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.
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.
Whats your plan?
)
Of course I remember that. I've used that line multiple times on this site.
That's not the question.
The question is, once again for you slow readers, where did I say people need to be disarmed?
I don't have all night...
Once again - post #2155 on the previous page when you declared "the answer to guns is more guns - that's like saying the answer to a fire is more gasoline". You seriously can't remember what you said only two posts ago? Really? Good grief...
No matter how many juvenile games you play here, you can't run from it - it's there for the world to see.
SMH - see, this is why I keep advising you it might be a good idea to learn to read, Einstein.
There is no part of that post that says diddly about "people being disarmed".
There is no part of any of my posts that says diddly about "people being disarmed".
There is no part of any of my posts that advocates any "laws", passing laws, loosening laws, tightening laws, giving laws a fucking laxative, or anything else, except to note that it would have no effect on gun violence.
There is no part of any of my posts that says outlawing something "prevents" it. On the contrary I've said the opposite, consistently, forever.
Congratulations. You just exposed yourself to be as stupid as I noted. For all the world to see.
Dumb shit.
Post #2155 on the previous page when you declared "the answer to guns is more guns - that's like saying the answer to a fire is more gasoline". You seriously can't remember what you said only two posts ago? Really? Good grief...
Of course I remember that. I've used that line multiple times on this site.
That's not the question.
The question is, once again for you slow readers, where did I say people need to be disarmed?
I don't have all night...
Once again - post #2155 on the previous page when you declared "the answer to guns is more guns - that's like saying the answer to a fire is more gasoline". You seriously can't remember what you said only two posts ago? Really? Good grief...
No matter how many juvenile games you play here, you can't run from it - it's there for the world to see.
Of course I remember that. I've used that line multiple times on this site.
That's not the question.
The question is, once again for you slow readers, where did I say people need to be disarmed?
I don't have all night...
Once again - post #2155 on the previous page when you declared "the answer to guns is more guns - that's like saying the answer to a fire is more gasoline". You seriously can't remember what you said only two posts ago? Really? Good grief...
No matter how many juvenile games you play here, you can't run from it - it's there for the world to see.
Youve got to be kidding only an idiot would infer from this that anyone is advocating disarming people.
Once again - post #2155 on the previous page when you declared "the answer to guns is more guns - that's like saying the answer to a fire is more gasoline". You seriously can't remember what you said only two posts ago? Really? Good grief...
No matter how many juvenile games you play here, you can't run from it - it's there for the world to see.
You’ve got to be kidding – only an idiot would infer from this that anyone is advocating ‘disarming people.’
And yet, much like your fellow Dumbocrat there, you are far too scared to explain what it does mean. You're only barking about what it "doesn't" mean. Gee, I wonder why that is...
Once again - post #2155 on the previous page when you declared "the answer to guns is more guns - that's like saying the answer to a fire is more gasoline". You seriously can't remember what you said only two posts ago? Really? Good grief...
No matter how many juvenile games you play here, you can't run from it - it's there for the world to see.
SMH - see, this is why I keep advising you it might be a good idea to learn to read, Einstein.
There is no part of that post that says diddly about "people being disarmed".
There is no part of any of my posts that says diddly about "people being disarmed".
There is no part of any of my posts that advocates any "laws", passing laws, loosening laws, tightening laws, giving laws a fucking laxative, or anything else, except to note that it would have no effect on gun violence.
There is no part of any of my posts that says outlawing something "prevents" it. On the contrary I've said the opposite, consistently, forever.
Congratulations. You just exposed yourself to be as stupid as I noted. For all the world to see.
Dumb shit.
Wow! Someone's panties are all bunched up today, uh? You've got to love Dumbocrats. They are so proud of their position, they didn't say what they said and they deny saying what they said they didn't say...
Incidentally, you filled your unhinged rant with what you "didn't" say but you're refusing to state what you did say. Gee, I wonder why that is! Someone afraid they can't explain their way out of a post which stated "the answer to the gun problem is more guns...that's like saying the answer to a fire is gasoline"? I mean, the fact that you said "gun problem" just proves your an irrational anti-gun nut. What gun "problem" do we have? We clearly have a gun control problem, a gun legislation problem, and a victim zone problem. But I've yet to see evidence of even a single gun "problem".
You want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals get criminals out of society. As long as we tolerate career criminals we have to tolerate the consequences. You want to be pansy asses and coddle criminals just bend over and lube up, they will come to abuse you. My solution, three strikes and they are fucking dead within 10 days of the third conviction. If they want to appeal they best do it on the first two.
Youve got to be kidding only an idiot would infer from this that anyone is advocating disarming people.
And yet, much like your fellow Dumbocrat there, you are far too scared to explain what it does mean. You're only barking about what it "doesn't" mean. Gee, I wonder why that is...
It's because YOU, asshole, are sitting back in your barcalounger squeezing blackheads purporting to tell other people what they said, involving things that are nowhere present in their post. Why don't you just shut the fuck up until you learn how to read? You're obviously not qualified here. I don't need to explain jack shit to you; YOU need to learn how to read. That's how it is.
As he said -- "only an idiot" would pull this out of his ass. And there you are.
You want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals get criminals out of society. As long as we tolerate career criminals we have to tolerate the consequences. You want to be pansy asses and coddle criminals just bend over and lube up, they will come to abuse you. My solution, three strikes and they are fucking dead within 10 days of the third conviction. If they want to appeal they best do it on the first two.
And yet, much like your fellow Dumbocrat there, you are far too scared to explain what it does mean. You're only barking about what it "doesn't" mean. Gee, I wonder why that is...
It's because YOU, asshole, are sitting back in your barcalounger squeezing blackheads purporting to tell other people what they said, involving things that are nowhere present in their post. Why don't you just shut the fuck up until you learn how to read? You're obviously not qualified here. I don't need to explain jack shit to you; YOU need to learn how to read. That's how it is.
As he said -- "only an idiot" would pull this out of his ass. And there you are.
Its more than just the inability to read its also the inability to comprehend, compounded by ignorance of what it would entail to disarm people. The Fifth Amendment Takings Clause complaints alone would take centuries to adjudicate.
You want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals get criminals out of society. As long as we tolerate career criminals we have to tolerate the consequences. You want to be pansy asses and coddle criminals just bend over and lube up, they will come to abuse you. My solution, three strikes and they are fucking dead within 10 days of the third conviction. If they want to appeal they best do it on the first two.
the first two terms in prison should lengthy ones to begin with
i was watching a show this afternoon
this kid shot and killed his mom and dad
he was sentenced to a minimum of 5 to 10 years
so really anything after 5 years
How come Democrats have to have a plan when Republicans never do?
In other words you have no plan so try to deflect. Republicans DO have a plan, it is called loosening the laws on concealed carry and open carry, remove bans on types of legal weapons and magazines. It has been shown over and over that in States and cities with lenient firearm laws there is less crime.
And more gun deaths.
Does that even make sense?
Youve got to be kidding only an idiot would infer from this that anyone is advocating disarming people.
And yet, much like your fellow Dumbocrat there, you are far too scared to explain what it does mean. You're only barking about what it "doesn't" mean. Gee, I wonder why that is...
It's because YOU, asshole, are sitting back in your barcalounger squeezing blackheads purporting to tell other people what they said, involving things that are nowhere present in their post. Why don't you just shut the fuck up until you learn how to read? You're obviously not qualified here. I don't need to explain jack shit to you; YOU need to learn how to read. That's how it is.
As he said -- "only an idiot" would pull this out of his ass. And there you are.
... 
... ... ... ... ... ... You want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals get criminals out of society. As long as we tolerate career criminals we have to tolerate the consequences. You want to be pansy asses and coddle criminals just bend over and lube up, they will come to abuse you. My solution, three strikes and they are fucking dead within 10 days of the third conviction. If they want to appeal they best do it on the first two.
Sorry but "get the criminals out of society" is as mindless as "get the guns out". Not possible. Round up all the criminals in the world if you want; congratulations, you've just made space for their replacements. Prepare to go through the same shit over and over and over.
"Criminals" are not some alternate life form that you can drive to extinction. They're part of human nature. That's the first thing you gotta get through your head. Lose this black/white good/evil dichotomy bullshit. Everything has a reason.
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.
Whats your plan?
How come Democrats have to have a plan when Republicans never do?
SMH - see, this is why I keep advising you it might be a good idea to learn to read, Einstein.
There is no part of that post that says diddly about "people being disarmed".
There is no part of any of my posts that says diddly about "people being disarmed".
There is no part of any of my posts that advocates any "laws", passing laws, loosening laws, tightening laws, giving laws a fucking laxative, or anything else, except to note that it would have no effect on gun violence.
There is no part of any of my posts that says outlawing something "prevents" it. On the contrary I've said the opposite, consistently, forever.
Congratulations. You just exposed yourself to be as stupid as I noted. For all the world to see.
Dumb shit.
Wow! Someone's panties are all bunched up today, uh? You've got to love Dumbocrats. They are so proud of their position, they didn't say what they said and they deny saying what they said they didn't say...
Incidentally, you filled your unhinged rant with what you "didn't" say but you're refusing to state what you did say. Gee, I wonder why that is! Someone afraid they can't explain their way out of a post which stated "the answer to the gun problem is more guns...that's like saying the answer to a fire is gasoline"? I mean, the fact that you said "gun problem" just proves your an irrational anti-gun nut. What gun "problem" do we have? We clearly have a gun control problem, a gun legislation problem, and a victim zone problem. But I've yet to see evidence of even a single gun "problem".
What I said is right there in the post, shit-for-brains. You don't get to inject your own content.
Riiiiiight, because the answer to guns is.... more guns! Just as the answer to a building on fire is gasoline. What better antidote to a problem than more of what got us into the problem? Genius I tell ya.
