The Gun Owner Database- Another Way To Skin The Cat

[M14 Shooter]

What';s that? You -cannot- cite the ruling form the USSC that held background checks are constitutional?
Thought not.
Concession accepted.

Why did you remove the rest of my post? You're a dishonest poster.

Nothing here changes the fact you cannot cite a ruling from the USSC that supports your claim.
When you find the testicular fortitude necessary to address post #236, let us know.

Sorry, bud. I pointed you to a conservative source who explains the constitutionality of a background check.

All these words, and none of them address the issue put to you.
Nothing here changes the fact you cannot cite a ruling from the USSC that supports your claim.
When you find the testicular fortitude necessary to address post #236, let us know.

You go girl...

And thus, you agree:
Nothing in any of your posts changes the fact you cannot cite a ruling from the USSC that supports your claim.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Suuure.
Now, explain how and why, if 80-90% of the people -actually- agree with you, you don't you have what you want now
I mean other than that pathetic talking point you tried to regurgitate a moment ago.

Already answered, if you disagree then feel free to supply an opinion.

Already did, which you failed address.
So now we're back to your pending explanation as how and why, if 80-90% of the people -actually- agree with you, you don't you have what you want now.

The only reason it's not up for a vote is because Mitch won't put it up.

You said this before; it was soundly dismissed in a rebuttal you cannot address..
So now we're back to your pending explanation as how and why, if 80-90% of the people -actually- agree with you, you don't you have what you want no

What didn't I address?

Look at you, playing stupid -- and doing a great job at it.
Me: If 80-90% of the people -actually-agree with you, why don't you have what you want now?
You: One guy in the senate
Me: You think that if 80-90% of the people agreed with you, the Republicans in the Senate would not have pressured, if not forced, McConnell to bring it to the floor?
You: <crickets>

Thus: You said this before; it was soundly dismissed in a rebuttal you cannot address..
So now we're back to your pending explanation as how and why, if 80-90% of the people -actually- agree with you, you don't you have what you want now?

 

[HappyJoy]

Why did you remove the rest of my post? You're a dishonest poster.

Nothing here changes the fact you cannot cite a ruling from the USSC that supports your claim.
When you find the testicular fortitude necessary to address post #236, let us know.

Sorry, bud. I pointed you to a conservative source who explains the constitutionality of a background check.

All these words, and none of them address the issue put to you.
Nothing here changes the fact you cannot cite a ruling from the USSC that supports your claim.
When you find the testicular fortitude necessary to address post #236, let us know.

You go girl...

And thus, you agree:
Nothing in any of your posts changes the fact you cannot cite a ruling from the USSC that supports your claim.

Never claimed there was a ruling from the Supreme Court, not sure why you're so up your ass about it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Nothing here changes the fact you cannot cite a ruling from the USSC that supports your claim.
When you find the testicular fortitude necessary to address post #236, let us know.

Sorry, bud. I pointed you to a conservative source who explains the constitutionality of a background check.

All these words, and none of them address the issue put to you.
Nothing here changes the fact you cannot cite a ruling from the USSC that supports your claim.
When you find the testicular fortitude necessary to address post #236, let us know.

You go girl...

And thus, you agree:
Nothing in any of your posts changes the fact you cannot cite a ruling from the USSC that supports your claim.

Never claimed there was a ruling from the Supreme Court....

And so, your statement was just your unsupportable opinion.
Got it.
Thanks.

 

[HappyJoy]

Already answered, if you disagree then feel free to supply an opinion.

Already did, which you failed address.
So now we're back to your pending explanation as how and why, if 80-90% of the people -actually- agree with you, you don't you have what you want now.

The only reason it's not up for a vote is because Mitch won't put it up.

You said this before; it was soundly dismissed in a rebuttal you cannot address..
So now we're back to your pending explanation as how and why, if 80-90% of the people -actually- agree with you, you don't you have what you want no

What didn't I address?

Look at you, playing stupid -- and doing a great job at it.
Me: If 80-90% of the people -actually-agree with you, why don't you have what you want now?
You: One guy in the senate
Me: You think that if 80-90% of the people agreed with you, the Republicans in the Senate would not have pressured, if not forced, McConnell to bring it to the floor?
You: <crickets>

Thus: You said this before; it was soundly dismissed in a rebuttal you cannot address..
So now we're back to your pending explanation as how and why, if 80-90% of the people -actually- agree with you, you don't you have what you want now?

Crickets? McConnell doesn't care what's popular or not. He's not putting most anything up for a vote. I've provided numerous polling questions on the subject and between 80-90% of Americans want background checks for all sales. He's also holding up bills that wold appear would be very popular.

McConnell holding up important bills

In the July 14th Your View, a letter gives Sen. Mitch McConnell praise for speaking up against reparations, a view I share. However, Sen. McConnell is wrong on many issues that should not be overlook. Sen. McConnell has failed to allow a vote on over 100 bills passed by Congress with both Democratic and Republican support. These bills include legislation to help make drugs more affordable and bills to curb excessive pricing of drugs by the pharmaceutical industry.

He also refuses to bring to a vote legislation covering anti-corruption measures and guidelines for protecting are voting system. He has opposed every bill that would help the average working family but has supported all bills favored by special interest groups.

Mitch McConnell has always been a tool for lobbyists.

 

[HappyJoy]

Sorry, bud. I pointed you to a conservative source who explains the constitutionality of a background check.

All these words, and none of them address the issue put to you.
Nothing here changes the fact you cannot cite a ruling from the USSC that supports your claim.
When you find the testicular fortitude necessary to address post #236, let us know.

You go girl...

And thus, you agree:
Nothing in any of your posts changes the fact you cannot cite a ruling from the USSC that supports your claim.

Never claimed there was a ruling from the Supreme Court....

And so, your statement was just your unsupportable opinion.
Got it.
Thanks.

I'm sorry bozo, there is not evidence that gun background checks are unconstitutional. If that's the point you are trying to make you haven't provided any evidence to support your idiotic idea that there are zero restrictions on the 2nd.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Already did, which you failed address.
So now we're back to your pending explanation as how and why, if 80-90% of the people -actually- agree with you, you don't you have what you want now.

The only reason it's not up for a vote is because Mitch won't put it up.

You said this before; it was soundly dismissed in a rebuttal you cannot address..
So now we're back to your pending explanation as how and why, if 80-90% of the people -actually- agree with you, you don't you have what you want no

What didn't I address?

Look at you, playing stupid -- and doing a great job at it.
Me: If 80-90% of the people -actually-agree with you, why don't you have what you want now?
You: One guy in the senate
Me: You think that if 80-90% of the people agreed with you, the Republicans in the Senate would not have pressured, if not forced, McConnell to bring it to the floor?
You: <crickets>

Thus: You said this before; it was soundly dismissed in a rebuttal you cannot address..
So now we're back to your pending explanation as how and why, if 80-90% of the people -actually- agree with you, you don't you have what you want now?

Crickets?

Yep. Just like now.
Still waiting for your explanation as how and why, if 80-90% of the people -actually- agree with you, you don't you have what you want now.

 

[M14 Shooter]

All these words, and none of them address the issue put to you.
Nothing here changes the fact you cannot cite a ruling from the USSC that supports your claim.
When you find the testicular fortitude necessary to address post #236, let us know.

You go girl...

And thus, you agree:
Nothing in any of your posts changes the fact you cannot cite a ruling from the USSC that supports your claim.

Never claimed there was a ruling from the Supreme Court....

And so, your statement was just your unsupportable opinion.
Got it.
Thanks.

I'm sorry bozo, there is not evidence that gun background checks are unconstitutional.

Nothing here changes the fact your claim that background checks are constitution is nothing but unsupportable opinion.

 

[HappyJoy]

The only reason it's not up for a vote is because Mitch won't put it up.

You said this before; it was soundly dismissed in a rebuttal you cannot address..
So now we're back to your pending explanation as how and why, if 80-90% of the people -actually- agree with you, you don't you have what you want no

What didn't I address?

Look at you, playing stupid -- and doing a great job at it.
Me: If 80-90% of the people -actually-agree with you, why don't you have what you want now?
You: One guy in the senate
Me: You think that if 80-90% of the people agreed with you, the Republicans in the Senate would not have pressured, if not forced, McConnell to bring it to the floor?
You: <crickets>

Thus: You said this before; it was soundly dismissed in a rebuttal you cannot address..
So now we're back to your pending explanation as how and why, if 80-90% of the people -actually- agree with you, you don't you have what you want now?

Crickets?

Yep. Just like now.
Still waiting for your explanation as how and why, if 80-90% of the people -actually- agree with you, you don't you have what you want now.

I did answer it. McConnell has held up over 100 bills, this is just one of them. Sorry you don't like it but that's the fact.

 

[HappyJoy]

You go girl...

And thus, you agree:
Nothing in any of your posts changes the fact you cannot cite a ruling from the USSC that supports your claim.

Never claimed there was a ruling from the Supreme Court....

And so, your statement was just your unsupportable opinion.
Got it.
Thanks.

I'm sorry bozo, there is not evidence that gun background checks are unconstitutional.

Nothing here changes the fact your claim that background checks are constitution is nothing but unsupportable opinion.

Sorry, bud. The SC doesn't consider your argument worth a shit.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You said this before; it was soundly dismissed in a rebuttal you cannot address..
So now we're back to your pending explanation as how and why, if 80-90% of the people -actually- agree with you, you don't you have what you want no

What didn't I address?

Look at you, playing stupid -- and doing a great job at it.
Me: If 80-90% of the people -actually-agree with you, why don't you have what you want now?
You: One guy in the senate
Me: You think that if 80-90% of the people agreed with you, the Republicans in the Senate would not have pressured, if not forced, McConnell to bring it to the floor?
You: <crickets>

Thus: You said this before; it was soundly dismissed in a rebuttal you cannot address..
So now we're back to your pending explanation as how and why, if 80-90% of the people -actually- agree with you, you don't you have what you want now?

Crickets?

Yep. Just like now.
Still waiting for your explanation as how and why, if 80-90% of the people -actually- agree with you, you don't you have what you want now.

I did answer it.

And, as demonstrated, your answer holds no water.
Sorry you don't like it, but it is a fact.
So, we're still waiting for your explanation as how and why, if 80-90% of the people -actually- agree with you, you don't you have what you want now

 

[M14 Shooter]

And thus, you agree:
Nothing in any of your posts changes the fact you cannot cite a ruling from the USSC that supports your claim.

Never claimed there was a ruling from the Supreme Court....

And so, your statement was just your unsupportable opinion.
Got it.
Thanks.

I'm sorry bozo, there is not evidence that gun background checks are unconstitutional.

Nothing here changes the fact your claim that background checks are constitution is nothing but unsupportable opinion.

Sorry, bud. The SC doesn't consider your argument worth a shit.

Nothing here changes the fact your claim that background checks are constitutional is nothing but unsupportable opinion.

 

[HappyJoy]

What didn't I address?

Look at you, playing stupid -- and doing a great job at it.
Me: If 80-90% of the people -actually-agree with you, why don't you have what you want now?
You: One guy in the senate
Me: You think that if 80-90% of the people agreed with you, the Republicans in the Senate would not have pressured, if not forced, McConnell to bring it to the floor?
You: <crickets>

Thus: You said this before; it was soundly dismissed in a rebuttal you cannot address..
So now we're back to your pending explanation as how and why, if 80-90% of the people -actually- agree with you, you don't you have what you want now?

Crickets?

Yep. Just like now.
Still waiting for your explanation as how and why, if 80-90% of the people -actually- agree with you, you don't you have what you want now.

I did answer it.

And, as demonstrated, your answer holds no water.
Sorry you don't like it, but it is a fact.
So, we're still waiting for your explanation as how and why, if 80-90% of the people -actually- agree with you, you don't you have what you want now

McConnell isn't a popular guy, he's OK with that. Fact remains, bill is in the senate, all evidence points to background checks being popular. I'm sorry you can't get your head around it but maybe use sources to disprove it, I've provided more than enough.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Look at you, playing stupid -- and doing a great job at it.
Me: If 80-90% of the people -actually-agree with you, why don't you have what you want now?
You: One guy in the senate
Me: You think that if 80-90% of the people agreed with you, the Republicans in the Senate would not have pressured, if not forced, McConnell to bring it to the floor?
You: <crickets>

Thus: You said this before; it was soundly dismissed in a rebuttal you cannot address..
So now we're back to your pending explanation as how and why, if 80-90% of the people -actually- agree with you, you don't you have what you want now?

Crickets?

Yep. Just like now.
Still waiting for your explanation as how and why, if 80-90% of the people -actually- agree with you, you don't you have what you want now.

I did answer it.

And, as demonstrated, your answer holds no water.
Sorry you don't like it, but it is a fact.
So, we're still waiting for your explanation as how and why, if 80-90% of the people -actually- agree with you, you don't you have what you want now

McConnell isn't a popular guy...

Thank you for further demonstrating you cannot explain how and why, if 80-90% of the people -actually- agree with you, you don't you have what you want now.

 

[HappyJoy]

Never claimed there was a ruling from the Supreme Court....

And so, your statement was just your unsupportable opinion.
Got it.
Thanks.

I'm sorry bozo, there is not evidence that gun background checks are unconstitutional.

Nothing here changes the fact your claim that background checks are constitution is nothing but unsupportable opinion.

Sorry, bud. The SC doesn't consider your argument worth a shit.

Nothing here changes the fact your claim that background checks are constitutional is nothing but unsupportable opinion.

When the lower courts decide that background checks are constitutional, then it's constitutional until a higher court such as the USSC overturns it. They, haven't therefore background checks are constitutional.

 

[HappyJoy]

Crickets?

Yep. Just like now.
Still waiting for your explanation as how and why, if 80-90% of the people -actually- agree with you, you don't you have what you want now.

I did answer it.

And, as demonstrated, your answer holds no water.
Sorry you don't like it, but it is a fact.
So, we're still waiting for your explanation as how and why, if 80-90% of the people -actually- agree with you, you don't you have what you want now

McConnell isn't a popular guy...

Thank you for further demonstrating you cannot explain how and why, if 80-90% of the people -actually- agree with you, you don't you have what you want now.

I don't need to. I've provided evidence for popular support of Universal background checks and I've provided a link to a law the house passed. That you can't read is not my problem.

 

[M14 Shooter]

And so, your statement was just your unsupportable opinion.
Got it.
Thanks.

I'm sorry bozo, there is not evidence that gun background checks are unconstitutional.

Nothing here changes the fact your claim that background checks are constitution is nothing but unsupportable opinion.

Sorry, bud. The SC doesn't consider your argument worth a shit.

Nothing here changes the fact your claim that background checks are constitutional is nothing but unsupportable opinion.

When the lower courts decide that background checks are constitutional, then it's constitutional until a higher court such as the USSC overturns it. They, haven't therefore background checks are constitutional.

Ah. Not only is your claim nothing but unsupportable opinion, you do not understand how the US court system works.
Good to see you have no issue putting your ignorance on display for everyone to see.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Yep. Just like now.
Still waiting for your explanation as how and why, if 80-90% of the people -actually- agree with you, you don't you have what you want now.

I did answer it.

And, as demonstrated, your answer holds no water.
Sorry you don't like it, but it is a fact.
So, we're still waiting for your explanation as how and why, if 80-90% of the people -actually- agree with you, you don't you have what you want now

McConnell isn't a popular guy...

Thank you for further demonstrating you cannot explain how and why, if 80-90% of the people -actually- agree with you, you don't you have what you want now.

I don't need to

You do, if you want your claim to hold up to even the tiniest of scrutinizes by a reasoned, thinking person.
Still waiting for your explanation as how and why, if 80-90% of the people -actually- agree with you, you don't you have what you want now

 

[HappyJoy]

I'm sorry bozo, there is not evidence that gun background checks are unconstitutional.

Nothing here changes the fact your claim that background checks are constitution is nothing but unsupportable opinion.

Sorry, bud. The SC doesn't consider your argument worth a shit.

Nothing here changes the fact your claim that background checks are constitutional is nothing but unsupportable opinion.

When the lower courts decide that background checks are constitutional, then it's constitutional until a higher court such as the USSC overturns it. They, haven't therefore background checks are constitutional.

Ah. Not only is your claim nothing but unsupportable opinion, you do not understand how the US court system works.
Good to see you have no issue putting your ignorance on display for everyone to see.

Yes, I do.

 

[HappyJoy]

I did answer it.

And, as demonstrated, your answer holds no water.
Sorry you don't like it, but it is a fact.
So, we're still waiting for your explanation as how and why, if 80-90% of the people -actually- agree with you, you don't you have what you want now

McConnell isn't a popular guy...

Thank you for further demonstrating you cannot explain how and why, if 80-90% of the people -actually- agree with you, you don't you have what you want now.

I don't need to

You do, if you want your claim to hold up to even the tiniest of scrutinizes by a reasoned, thinking person.
Still waiting for your explanation as how and why, if 80-90% of the people -actually- agree with you, you don't you have what you want now

If you want to find something to debunk my sources that's fine, until you do so you don't appear to be a reasoned person if you can't even supply anything to back up your argument.

Show us how background checks aren't popular and then also demonstrate that McConnell isn't holding up a UBC bill. Anything short of that is a fail on you.