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.
We both know that when I ask you to cite those arguments, you will refuse to do so - because you know you cannot.As well as an obsessive and compulsive jerk you're dishonest to the bone.Never mind that you have presented no sound argument to that effect.You do have an idea (note singular use of the word). In fact the idea that no solution to mitigate gun violence in America exists. This is the Strength of your argument buttressed by it's your rightand can never be infringed.
Both beliefs are untrue, BTW.
Like most other anti-gun loons, you cannot comprehend this simple truth:It wouldn't hurt, and would certainly help with the nutjobs, and over time would do plenty nof good and save LOTS of lives. You chumps certainly hate anything like solutions...None of these things prevent criminals from getting guns.Nutjobs are bad at interpersonal stuff lol. Did anyone say this was perfect? It'll work better and better over time. I don't know but there should be limits on how many guns people can buy at a time too. Like I said, 80% want this, was over 90% before the dupes got the brainwash...Originally, guns now come fron gun shows in silly states. lol
Hmmm...did background checks stop any of the mass shooters....or how about the guy I just posted about.....convicted of armed robbery with a gun, sentenced to 3 years, and out in under 2, gets a gun and murders 2 store clerks.......did the background check system stop him?
And let's say you get what you want and every single sale of a legal item has to go through a background check....
How do criminals get their guns...1) they steal them 2) they get someone who can pass a background check to buy the gun for them.......3) or a seller sells the gun even thought they can't pass the background check....
So......in which of the three methods are criminals or mass shooters stopped.
Zimmerman was "evil?" Tell me how you're smarter than conservatives because you aren't all black and white like they are.
Trayvon and Georgie deserved each other, neither was a good guy. But I wouldn't call either of them "evil"
Trayvon was a minor, Zimmerman had a gun and believed that made him a man. IT didn't! He got his ass kicked by a kid, in a fight he started which happens to most bullie; rather than take his lumps like a man, he took a child's life.
He was a hero to most racists and members of the crazy right wing,
So where is this evidence that Zimmerman started the fight? The Martin autopsy revealed that Martin only had two injuries: a scrape on his knuckle consistent with hitting somebody or something, and a bullet hole that took his life. No evidence whatsoever that he was assaulted or attacked.
Zimmerman had two black eyes, lacerations to the back of his neck, a broken nose, and some minor back injuries.
So with that evidence, you would conclude that Zimmerman attacked Martin?
You should restrain your comments to things you know something about.
You need to read without bias and with comprehension. I stated above that no one but the two of them knew who started the fight, and one of them is dead. We have some evidence why the deceased was in the complex; Zimmerman had no apparent business being there. What can you infer from that evidence [both facts were common knowledge to those who followed the matter)?
"The one nice thing about telling the truth is you never have to remember what you said."
Author unknown
Speaking of comprehension, look above at what you said! Never mind, I'll just paste it right here: "Trayvon was a minor, Zimmerman had a gun and believed that made him a man. IT didn't! He got his ass kicked by a kid, in a fight he started"
I thought you said the only those two knows who started the fight. It certainly seems like you know who started the fight with the above statement.
In fact I believe Zimmerman started the right. But no one knows. We do know Zimmerman has had further issues, in terms of guns and domestic violence. Those made the news, I don't recall any news reports - of course I don't read the Wash. Examiner or watch Fox News - that Trayvon had a record of violence.
Are you familiar with the legal definition of stalking? Or the use of the meme "Mean Mugging". That's what I believe Zimmerman did and why IMO the struggle occurred.
You have no evidence that my opinion is not factual. So don't pretend it is wrong and engage in NIGUUSOB (A game included in Psychiatrist Dr. Eric Berne's book Games People Play and being captious.
Says Rush. And Zimm barely had a mark on him. Always good for the idiot vigilantes to have a gun.Zim obviously stalked and confronted him for no reason.So where is this evidence that Zimmerman started the fight? The Martin autopsy revealed that Martin only had two injuries: a scrape on his knuckle consistent with hitting somebody or something, and a bullet hole that took his life. No evidence whatsoever that he was assaulted or attacked.
Zimmerman had two black eyes, lacerations to the back of his neck, a broken nose, and some minor back injuries.
So with that evidence, you would conclude that Zimmerman attacked Martin?
You should restrain your comments to things you know something about.
You need to read without bias and with comprehension. I stated above that no one but the two of them knew who started the fight, and one of them is dead. We have some evidence why the deceased was in the complex; Zimmerman had no apparent business being there. What can you infer from that evidence [both facts were common knowledge to those who followed the matter)?
"The one nice thing about telling the truth is you never have to remember what you said."
Author unknown
Speaking of comprehension, look above at what you said! Never mind, I'll just paste it right here: "Trayvon was a minor, Zimmerman had a gun and believed that made him a man. IT didn't! He got his ass kicked by a kid, in a fight he started"
I thought you said the only those two knows who started the fight. It certainly seems like you know who started the fight with the above statement.
Martin outran Zimmerman in a matter of a few seconds. That gave Martin at least a minute (while Zimmerman was still on the phone with police) to get out of there and go to the house he was staying at. But he didn't. He waited in the darkness between the houses for Zimmerman.
Zimmerman couldn't have been chasing Martin because that would have been way to obvious on the 911 recording. He did chase Martin for a few seconds, but after the dispatcher told him that wasn't necessary, you could hear his breathing slow down until he finally returned to his normal tone of voice.
Who do you know that doesn't have their guns insured? That's automatic with home or rental insurance.
What type of insurance are you asking about? Theft of personal property for sure and it is good practice to keep a copy of the bill of sale and a photograph of the gun if stolen or damaged in a fire.
Liability insurance is different, some companies may find the risk to great and cancel the policy, others may raise the premium and deductible, based on the number and type of weapons as well as other factors.
If I had to guess, those with weapons considered to be "assault", and those with a large cache, are probably self insured.
All content is protected under your insurance policy unless you bought the policy from your barber somewhere. It doesn't matter if a thief steals your jewelry or your guns. You report it to the police and the insurance company for compensation.
It won't raise your premiums either because most insurance companies put you in an over generous plan. My plan for content is over $100,000. Why? I don't know, that's just how they make these plans. And I have thousands of dollars in music equipment in my home, and it's all covered under one plan.
Wrong. Check it out with your agent, and then research it on line.
Oh trust me, I did. Why would guns be excluded from your content coverage? I never heard of such a thing. The only time you need a rider on anything is if your valuables exceed the normal amount of coverage.
I too looked into it. This is what caused me to wonder and look into it: I rent a home to my son and his wife and they wanted to adopt a Doberman, a rescue. MY agent told me that AAA (our home owner's policy) would not insure the home if they had a Pit Bull, Doberman or a few other breads of dog).
You didn't answer my question.Why are you so stupid; or maybe English isn't your native language. Hmm, do you and Sarah Palin both speak American? Syntax isn't your forte.Why do you hate the fact that Zimmerman did not murder a black guy?
You clearly hate the fact that Zimmerman did not murder a black guy,
Why?
He would have spiked the ball for sure, celebrating the dead black kid he could exploit. We hear zero from the clowns every time a black kid is killed by another black
Another stupid remark.
Listen asshole, next time some gun owner murders his wife and kids and then sticks the gun does his throat make sure you bring that up for discussion.
Oh, I know what you could do, Wry Coward. Have yourself a custom made T-Shirt which says "no guns allowed" and go see how well that does you in a crime ridden neighborhood.
Says Rush. And Zimm barely had a mark on him. Always good for the idiot vigilantes to have a gun.Zim obviously stalked and confronted him for no reason.You need to read without bias and with comprehension. I stated above that no one but the two of them knew who started the fight, and one of them is dead. We have some evidence why the deceased was in the complex; Zimmerman had no apparent business being there. What can you infer from that evidence [both facts were common knowledge to those who followed the matter)?
"The one nice thing about telling the truth is you never have to remember what you said."
Author unknown
Speaking of comprehension, look above at what you said! Never mind, I'll just paste it right here: "Trayvon was a minor, Zimmerman had a gun and believed that made him a man. IT didn't! He got his ass kicked by a kid, in a fight he started"
I thought you said the only those two knows who started the fight. It certainly seems like you know who started the fight with the above statement.
Martin outran Zimmerman in a matter of a few seconds. That gave Martin at least a minute (while Zimmerman was still on the phone with police) to get out of there and go to the house he was staying at. But he didn't. He waited in the darkness between the houses for Zimmerman.
Zimmerman couldn't have been chasing Martin because that would have been way to obvious on the 911 recording. He did chase Martin for a few seconds, but after the dispatcher told him that wasn't necessary, you could hear his breathing slow down until he finally returned to his normal tone of voice.
Barely had a mark on him? Would you like to see the pictures? I have them. I even have the paramedics report who cleaned him up. Plus I have the report from his family doctor as well.
We both know that when I ask you to cite those arguments, you will refuse to do so - because you know you cannot.As well as an obsessive and compulsive jerk you're dishonest to the bone.Never mind that you have presented no sound argument to that effect.You do have an idea (note singular use of the word). In fact the idea that no solution to mitigate gun violence in America exists. This is the Strength of your argument buttressed by it's your rightand can never be infringed.
Both beliefs are untrue, BTW.
So..
Cite the post where you laid out a sound argument that there is a sound solution to mitigate gun violence in America
Cite the post where you laid out a sound argument that the right to arms can be constitutionally infringed.
Well?
Seen them. zzzzzzzSays Rush. And Zimm barely had a mark on him. Always good for the idiot vigilantes to have a gun.Zim obviously stalked and confronted him for no reason.You need to read without bias and with comprehension. I stated above that no one but the two of them knew who started the fight, and one of them is dead. We have some evidence why the deceased was in the complex; Zimmerman had no apparent business being there. What can you infer from that evidence [both facts were common knowledge to those who followed the matter)?
"The one nice thing about telling the truth is you never have to remember what you said."
Author unknown
Speaking of comprehension, look above at what you said! Never mind, I'll just paste it right here: "Trayvon was a minor, Zimmerman had a gun and believed that made him a man. IT didn't! He got his ass kicked by a kid, in a fight he started"
I thought you said the only those two knows who started the fight. It certainly seems like you know who started the fight with the above statement.
Martin outran Zimmerman in a matter of a few seconds. That gave Martin at least a minute (while Zimmerman was still on the phone with police) to get out of there and go to the house he was staying at. But he didn't. He waited in the darkness between the houses for Zimmerman.
Zimmerman couldn't have been chasing Martin because that would have been way to obvious on the 911 recording. He did chase Martin for a few seconds, but after the dispatcher told him that wasn't necessary, you could hear his breathing slow down until he finally returned to his normal tone of voice.
Barely had a mark on him? Would you like to see the pictures? I have them. I even have the paramedics report who cleaned him up. Plus I have the report from his family doctor as well.
Says Rush. And Zimm barely had a mark on him. Always good for the idiot vigilantes to have a gun.Zim obviously stalked and confronted him for no reason."The one nice thing about telling the truth is you never have to remember what you said."
Author unknown
Speaking of comprehension, look above at what you said! Never mind, I'll just paste it right here: "Trayvon was a minor, Zimmerman had a gun and believed that made him a man. IT didn't! He got his ass kicked by a kid, in a fight he started"
I thought you said the only those two knows who started the fight. It certainly seems like you know who started the fight with the above statement.
Martin outran Zimmerman in a matter of a few seconds. That gave Martin at least a minute (while Zimmerman was still on the phone with police) to get out of there and go to the house he was staying at. But he didn't. He waited in the darkness between the houses for Zimmerman.
Zimmerman couldn't have been chasing Martin because that would have been way to obvious on the 911 recording. He did chase Martin for a few seconds, but after the dispatcher told him that wasn't necessary, you could hear his breathing slow down until he finally returned to his normal tone of voice.
Barely had a mark on him? Would you like to see the pictures? I have them. I even have the paramedics report who cleaned him up. Plus I have the report from his family doctor as well.
Gee, only a real (something) would dig so deep to justify a killing.
THAT'S A BRAND NEW LAW. STUPID new bs GOP law.Says Rush. And Zimm barely had a mark on him. Always good for the idiot vigilantes to have a gun.Zim obviously stalked and confronted him for no reason.
Martin outran Zimmerman in a matter of a few seconds. That gave Martin at least a minute (while Zimmerman was still on the phone with police) to get out of there and go to the house he was staying at. But he didn't. He waited in the darkness between the houses for Zimmerman.
Zimmerman couldn't have been chasing Martin because that would have been way to obvious on the 911 recording. He did chase Martin for a few seconds, but after the dispatcher told him that wasn't necessary, you could hear his breathing slow down until he finally returned to his normal tone of voice.
Barely had a mark on him? Would you like to see the pictures? I have them. I even have the paramedics report who cleaned him up. Plus I have the report from his family doctor as well.
Gee, only a real (something) would dig so deep to justify a killing.
Self defense is justified in most states in this country. Our laws here in Ohio are not much different than other states, and our law reads "A licensed carrier may use a firearm for self-defense if they believe they (or others) are in jeopardy of serious bodily harm or death."
Zimmerman had every reason to believe he was in jeopardy of serious bodily harm or death. He used his firearm in accordance with the law. It doesn't matter whether you or I justify it, it matters if the law justifies it. That's why he's a free man today. You just don't like our laws.
80% agree we need a background check system without a hundred Pub loopholes, used to be over 90% before bought off Pub pundits brainwashed you chumps...
THAT'S A BRAND NEW LAW. STUPID new bs GOP law.Says Rush. And Zimm barely had a mark on him. Always good for the idiot vigilantes to have a gun.Martin outran Zimmerman in a matter of a few seconds. That gave Martin at least a minute (while Zimmerman was still on the phone with police) to get out of there and go to the house he was staying at. But he didn't. He waited in the darkness between the houses for Zimmerman.
Zimmerman couldn't have been chasing Martin because that would have been way to obvious on the 911 recording. He did chase Martin for a few seconds, but after the dispatcher told him that wasn't necessary, you could hear his breathing slow down until he finally returned to his normal tone of voice.
Barely had a mark on him? Would you like to see the pictures? I have them. I even have the paramedics report who cleaned him up. Plus I have the report from his family doctor as well.
Gee, only a real (something) would dig so deep to justify a killing.
Self defense is justified in most states in this country. Our laws here in Ohio are not much different than other states, and our law reads "A licensed carrier may use a firearm for self-defense if they believe they (or others) are in jeopardy of serious bodily harm or death."
Zimmerman had every reason to believe he was in jeopardy of serious bodily harm or death. He used his firearm in accordance with the law. It doesn't matter whether you or I justify it, it matters if the law justifies it. That's why he's a free man today. You just don't like our laws.
Because you know you have no way to soundly argue your points.My response to "Fuck Off"
Not many. Total morons. About the % who think W was a good president or Obama a really bad one.80% agree we need a background check system without a hundred Pub loopholes, used to be over 90% before bought off Pub pundits brainwashed you chumps...
and how many think Elvis is still alive? those people polled are not asked accurate questions so they are essentially lied to by the pollsters. come back with people who were asked accurate poll questions, not people who are asked feel good questions without regard to what they actually do....
It's crap. A great way for gun nuts to kill minorities.THAT'S A BRAND NEW LAW. STUPID new bs GOP law.Says Rush. And Zimm barely had a mark on him. Always good for the idiot vigilantes to have a gun.
Barely had a mark on him? Would you like to see the pictures? I have them. I even have the paramedics report who cleaned him up. Plus I have the report from his family doctor as well.
Gee, only a real (something) would dig so deep to justify a killing.
Self defense is justified in most states in this country. Our laws here in Ohio are not much different than other states, and our law reads "A licensed carrier may use a firearm for self-defense if they believe they (or others) are in jeopardy of serious bodily harm or death."
Zimmerman had every reason to believe he was in jeopardy of serious bodily harm or death. He used his firearm in accordance with the law. It doesn't matter whether you or I justify it, it matters if the law justifies it. That's why he's a free man today. You just don't like our laws.
No, it's not brand new. It's been around for a couple of years. In our state, the measure was signed into law by then Governor Ted Strickland who is a Democrat. In Florida where the Zimmerman incident took place, that law has been in place for many years.
Proximity devices, fingerprint recognition, magnetic rings, or microchip implants are all complicated electronic devices that can fail rendering the gun useless. Suppose my wife needs my gun. Will she have time to take it to a dealer to have it reprogrammed? Suppose I an wearing gloves? The microchip fails? I suppose my estate can sue......Gun makers make weapons capable of killing, not Nerf guns. They are not toys, they are tools.The
Exactly, what they didn't do is come up with some ideas to make their products safer.Make all gun manufacturers responsible for any misdeeds in which a gun is involved. Insurance companies will back this law as will many users of guns.
How American of you. You want to hold a company liable for something they didn't do.
The auto industry, for example, because of public pressure have created safer cars, who ever heard of some of the auto safety features fifty years ago? Gun manufacturers seem to have no responsibility as they continue pumping out weapons for profit, and the public pays with dead children and adults. They use the NRA as their lobby, the Second Amendment as their legal guardian. and some Americans love for guns as their base to avoid any meaningful legislation. Put some of the burden on the gun makers and they might suddenly find some methods to make guns safer?
Cars can be made safer because their purpose is to move people.
Guns cannot be made "safe" because that defeats the purpose.
The Car analogy is bullshit. What you want to do is more akin to making a lawn mower with no blade so it can't harm grass.
And you claim to have some gun expertise and are honest. Evidence that you are not:
"A personalized gun, or smart gun, is a concept firearm that is designed to reduce the misuse of firearms through the use of RFID chips or other proximity devices, fingerprint recognition, magnetic rings, or a microchip implant."
If a man needs killing, I could care less what color he is.It's crap. A great way for gun nuts to kill minorities.THAT'S A BRAND NEW LAW. STUPID new bs GOP law.Barely had a mark on him? Would you like to see the pictures? I have them. I even have the paramedics report who cleaned him up. Plus I have the report from his family doctor as well.
Gee, only a real (something) would dig so deep to justify a killing.
Self defense is justified in most states in this country. Our laws here in Ohio are not much different than other states, and our law reads "A licensed carrier may use a firearm for self-defense if they believe they (or others) are in jeopardy of serious bodily harm or death."
Zimmerman had every reason to believe he was in jeopardy of serious bodily harm or death. He used his firearm in accordance with the law. It doesn't matter whether you or I justify it, it matters if the law justifies it. That's why he's a free man today. You just don't like our laws.
No, it's not brand new. It's been around for a couple of years. In our state, the measure was signed into law by then Governor Ted Strickland who is a Democrat. In Florida where the Zimmerman incident took place, that law has been in place for many years.
When you offer a viable solution that does not infringe upon the rights of law abiding people, we will listen. You and Rye Drinker have no such solution and call US stupid and nutjobs.It wouldn't hurt, and would certainly help with the nutjobs, and over time would do plenty nof good and save LOTS of lives. You chumps certainly hate anything like solutions...None of these things prevent criminals from getting guns.Nutjobs are bad at interpersonal stuff lol. Did anyone say this was perfect? It'll work better and better over time. I don't know but there should be limits on how many guns people can buy at a time too. Like I said, 80% want this, was over 90% before the dupes got the brainwash...Not only is a license not a "panacea" but it actually doesn't do anything...so it would almost be an UN-panacea...since it doesn't do one thing to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and mass shooters.
Originally, guns now come fron gun shows in silly states. lolThey work. Luckily, 80% of Americans aren't FOS like you.
Hmmm...did background checks stop any of the mass shooters....or how about the guy I just posted about.....convicted of armed robbery with a gun, sentenced to 3 years, and out in under 2, gets a gun and murders 2 store clerks.......did the background check system stop him?
And let's say you get what you want and every single sale of a legal item has to go through a background check....
How do criminals get their guns...1) they steal them 2) they get someone who can pass a background check to buy the gun for them.......3) or a seller sells the gun even thought they can't pass the background check....
So......in which of the three methods are criminals or mass shooters stopped.
