually take the time to answer it rather than deflect with "wut the fuk yu ask fer? ey dunt git it!!"
Their silence is answer enough. The profanity is music to my ears.
The silence is because I don't respond to the term gun nut. It is derogatory, intellectually dishonest, and indicative of a simpleton. Hello simpleton
Well, for what ever reason you might have, your silence is appreciated.
Of course. Simpleminded, ignorant silly people, such as yourself, can't stand honest discussion. You're not capable of honesty, nor are you intelligent enough to carry on anything greater than a 3rd grade level debate.
Thanks for your input. Your thoughts will certainly be given the consideration they deserve.
Should the goobers in the vid be locked up for selling without a fed background check?In his fake scenarios, the criminals are loose on the street and have no restrictions upon them. Which is typical of the lefty view of the way things should be.In any of these instances, did he legally avoid the federal requirement for a background check?How? He simply showed up at a gunshow with a wad of cash. Several times. Heres the video once more:Nothing here changes the fact you are lying, and you know you are lying, about a "loophole" in the federal laws regarding background checks.Yet we just saw a guy purchase an arsenal without so much as a pen to fill out paperwork for the background check.First: the above is a lie. There is no loophole in the current federal laws regarding background checks as there is no legal way to avoid the background check prescribed by said law. None.
.
Disagree?
Explain, with specifics, how he legally avoided the background check requirement of those laws.
And again:
You completely skipped over the part about needing to change the law. How do you propose to change the law to achieve the effect you desire? In your response, lease keep in mind the due process clauses of the 5th and 14th amendments.
No?
No loophole.
You're lying and you know it.
In our world, people who are criminal and/or DANGEROUS get locked up, and thus forfeit their right to freedom, and therefore, weapons.
In any of these instances, did he legally avoid the federal requirement for a background check?How? He simply showed up at a gunshow with a wad of cash. Several times. Heres the video once more:Nothing here changes the fact you are lying, and you know you are lying, about a "loophole" in the federal laws regarding background checks.Yet we just saw a guy purchase an arsenal without so much as a pen to fill out paperwork for the background check.First: the above is a lie. There is no loophole in the current federal laws regarding background checks as there is no legal way to avoid the background check prescribed by said law. None.
.
Disagree?
Explain, with specifics, how he legally avoided the background check requirement of those laws.
And again:
You completely skipped over the part about needing to change the law. How do you propose to change the law to achieve the effect you desire? In your response, lease keep in mind the due process clauses of the 5th and 14th amendments.
No?
No loophole.
You're lying and you know it.
Little early for all the tap dancing
Burden of proof here is on you.Little early for all the tap dancingIn any of these instances, did he legally avoid the federal requirement for a background check?How? He simply showed up at a gunshow with a wad of cash. Several times. Heres the video once more:Nothing here changes the fact you are lying, and you know you are lying, about a "loophole" in the federal laws regarding background checks.Yet we just saw a guy purchase an arsenal without so much as a pen to fill out paperwork for the background check.First: the above is a lie. There is no loophole in the current federal laws regarding background checks as there is no legal way to avoid the background check prescribed by said law. None.
.
Disagree?
Explain, with specifics, how he legally avoided the background check requirement of those laws.
And again:
You completely skipped over the part about needing to change the law. How do you propose to change the law to achieve the effect you desire? In your response, lease keep in mind the due process clauses of the 5th and 14th amendments.
No?
No loophole.
You're lying and you know it
.
