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.
You often accuse those on the right of being extreme, but yet you accuse them of being accessories to murder. When you propose something such as "Universal Background Checks" you propose something that has no limit to its scope. Just how far will our government take this new program? Of course, you folks don't consider the ramifications of your fantastical imaginings on gun control, now do you? But then again, your whole gun control thing failed in Chicago, if I recall. When you suggest something like this, you open the American citizenry to a multitude of constitutional violations, namely of the 2nd and 4th Amendments.
I still don't understand why you call us extreme, considering the liberal views on abortion. Frankly, you have no room to speak on murder, given that you probably advocate the wanton slaughter of innocent children in the womb for the sake of a woman's right to choose.
If you want to pull the wool over someone's eyes, I suggest someone more gullible than I.
The statist mode boiled down to it's essence, propose invading the privacy of every law abiding gun buyer while at the same time massively increasing the centralization of power and anybody that dares to object to such a policy is immediately demonized and marginalized as "extreme". One has to wonder how any person can be so lacking in empathy and reason as to consider objections to such egregious violations of individual liberty worthy of derision.
At what point would such people object to the federal government violating the citizenry? Is there any point at which they would as long as their particular brand of politician is in power?
"Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." -- William F. Buckley Jr.
WOW, I really didn't have to go far to find EXACTLY what I am talking about.
Take note FA_Q2...
What is the limit of the scope of universal background checks? EXACTLY that. If you want to own a gun, you have to pass a background check. That means that if you are a felon, or have a mental illness you can't buy the gun...
HOW fucking extreme can us liberals get, who the fuck wants to stop felons from buying a gun!
The statist mode boiled down to it's essence, propose invading the privacy of every law abiding gun buyer while at the same time massively increasing the centralization of power and anybody that dares to object to such a policy is immediately demonized and marginalized as "extreme". One has to wonder how any person can be so lacking in empathy and reason as to consider objections to such egregious violations of individual liberty worthy of derision.
At what point would such people object to the federal government violating the citizenry? Is there any point at which they would as long as their particular brand of politician is in power?
"Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." -- William F. Buckley Jr.
WOW, I really didn't have to go far to find EXACTLY what I am talking about.
Take note FA_Q2...
What is the limit of the scope of universal background checks? EXACTLY that. If you want to own a gun, you have to pass a background check. That means that if you are a felon, or have a mental illness you can't buy the gun...
... and the federal government does what with "background check" data? and why does this need to be done at the FEDERAL level ? Will it actually solve the problem? Where does the federal government get the authority to mandate this in the first place? Is it moral or just to punish law abiding citizens who wish to purchase a firearm with yet ANOTHER layer of bureaucracy and ANOTHER invasion of their privacy, not to mention what is sure to be yet another federal "fee"?
As usual with you partisan statists robots, if a politician with the right letter behind his/her name says it you parrot it then demonize anybody that objects, no reasoned analysis, no questioning of the morality, no looking for alternatives ... just repeat, repeat, repeat until it becomes so lodged in your brain that no amount of reason will dislodge it.
I don't which is more pathetic, the fact the your reason and morality have been replaced with propaganda or the fact that you have lost the ability to recognize it in yourself.
"All violence consists in some people forcing others, under threat of suffering or death, to do what they do not want to do." -- Leo Tolstoy, The Law of Love and The Law of Violence
The statist mode boiled down to it's essence, propose invading the privacy of every law abiding gun buyer while at the same time massively increasing the centralization of power and anybody that dares to object to such a policy is immediately demonized and marginalized as "extreme". One has to wonder how any person can be so lacking in empathy and reason as to consider objections to such egregious violations of individual liberty worthy of derision.
At what point would such people object to the federal government violating the citizenry? Is there any point at which they would as long as their particular brand of politician is in power?
"Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." -- William F. Buckley Jr.
WOW, I really didn't have to go far to find EXACTLY what I am talking about.
Take note FA_Q2...
What is the limit of the scope of universal background checks? EXACTLY that. If you want to own a gun, you have to pass a background check. That means that if you are a felon, or have a mental illness you can't buy the gun...
HOW fucking extreme can us liberals get, who the fuck wants to stop felons from buying a gun!
If I own a gun, I've already gone through a background check. Your point? Why do we need more? I was checked for previous criminal history, mental instability and drug usage. What more can you do that has already been done?
If you want to own a gun, you have to pass a background check. That means that if you are a felon, or have a mental illness you can't buy the gun...
WOW, I really didn't have to go far to find EXACTLY what I am talking about.
Take note FA_Q2...
What is the limit of the scope of universal background checks? EXACTLY that. If you want to own a gun, you have to pass a background check. That means that if you are a felon, or have a mental illness you can't buy the gun...
HOW fucking extreme can us liberals get, who the fuck wants to stop felons from buying a gun!
If I own a gun, I've already gone through a background check. Your point? Why do we need more? I was checked for previous criminal history, mental instability and drug usage. What more can you do that has already been done?
OH... you are the ONLY person who owns a gun...why didn't you say so?
NO ONE has proposed taking away anyone's right to bear arms. That is typical right wing bullshit.
you sure?......you had better talk to some of your buddies here who think banning guns is a great idea....
I am not talking about anecdotal opinions on a message board. I am talking about proposed legislation.
When the right opposed universal background checks I lost all respect for them. I now see them as the enemy of the people and accessories to murder.
the difference ????????????
easy..,
demoncRATS hate America
Republicans are Constiktutionalists
That's funny.
Now you conflate reason and morality with "fear infested paranoid chicken little"? Do you understand what limited authority means? do you understand what individual liberty means? Do you understand that historical precedent cautions the citizenry against the very invasive practices that you are advocating? It isn't incumbent upon the individual to justify his/her exercise of freedom to the government it's incumbent upon government to justify it's encroachment upon the liberty of the individual. Using your logic NO privacy should exist from the federal government since any claim by the individual to such is just "paranoia".WOW, I really didn't have to go far to find EXACTLY what I am talking about.
Take note FA_Q2...
What is the limit of the scope of universal background checks? EXACTLY that. If you want to own a gun, you have to pass a background check. That means that if you are a felon, or have a mental illness you can't buy the gun...
... and the federal government does what with "background check" data? and why does this need to be done at the FEDERAL level ? Will it actually solve the problem? Where does the federal government get the authority to mandate this in the first place? Is it moral or just to punish law abiding citizens who wish to purchase a firearm with yet ANOTHER layer of bureaucracy and ANOTHER invasion of their privacy, not to mention what is sure to be yet another federal "fee"?
As usual with you partisan statists robots, if a politician with the right letter behind his/her name says it you parrot it then demonize anybody that objects, no reasoned analysis, no questioning of the morality, no looking for alternatives ... just repeat, repeat, repeat until it becomes so lodged in your brain that no amount of reason will dislodge it.
I don't which is more pathetic, the fact the your reason and morality have been replaced with propaganda or the fact that you have lost the ability to recognize it in yourself.
"All violence consists in some people forcing others, under threat of suffering or death, to do what they do not want to do." -- Leo Tolstoy, The Law of Love and The Law of Violence
I see. Because you are a fear infested paranoid chicken little, everyone else must be like you.
....and now you want to add the data of LAW ABIDING CITIZENS to it, I mean it's not like we have any precedent for government abusing the information it collects on the citizenry, right? If I choose to buy a firearm I do not want nor should I be required to notify the federal government of that fact. It is YOU that wish to use the federal government as a proxy to do violence to law abiding citizens simply because those law abiding citizens wish to maintain the privacy of the perfectly legal commercial transaction of purchasing a firearm from the federal government."and the federal government does what with "background check" data?"
The FBI maintains the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.
... and your reasoning for expanding this already overly intrusive process is? What problem will doing so resolve and how exactly will it resolve it? Are there no other alternatives?When you buy a gun from a federally licensed dealer, you fill out a form with personally identifying information. The dealer uses the NICS to match that information with various records to make sure youre not, for example, a felon whos not allowed to own a weapon. Its a computerized process thats only supposed to take about 30 seconds, but in the case of an unclear match, can take up to three days.
the difference ????????????
easy..,
demoncRATS hate America
Republicans are Constiktutionalists
That's funny.
but TRUE !!
the difference ????????????
easy..,
demoncRATS hate America
Republicans are Constiktutionalists
That's funny.
but TRUE !!
You often accuse those on the right of being extreme, but yet you accuse them of being accessories to murder. When you propose something such as "Universal Background Checks" you propose something that has no limit to its scope. Just how far will our government take this new program? Of course, you folks don't consider the ramifications of your fantastical imaginings on gun control, now do you? But then again, your whole gun control thing failed in Chicago, if I recall. When you suggest something like this, you open the American citizenry to a multitude of constitutional violations, namely of the 2nd and 4th Amendments.
I still don't understand why you call us extreme, considering the liberal views on abortion. Frankly, you have no room to speak on murder, given that you probably advocate the wanton slaughter of innocent children in the womb for the sake of a woman's right to choose.
If you want to pull the wool over someone's eyes, I suggest someone more gullible than I.
The statist mode boiled down to it's essence, propose invading the privacy of every law abiding gun buyer while at the same time massively increasing the centralization of power and anybody that dares to object to such a policy is immediately demonized and marginalized as "extreme". One has to wonder how any person can be so lacking in empathy and reason as to consider objections to such egregious violations of individual liberty worthy of derision.
At what point would such people object to the federal government violating the citizenry? Is there any point at which they would as long as their particular brand of politician is in power?
"Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." -- William F. Buckley Jr.
WOW, I really didn't have to go far to find EXACTLY what I am talking about.
Take note FA_Q2...
What is the limit of the scope of universal background checks? EXACTLY that. If you want to own a gun, you have to pass a background check. That means that if you are a felon, or have a mental illness you can't buy the gun...
HOW fucking extreme can us liberals get, who the fuck wants to stop felons from buying a gun!
Now you conflate reason and morality with "fear infested paranoid chicken little"? Do you understand what limited authority means? do you understand what individual liberty means? Do you understand that historical precedent cautions the citizenry against the very invasive practices that you are advocating? It isn't incumbent upon the individual to justify his/her exercise of freedom to the government it's incumbent upon government to justify it's encroachment upon the liberty of the individual. Using your logic NO privacy should exist from the federal government since any claim by the individual to such is just "paranoia".... and the federal government does what with "background check" data? and why does this need to be done at the FEDERAL level ? Will it actually solve the problem? Where does the federal government get the authority to mandate this in the first place? Is it moral or just to punish law abiding citizens who wish to purchase a firearm with yet ANOTHER layer of bureaucracy and ANOTHER invasion of their privacy, not to mention what is sure to be yet another federal "fee"?
As usual with you partisan statists robots, if a politician with the right letter behind his/her name says it you parrot it then demonize anybody that objects, no reasoned analysis, no questioning of the morality, no looking for alternatives ... just repeat, repeat, repeat until it becomes so lodged in your brain that no amount of reason will dislodge it.
I don't which is more pathetic, the fact the your reason and morality have been replaced with propaganda or the fact that you have lost the ability to recognize it in yourself.
"All violence consists in some people forcing others, under threat of suffering or death, to do what they do not want to do." -- Leo Tolstoy, The Law of Love and The Law of Violence
I see. Because you are a fear infested paranoid chicken little, everyone else must be like you.
....and now you want to add the data of LAW ABIDING CITIZENS to it, I mean it's not like we have any precedent for government abusing the information it collects on the citizenry, right? If I choose to buy a firearm I do not want nor should I be required to notify the federal government of that fact. It is YOU that wish to use the federal government as a proxy to do violence to law abiding citizens simply because those law abiding citizens wish to maintain the privacy of the perfectly legal commercial transaction of purchasing a firearm from the federal government."and the federal government does what with "background check" data?"
The FBI maintains the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.
... and your reasoning for expanding this already overly intrusive process is? What problem will doing so resolve and how exactly will it resolve it? Are there no other alternatives?When you buy a gun from a federally licensed dealer, you fill out a form with personally identifying information. The dealer uses the NICS to match that information with various records to make sure youre not, for example, a felon whos not allowed to own a weapon. Its a computerized process thats only supposed to take about 30 seconds, but in the case of an unclear match, can take up to three days.
Let me guess the "reasoning" that led you to your conclusion was that a Democrat proposed it and then in a mad rush to feed your confirmation bias you set about to find justifications for why your mind was made up the moment those words dripping from said Democrats lips, that about cover it?
Do the world a favor, if you want to live in a federal government managed cage go check yourself into a prison and leave the rest of us out of it.
Again with any objection to the STATE is PARANOIA meme, thank you for answering my questions regarding limited authority and individual liberty, obviously you do not understand or wish to even contemplate either of those concepts. It's probably better if you don't attempt to engage in any reasoned analysis on those points since it's quite apparent that your facilities for doing so have atrophied to the point of non-existence, far better if you stick to propaganda parroting, since at least you'll provide an endless stream of comic relief that way.Now you conflate reason and morality with "fear infested paranoid chicken little"? Do you understand what limited authority means? do you understand what individual liberty means? Do you understand that historical precedent cautions the citizenry against the very invasive practices that you are advocating? It isn't incumbent upon the individual to justify his/her exercise of freedom to the government it's incumbent upon government to justify it's encroachment upon the liberty of the individual. Using your logic NO privacy should exist from the federal government since any claim by the individual to such is just "paranoia".I see. Because you are a fear infested paranoid chicken little, everyone else must be like you.
....and now you want to add the data of LAW ABIDING CITIZENS to it, I mean it's not like we have any precedent for government abusing the information it collects on the citizenry, right? If I choose to buy a firearm I do not want nor should I be required to notify the federal government of that fact. It is YOU that wish to use the federal government as a proxy to do violence to law abiding citizens simply because those law abiding citizens wish to maintain the privacy of the perfectly legal commercial transaction of purchasing a firearm from the federal government.
... and your reasoning for expanding this already overly intrusive process is? What problem will doing so resolve and how exactly will it resolve it? Are there no other alternatives?When you buy a gun from a federally licensed dealer, you fill out a form with personally identifying information. The dealer uses the NICS to match that information with various records to make sure youre not, for example, a felon whos not allowed to own a weapon. Its a computerized process thats only supposed to take about 30 seconds, but in the case of an unclear match, can take up to three days.
Let me guess the "reasoning" that led you to your conclusion was that a Democrat proposed it and then in a mad rush to feed your confirmation bias you set about to find justifications for why your mind was made up the moment those words dripping from said Democrats lips, that about cover it?
Do the world a favor, if you want to live in a federal government managed cage go check yourself into a prison and leave the rest of us out of it.
WOW, full blown paranoia unleashed.
According to you we presume EVERYBODY is a felon until they prove otherwise, unfortunately the presumption of guilt mentality that you advocate isn't new, it's been a justification used by tyrants throughout history.Hey pea brain, HOW do we identify law abiding citizens from felons? By looks? Smell??
LOL, Apparently you didn't get the memo that illegally purchasing or manufacturing a firearm is already ILLEGAL, apparently that fact doesn't deter sociopaths from obtaining them anyways.What you retards are saying is fuck it. Let everyone buy a gun under the protection of legitimacy.
Again with any objection to the STATE is PARANOIA meme, thank you for answering my questions regarding limited authority and individual liberty, obviously you do not understand or wish to even contemplate either of those concepts. It's probably better if you don't attempt to engage in any reasoned analysis on those points since it's quite apparent that your facilities for doing so have atrophied to the point of non-existence, far better if you stick to propaganda parroting, since at least you'll provide an endless stream of comic relief that way.Now you conflate reason and morality with "fear infested paranoid chicken little"? Do you understand what limited authority means? do you understand what individual liberty means? Do you understand that historical precedent cautions the citizenry against the very invasive practices that you are advocating? It isn't incumbent upon the individual to justify his/her exercise of freedom to the government it's incumbent upon government to justify it's encroachment upon the liberty of the individual. Using your logic NO privacy should exist from the federal government since any claim by the individual to such is just "paranoia".
....and now you want to add the data of LAW ABIDING CITIZENS to it, I mean it's not like we have any precedent for government abusing the information it collects on the citizenry, right? If I choose to buy a firearm I do not want nor should I be required to notify the federal government of that fact. It is YOU that wish to use the federal government as a proxy to do violence to law abiding citizens simply because those law abiding citizens wish to maintain the privacy of the perfectly legal commercial transaction of purchasing a firearm from the federal government.
... and your reasoning for expanding this already overly intrusive process is? What problem will doing so resolve and how exactly will it resolve it? Are there no other alternatives?
Let me guess the "reasoning" that led you to your conclusion was that a Democrat proposed it and then in a mad rush to feed your confirmation bias you set about to find justifications for why your mind was made up the moment those words dripping from said Democrats lips, that about cover it?
Do the world a favor, if you want to live in a federal government managed cage go check yourself into a prison and leave the rest of us out of it.
WOW, full blown paranoia unleashed.
According to you we presume EVERYBODY is a felon until they prove otherwise, unfortunately the presumption of guilt mentality that you advocate isn't new, it's been a justification used by tyrants throughout history.Hey pea brain, HOW do we identify law abiding citizens from felons? By looks? Smell??
LOL, Apparently you didn't get the memo that illegally purchasing or manufacturing a firearm is already ILLEGAL, apparently that fact doesn't deter sociopaths from obtaining them anyways.What you retards are saying is fuck it. Let everyone buy a gun under the protection of legitimacy.
BTW would you like a napkin to wipe the foam off your lips?
Again with any objection to the STATE is PARANOIA meme, thank you for answering my questions regarding limited authority and individual liberty, obviously you do not understand or wish to even contemplate either of those concepts. It's probably better if you don't attempt to engage in any reasoned analysis on those points since it's quite apparent that your facilities for doing so have atrophied to the point of non-existence, far better if you stick to propaganda parroting, since at least you'll provide an endless stream of comic relief that way.WOW, full blown paranoia unleashed.
According to you we presume EVERYBODY is a felon until they prove otherwise, unfortunately the presumption of guilt mentality that you advocate isn't new, it's been a justification used by tyrants throughout history.
LOL, Apparently you didn't get the memo that illegally purchasing or manufacturing a firearm is already ILLEGAL, apparently that fact doesn't deter sociopaths from obtaining them anyways.What you retards are saying is fuck it. Let everyone buy a gun under the protection of legitimacy.
BTW would you like a napkin to wipe the foam off your lips?
HOW do we identify law abiding citizens from felons when they want to buy a gun? Do we just ASSume they are law abiding citizens until they blow someone's head off?
I expect an answer...
Again with any objection to the STATE is PARANOIA meme, thank you for answering my questions regarding limited authority and individual liberty, obviously you do not understand or wish to even contemplate either of those concepts. It's probably better if you don't attempt to engage in any reasoned analysis on those points since it's quite apparent that your facilities for doing so have atrophied to the point of non-existence, far better if you stick to propaganda parroting, since at least you'll provide an endless stream of comic relief that way.
According to you we presume EVERYBODY is a felon until they prove otherwise, unfortunately the presumption of guilt mentality that you advocate isn't new, it's been a justification used by tyrants throughout history.
LOL, Apparently you didn't get the memo that illegally purchasing or manufacturing a firearm is already ILLEGAL, apparently that fact doesn't deter sociopaths from obtaining them anyways.
BTW would you like a napkin to wipe the foam off your lips?
HOW do we identify law abiding citizens from felons when they want to buy a gun? Do we just ASSume they are law abiding citizens until they blow someone's head off?
I expect an answer...
We already do. Felons get the guns illegally. They wouldn't abide by your universal background checks. There is always a black market for illegal guns. You need only look there to find the felon who want to buy guns.
HOW do we identify law abiding citizens from felons when they want to buy a gun? Do we just ASSume they are law abiding citizens until they blow someone's head off?
I expect an answer...
We already do. Felons get the guns illegally. They wouldn't abide by your universal background checks. There is always a black market for illegal guns. You need only look there to find the felon who want to buy guns.
That is not an answer...
ALL law abiding citizens should DEMAND that the laws protect the law abiding and FORCE ALL criminals and felons to have to resort to the black market to buy a gun. I WANT felons and criminals to have to buy a gun in a totally ILLegal setting, with all the inherent dangers that come with it. BUT, our current laws sanction criminals being able to walk into a gun show, receive expert advice, discounts, then buy whatever weapon(s) they desire without a background check or having to pay black market prices or risk the dangers of buying a weapon from another criminal in a dark alley.
Again with any objection to the STATE is PARANOIA meme, thank you for answering my questions regarding limited authority and individual liberty, obviously you do not understand or wish to even contemplate either of those concepts. It's probably better if you don't attempt to engage in any reasoned analysis on those points since it's quite apparent that your facilities for doing so have atrophied to the point of non-existence, far better if you stick to propaganda parroting, since at least you'll provide an endless stream of comic relief that way.WOW, full blown paranoia unleashed.
According to you we presume EVERYBODY is a felon until they prove otherwise, unfortunately the presumption of guilt mentality that you advocate isn't new, it's been a justification used by tyrants throughout history.
LOL, Apparently you didn't get the memo that illegally purchasing or manufacturing a firearm is already ILLEGAL, apparently that fact doesn't deter sociopaths from obtaining them anyways.What you retards are saying is fuck it. Let everyone buy a gun under the protection of legitimacy.
BTW would you like a napkin to wipe the foam off your lips?
HOW do we identify law abiding citizens from felons when they want to buy a gun? Do we just ASSume they are law abiding citizens until they blow someone's head off?
I expect an answer...
