Leftists owe the rest of us an explanation for the Florida shooting

[kaz]

We banned guns from schools, just like you wanted. Even people with concealed carry permits trained to use their guns safely didn't have them. And your plan worked. No one had a gun and was able to defend themselves and shoot back. And 17 people died because of it.

You owe us an explanation. What is wrong with your plan? Why isn't it working?

Maybe you can ask your drug dealer why banning guns doesn't work the next time you buy a doobie ...

So in your perfect world the killer should have been able to waltz into the school, an AR15 in one hand and a Glock in the other,

and no one should have had the right to confront him.

fuckinay, that is some crazy shit right there.

How could you possibly come to that conclusion without being mentally ill?

I like when people every so often quote NYCryBaby so I see his post and it reminds me why I have him on ignore.

Almost always, I only put malignant posters on ignore. The race whores, like JoeB and JakeStarkey, the ones like RightWinger and Franco who go after my family, that sort of thing. Leftists always go after the women, have you noticed that? RW my daughter and Franco my mother and sister. NYCryBaby is the only one I have on ignore for just being relentlessly inane. But he's just so damned determine to prove it

LOL

Thanks for revealing that you’re lying about having him on ignore. Had you really had him on ignore, you still wouldn’t see his posts even when someone else quotes him.

Shows how mentally sick you are, pretending to have posters on ignore.

Too bad you can’t answer this post, huh? Since you’re pretending to have me on ignore too.

If you are using an app on a phone or tablet the app will block the person however you still see them in replies, on the actual website it blocks everything.

Actually on the actual website, you see them in the replies as well

 

[J.E.D]

The Gun-Free School Zones Act (GFSZA)

.......was signed into law by a Republican president

Thread fail

Proposed by a Democrat. Troll fail.

Aaaand still signed into law by a Republican president. Run along, little narc.

So you worship any law that's signed into law by a Democrat? Wow. At least you're lack of a man enough to admit that. Your avatar is certainly apropos

Nice spin, hack. I suggest you don’t start a thread blaming Democrats for shootings if you don’t want to be criticize.

Go un-knot your panties, little girl

 

[kaz]

We banned guns from schools, just like you wanted. Even people with concealed carry permits trained to use their guns safely didn't have them. And your plan worked. No one had a gun and was able to defend themselves and shoot back. And 17 people died because of it.

You owe us an explanation. What is wrong with your plan? Why isn't it working?

Maybe you can ask your drug dealer why banning guns doesn't work the next time you buy a doobie ...

Leftists "owe"? Americans have been laying the bullet-riddled corpses of innocent victims on the High Altar of Intransigence and Indifference in the Cathedral of LaPierre of the Sacred NRA for decades and you think you are 'owed' something?

In the last assault weapon debate the gun nuts bogged down progress by haggling over cosmetics. Grips, stocks and flash suppressors have NOTHING to do with the essential problem of the rate of fire.

Surviving kids rally and march and for their efforts they are demeaned, disparaged and mocked by the gun lovers.

Gun lovers say movies and video games are the cause of mass shootings, yet no one has every killed 17 people in mnutes with an XBox.

Gun nuts say the mentally frazzled should not have guns, yet when given the opportunity to make that a reality, the gun lobby said that the rights of the mentally ill was being infringed.

Gun nuts are "owed' something? Perhaps you're right. We owe you our scorn.

We follow your rules, people died and it's our fault. You're a mindless Democrat shill

 

[kaz]

The Gun-Free School Zones Act (GFSZA)

.......was signed into law by a Republican president

Thread fail

Proposed by a Democrat. Troll fail.

Aaaand still signed into law by a Republican president. Run along, little narc.

Aaaaand no one gives a fuck, because it's irrelevant.

The one relevant bit is that he is actually admitting that his standard is that if a Democrat supports it then he will to the ends of the earth fight for it regardless of his own view.

That was funny, saying he had his own view ... Give me lots of funny and agrees for that one ...

 

[kaz]

So then why were the laws enacted in the first place if they violated due process?

That sentence has no logical meaning in the English language.

So Stewie, what do you think due process means? What did they tell you when you got the BS in criminal justice?

 

[kaz]

That sentence makes no logical sense. You don't know what due process is. You're on the Internet, man. Open a tab and browse

The way you phrased it, no. But it does say that with due process you can violates their rights to life, liberty and property, which includes guns. Assuming by "felon" you mean "convicted felon"

Same answer

Nope. Convict them of their crime and remove their right to a gun, which is what we always advocated

Yeah I know what Due Process is, and having laws on guns doesn't violate that.

Is it written in the Constitution that felons can't vote?

If someone calls someone a felon, why would I need to say convicted felon?

You didn't answer my question however, do you think felons and those that commit domestic violence should own guns?

Having laws where rights are revoked without a fair trial DOES violate it.

We've answered your question repeatedly. Now the question is, why do you continue to ignore the fact that felons and violent criminals HAVE RECEIVED THE DUE PROCESS WE INSIST ON?

Here's another question: would you insist on a trial and a lawyer if we passed a law that your ignorance and dishonesty was a mental illness that should remove your First Amendment rights? Or would you consider the mere passage of that law to be "due process of law"?

Not all felons are violent, nor been convicted of a crime using a firearm.

Irrelevant to the discussion. The fifth amendment says you can restrict their Constitutional rights with due process of law. There is nothing that makes those connections. If they're a convicted felon, you can restrict their gun rights.

What you're talking about is a legislative objective. You have every right to lobby legislators to not make losing gun rights a consequence for embezzlement

You said it was in the Constitution that felons couldn't own guns and that felons couldn't vote. You were wrong and you will not admit it.

Instead you keep talking about due process, which doesn't matter... in this instance.

You just sound like a blathering idiot.

You say the first two sentences, claim to have a BS in criminal justice

...

and say I sound like a blathering idiot!!??!!??

This fifth amendment says your Constitutional rights can be limited only with due process of law. When you got your BS in criminal law, what the hell were you doing? Just drawing pictures with crayons all day???

Second time asking. What do you think the due process clause means?

 

[kaz]

Cool, then say it. You want felons to own guns, because it doesn't say in the Constitution they can't.

If I want to say something, I do. There is no amount of you trying to force your words into my mouth that will make them what I want to say or what I AM saying.

Why don't YOU just admit that you can't argue against my actual words, and so you want to debate the voices in your head?

I think it's very telling, though, that your response to the accusation that you only want people to have the rights you're willing to give them when you want to give them is "Cool". Yeah, I'll just bet a world where no one has any rights is cool with you.

When you get that stick out of your ass, and decide to actually read the material provided in the argument, let me know.

You want to pick and chose when a law violates Due Process, despite the fact that they follow the same path as each other.

"Get the stick out of your ass" = "Admit that leftists are all-wise, all-knowing, and all-caring". Not interested.

Read the information. Laughed my ass off. Disproved it. Moved on.

I don't want to pick and choose, nor do I need to. The law already defines very clearly what is and isn't allowed, and what you want . . . isn't. Sorry . . . no, wait, I'm not sorry. I'm actually fiendishly glad that you're frustrated in your helpless desire to strip people's rights from them, especially since the biggest frustration comes from your own ignorance.

Leftists like Lewdog flip sides more than a greasy spoon diner. It's so predictable. Whatever supports the Democrat party is their position. That is the only consistency.

They want to grant Constitutional rights to foreigners in foreign countries (when it helps Democrats).

They want to strip Americans in the United States of Constitutional rights (when it helps Democrats).

On that they are consistent

I've never been a lefty... but I have ALWAYS been consistent in my feelings on issues. Feel free to find any position I've flipped on and provide evidence.

How would finding issues you've flipped on contradict my calling you a lefty? I've never known you to be anything but a lefty.

What issues are you not a lefty on? I don't know any

 

[kaz]

You're right. There IS no due process with what you posted. That would be the problem.

Those people proved that they are sufficiently qualified for a government entitlement program. There actually IS a level of due process of law there, since the standards that must be met to get Social Security benefits are set by law. However, THAT due process and those laws are something completely different from the due process necessary to strip someone of Constitutional rights.

I guarantee YOUR position would change quite quickly if it were YOUR rights that were going to be abrogated on the say-so of a bunch of bureaucrats and their lists.

In order for those people to get approved for disability, it most often has to go through a hearing. According to YOUR definition, that counts as Due Process.

Wrong again, on both counts. First of all, most people receive disability benefits without a hearing. Second, a civil appeals hearing before an ALJ is a whole 'nother animal from the criminal trial, and the qualifications for receiving disability are a whole 'nother animal from government justification to revoke rights.

Thanks for demonstrating that you either didn't bother to read my definition, or didn't bother to get help with the big words.

Yeah and you are missing the obvious. I was wondering if you two would ever catch on. A person CHOSES to apply for disability. If there is a law on the books that says a person who gets disability for having a debilitating mental illness, Due Process doesn't matter. They are CHOOSING to apply for disability despite what rights they will lose under the law.

Thanks for playing.

If we were discussing a private employer that's one thing.

But you believe government should be able to link disability checks for military service to loss of Constitutional rights? Seriously?

Why do you have this total aversion to simply taking people you believe are insane to court? Why are preserving Constitutional rights such an anathema to you?

Leftists keep saying we won't compromise. Actually, you won't.

Leftists: Let's prevent insane people from buying guns

Gun rights advocates. OK< but let's do it Constitutionally to preserve due process

Leftists: NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO

Leftists: Why won't you compromise???

Where did military service come from? Hello? Are you having a brain aneurysm?

Many of the "hearings" that label people incapacitated are military hearings. My apologies for thinking you knew that the hell you were talking about.

BTW, I agreed with you on your wanting people getting welfare such as social security to be denied the ability to buy legal guns. But VA benefits are not welfare since they earned it by working

 

[kaz]

Getting a disability check isn't due process.

DUE PROCESS IS A JUDICIAL PROCESS

How do you not understand that? And you have a criminal justice degree? I actually believe you, which is even more stunning to me.

So answer the question I've asked you over and over. Should a member of the executive branch on his/her own have the right to restrict your Constitutional rights? Answer the question

People who get a government check for a disability of mental illness DO GO THROUGH A HEARING TO PROVE THEY HAVE A DEBILITATING MENTAL ILLNESS.

You keep trying to play your little game both ways.

Yes, they go through an administrative hearing under civil law with an ALJ to determine if they meet Social Security regulations.

That's not even in the same galaxy as going to criminal court and being convicted in a jury trial of a felony.

They CHOSE to apply for disability. Sometimes when you CHOSE to do something, you do so knowing that you may be giving up some things in order to gain others. If they want to own a gun and feel they are well enough to handle that responsibility, then they can also CHOSE to get a job instead of getting a check from the government.

A person can CHOSE to waive some of their rights in certain situations... that means Due Process no longer matters.

Sorry, I did miss one thing here. You did say social security. The same happens to military veterans and I conflated them.

Since social security recipients are applying for welfare and want to receive other people's money, I have no problem forcing them to agree to waive their Constitutional rights to do that since the Feds have no Constitutional authority to confiscate other people's money and give it to them.

Veterans I don't agree with since they served their country and it's not welfare like social security.

What's the relevance though? My OP is the concealed carry permit holders should be able to carry at schools. I doubt a mental disability social security retiree would be approved for a CC

The whole thing has to do with how mental ill people shouldn't be allowed to own a gun, and the fact you blame liberals when it is Conservatives that are constantly making it easier for people that SHOULDN'T own guns to do so.

I do NOT blame liberals. I blame leftists. I am a liberal. I'm for free speech, minimum government intrusion in our lives, keeping government out of our wallets and bedrooms.

It is you leftists that are to blame.

You had a stupid theory that you could keep 300 million guns away from shooters while you fight to keep us from having a southern border.

It didn't work.

At the same time, you fought to keep anyone else from having a gun.

It did work.

This is on you. It's a poor excuse of a man who won't stand up to your failures, admit them, and propose an actual different course of action. You are 0 for 3 in that

 

[kaz]

If I want to say something, I do. There is no amount of you trying to force your words into my mouth that will make them what I want to say or what I AM saying.

Why don't YOU just admit that you can't argue against my actual words, and so you want to debate the voices in your head?

I think it's very telling, though, that your response to the accusation that you only want people to have the rights you're willing to give them when you want to give them is "Cool". Yeah, I'll just bet a world where no one has any rights is cool with you.

When you get that stick out of your ass, and decide to actually read the material provided in the argument, let me know.

You want to pick and chose when a law violates Due Process, despite the fact that they follow the same path as each other.

A law cannot violate due process. Creating laws is legislative process and due process is a judicial process. You're a referee in a football came calling travelling ...

You seriously need to sue your school where you got a BS in criminal justice and sue for your money back. Seriously

So then why were the laws enacted in the first place if they violated due process?

Why were they not reviewed and over turned by the Supreme Court?

I love watching people like you make such ridiculous statements... like your opinion and knowledge is better than people who are actually in the profession.

So you think you know the law better than Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court? Go ahead and share,

Why are Unconstitutional laws enacted? Because humans are often power-hungry assholes, and/or motivated by power-hungry assholes. In the case of laws trying to revoke 2nd Amendment rights without a judicial hearing, it would be the second, and YOU would be the power-hungry asshole in question. Take a bow.

As for the Supreme Court, I realize that your tyrannical little leftist heart just wuuuuvs the idea of an unelected oligarchy of lawyers in robes controlling everything, but it's not actually always necessary to go to the trouble, expense, and extensive wait of appealing things to the Supreme Court in order to get them corrected. As, witness, this Unconstitutional violation of due process no longer exists, does it?

Despite what elitists like you believe and wish for, a major purpose of the US system is that the laws are accessible by everyone, not just the ruling class.

Blah blah blah... The Supreme Court has an advantage of Conservatives to Progressives and the Congress didn't take the existing law for review by the Supreme Court, they instead had to write a new one and pass it.

So don't feed me that bullshit... especially when so many people in Congress are getting HUGE campaign contribution money from the NRA.

And Wall Street ...

Where did both Obama and Hillary head to immediately when they left office to cash in?

 

[kaz]

There still continues to be a major difference between proving qualification for Social Security benefits, and proving valid revocation of Constitutional rights.

Maybe if you cared more about the concept of having and respecting rights instead of trying to defend your substandard use of the English language, you'd have noticed that.

Sorry but I care more about the rights of students to be alive and feel comfortable in their school getting an education, than some mentally ill person to own a gun.

/argument

Suuuuure you do. And you're going to make them "alive and comfortable" by teaching them to huddle under desks, waiting for a violent nutcase to hunt them down, totally unopposed, and shoot them, because you're terrified that if one of the adults tasked with caring for them was allowed to carry a gun, "something bad might happen".

Don't even fucking waste my time sanctimoniously citing all the good intentions you consider yourself to have and expecting me to pretend they don't have disastrous consequences.

We both care about safe students. The difference is, only one of us has plans that might actually have that result.

No, you care more about mentally ill people being able to have guns. The rest of your argument is numerous logical fallacies. If you are as smart as you claim, you already know that.

We favor removing the Constitutional right of mentally ill people through due process.

How on God's green earth could a criminal justice major hear that we want mentally ill people to have guns? How is that possible? We're talking massive stupidity here.

Tell me what school gave you a BS in criminal justice so I can print off and send your posts to them and they can demand your degree back

You keep attacking my degree and saying it is a sham without giving me due process.

A joke using due process wrong is an interesting way to play being accused of not understanding due process ...

 

[Papageorgio]

So in your perfect world the killer should have been able to waltz into the school, an AR15 in one hand and a Glock in the other,

and no one should have had the right to confront him.

fuckinay, that is some crazy shit right there.

How could you possibly come to that conclusion without being mentally ill?

I like when people every so often quote NYCryBaby so I see his post and it reminds me why I have him on ignore.

Almost always, I only put malignant posters on ignore. The race whores, like JoeB and JakeStarkey, the ones like RightWinger and Franco who go after my family, that sort of thing. Leftists always go after the women, have you noticed that? RW my daughter and Franco my mother and sister. NYCryBaby is the only one I have on ignore for just being relentlessly inane. But he's just so damned determine to prove it

LOL

Thanks for revealing that you’re lying about having him on ignore. Had you really had him on ignore, you still wouldn’t see his posts even when someone else quotes him.

Shows how mentally sick you are, pretending to have posters on ignore.

Too bad you can’t answer this post, huh? Since you’re pretending to have me on ignore too.

If you are using an app on a phone or tablet the app will block the person however you still see them in replies, on the actual website it blocks everything.

Actually on the actual website, you see them in the replies as well

I'm not sure, it has been a long time since I put people on ignore, I just ignore them.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Republicans control Fla. and own the recent school massacre.

Feeble attempt to dodge, really. GOP strategy 101. Pass the buck.

Sorry, Sparkles, but "Republicans control Florida" is not even REMOTELY enough to address where the fault lies.

It's called "in-depth thought". Try some, and get back to us.

But Slick, it's the only explanation coming from the left. Republicans passed the Fla gun laws. It's obvious they hold the profits of the gun manufacturers in higher regard than the lives of children.

My Gawd, think of the Children!

Yes you are correct, reality is much harder than politics.

Okay, first of all, just let me say that I'm well aware of the leftist tactic of "Show up after a long argument, pretend to be completely ignorant of anything that's been said, demand that the entire argument be repeated for you, and hope your opponent gets frustrated and gives up". Doesn't work on me, and never will. I will be perfectly happy to kick your ass for the next 60 pages just like I did Lewdog's in the previous 60, AND continue kicking his ass while I'm at it.

Now, having said that . . . you wanna go? Then giddyup, son.

As I have already said to JED, this is not about Republicans and Democrats. I'm not responsible for the Republican Party or any of its members, and I don't really give a damn about them. The OP said "leftists", and I've been talking very consistently about leftists, so this is about political philosophy, not political parties. I have no intention of letting you re-define the parameters of the debate because you're unable to mount a defense based on the current ones.

Furthermore, if you are planning on framing your argument on the basis that the gun laws of the state of Florida are directly responsible for this shooting, then by all means, present me with the specific law or laws and your reasoning as to how they are responsible, and we can discuss them. But I will not be blindly accepting your vague premise without substantiation.

Bring it on.

 

[kaz]

Do you think it should be legal to drug test welfare recipients?

Nope. We shouldn't have to give up our rights to use government services.

Redistribution of wealth isn't a "government service," it's an assault on our liberty.

The police are a government service. No one is entitled to a check of someone else's money.

I didn't post for a while, but I must remember wrong. I'm thinking you used to be a libertarian. Do I remember wrong or what happened?

 

[kaz]

"Leftists owe the rest of us an explanation for the Florida shooting"

No, they don't.

We followed your plan, it was a gun free zone. 17 are dead. Damned straight you owe us an explanation for your failure

View attachment 178154

This is the guy (well his profile pic on instagram) who shot up that school, how is it the left's problem...

FACT CHECK: Did the Florida Shooter's Instagram Profile Picture Feature a 'MAGA' Hat?

Because you prevented anyone from shooting back

 

[Cecilie1200]

I really had fun in this thread!

Let's re-cap a couple things to show just how stupid Spaz and Cecille are.

Spaz started this thread because of his hatred for Liberals and wanted to place the blame of the Florida shooting on them without any solid proof of anything other than his hatred.

I posted that was untrue, because in fact it is Conservatives that make it EASIER for people to get their hands on guns, even those that absolutely shouldn't own guns. For example, the Conservative Congress and Trump passing the law to allow people getting Social Security for a disability of debilitating mental illness.

Now Spaz and his partner went off for 10+ pages arguing about due process, and hell I went along with the argument for fun and really enjoyed them thinking I don't know what due process is.

Spaz and his sidekick are the kind of people that get off on an unrelated tangent and will try to hard to argue that tangent and be intelligent sounding, that they totally forget what the original discussion was in the first place. This was proven when Spaz just admitted he supports the idea of people who receive disability from the government for a debilitating mental illness waiving their right to own a firearm.

Now the moral of this story is, it is people in government that act like Spaz and his cohort, that nothing ever gets done because they spend so much time trying to argue about shit that has nothing to do with the issue, that they can't even pass common sense laws.

Good luck Spaz and Kato. This argument has well run its course.

In other words, you're running away and letting your buddy tag in in the hopes that you can win by attrition what you can't possibly win affirmatively.

So by all means, let us recap.

You spent 60 pages demanding that we must IMMEDIATELY make all applications for Social Security disability benefits on the basis of mental illness de facto grounds for revocation of 2nd Amendment rights, and then pretended you were too obtuse and illiterate to understand the answers when challenged and informed that your proposal was illegal, because for some unknown reason, leftists think "I'm too stupid to read" is a clever debate tactic.

And, um . . . yeah. That was the whole entire beating of your ass like a drum, right there.

If you find being smacked around and publicly humiliated "fun", far be it from me to judge your lifestyle choices, so long as I'm not required to bake you a cake to celebrate it.

 

[AZGAL]

More armed security guards at schools please. Jobs, more jobs.

 

[kaz]

Having laws where rights are revoked without a fair trial DOES violate it.

We've answered your question repeatedly. Now the question is, why do you continue to ignore the fact that felons and violent criminals HAVE RECEIVED THE DUE PROCESS WE INSIST ON?

Here's another question: would you insist on a trial and a lawyer if we passed a law that your ignorance and dishonesty was a mental illness that should remove your First Amendment rights? Or would you consider the mere passage of that law to be "due process of law"?

That's an absurd analogy. Mental illness and gun violence undoubtedly go hand in hand. Not every person with a MI will become violent, but a MI by definition may result in irrational behavior. The only appropriate question for limiting rights to those with MI diagnosis is what is the temporal connection? A person diagnosed with depression, for example, twenty years ago but who has been successfully treated should not have any limitation.

Felons acted to break the law because they rationally chose to do so. People with MI never broke any laws ... at least in relation to their MI. Or they could be both MI and felons.

Having rights limited without a trial does not necessarily implicate due process. Any assertion a trial is required is just wrong. A person has to have a way to challenge it, though.

Personally I feel that if a person signs up and gets a government check for a mental illness they are deciding to give away their right to own a gun, not only for the safety of others but for their own safety. The law that was passed, was only for that group of people. Now if they decided that owning a gun is more important to them than being labeled as disabled, and they decided to go back to work, I'd be okay with them owning a gun as long as they got a psychiatrist or psychologist to sign off a waiver.

Personally, I THINK that leftists spend entirely too damned much time "feeling" things and expecting the rest of us to treat it as important and meaningful. Here's a newsflash for you, Chuckles: we don't give a fat rat's furry ass what you "feel" about anything, and neither does the Constitution.

But by all means, if you think it's a winning argument to tell Americans, "Hey, I think it would be smashing if we made sick people afraid to apply for government assistance", you just go right on with that.

Well, I do draw a massive line between people who were employed by the government, particularly military, and people who want government to redistribute other people's money their way, like social security and other welfare programs.

I don't mind at all discouraging the latter. I'm for drug testing of welfare recipients too for the same reason

I'm for drug-testing of welfare recipients as well. A noticeable difference between the two scenarios is that drug-testing does not require the voluntary or coerced surrendering of any actual Constitutional rights, and certainly not a surrendering in perpetuity.

Personally, I consider my dislike of the Social Security system on Constitutional grounds to be a separate matter from my belief that requiring people to give up their rights in order to apply for assistance from them is Unconstitutional. Whatever I may think of the system, it IS the system at this time, and it's both ludicrous and outrageous to demand that, in order to access the existing system, people must give away their rights as citizens.

Again, if one wants to keep violently mentally ill people from owning guns, then it MUST be done on a case-by-case basis, by the proper authorities, through the proper procedures, with the appropriate level of evidence and justification. Application for disability benefits meets none of those standards.

I can't disagree with anything you said because you phrased it precisely. But I personally like the idea of discouraging people from getting welfare checks.

While I do think getting a check of money confiscated from other citizens at gunpoint is a sufficient reason to get you to agree to lose your Constitutional rights in return, I agree with your statement that agreeing to that does not mean you lose your individual right to due process. You would just lose in court since you agreed.

Also, I'd rather people losing their Constitutional rights for living on armed robbery performed by the government lose their right to vote rather than their gun. At least then the producers would be voting rather than the leeches.

It should apply to all welfare programs. You get money confiscated by government from other citizens, you lose your right to vote

 

[Cecilie1200]

Proposed by a Democrat. Troll fail.

Aaaand still signed into law by a Republican president. Run along, little narc.

Aaaaand no one gives a fuck, because it's irrelevant.

It’s entirely relevant in the context of this failed partisan thread

No, it's really not.

Hmmm yes, yes it is

Look, Chuckles, if you need me to draw you a picture, the Crayolas are at home in my kid's toybox, so you're outta luck.

Here's the Title and OP, in their entirety:

Leftists owe the rest of us an explanation for the Florida shooting

We banned guns from schools, just like you wanted. Even people with concealed carry permits trained to use their guns safely didn't have them. And your plan worked. No one had a gun and was able to defend themselves and shoot back. And 17 people died because of it.

You owe us an explanation. What is wrong with your plan? Why isn't it working?

Maybe you can ask your drug dealer why banning guns doesn't work the next time you buy a doobie ...

Do you see the words "Republican" or "Democrat" anywhere in that? No? Then we're not talking about political parties, and we're not GOING to talk about political parties, and there is no world in which I'm going to let a drive-by numbnut redefine the debate to suit himself. So piss off.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The Gun-Free School Zones Act (GFSZA)

.......was signed into law by a Republican president

Thread fail

Proposed by a Democrat. Troll fail.

Aaaand still signed into law by a Republican president. Run along, little narc.

So you worship any law that's signed into law by a Democrat? Wow. At least you're lack of a man enough to admit that. Your avatar is certainly apropos

Nice spin, hack. I suggest you don’t start a thread blaming Democrats for shootings if you don’t want to be criticize.

Go un-knot your panties, little girl

And if he HAD started a thread blaming Democrats, that would apply. But he didn't, so it doesn't.