He stood his ground?!! (Not?!!)

[Socrtease]

See that's the thing. I suggest some sort of written/firing test without even getting into specifics and already your red flags are going off.

We haven't even discussed what "sort" of written/firing test might be administered and you've already dismissed it because it doesn't "do a whole lot".

But you see, you've already made it clear that you are already against any sort of regulation that does "do whole a lot".

So I am done coming up with what I feel are reasonable suggestions only to be told everything I might suggest is going too far...you tell me...what is your grand plan for keeping your nieces safe, short of arming every single person in the country?

Owning a gun is a right, not a privilege. We test drivers because driving is a privilege. We don't allow tests to exercise Constitutionally protected rights. The founders of the constitution wrote the second amendment in such a way that it says the right to own a gun existed PRIOR to the writing of the Constitution. Would you be in favor of a written test for voters? We did that once and it failed. Would you be in favor of some sort of written test before you could exercise first amendment rights?

 

[MAGA MAN]

I paraphrased.

Show me where.

 

[cawacko]

Owning a gun is a right, not a privilege. We test drivers because driving is a privilege. We don't allow tests to exercise Constitutionally protected rights. The founders of the constitution wrote the second amendment in such a way that it says the right to own a gun existed PRIOR to the writing of the Constitution. Would you be in favor of a written test for voters? We did that once and it failed. Would you be in favor of some sort of written test before you could exercise first amendment rights?

This was well stated Soc, thank you.

 

[Truth Detector]

Owning a gun is a right, not a privilege. We test drivers because driving is a privilege. We don't allow tests to exercise Constitutionally protected rights. The founders of the constitution wrote the second amendment in such a way that it says the right to own a gun existed PRIOR to the writing of the Constitution. Would you be in favor of a written test for voters? We did that once and it failed. Would you be in favor of some sort of written test before you could exercise first amendment rights?

BINGO!!!

Although based on posters here; an intelligence test to vote would make sense.

 

[zappasguitar]

Owning a gun is a right, not a privilege. We test drivers because driving is a privilege. We don't allow tests to exercise Constitutionally protected rights. The founders of the constitution wrote the second amendment in such a way that it says the right to own a gun existed PRIOR to the writing of the Constitution. Would you be in favor of a written test for voters? We did that once and it failed. Would you be in favor of some sort of written test before you could exercise first amendment rights?

And so once again we find that, despite all their flowery language about how horrible it is that innocent children are killed by nuts with guns and how ready they are to discuss compromise, that any sort of regulation, no matter how innocuous is just going to be unacceptable to gun lovers.

 

[zappasguitar]

This was well stated Soc, thank you.

Still waiting for you to get off the sidelines and give us your thoughts on how we might possibly stop the slaughter of innocent children by lunatics with guns.

 

[cawacko]

Still waiting for you to get off the sidelines and give us your thoughts on how we might possibly stop the slaughter of innocent children by lunatics with guns.

Zap, there is no legislation that is going to make children 100% free from the possibility of gun violence. Even banning guns in this country wouldn't prevent guns from being here. Considering the number of guns we have in this country shootings like the one that happened at Newton are rare which is a good thing. I like that we have laws that don't allow guns to be sold to those who are shown to be mentally ill. That is good legislation imo. Again, I'm not a gun guy so I don't know all the in's and out's but there is no legislation that jumps out at me that is going to prevent the periodic random (and tragic) event such as Newtown. Not in a free society.

I guess we could create a TSA like airport/government building environment at every school where everyone coming into the school area is searched. Not sure how many people would go for that.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

Still waiting for you to get off the sidelines and give us your thoughts on how we might possibly stop the slaughter of innocent children by lunatics with guns.

Execute liberals

 

[canceled.2021.1]

Zap, there is no legislation that is going to make children 100% free from the possibility of gun violence. Even banning guns in this country wouldn't prevent guns from being here. Considering the number of guns we have in this country shootings like the one that happened at Newton are rare which is a good thing. I like that we have laws that don't allow guns to be sold to those who are shown to be mentally ill. That is good legislation imo. Again, I'm not a gun guy so I don't know all the in's and out's but there is no legislation that jumps out at me that is going to prevent the periodic random (and tragic) event such as Newtown. Not in a free society.

I guess we could create a TSA like airport/government building environment at every school where everyone coming into the school area is searched. Not sure how many people would go for that.

Of course they would go for it. They will accept all sorts of infringements on their freedom. Just don't interfere with Justin Bieber.

If you disagree you will just be told you hate children.

 

[Truth Detector]

And so once again we find that, despite all their flowery language about how horrible it is that innocent children are killed by nuts with guns and how ready they are to discuss compromise, that any sort of regulation, no matter how innocuous is just going to be unacceptable to gun lovers.

Amusing; dunces still think "regulations" will prevent crime. So tell me, what criminals follow "regulations?"

 

[zappasguitar]

Zap, there is no legislation that is going to make children 100% free from the possibility of gun violence. Even banning guns in this country wouldn't prevent guns from being here. Considering the number of guns we have in this country shootings like the one that happened at Newton are rare which is a good thing. I like that we have laws that don't allow guns to be sold to those who are shown to be mentally ill. That is good legislation imo. Again, I'm not a gun guy so I don't know all the in's and out's but there is no legislation that jumps out at me that is going to prevent the periodic random (and tragic) event such as Newtown. Not in a free society.

I guess we could create a TSA like airport/government building environment at every school where everyone coming into the school area is searched. Not sure how many people would go for that.

Well let's take that rationale to it's extreme...since there's no law we can enact that will make people 100% safe from murder why bother having laws trying to prevent it at all?

There's no law that will make children 100% safe from pedophiles so let's do away with all those laws too.

 

[cawacko]

Well let's take that rationale to it's extreme...since there's no law we can enact that will make people 100% safe from murder why bother having laws trying to prevent it at all?

There's no law that will make children 100% safe from pedophiles so let's do away with all those laws too.

No, I didn't suggest that at all. I clearly stated there are laws that I support. You are making a false comparison.

 

[zappasguitar]

No, I didn't suggest that at all. I clearly stated there are laws that I support. You are making a false comparison.

You sure?

Zap, there is no legislation that is going to make children 100% free from the possibility of gun violence.

I don't know...that's how I read the above.

 

[Canceled.2014.2]

Execute liberals

Could you possibly be any more batshit stupid?

 

[zappasguitar]

Could you possibly be any more batshit stupid?

now now now...

Toxic Trolls like ILA MUST be allowed to spew their toxic filth anywhere they like, stupidity be damned.

It's the good and decent posters who must be CENSORED.

 

[Truth Detector]

Well let's take that rationale to it's extreme...since there's no law we can enact that will make people 100% safe from murder why bother having laws trying to prevent it at all?

Dear shit-for-brains; it is not about being safe from murder. It is the moronic argument claiming that more gun laws will prevent gun crimes.

Because you bring a special brand of stupid and retarded to the forum, we have to continuously ensure that you stay on topic and not wander off with your typically stupid strawman claims.

Now please tell us how more gun laws will stop criminals from violating the laws. DUNCE.

There's no law that will make children 100% safe from pedophiles so let's do away with all those laws too.

This is merely the same special brand of stupidity uttered above only a different strawman. See above dunce.

You really are THAT stupid.

 

[zappasguitar]

Dear shit-for-brains; it is not about being safe from murder. It is the moronic argument claiming that more gun laws will prevent gun crimes.

Because you bring a special brand of stupid and retarded to the forum, we have to continuously ensure that you stay on topic and not wander off with your typically stupid strawman claims.

Now please tell us how more gun laws will stop criminals from violating the laws. DUNCE.



This is merely the same special brand of stupidity uttered above only a different strawman. See above dunce.

You really are THAT stupid.

Well gee, I am truly sorry.

You see, I'd answer your questions, but they seem to be buried in a mountainous pile of invective and derision.

Sadly, they are buried so deep, it's impossible to discern precisely WHAT your question was.

Tell ya what...try again, only this time see if it's possible for you to construct complete a sentence without using any invective for once.

 

[Truth Detector]

Well gee, I am truly sorry.

You see, I'd answer your questions, but they seem to be buried in a mountainous pile of invective and derision.

Sadly, they are buried so deep, it's impossible to discern precisely WHAT your question was.

Tell ya what...try again, only this time see if it's possible for you to construct complete a sentence without using any invective for once.

Interpretation; you caught me being a dishonest asshole again and now I will ignore you.

I don’t use invective on you, you pathetic dunce; it is an accurate description of the repugnant dishonest stupidity you spam this forum with.

Now go whine like a little vagina bitch to your brain dead leftists pals; and don’t forget to groan me! LMAO

Dunce.

 

[zappasguitar]

Interpretation; you caught me being a dishonest asshole again and now I will ignore you.

I don’t use invective on you, you pathetic dunce; it is an accurate description of the repugnant dishonest stupidity you spam this forum with.

Now go whine like a little vagina bitch to your brain dead leftists pals; and don’t forget to groan me! LMAO

Dunce.

That's what I thought...

For days now people have attempted to engage you in debate.

Sadly, your inability to compose even the simplest of sentences that isn't overflowing with invective, renders any attempt at rational discourse with you impossible.

Demonstrate to everyone once again how you prove the truth behind the statement "insults and vulgarity are the last refuge of the weak-minded."

 

[Rune]

That's what I thought...

For days now people have attempted to engage you in debate.

Sadly, your inability to compose even the simplest of sentences that isn't overflowing with invective, renders any attempt at rational discourse with you impossible.

Demonstrate to everyone once again how you prove the truth behind the statement "insults and vulgarity are the last refuge of the weak-minded."

See?

If it isn't yurt, it will certainly pass for him in the meanwhile.