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.
What is your plan for keeping guns out of the hands of people who don't obey laws?Eventually a million moms and dads will rise up and say "Enough"! Maybe not today, but eventually sanity will replace insanity, and gun control in some unknown and currently unknowable iteration will prevail.
How will it work?
His ideas won't work....he is another gun grabbing moron.......
Your angry, emotional and childish reactions are clearly proof of my observation that you're not very bright. Anyone who can read in context understands my point made over and over, that is, some form of gun control is necessary, for what we have today is insane.
That is an opinion, moron, not a plan of action. Unless and until men and women of good will come to their senses, we will continue to see the types of events which have become all too common in our country. That type of event is of course a situation where one man (no woman, yet) takes a rapid fire weapon with a large magazine and slaughters innocent men, women and children.
Simpletons suggest everyone of us be armed, and that the mentally ill be denied their freedoms, but these gun nuts right to guns all types of arms shall never be infringed, no matter who is harmed. Thus you and the others, the NRA and members of Congress who fail to take action, and allowed the Brady Bill to sunset, are not men or women of good will. The are the loud and callous among us.
There is no way that allowing a State to license anyone who wants to own, possess or have in his custody or control a gun, if we assume the bar for such ownership is established by a vote of the people and such license can be suspended for cause, is a great burden to anyone.
morons like you are just dumb....background checks, gun registration, licensing gun owners...would not have stopped Sandy Hook, you twit.....the mother bought her guns legally....and if your dumb ideas had been law her guns....which were background checked...would have been Universally background checked, they would have been registered, and she would have been licensed..........and then her son would have killed her and taken those guns anyway...
Current gun laws are enforced. What evidence do you have that they are not?
So far, in 329 pages, the argument by those who oppose gun control / gun regulations can be summarized thusly:
- It's my Second Amendment Right!
- Those who would like to see gun controls really want to ban guns entirely;
- Any gun control will lead first to registration, then to confiscation;
- Honest citizens will become criminals;
- Gun control will put honest citizens' lives at risk
Very good.So far, in 329 pages, the argument by those who oppose gun control / gun regulations can be summarized thusly:
- It's my Second Amendment Right!
- Those who would like to see gun controls really want to ban guns entirely;
- Any gun control will lead first to registration, then to confiscation;
- Honest citizens will become criminals;
- Gun control will put honest citizens' lives at risk
And your point is....??
Let's not stop with just a license....let's register all books, articles and internet posts with the government....let's limit the number of pages you can use to write your books and articles...after all, do people really need more than a few pages to make their points....we can go on all day about limiting speech to protect people....
Yes, great point Bill. Books can be dangerous. They could instruct how to make bombs or commit suicide or they might even question government. We need to license that sort of power.
Hyperbole and sarcasm are surly substantive, at least for some. Let's continue to do the same thing over and over - eventually we'll get a different result. Isn't that right, Kaz.
So what you have is dodge, stutter, evade. What about addressing the question? "What about freedom of speech, can we limit that to people who get a license?"
Speech is limited, as any first year law student (and most high school freshman) know; that you don't is telling. On point, words can hurt, guns kill and maim; so your non sequitur is a foolish attempt to deflect from the real issue, that being, a means to possibly mitigate the harm done by gun violence. That you don't give a damn about the harm done to others, and object to any effort to mitigate that harm is why you're on of the Callous Conservatives.
Some of the dumbest people posting on this message board are the most insistent in their belief the Second Amendment is sacrosanct. It is only so because the Supreme Court has made some rather foolish decisions, see Heller, once again a one vote swing would have made all the difference.
Still no answer to the question: "What about freedom of speech, can we limit that to people who get a license?"
I didn't ask if there are any restrictions at all on speech, I asked if we can limit it to people that government grants a license to. Government doesn't charge a tax and get to approve who gets free speech and track who they are as you want with guns.
OK, let's play.What is your plan for keeping guns out of the hands of people who don't obey laws?Eventually a million moms and dads will rise up and say "Enough"! Maybe not today, but eventually sanity will replace insanity, and gun control in some unknown and currently unknowable iteration will prevail.
How will it work?
His ideas won't work....he is another gun grabbing moron.......
Your angry, emotional and childish reactions are clearly proof of my observation that you're not very bright. Anyone who can read in context understands my point made over and over, that is, some form of gun control is necessary, for what we have today is insane.
That is an opinion, moron, not a plan of action. Unless and until men and women of good will come to their senses, we will continue to see the types of events which have become all too common in our country. That type of event is of course a situation where one man (no woman, yet) takes a rapid fire weapon with a large magazine and slaughters innocent men, women and children.
Simpletons suggest everyone of us be armed, and that the mentally ill be denied their freedoms, but their right to guns all of types shall never be infringed, no matter who is harmed. Thus you and the others, the NRA and members of Congress who fail to take action, and allowed the Brady Bill to sunset, are not men or women of good will. The are the loud and callous among us.
What form of "gun control" do you believe would keep guns from the hands of criminals?
You want to cut off hands? Move to Saudi Arabia, cocksucker.OK, let's play.What is your plan for keeping guns out of the hands of people who don't obey laws?Eventually a million moms and dads will rise up and say "Enough"! Maybe not today, but eventually sanity will replace insanity, and gun control in some unknown and currently unknowable iteration will prevail.
How will it work?
His ideas won't work....he is another gun grabbing moron.......
Your angry, emotional and childish reactions are clearly proof of my observation that you're not very bright. Anyone who can read in context understands my point made over and over, that is, some form of gun control is necessary, for what we have today is insane.
That is an opinion, moron, not a plan of action. Unless and until men and women of good will come to their senses, we will continue to see the types of events which have become all too common in our country. That type of event is of course a situation where one man (no woman, yet) takes a rapid fire weapon with a large magazine and slaughters innocent men, women and children.
Simpletons suggest everyone of us be armed, and that the mentally ill be denied their freedoms, but their right to guns all of types shall never be infringed, no matter who is harmed. Thus you and the others, the NRA and members of Congress who fail to take action, and allowed the Brady Bill to sunset, are not men or women of good will. The are the loud and callous among us.
What form of "gun control" do you believe would keep guns from the hands of criminals?
Simple, cut of their hands.
And let's make possession of a firearm by an unlicensed person a crime, then we can cut off their hands and the hands of the person who sold, gave or allowed the unlicensed to possess a gun.
Hey, we can also cure cancer. Everyone born should be immediately killed - thus,, in 100 years cancer in the human species would be eliminated.
So, do you or any of the other fools have any more foolish questions?
Just In Case Fallacy
Yes, great point Bill. Books can be dangerous. They could instruct how to make bombs or commit suicide or they might even question government. We need to license that sort of power.
Hyperbole and sarcasm are surly substantive, at least for some. Let's continue to do the same thing over and over - eventually we'll get a different result. Isn't that right, Kaz.
So what you have is dodge, stutter, evade. What about addressing the question? "What about freedom of speech, can we limit that to people who get a license?"
Speech is limited, as any first year law student (and most high school freshman) know; that you don't is telling. On point, words can hurt, guns kill and maim; so your non sequitur is a foolish attempt to deflect from the real issue, that being, a means to possibly mitigate the harm done by gun violence. That you don't give a damn about the harm done to others, and object to any effort to mitigate that harm is why you're on of the Callous Conservatives.
Some of the dumbest people posting on this message board are the most insistent in their belief the Second Amendment is sacrosanct. It is only so because the Supreme Court has made some rather foolish decisions, see Heller, once again a one vote swing would have made all the difference.
Still no answer to the question: "What about freedom of speech, can we limit that to people who get a license?"
I didn't ask if there are any restrictions at all on speech, I asked if we can limit it to people that government grants a license to. Government doesn't charge a tax and get to approve who gets free speech and track who they are as you want with guns.
You may believe you're clever, but spamming the same stupid shit is anything but. Maybe you don't know what a non sequitur is, I'm always willing to offer help to the disabled:
Non Sequitur
You want to cut off hands? Move to Saudi Arabia, cocksucker.OK, let's play.What is your plan for keeping guns out of the hands of people who don't obey laws?
How will it work?
His ideas won't work....he is another gun grabbing moron.......
Your angry, emotional and childish reactions are clearly proof of my observation that you're not very bright. Anyone who can read in context understands my point made over and over, that is, some form of gun control is necessary, for what we have today is insane.
That is an opinion, moron, not a plan of action. Unless and until men and women of good will come to their senses, we will continue to see the types of events which have become all too common in our country. That type of event is of course a situation where one man (no woman, yet) takes a rapid fire weapon with a large magazine and slaughters innocent men, women and children.
Simpletons suggest everyone of us be armed, and that the mentally ill be denied their freedoms, but their right to guns all of types shall never be infringed, no matter who is harmed. Thus you and the others, the NRA and members of Congress who fail to take action, and allowed the Brady Bill to sunset, are not men or women of good will. The are the loud and callous among us.
What form of "gun control" do you believe would keep guns from the hands of criminals?
Simple, cut of their hands.
And let's make possession of a firearm by an unlicensed person a crime, then we can cut off their hands and the hands of the person who sold, gave or allowed the unlicensed to possess a gun.
Hey, we can also cure cancer. Everyone born should be immediately killed - thus,, in 100 years cancer in the human species would be eliminated.
So, do you or any of the other fools have any more foolish questions?
Just In Case Fallacy
Wry, your fascination, obsession or fetish for abortion is pathological. You may not believe this is true, but watching how you shit yourself, and get it all over your hat, is in it self fascinating. ABORTION!!! Did writing that make shit come out of your ears? I hope so, maybe then when all the shit is gone, and in that big old void between your ears, you may have room to think.Kaz, your fascination, obsession or fetish for guns is pathological. You may not believe this is true, but watching how you shit yourself, and get it all over your hat, is in it self fascinating. GUN CONTROL!!! Did writing that make shit come out of your ears? I hope so, maybe then when all the shit is gone, and in that big old void between your ears, you may have room to think.
Simple, cut of their hands.
And let's make possession of a firearm by an unlicensed person a crime, then we can cut off their hands and the hands of the person who sold, gave or allowed the unlicensed to possess a gun.
Hey, we can also cure cancer. Everyone born should be immediately killed - thus,, in 100 years cancer in the human species would be eliminated.
So, do you or any of the other fools have any more foolish questions?
Just In Case Fallacy
You want to cut off hands? Move to Saudi Arabia, cocksucker.
Wow, you're even dumber than I thought. I'd accuse you of simply being dishonest, which you are, and I don't discount this remark is an example of two of your many character flaws.
Well that beats giving an honest answer anyway.You want to cut off hands? Move to Saudi Arabia, cocksucker.OK, let's play.His ideas won't work....he is another gun grabbing moron.......
Your angry, emotional and childish reactions are clearly proof of my observation that you're not very bright. Anyone who can read in context understands my point made over and over, that is, some form of gun control is necessary, for what we have today is insane.
That is an opinion, moron, not a plan of action. Unless and until men and women of good will come to their senses, we will continue to see the types of events which have become all too common in our country. That type of event is of course a situation where one man (no woman, yet) takes a rapid fire weapon with a large magazine and slaughters innocent men, women and children.
Simpletons suggest everyone of us be armed, and that the mentally ill be denied their freedoms, but their right to guns all of types shall never be infringed, no matter who is harmed. Thus you and the others, the NRA and members of Congress who fail to take action, and allowed the Brady Bill to sunset, are not men or women of good will. The are the loud and callous among us.
What form of "gun control" do you believe would keep guns from the hands of criminals?
Simple, cut of their hands.
And let's make possession of a firearm by an unlicensed person a crime, then we can cut off their hands and the hands of the person who sold, gave or allowed the unlicensed to possess a gun.
Hey, we can also cure cancer. Everyone born should be immediately killed - thus,, in 100 years cancer in the human species would be eliminated.
So, do you or any of the other fools have any more foolish questions?
Just In Case Fallacy
Wow, you're even dumber than I thought. I'd accuse you of simply being dishonest, which you are, and I don't discount this remark is an example of two of your many character flaws.
Hyperbole and sarcasm are surly substantive, at least for some. Let's continue to do the same thing over and over - eventually we'll get a different result. Isn't that right, Kaz.
So what you have is dodge, stutter, evade. What about addressing the question? "What about freedom of speech, can we limit that to people who get a license?"
Speech is limited, as any first year law student (and most high school freshman) know; that you don't is telling. On point, words can hurt, guns kill and maim; so your non sequitur is a foolish attempt to deflect from the real issue, that being, a means to possibly mitigate the harm done by gun violence. That you don't give a damn about the harm done to others, and object to any effort to mitigate that harm is why you're on of the Callous Conservatives.
Some of the dumbest people posting on this message board are the most insistent in their belief the Second Amendment is sacrosanct. It is only so because the Supreme Court has made some rather foolish decisions, see Heller, once again a one vote swing would have made all the difference.
Still no answer to the question: "What about freedom of speech, can we limit that to people who get a license?"
I didn't ask if there are any restrictions at all on speech, I asked if we can limit it to people that government grants a license to. Government doesn't charge a tax and get to approve who gets free speech and track who they are as you want with guns.
You may believe you're clever, but spamming the same stupid shit is anything but. Maybe you don't know what a non sequitur is, I'm always willing to offer help to the disabled:
Non Sequitur
Actually I keep asking you a question you keep not answering and you keep making the same points that keep the question relevant. Freedom of speech is in the first amendment and freedom to be armed is in the second. Saying the first and second amendment rights are comparable is the same is a non sequitur?
And no, the question isn't meant to be "clever," it's actually completely straight forward. Can they place the restrictions you support on our second amendment rights on our first amendment rights? That's a non-sequitur? That's just stupid.
And as for your point our speech right aren't unlimited, no they are not. If you threaten or harm someone with your speech, you can get arrested for it. Ditto guns, no one is disputing that with guns, we all agree with that. Aim a gun at an innocent person to threaten them and you get arrested. Personally, you do that and I hope another armed person nearby blows your sorry ass away first.
What you want is way beyond that. For our second amendment rights, you want government to tell us when and where we can exercise is, approve it, charge money for it and track who uses that right. That is the question, so, can they do that for our other Constitutional rights? Or just that one?
Well that beats giving an honest answer anyway.You want to cut off hands? Move to Saudi Arabia, cocksucker.OK, let's play.Your angry, emotional and childish reactions are clearly proof of my observation that you're not very bright. Anyone who can read in context understands my point made over and over, that is, some form of gun control is necessary, for what we have today is insane.
That is an opinion, moron, not a plan of action. Unless and until men and women of good will come to their senses, we will continue to see the types of events which have become all too common in our country. That type of event is of course a situation where one man (no woman, yet) takes a rapid fire weapon with a large magazine and slaughters innocent men, women and children.
Simpletons suggest everyone of us be armed, and that the mentally ill be denied their freedoms, but their right to guns all of types shall never be infringed, no matter who is harmed. Thus you and the others, the NRA and members of Congress who fail to take action, and allowed the Brady Bill to sunset, are not men or women of good will. The are the loud and callous among us.
What form of "gun control" do you believe would keep guns from the hands of criminals?
Simple, cut of their hands.
And let's make possession of a firearm by an unlicensed person a crime, then we can cut off their hands and the hands of the person who sold, gave or allowed the unlicensed to possess a gun.
Hey, we can also cure cancer. Everyone born should be immediately killed - thus,, in 100 years cancer in the human species would be eliminated.
So, do you or any of the other fools have any more foolish questions?
Just In Case Fallacy
Wow, you're even dumber than I thought. I'd accuse you of simply being dishonest, which you are, and I don't discount this remark is an example of two of your many character flaws.
You're a piece of cocksucking shit. No wonder you live in Cali.
And let's make speaking by an unlicensed Liberal a crime. We can then cut out their tongue and cut off their fingers.OK, let's play.What is your plan for keeping guns out of the hands of people who don't obey laws?Eventually a million moms and dads will rise up and say "Enough"! Maybe not today, but eventually sanity will replace insanity, and gun control in some unknown and currently unknowable iteration will prevail.
How will it work?
His ideas won't work....he is another gun grabbing moron.......
Your angry, emotional and childish reactions are clearly proof of my observation that you're not very bright. Anyone who can read in context understands my point made over and over, that is, some form of gun control is necessary, for what we have today is insane.
That is an opinion, moron, not a plan of action. Unless and until men and women of good will come to their senses, we will continue to see the types of events which have become all too common in our country. That type of event is of course a situation where one man (no woman, yet) takes a rapid fire weapon with a large magazine and slaughters innocent men, women and children.
Simpletons suggest everyone of us be armed, and that the mentally ill be denied their freedoms, but their right to guns all of types shall never be infringed, no matter who is harmed. Thus you and the others, the NRA and members of Congress who fail to take action, and allowed the Brady Bill to sunset, are not men or women of good will. The are the loud and callous among us.
What form of "gun control" do you believe would keep guns from the hands of criminals?
Simple, cut of their hands.
And let's make possession of a firearm by an unlicensed person a crime, then we can cut off their hands and the hands of the person who sold, gave or allowed the unlicensed to possess a gun.
Hey, we can also cure cancer. Everyone born should be immediately killed - thus,, in 100 years cancer in the human species would be eliminated.
So, do you or any of the other fools have any more foolish questions?
Just In Case Fallacy
Do they require a license to speak? No, because "Congress shall make no law ...... abridging the freedom of speech."So what you have is dodge, stutter, evade. What about addressing the question? "What about freedom of speech, can we limit that to people who get a license?"
Speech is limited, as any first year law student (and most high school freshman) know; that you don't is telling. On point, words can hurt, guns kill and maim; so your non sequitur is a foolish attempt to deflect from the real issue, that being, a means to possibly mitigate the harm done by gun violence. That you don't give a damn about the harm done to others, and object to any effort to mitigate that harm is why you're on of the Callous Conservatives.
Some of the dumbest people posting on this message board are the most insistent in their belief the Second Amendment is sacrosanct. It is only so because the Supreme Court has made some rather foolish decisions, see Heller, once again a one vote swing would have made all the difference.
Still no answer to the question: "What about freedom of speech, can we limit that to people who get a license?"
I didn't ask if there are any restrictions at all on speech, I asked if we can limit it to people that government grants a license to. Government doesn't charge a tax and get to approve who gets free speech and track who they are as you want with guns.
You may believe you're clever, but spamming the same stupid shit is anything but. Maybe you don't know what a non sequitur is, I'm always willing to offer help to the disabled:
Non Sequitur
Actually I keep asking you a question you keep not answering and you keep making the same points that keep the question relevant. Freedom of speech is in the first amendment and freedom to be armed is in the second. Saying the first and second amendment rights are comparable is the same is a non sequitur?
And no, the question isn't meant to be "clever," it's actually completely straight forward. Can they place the restrictions you support on our second amendment rights on our first amendment rights? That's a non-sequitur? That's just stupid.
And as for your point our speech right aren't unlimited, no they are not. If you threaten or harm someone with your speech, you can get arrested for it. Ditto guns, no one is disputing that with guns, we all agree with that. Aim a gun at an innocent person to threaten them and you get arrested. Personally, you do that and I hope another armed person nearby blows your sorry ass away first.
What you want is way beyond that. For our second amendment rights, you want government to tell us when and where we can exercise is, approve it, charge money for it and track who uses that right. That is the question, so, can they do that for our other Constitutional rights? Or just that one?
Nearly every person talks, not every person wants to own, possess or have in his or her custody and control. Most of us are born with the ability to converse, no one that I have ever heard of has been born holding gun. You continuous spamming of this question isn't clever, it's stupid.
All states require a license to drive a car, practice medicine, sell real estate. Does that frame the issue for you, or will you continue to spam ad nausea.
The issue becomes a real debate on what is an "infringement" and what are "arms"?
Let's start with a question: Should any citizen have the right to own, possess or have in his or her custody and control a shoulder fired surface to air missle capable of bringing down a Commercial Plane flying at 35,000 ft?
What say you Kaz? Is it an infringement when one is denied to own, possess, etc. such an arm?
You wouldn't know rational if it snuck up behind you and bit you on your rye soaked ass.Well that beats giving an honest answer anyway.You want to cut off hands? Move to Saudi Arabia, cocksucker.OK, let's play.
What form of "gun control" do you believe would keep guns from the hands of criminals?
Simple, cut of their hands.
And let's make possession of a firearm by an unlicensed person a crime, then we can cut off their hands and the hands of the person who sold, gave or allowed the unlicensed to possess a gun.
Hey, we can also cure cancer. Everyone born should be immediately killed - thus,, in 100 years cancer in the human species would be eliminated.
So, do you or any of the other fools have any more foolish questions?
Just In Case Fallacy
Wow, you're even dumber than I thought. I'd accuse you of simply being dishonest, which you are, and I don't discount this remark is an example of two of your many character flaws.
You're a piece of cocksucking shit. No wonder you live in Cali.
Fuck off Rabbit, you're too dishonest, too stupid and too partisan to engage in any rational discussion.
