Yes Guns Kill People - Thats ALL they do

[TyroneSlothrop]

Google what, I still don't know what you were trying to say.

LOL naturally

 

[Pop23]

Fact: none of the victims were armed. If they were they would have stood a chance

we need to get gun shows to stop being liberal pussies and allow fully loaded heavily armed attendees to strut their stuff...what the fuck are these liberal pussies afraid of...waaaaaaa haaaaaaaaaaa

Link the mass shootings at gun shows idiot.

 

[Skull Pilot]

No one ever proposes full bans...

ooooooh!! what about this:

Supreme Court Rejects Challenge to Assault Weapon Ban

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com Supreme Court Rejects Challenge to Assault Weapon Ban

That isn't a full ban.

It's a ban on one certain type of gun.

People can have as many non assault weapons they want.

Stop lying.

If you have to lie how valid is your point and why should anyone believe one word from you?

You do know that a so called assault rifle is nothing but a plain old semiautomatic with some doodads on it don't you?

Butt, butt, butt, they look sooooooooo scary.

Maybe it's because they're black

 

[Skull Pilot]

No one ever proposes full bans...

ooooooh!! what about this:

Supreme Court Rejects Challenge to Assault Weapon Ban

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com Supreme Court Rejects Challenge to Assault Weapon Ban

That isn't a full ban.

It's a ban on one certain type of gun.

People can have as many non assault weapons they want.

Stop lying.

If you have to lie how valid is your point and why should anyone believe one word from you?

You do know that a so called assault rifle is nothing but a plain old semiautomatic with some doodads on it don't you?

Now you're changing the subject.

You said there was a full ban on guns and used a small city in one state as an example of your claim.

I pointed out that it's not a full ban. Just on assault weapons.

I will further point out that one small city in one state isn't full ban on anything. All it is, is a ban on a certain type of weapon in a certain area of the nation.

Now you back peddle and start talking about differences between guns.

You're a liar. You posted lies. I called you on it and proved you're a liar.

Like I said, if you have to lie how valid is your point and why should anyone believe one word from you?

I never said there was a full ban on guns anywhere

I am merely trying to remove your ignorance regarding guns

Here pictures might help you

This "assault rifle"

Is absolutely no different in caliber, rate of fire or accuracy than this ranch rifle

The only difference is cosmetic

 

[RDD_1210]

No just guns. The guns don't know that they're illegal. That's why we need to restrict who can get their hands on them and make accountability and tracing guns much stricter.

Ok so how do you do that?

I've already outlined the CC requirements in my state so tell me what more would you add to that already sizable set of hoops one must jump through

Every owner must be licensed and insured. And re-licensed every 2 years. Every single gun must be registered and accounted for every single year by the owner. If a gun is sold, even between private parties that transaction must be filed so that the gun can be traced to it's new owner. If a gun is stolen it must be reported immediately. If a crime is a committed with a gun, the person gets 25 years minimum, no matter the crime. If a person is found to be in possession of an unregistered gun, 25 year minimum jail sentence. If someone is convicted of a felony or violent crime they may never be allowed to own a firearm.If someone has a gun stolen from them or they lose a gun of theirs, they will not be able to purchase any additional guns until that lost/stolen gun is recovered. You may not be allowed to possess a gun if you can't get insured for possession of a gun. Meet all of those criteria and you can own anything and as many of the guns as you want.

Why do you hate poor people, don't they have a right to defend themselves just like rich people? You proposals would place a disproportionate burden on the poor. Here I thought you regressives were all about protecting poor people.

Is it "hating on poor people" to tell them they need insurance in order to own a car?

Solid argument otherwise though, truly.

Any fee intended to deny a right is unConstitutional……a tax on voting, the Poll Tax created by democrats to keep blacks from voting is the example…..and requiring a fee, in the form of insurance to exercise a right is unConstitutional….

So maybe we change that then.

 

[Dana7360]

No one ever proposes full bans...

ooooooh!! what about this:

Supreme Court Rejects Challenge to Assault Weapon Ban

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com Supreme Court Rejects Challenge to Assault Weapon Ban

That isn't a full ban.

It's a ban on one certain type of gun.

People can have as many non assault weapons they want.

Stop lying.

If you have to lie how valid is your point and why should anyone believe one word from you?

You do know that a so called assault rifle is nothing but a plain old semiautomatic with some doodads on it don't you?

Now you're changing the subject.

You said there was a full ban on guns and used a small city in one state as an example of your claim.

I pointed out that it's not a full ban. Just on assault weapons.

I will further point out that one small city in one state isn't full ban on anything. All it is, is a ban on a certain type of weapon in a certain area of the nation.

Now you back peddle and start talking about differences between guns.

You're a liar. You posted lies. I called you on it and proved you're a liar.

Like I said, if you have to lie how valid is your point and why should anyone believe one word from you?

I never said there was a full ban on guns anywhere

I am merely trying to remove your ignorance regarding guns

Here pictures might help you

This "assault rifle"

Is absolutely no different in caliber, rate of fire or accuracy than this ranch rifle

The only difference is cosmetic

One poster said no one is proposing a full ban on weapons.

Your reply was to post the article about a certain weapon in one certain city in America as a full ban on weapons.

I pointed out that's not a full ban.

If you didn't think that it was a full ban why did you use it as an example as a full ban?

And if the guns are the same then what's your problem? Why would you care that a certain gun was banned if that gun is still available in a legal form?

If those two weapons are the same you shouldn't have any problem with the ban.

But you're changing the subject. You used a ban on one certain weapon in one city in America as an example of a full ban. I proved you're a liar and now you claim you didn't say what you said and are trying to change the subject. Which by the way is against USMB rules.

If you want to discuss differences between weapons start a new thread. This one isn't about that.

 

[RDD_1210]

ooooooh!! what about this:

Supreme Court Rejects Challenge to Assault Weapon Ban

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com Supreme Court Rejects Challenge to Assault Weapon Ban

That isn't a full ban.

It's a ban on one certain type of gun.

People can have as many non assault weapons they want.

Stop lying.

If you have to lie how valid is your point and why should anyone believe one word from you?

You do know that a so called assault rifle is nothing but a plain old semiautomatic with some doodads on it don't you?

Now you're changing the subject.

You said there was a full ban on guns and used a small city in one state as an example of your claim.

I pointed out that it's not a full ban. Just on assault weapons.

I will further point out that one small city in one state isn't full ban on anything. All it is, is a ban on a certain type of weapon in a certain area of the nation.

Now you back peddle and start talking about differences between guns.

You're a liar. You posted lies. I called you on it and proved you're a liar.

Like I said, if you have to lie how valid is your point and why should anyone believe one word from you?

I never said there was a full ban on guns anywhere

I am merely trying to remove your ignorance regarding guns

Here pictures might help you

This "assault rifle"

Is absolutely no different in caliber, rate of fire or accuracy than this ranch rifle

The only difference is cosmetic

One poster said no one is proposing a full ban on weapons.

Your reply was to post the article about a certain weapon in one certain city in America as a full ban on weapons.

I pointed out that's not a full ban.

If you didn't think that it was a full ban why did you use it as an example as a full ban?

And if the guns are the same then what's your problem? Why would you care that a certain gun was banned if that gun is still available in a legal form?

If those two weapons are the same you shouldn't have any problem with the ban.

But you're changing the subject. You used a ban on one certain weapon in one city in America as an example of a full ban. I proved you're a liar and now you claim you didn't say what you said and are trying to change the subject. Which by the way is against USMB rules.

If you want to discuss differences between weapons start a new thread. This one isn't about that.

Are you expecting a rational discussion from a bunch of people who refuse to use logic in pretty much their entire lives?

These people are for laughing at and mocking only...and for feeling better about yourself, because at least you're not them.

 

[regent]

Who are they killing if shot in the sky? God?

Many casualties are caused by dropping bullets.

 

[Dana7360]

That isn't a full ban.

It's a ban on one certain type of gun.

People can have as many non assault weapons they want.

Stop lying.

If you have to lie how valid is your point and why should anyone believe one word from you?

You do know that a so called assault rifle is nothing but a plain old semiautomatic with some doodads on it don't you?

Now you're changing the subject.

You said there was a full ban on guns and used a small city in one state as an example of your claim.

I pointed out that it's not a full ban. Just on assault weapons.

I will further point out that one small city in one state isn't full ban on anything. All it is, is a ban on a certain type of weapon in a certain area of the nation.

Now you back peddle and start talking about differences between guns.

You're a liar. You posted lies. I called you on it and proved you're a liar.

Like I said, if you have to lie how valid is your point and why should anyone believe one word from you?

I never said there was a full ban on guns anywhere

I am merely trying to remove your ignorance regarding guns

Here pictures might help you

This "assault rifle"

Is absolutely no different in caliber, rate of fire or accuracy than this ranch rifle

The only difference is cosmetic

One poster said no one is proposing a full ban on weapons.

Your reply was to post the article about a certain weapon in one certain city in America as a full ban on weapons.

I pointed out that's not a full ban.

If you didn't think that it was a full ban why did you use it as an example as a full ban?

And if the guns are the same then what's your problem? Why would you care that a certain gun was banned if that gun is still available in a legal form?

If those two weapons are the same you shouldn't have any problem with the ban.

But you're changing the subject. You used a ban on one certain weapon in one city in America as an example of a full ban. I proved you're a liar and now you claim you didn't say what you said and are trying to change the subject. Which by the way is against USMB rules.

If you want to discuss differences between weapons start a new thread. This one isn't about that.

Are you expecting a rational discussion from a bunch of people who refuse to use logic in pretty much their entire lives?

These people are for laughing at and mocking only...and for feeling better about yourself, because at least you're not them.

That's exactly what I've been doing.

I've been showing just how downright stupid and ridiculous these people are.

I'm stuck in bed recovering from surgery & they say laughter is the best medicine.

It's fun to point out just how stupid and ridiculous these people are and they make so easy to point out that out.

I hope I've been able to give you some chuckles too.

Everyone with a working brain would be having fun laughing at those right wing crazy people.

 

[kaz]

gun control advocates can pound sand up their ass.

and the dead people and their families at the next massacre can "pound sand too" up their ass ...mass killings are our tradition and we intend to keep them...

Fact: none of the victims were armed. If they were they would have stood a chance

Ok so how do you do that?

I've already outlined the CC requirements in my state so tell me what more would you add to that already sizable set of hoops one must jump through

Every owner must be licensed and insured. And re-licensed every 2 years. Every single gun must be registered and accounted for every single year by the owner. If a gun is sold, even between private parties that transaction must be filed so that the gun can be traced to it's new owner. If a gun is stolen it must be reported immediately. If a crime is a committed with a gun, the person gets 25 years minimum, no matter the crime. If a person is found to be in possession of an unregistered gun, 25 year minimum jail sentence. If someone is convicted of a felony or violent crime they may never be allowed to own a firearm.If someone has a gun stolen from them or they lose a gun of theirs, they will not be able to purchase any additional guns until that lost/stolen gun is recovered. You may not be allowed to possess a gun if you can't get insured for possession of a gun. Meet all of those criteria and you can own anything and as many of the guns as you want.

Why do you hate poor people, don't they have a right to defend themselves just like rich people? You proposals would place a disproportionate burden on the poor. Here I thought you regressives were all about protecting poor people.

Is it "hating on poor people" to tell them they need insurance in order to own a car?

Solid argument otherwise though, truly.

Can we require people to get insurance to get freedom of speech too? What about poor people? Why should they be denied Constitutional rights because they are poor?

"Well regulated..." It's not a free for all.

So in the bill of rights, the Founding Fathers, according to you, said that we have the freedom from government to 'bear arms,' and the government, in our freedom from governments, gets to tell us what right to bear arms we have.

Seriously, you believe that's what they meant...

 

[mikegriffith1]

gun control advocates can pound sand up their ass.

and the dead people and their families at the next massacre can "pound sand too" up their ass ...mass killings are our tradition and we intend to keep them...

Your just mad the 2nd amendment protects us from tyranny.

you are just mad ...no not angry just crazy ass and proud of it... we love having mass killings routinely...,its worth it so numb nuts can strut around intimidating people with guns

Your argument is simply irrational. France already has very strict gun laws and has been governed by politicians who have been liberal or very liberal by American standards. Yet, France just suffered two horrible jihadist terrorist attacks with automatic weapons. Why do you keep pretending that there's any evidence that French-style gun laws would work here anymore than they have worked in France in terms of preventing jihadist terrorist attacks?

And you might wanna do a little research on the liberal claims about "mass shootings."

the terrorist incident in France was carried out by a Syrian war ISIS guerrilla veteran with weapons likely smuggled from Brussels...the shooting incidents here are primarily people with grudges and or mental health problems who have easy access to weapons.

Uh, I thought we were talking about how to prevent more terrorist attacks. The shooting incidents involving lone nutters is a totally separate and different issue.

And who is it who opposes taking steps to put mentally ill people into secured care so they don't threaten others? When Republicans talked about this after the Sandy Hook shooting, Democrats cried that this would "stigmatize" the mentally ill and would be "inhumane" and "illegal."

 

[Pop23]

Who are they killing if shot in the sky? God?

Many casualties are caused by dropping bullets.

Many?

Links

 

[Pop23]

Ok so how do you do that?

I've already outlined the CC requirements in my state so tell me what more would you add to that already sizable set of hoops one must jump through

Every owner must be licensed and insured. And re-licensed every 2 years. Every single gun must be registered and accounted for every single year by the owner. If a gun is sold, even between private parties that transaction must be filed so that the gun can be traced to it's new owner. If a gun is stolen it must be reported immediately. If a crime is a committed with a gun, the person gets 25 years minimum, no matter the crime. If a person is found to be in possession of an unregistered gun, 25 year minimum jail sentence. If someone is convicted of a felony or violent crime they may never be allowed to own a firearm.If someone has a gun stolen from them or they lose a gun of theirs, they will not be able to purchase any additional guns until that lost/stolen gun is recovered. You may not be allowed to possess a gun if you can't get insured for possession of a gun. Meet all of those criteria and you can own anything and as many of the guns as you want.

Why do you hate poor people, don't they have a right to defend themselves just like rich people? You proposals would place a disproportionate burden on the poor. Here I thought you regressives were all about protecting poor people.

Is it "hating on poor people" to tell them they need insurance in order to own a car?

Solid argument otherwise though, truly.

Any fee intended to deny a right is unConstitutional……a tax on voting, the Poll Tax created by democrats to keep blacks from voting is the example…..and requiring a fee, in the form of insurance to exercise a right is unConstitutional….

So maybe we change that then.

OMG, what an airhead.

 

[Skull Pilot]

ooooooh!! what about this:

Supreme Court Rejects Challenge to Assault Weapon Ban

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com Supreme Court Rejects Challenge to Assault Weapon Ban

That isn't a full ban.

It's a ban on one certain type of gun.

People can have as many non assault weapons they want.

Stop lying.

If you have to lie how valid is your point and why should anyone believe one word from you?

You do know that a so called assault rifle is nothing but a plain old semiautomatic with some doodads on it don't you?

Now you're changing the subject.

You said there was a full ban on guns and used a small city in one state as an example of your claim.

I pointed out that it's not a full ban. Just on assault weapons.

I will further point out that one small city in one state isn't full ban on anything. All it is, is a ban on a certain type of weapon in a certain area of the nation.

Now you back peddle and start talking about differences between guns.

You're a liar. You posted lies. I called you on it and proved you're a liar.

Like I said, if you have to lie how valid is your point and why should anyone believe one word from you?

I never said there was a full ban on guns anywhere

I am merely trying to remove your ignorance regarding guns

Here pictures might help you

This "assault rifle"

Is absolutely no different in caliber, rate of fire or accuracy than this ranch rifle

The only difference is cosmetic

One poster said no one is proposing a full ban on weapons.

Your reply was to post the article about a certain weapon in one certain city in America as a full ban on weapons.

I pointed out that's not a full ban.

If you didn't think that it was a full ban why did you use it as an example as a full ban?

And if the guns are the same then what's your problem? Why would you care that a certain gun was banned if that gun is still available in a legal form?

If those two weapons are the same you shouldn't have any problem with the ban.

But you're changing the subject. You used a ban on one certain weapon in one city in America as an example of a full ban. I proved you're a liar and now you claim you didn't say what you said and are trying to change the subject. Which by the way is against USMB rules.

If you want to discuss differences between weapons start a new thread. This one isn't about that.

You said you cn own as many "non assault" rifles as you want just not "assault rifles"

Did you not?

You obviously didn't seem to understand the fact that a so called assault rifle in no different than any other semiautomatic rifle of the same caliber other than cosmetically

I am trying to inform of a fact so you sound like less of a fucking idiot

You;re welcome

 

[RDD_1210]

Every owner must be licensed and insured. And re-licensed every 2 years. Every single gun must be registered and accounted for every single year by the owner. If a gun is sold, even between private parties that transaction must be filed so that the gun can be traced to it's new owner. If a gun is stolen it must be reported immediately. If a crime is a committed with a gun, the person gets 25 years minimum, no matter the crime. If a person is found to be in possession of an unregistered gun, 25 year minimum jail sentence. If someone is convicted of a felony or violent crime they may never be allowed to own a firearm.If someone has a gun stolen from them or they lose a gun of theirs, they will not be able to purchase any additional guns until that lost/stolen gun is recovered. You may not be allowed to possess a gun if you can't get insured for possession of a gun. Meet all of those criteria and you can own anything and as many of the guns as you want.

Why do you hate poor people, don't they have a right to defend themselves just like rich people? You proposals would place a disproportionate burden on the poor. Here I thought you regressives were all about protecting poor people.

Is it "hating on poor people" to tell them they need insurance in order to own a car?

Solid argument otherwise though, truly.

Any fee intended to deny a right is unConstitutional……a tax on voting, the Poll Tax created by democrats to keep blacks from voting is the example…..and requiring a fee, in the form of insurance to exercise a right is unConstitutional….

So maybe we change that then.

OMG, what an airhead.

Your ancestors probably said the same thing when they wanted to free the slaves or allow women the right to vote.

 

[Pop23]

Why do you hate poor people, don't they have a right to defend themselves just like rich people? You proposals would place a disproportionate burden on the poor. Here I thought you regressives were all about protecting poor people.

Is it "hating on poor people" to tell them they need insurance in order to own a car?

Solid argument otherwise though, truly.

Any fee intended to deny a right is unConstitutional……a tax on voting, the Poll Tax created by democrats to keep blacks from voting is the example…..and requiring a fee, in the form of insurance to exercise a right is unConstitutional….

So maybe we change that then.

OMG, what an airhead.

Your ancestors probably said the same thing when they wanted to free the slaves or allow women the right to vote.

Did they?

They were all for rights. Not for limiting them like you scum bags are.

 

[Iceweasel]

And if the guns are the same then what's your problem? Why would you care that a certain gun was banned if that gun is still available in a legal form?

You are missing the point. The point is that we don't let assholes like you decide what we need or don't need. We do that. You make your choice and people are free to make theirs. You have no idea what we may need, especially if leftists get their way and tyranny rises up. The founders wanted the government held accountable to the people, not the other way around!

 

[Iceweasel]

I've been showing just how downright stupid and ridiculous these people are.

I'm stuck in bed recovering from surgery & they say laughter is the best medicine.

It's fun to point out just how stupid and ridiculous these people are and they make so easy to point out that out.

I hope I've been able to give you some chuckles too.

Everyone with a working brain would be having fun laughing at those right wing crazy people.

Sounds like you are on some serious pain killers. Simmer down, you'll be back home making love to your bong in no time.

 

[eagle1462010]

 

[eagle1462010]

Hers they are........laying out the strategies to lie to us...........we really don't want to ban guns............It's all part of the step by step plan to ban guns here................

Dear Gun Control Democrats: 6 Ways to Make a Better Argument

To those using the strategy from the left.........We are not gonna ban guns...........It's a danged Lie and you know it...........Your strategy is the strategy of a thousand paper cuts...........bleed gun owners a little at a time until YOU GET YOUR WAY.....................

Says a lot about the morality of Looney Leftists.