Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?

[kaz]

Ah, I stand corrected and duly amend: Two people haven't flipped their calendars since 1954.

Better?

The communist manifesto isn't a calendar, it's a book that describes the philosophy of Karl Marx. He wrote it with Friedrich Engels. That's why they refer to communists as "Marxists."

Democrats have the same principles and use the same anti-rich, anti-capitalism rhetoric that Marx had in his book. That is what we are referring to.

BTW, you're about a hundred years off, it was written in 1848. It still wasn't written on a calendar though.

Oh the density...

What difference does the year make? It's a political philosophy embraced by the Democratic party. They love the ideology, they love the rhetoric, they just don't like the word. The year "1954" is irrelevant to that.

 

[henryporter]

Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws. I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.

In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want. There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world. So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.

So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade. The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.

Considering there are more than 300 million guns in private hands in this country your argument and premise is simply bullshit. And what is purely rigntwad masturbation porn is your first sentence. 300 million guns and nutters have failed to prevent or stop a single mass shooting.

Hate it when jerks like you come back after being banned.

Well dipshit, here's how utterly stupid you are, I've never been banned, moron. You can't even stay on topic.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Considering there are more than 300 million guns in private hands in this country your argument and premise is simply bullshit. And what is purely rigntwad masturbation porn is your first sentence. 300 million guns and nutters have failed to prevent or stop a single mass shooting.

Hate it when jerks like you come back after being banned.

Well dipshit, here's how utterly stupid you are, I've never been banned, moron. You can't even stay on topic.

I can, care to ACTUALLY answer the OP? Tell us how you will take weapons from CRIMINALS and no making everyone a criminal is not the answer.

 

[RKMBrown]

Considering there are more than 300 million guns in private hands in this country your argument and premise is simply bullshit. And what is purely rigntwad masturbation porn is your first sentence. 300 million guns and nutters have failed to prevent or stop a single mass shooting.

Hate it when jerks like you come back after being banned.

Well dipshit, here's how utterly stupid you are, I've never been banned, moron. You can't even stay on topic.

Where did I say you were banned? I suppose you can't read either. Note: I, unlike you, provided a solution.

 

[Bumberclyde]

Stop selling guns to criminals.

 

[kaz]

Go find one post where I've argued for gun laws, fuck bag. Bring it back here and we'll talk turkey.

And then you'll go on feigning ignorance and failure to understand as you've been doing throughout this thread any time an idea comes up that you can't deal with and pretend that no point was made. Just as you're doing here. Coward.

See a shrink. You have a disease.

Ah, I see what confused you. You wanted one example where you'd argued for gun laws and I gave you two. Apparently that was a double negative to you.

This argument is based entirely on a fallacy, that fallacy being the idea that the answer to guns is more guns.

Which is like suggesting that the answer to a burning building is to set it on fire. Or hose it down with gasoline.
Gunplay is not an either/or dichotomy; one does not cancel out the other. They're additive, not exclusive.

And here you've just demonstrated your own illiteracy. There's nothing about "laws" in there. Never has been. Perhaps your mind is so freaking narrow that's all you can think in terms of.

Not my problem.

LOL, read the op and the title of the thread. You're against guns, but arguing this in a thread in regard to an op about gun laws doesn't mean you're for gun laws.

And you're still evading my question, so what IS your plan?

 

[OODA_Loop]

Stop selling guns to criminals.

What if we passed laws that says felons could not own guns ?

 

[kaz]

Stop selling guns to criminals.

What if we passed laws that says felons could not own guns ?

LOL, that's a good point. I assume that's tongue in cheek since we do have those laws. Which means liberals are saying that sure, if we say felons can't buy guns, then OK, felons are still buying guns, but if we pass laws that no one can buy guns, then felons won't buy guns.

 

[kaz]

Ah, I see what confused you. You wanted one example where you'd argued for gun laws and I gave you two. Apparently that was a double negative to you.

And here you've just demonstrated your own illiteracy. There's nothing about "laws" in there. Never has been. Perhaps your mind is so freaking narrow that's all you can think in terms of.

Not my problem.

LOL, read the op and the title of the thread. You're against guns, but arguing this in a thread in regard to an op about gun laws doesn't mean you're for gun laws.

And you're still evading my question, so what IS your plan?

I note from your hiding in the thread on a different topic that you can't answer either question, why arguing against guns in a thread about gun control isn't arguing for gun laws and you're once again repeating that you can't say what your position actually is.

Go ahead and keep hiding, little boy, as the intellectual coward and fool that you are.

 

[Pogo]

And here you've just demonstrated your own illiteracy. There's nothing about "laws" in there. Never has been. Perhaps your mind is so freaking narrow that's all you can think in terms of.

Not my problem.

LOL, read the op and the title of the thread. You're against guns, but arguing this in a thread in regard to an op about gun laws doesn't mean you're for gun laws.

And you're still evading my question, so what IS your plan?

I note from your hiding in the thread on a different topic that you can't answer either question, why arguing against guns in a thread about gun control isn't arguing for gun laws and you're once again repeating that you can't say what your position actually is.

Go ahead and keep hiding, little boy, as the intellectual coward and fool that you are.

"Hiding"??

I called you out for being the fucking liar you are, just as I did here where you linked back, pulled the same bullshit, and now revived a month-dead thread to hide out here.

You're a fucking liar and I've proven that. Twice. Now why the fuck should I venture any opinion your way at all if you're just going to insert your own content?

Lying asshole.

 

[kaz]

LOL, read the op and the title of the thread. You're against guns, but arguing this in a thread in regard to an op about gun laws doesn't mean you're for gun laws.

And you're still evading my question, so what IS your plan?

I note from your hiding in the thread on a different topic that you can't answer either question, why arguing against guns in a thread about gun control isn't arguing for gun laws and you're once again repeating that you can't say what your position actually is.

Go ahead and keep hiding, little boy, as the intellectual coward and fool that you are.

"Hiding"??

I called you out for being the fucking liar you are, just as I did here where you linked back, pulled the same bullshit, and now revived a month-dead thread to hide out here.

You're a fucking liar and I've proven that. Twice. Now why the fuck should I venture any opinion your way at all if you're just going to insert your own content?

Lying asshole.

I quoted you so you could find it easily. I thought we should have the discussion in the thread on the subject we were discussing. It would appear to have worked, no?

So can you clarify your actual position since you say that when you argue against guns in a thread on gun laws that didn't mean you were for gun laws?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

LOL, read the op and the title of the thread. You're against guns, but arguing this in a thread in regard to an op about gun laws doesn't mean you're for gun laws.

And you're still evading my question, so what IS your plan?

I note from your hiding in the thread on a different topic that you can't answer either question, why arguing against guns in a thread about gun control isn't arguing for gun laws and you're once again repeating that you can't say what your position actually is.

Go ahead and keep hiding, little boy, as the intellectual coward and fool that you are.

"Hiding"??

I called you out for being the fucking liar you are, just as I did here where you linked back, pulled the same bullshit, and now revived a month-dead thread to hide out here.

You're a fucking liar and I've proven that. Twice. Now why the fuck should I venture any opinion your way at all if you're just going to insert your own content?

Lying asshole.

So asking a person that VOLUNTEERED to enter this thread to actually answer the question asked by the op isn't ok, except when the OP is a liberal and then the Mods should control who responds right?

 

[Pogo]

I note from your hiding in the thread on a different topic that you can't answer either question, why arguing against guns in a thread about gun control isn't arguing for gun laws and you're once again repeating that you can't say what your position actually is.

Go ahead and keep hiding, little boy, as the intellectual coward and fool that you are.

"Hiding"??

I called you out for being the fucking liar you are, just as I did here where you linked back, pulled the same bullshit, and now revived a month-dead thread to hide out here.

You're a fucking liar and I've proven that. Twice. Now why the fuck should I venture any opinion your way at all if you're just going to insert your own content?

Lying asshole.

I quoted you so you could find it easily. I thought we should have the discussion in the thread on the subject we were discussing. It would appear to have worked, no?

So can you clarify your actual position since you say that when you argue against guns in a thread on gun laws that didn't mean you were for gun laws?

You're making that leap, not me. Again, where have I brought up gun laws at all except to dismiss them as ineffective?

I'm not responsible for your canards and strawmen, liar.

 

[Pogo]

I note from your hiding in the thread on a different topic that you can't answer either question, why arguing against guns in a thread about gun control isn't arguing for gun laws and you're once again repeating that you can't say what your position actually is.

Go ahead and keep hiding, little boy, as the intellectual coward and fool that you are.

"Hiding"??

I called you out for being the fucking liar you are, just as I did here where you linked back, pulled the same bullshit, and now revived a month-dead thread to hide out here.

You're a fucking liar and I've proven that. Twice. Now why the fuck should I venture any opinion your way at all if you're just going to insert your own content?

Lying asshole.

So asking a person that VOLUNTEERED to enter this thread to actually answer the question asked by the op isn't ok, except when the OP is a liberal and then the Mods should control who responds right?

Not what's going on here. Kaz made up words to put in my mouth, I called her on it, and she has a hissyfit and storms off. Then she does it again in another thread, again I call her on it, again she stomps off and then comes back to hide here. It doesn't work in either place.

She's a demonstrated bald-faced liar. Why should I give her the freaking time of day?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

"Hiding"??

I called you out for being the fucking liar you are, just as I did here where you linked back, pulled the same bullshit, and now revived a month-dead thread to hide out here.

You're a fucking liar and I've proven that. Twice. Now why the fuck should I venture any opinion your way at all if you're just going to insert your own content?

Lying asshole.

So asking a person that VOLUNTEERED to enter this thread to actually answer the question asked by the op isn't ok, except when the OP is a liberal and then the Mods should control who responds right?

Not what's going on here. Kaz made up words to put in my mouth, I called her on it, and she has a hissyfit and storms off. Then she does it again in another thread, again I call her on it, again she stomps off and then comes back to hide here. It doesn't work in either place.

She's a demonstrated bald-faced liar. Why should I give her the freaking time of day?

So you refuse to actually answer the question? Why participate in the thread then?

 

[kaz]

"Hiding"??

I called you out for being the fucking liar you are, just as I did here where you linked back, pulled the same bullshit, and now revived a month-dead thread to hide out here.

You're a fucking liar and I've proven that. Twice. Now why the fuck should I venture any opinion your way at all if you're just going to insert your own content?

Lying asshole.

So asking a person that VOLUNTEERED to enter this thread to actually answer the question asked by the op isn't ok, except when the OP is a liberal and then the Mods should control who responds right?

Not what's going on here. Kaz made up words to put in my mouth, I called her on it, and she has a hissyfit and storms off. Then she does it again in another thread, again I call her on it, again she stomps off and then comes back to hide here. It doesn't work in either place.

She's a demonstrated bald-faced liar. Why should I give her the freaking time of day?

I gave pretty clear reasons for every statement. Instead of addressing the point, you have a hissy fit and run around calling me a liar.

For example, I was a liar for saying you called me "female" when you called me "she."

On the bright side, you are a hoot. I do apologize for saying you are not funny.

In the end, you are an intellectual coward. You made endlessly contradictory statements on gun laws, that is how we got into this. I suggested if you clarify your position, maybe that would tie it all together and it would make sense. I don't see how you can tie your contradictory statements together to make sense, but it's on you to do that.

And instead, Sir Pogo turned his tail and fled. Run away, run away, and throw shit clods at anyone you see...

 

[Pogo]

So asking a person that VOLUNTEERED to enter this thread to actually answer the question asked by the op isn't ok, except when the OP is a liberal and then the Mods should control who responds right?

Not what's going on here. Kaz made up words to put in my mouth, I called her on it, and she has a hissyfit and storms off. Then she does it again in another thread, again I call her on it, again she stomps off and then comes back to hide here. It doesn't work in either place.

She's a demonstrated bald-faced liar. Why should I give her the freaking time of day?

So you refuse to actually answer the question? Why participate in the thread then?

I answered it weeks ago, maybe months, however long this thread's been around. Go back fifty or sixty pages if it's worth your time. I've addressed that question for over a year in threads all over this site. It's the issue I came to this site for. But liars don't want to hear that; they want to plug in their own content. So why the fuck should I enable that?

Don't buy the bullshit that I "refuse" to answer anything. You're taking the word of a known liar. She just won't acknowledge anything that doesn't match what she wants to hear. That's juvenile bullshit.

 

[kaz]

Not what's going on here. Kaz made up words to put in my mouth, I called her on it, and she has a hissyfit and storms off. Then she does it again in another thread, again I call her on it, again she stomps off and then comes back to hide here. It doesn't work in either place.

She's a demonstrated bald-faced liar. Why should I give her the freaking time of day?

So you refuse to actually answer the question? Why participate in the thread then?

I answered it weeks ago, maybe months, however long this thread's been around. Go back fifty or sixty pages if it's worth your time. I've addressed that question for over a year in threads all over this site. It's the issue I came to this site for. But liars don't want to hear that; they want to plug in their own content. So why the fuck should I enable that?

Don't buy the bullshit that I "refuse" to answer anything. You're taking the word of a known liar. She just won't acknowledge anything that doesn't match what she wants to hear. That's juvenile bullshit.

Actually I went back at the time and pointed out all the contradictory statements to you. You couldn't explain them. So I said just clarify your position, you couldn't do that.

But hey, you're the guy who hands me my ass by telling me you didn't call me female or a girl when you started referring to me as "she." LOL. Oh, and calling me "she" isn't an insult to women.

You're just a chicken shit coward who wants to make snarky statements and then run away and hide from manning up to explaining your position and then you curse and bluster when you get called on it.

 

[SwimExpert]

I would really like to murder someone today, but it would be illegal for me to carry a concealed hand gun so I guess I'll just watch cartoons.

~Said no criminal, ever.

 

[dannyboys]

A good first step is registration of all firearms and background checks on ALL gun sales. Even between private parties. This will allow responsible gun owners to continue to own anything they want but will help place responsibility on to people who sell guns to people who shouldn't have them or end up using them for murder/crime.

We can certainly start there.

What a load of Lib. crap.
The FACT is criminals are always going to get illegal guns from other criminals.
Here's your basic stupid Lib. idea: ".............will help place responsibility on to people who sell guns to people who shouldn't have them......"
Anyone with an IQ higher than a slice of Wonder bread KNOWS the illegal gun sellers don't give a sweet flying fuck' about their "responsibility". Otherwise they'd be selling used fucking CARS!
"Let' see. I have thirty stolen hand guns to move today but I'm worried that if I sell one to that simian on the next corner and he murders another simian with it I could be held 'responsible'". Ya fucking right!
God LIBs are stupid!