New Year - same thought about guns.

[Street Glider]

Metinks perhaps not good to give teh idiots ideas.

Bah, Mini-14s suck anyway. Definitely not the best Ruger gun to be had.

Ahh.. I just it should think it should be better than what it is. Basically an M1 bolt and Ruger knows how to make barrels, but wtf is going on there? You know what I'd rather have? A good-shooting HMR.

I know, I'm a weirdo. Or a .357 rifle.

Or the actual real-deal Springfield M14. That's a nice gun. Or an M1..they have those in GA. You have to pay if you wanna scope it, though.

Whether a gun is a quality firearm or not isn't really germane to the discussion, though.

The fact is that the idiot left gets a nice, warm fuzzy feeling when they ban one gun, but choose to leave a gun which is virtually identical on the market.

They accomplish nothing...

 

[Matt Dillon]

You have to pick one of these to ban. Which gun do you think the government should ban, and why?

:X

 

[Matt Dillon]

:X

Let's be real, the commie faggot OP wants to ban all guns so the government can jackboot step on the neck of anybody they disagree with with no repercussions.

Let people and children get mauled by coyotes, he don't give a fuck, it's all about the government being ultimate power with that POS.


Call the government if you see coyotes around your premises.

 

[Taichiliberal]

What a tremendous fail...

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
your wait is over.

Except it's not, because you offered a non-answer...

But you do have bill of sale/receipts for those purchases.

For some, yes.

Most of my 40+ gun collection came from the pre-owned market. I have very few receipts. I live in Florida, Hoss. We don't register guns here...

I point these things out because if you decide to sell these weapons and they are used in the committing of a crime, the cops can point to the new owner and not YOU when they do their trace in an investigation. Same thing if they are stolen. And if a new version of the 1994 AWB is passed, you have proof that you are not breaking any laws by possessing them.

I can sell my guns with nothing more than an exchange of cash and a handshake.

But, more to the point,. you first insisted that requiring the registration of guns would decrease gun crime. But if the police are looking for who owns a gun used in a crime, then requiring the registration of that gun has decreased nothing. If the police are involved, the gun crime has already occurred.

Capice?

Okay, let's try this again:

Essentially you make my point. You are in possession of a slew of weapons that of which few can be proved legal ownership. You sell them for cash to some joker who in turn sells it to some other joker, and so on and so on. Eventually, that gun is used in committing a crime. In the investigation, the cops find out the perp bought his weapon on the black market (use to be at gun shows where sometimes no questions were asked). But it's hard to trace back how this illegal stock is being kept up, so inadvertently YOU and others like you are contributing to a crime (sometimes a fatality or injury).

Now, since it's easy to buy guns in Florida without registration, you have a nice contributor to the "Iron Pipeline". Don't take my word for it, DO SOME HONEST HOMEWORK ON THE SITUATION.

Registration enforced by hefty fines if not complied with gives the cops an edge in tracing back how a gun used in a crime got there....hence increasing the chances of shutting down a source of illegal gun sales and trafficking (i.e., criminal accomplices doing straw purchases). The attitude of "once it's sold, I'm not responsible" contributes to the free flow of guns to criminals and the mentally imbalanced. A criminal with an unregistered gun can easily point to you as the seller...and since you have no records it's a pain in the butt to be questioned by the cops....especially if you are in the habit of selling more than one weapon.

Your last sentence is a moot point that does no support your objection to the OP, as I point out in the aforementioned.

I hope you understand now, because I get make it any simpler. (which is why if you're going to mock someone, at least have a more intelligent discourse on your part). And here's a little tidbit from 2021 for you to try and blow off as inconsequential:

Mass shootings surge in Florida as nation faces record high

https://www.jacksonville.com/story/...ass-shootings-rise-in-2020-fl-nftu/115506760/

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
Mostly superficial?

What are you leaving out? And remember, the "superficial" differences you do mention are designed for the military field for a more efficient, quicker, accurate firing...something the military looks for in a weapon. Hunters (beyond a telescope) normally don't need the superficial differences (at least not the ones of my grandfather's/father's day).

The OP proposal stands valid. It's no threat to your ability to own a gun. Bringing back a version of the 1994 AWB won't kill you, or deny you ample fire power for hunting or defense.

You have to pick one of these to ban. Which gun do you think the government should ban, and why?

that was already done, "hoss". In 1994 between gun control advocates and the gun lobby in Congress. It's called compromise. You may not like it, I may not like it, but given how our system of government works it's the best that could be done. The OP proposal (again) won't kill you or deprive you of hunting/defensive weapons. Like you gunners are so fond of pointing out....the plethora of weapons NOT on the list are just as good (if not better). So all this childish "I want it because I want it" just doesn't make sense. Also, you or any other gunner has YET to explain how your "logic" explains why the AR-15 style weapons flew off the shelves the second the ban was dissolved, or why it was the weapons of choice for many of the mass shooters in the last 25 years.

Just for a reference: I grew up with hand guns in the house...my Pop's a retired NYC Homicide detective. He was on the job long enough for the Glock to become a standard issue. His take: "don't like it, it's like a freaking toy...too easy a trigger...major accident waiting to happen". In his experience, a 6 chamber .38 Smith & Wesson Police Special would kill you just as dead as a Glock...difference being you had less of chance of firing 3 bullets and hitting a civilian with a stray. That was his preference...his partner LOVED the Glock, said it was lighter and gave him better reaction time. I don't own a gun, and have never fired one. I don't begrudge ANYONE who is a law abiding citizen the right to have one or more.....but there must be universal rules, otherwise you have chaos. And so it goes.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Whether a gun is a quality firearm or not isn't really germane to the discussion, though.

The fact is that the idiot left gets a nice, warm fuzzy feeling when they ban one gun, but choose to leave a gun which is virtually identical on the market.

They accomplish nothing...

Hmm, the "idiot left" weren't the ones who made it easy for all the mass shooters who preferred the AR-15 style weapons to easily get one. That honor falls on YOU and your like minded brethren, "hoss".

 

[Matt Dillon]

Okay, let's try this again:

Essentially you make my point. You are in possession of a slew of weapons that of which few can be proved legal ownership. You sell them for cash to some joker who in turn sells it to some other joker, and so on and so on. Eventually, that gun is used in committing a crime. In the investigation, the cops find out the perp bought his weapon on the black market (use to be at gun shows where sometimes no questions were asked). But it's hard to trace back how this illegal stock is being kept up, so inadvertently YOU and others like you are contributing to a crime (sometimes a fatality or injury).

Now, since it's easy to buy guns in Florida without registration, you have a nice contributor to the "Iron Pipeline". Don't take my word for it, DO SOME HONEST HOMEWORK ON THE SITUATION.

Registration enforced by hefty fines if not complied with gives the cops an edge in tracing back how a gun used in a crime got there....hence increasing the chances of shutting down a source of illegal gun sales and trafficking (i.e., criminal accomplices doing straw purchases). The attitude of "once it's sold, I'm not responsible" contributes to the free flow of guns to criminals and the mentally imbalanced. A criminal with an unregistered gun can easily point to you as the seller...and since you have no records it's a pain in the butt to be questioned by the cops....especially if you are in the habit of selling more than one weapon.

Your last sentence is a moot point that does no support your objection to the OP, as I point out in the aforementioned.

I hope you understand now, because I get make it any simpler. (which is why if you're going to mock someone, at least have a more intelligent discourse on your part). And here's a little tidbit from 2021 for you to try and blow off as inconsequential:

Mass shootings surge in Florida as nation faces record high

https://www.jacksonville.com/story/...ass-shootings-rise-in-2020-fl-nftu/115506760/

that was already done, "hoss". In 1994 between gun control advocates and the gun lobby in Congress. It's called compromise. You may not like it, I may not like it, but given how our system of government works it's the best that could be done. The OP proposal (again) won't kill you or deprive you of hunting/defensive weapons. Like you gunners are so fond of pointing out....the plethora of weapons NOT on the list are just as good (if not better). So all this childish "I want it because I want it" just doesn't make sense. Also, you or any other gunner has YET to explain how your "logic" explains why the AR-15 style weapons flew off the shelves the second the ban was dissolved, or why it was the weapons of choice for many of the mass shooters in the last 25 years.

Just for a reference: I grew up with hand guns in the house...my Pop's a retired NYC Homicide detective. He was on the job long enough for the Glock to become a standard issue. His take: "don't like it, it's like a freaking toy...to easy a trigger...major accident waiting to happen". In his experience, a 6 chamber .38 Smith & Wesson Police Special would kill you just as dead as a Glock...difference being you had less of chance of firing 3 bullets and hitting a civilian with a stray. That was his preference...his partner LOVED the Glock, said it was lighter and gave him better reaction time. I don't own a gun, and have never fired one. I don't begrudge ANYONE who is a law abiding citizen the right to have one or more.....but there must be universal rules, otherwise you have chaos. And so it goes.

Hmm, the "idiot left" weren't the ones who made it easy for all the mass shooters who preferred the AR-15 style weapons to easily get one. That honor falls on YOU and your like minded brethren, "hoss".

The idiot left is who generated the idiots that would use a gun to kill innocent people. On purpose, so they could have more government to keep the crazy government-raised motherfuckers that hurt people in line.

They want everybody to be under the government. That's not how America was founded and doesn't work to its benefit.

Taichiliberal and his "policies" = non-beneficial and freedom-stripping to all Americans. Shove your state babies right up your ass, bitch.

"It takes a village". Motherfucker, have you ever seen a government-raised baby grown? I have, and it's not anything you would want to be in the same room with. Not if you wanted to not get raped and survive, that is.

They cannot be let out into free society, and they keep them under the jail at all times. That's how good the government is at raising children. About as bad as can possibly be. And then some.

If one of those got ahold of TaiChiliberal, it would be all over for him within 10 minutes. Not sure if I'd last much longer, but I would give it what fer. I know how to hurt a human being, and I would employ that to the best of my ability.

Might would work, might would not. If I had a gun, that would be great! I'd put that motherfucker out his misery and make myself safe at the same time.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

You seem to have a serious reading comprehension problem. For your education:

The Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989 became law on January 1, 1990. It established the "assault weapon" as a new classification of firearms, and prohibited anyone from buying them without a special permit. Those who already owned a firearm deemed an assault weapon were able to keep it.


https://www.kpcc.org/2015-12-31/faq-the-california-assault-weapons-ban

Now, all YOU have to do is provide VALID, DOCUMENTED PROOF that legally purchased weapons under the law were confiscated by the state. If you can't do this, then you're just blowing smoke and wasting time.

YOU are apparently the one with comprehension problems, since I specifically stated "and the resulting confiscation that occurred thereafter."

all you did was read the act, but you followed a very predictable pattern of failure to follow through on your research to avoid putting your idiocy on display. I can't help but notice your 'qualifier' of "valid, documented proof", giving you your 'out' of disbelieving a source that you don't want to acknowledge of proving you wrong about confiscation.

bottom line is that all of you gun control tyrants want guns out of the hands of civilians and confiscation, whether it's one or many, is ignored by you.

accept that it has happened, is happening, and will continue to happen or you're just blowing smoke and wasting time.

 

[Street Glider]

Essentially you make my point. You are in possession of a slew of weapons that of which few can be proved legal ownership. You sell them for cash to some joker who in turn sells it to some other joker, and so on and so on. Eventually, that gun is used in committing a crime. In the investigation, the cops find out the perp bought his weapon on the black market (use to be at gun shows where sometimes no questions were asked). But it's hard to trace back how this illegal stock is being kept up, so inadvertently YOU and others like you are contributing to a crime (sometimes a fatality or injury).

I would've contributed to nothing.

See, I'm one of those fans of personal responsibility. Cleary, you're not.

Using your special little brand of logic, if you sell you car to someone who later drives drunks and kills someone, you're complicit...

Now, since it's easy to buy guns in Florida without registration, you have a nice contributor to the "Iron Pipeline". Don't take my word for it, DO SOME HONEST HOMEWORK ON THE SITUATION.

Of course, that's simply because you're either too stupid or too big a coward to ever actually try to support your argument yourself.

Typical chucklehead lib...

Registration enforced by hefty fines if not complied with gives the cops an edge in tracing back how a gun used in a crime got there....hence increasing the chances of shutting down a source of illegal gun sales and trafficking (i.e., criminal accomplices doing straw purchases).

No, it really doesn't...

The attitude of "once it's sold, I'm not responsible" contributes to the free flow of guns to criminals and the mentally imbalanced.

No, it really doesn't...

A criminal with an unregistered gun can easily point to you as the seller...and since you have no records it's a pain in the butt to be questioned by the cops....especially if you are in the habit of selling more than one weapon.

A couple of problems there.

First, the number of guns I do or do not sell isn't really germane to the discussion, since I do both legally.

Second, unlike liberal pussies, I'm not afraid of being interviewed by the police. I know they have a job to do and I respect them for doing that job. If interacting with me becomes part of their job, then so be it. See, I would have nothing to hide. If a criminal wants to accuse me of selling an unregistered gun (which, again, is legal), let him. I'm the law abiding citizen and he's the scumbag criminal. I like that when it comes down to believeability.

Your last sentence is a moot point that does no support your objection to the OP, as I point out in the aforementioned.

No, you just avoid it like the coward you are because you can't counter it...

 

[Street Glider]

Hmm, the "idiot left" weren't the ones who made it easy for all the mass shooters who preferred the AR-15 style weapons to easily get one. That honor falls on YOU and your like minded brethren, "hoss".

So, I'm quickly reaching the realization that idiots like you actually research nothing you post before you post it:


Weapons Used In Mass Shootings

So, just like the AWB failed because it allowed the the Mini 14 to remain, it also failed in that it didn't target the type of gun used most commonly in mass shooting.

You idiot libs are funny...

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post

You seem to have a serious reading comprehension problem. For your education:

The Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989 became law on January 1, 1990. It established the "assault weapon" as a new classification of firearms, and prohibited anyone from buying them without a special permit. Those who already owned a firearm deemed an assault weapon were able to keep it.


https://www.kpcc.org/2015-12-31/faq-...lt-weapons-ban

Now, all YOU have to do is provide VALID, DOCUMENTED PROOF that legally purchased weapons under the law were confiscated by the state. If you can't do this, then you're just blowing smoke and wasting time.

YOU are apparently the one with comprehension problems, since I specifically stated "and the resulting confiscation that occurred thereafter."

all you did was read the act, but you followed a very predictable pattern of failure to follow through on your research to avoid putting your idiocy on display. I can't help but notice your 'qualifier' of "valid, documented proof", giving you your 'out' of disbelieving a source that you don't want to acknowledge of proving you wrong about confiscation.

bottom line is that all of you gun control tyrants want guns out of the hands of civilians and confiscation, whether it's one or many, is ignored by you.

accept that it has happened, is happening, and will continue to happen or you're just blowing smoke and wasting time.

I'll deconstruct your tired propaganda and mantra(s) sentence by sentence.

1) As the excerpt from the link regarding the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989 states in plain English, "...those who already owned a firearm deemed an assault weapon were able to keep it." This means if you purchased or owned the identified weapons prior to the inaction of the law, you could legally keep it. NOTHING IN THAT LAW INDICATES CONFISCATION IN THAT REGARD. If you can PROVE otherwise with documented facts and not your usual opinion, wishful thinking, supposition and conjecture, do so. Anything else is just the usual erroneous gunner blathering.

2) You're babbling, son. The ACT and what it entailed is a matter of fact, a matter of history. YOU keep trying to push your supposition and conjecture (if not pure speculation) as fact with a logical conclusion. That's nonsense on your part, and any lawyer worth their salt who is NOT on the NRA or a gun manufacturer pay roll will tell you the same. Again, WHERE IS YOUR PROOF OF WHAT YOU ASSERT? That would be cases filed in a court of law where a law abiding citizen who had one of the weapons on the list BEFORE THE LAW WAS PASSED had his weapon confiscated by the authorities, which would be a violation of the law. I'll wait.

3) Bottom line you're all noise...no facts to back up your assertion. Insisting that your unprovable blather is fact is tantamount to a lie.

4) Accept any mental flatulence you produce as reality? Sorry son, but that dog of yours won't fly. Go tell your tale to one of your like minded buddies who prefer fantasy over fact.

 

[Taichiliberal]

I would've contributed to nothing.

See, I'm one of those fans of personal responsibility. Cleary, you're not.

Using your special little brand of logic, if you sell you car to someone who later drives drunks and kills someone, you're complicit...





Of course, that's simply because you're either too stupid or too big a coward to ever actually try to support your argument yourself.

Typical chucklehead lib...



No, it really doesn't...



No, it really doesn't...



A couple of problems there.

First, the number of guns I do or do not sell isn't really germane to the discussion, since I do both legally.

Second, unlike liberal pussies, I'm not afraid of being interviewed by the police. I know they have a job to do and I respect them for doing that job. If interacting with me becomes part of their job, then so be it. See, I would have nothing to hide. If a criminal wants to accuse me of selling an unregistered gun (which, again, is legal), let him. I'm the law abiding citizen and he's the scumbag criminal. I like that when it comes down to believeability.



No, you just avoid it like the coward you are because you can't counter it...

Sentence for sentence response:

1) You hope not. But once that gun leaves your possession, you have no way of knowing for certain. Police departments all over the country proved that such scenarios as I described were happening at gun shows...which is attempts to pass regulation laws to prevent such happened. Surely you remember that? And again, you prove my point....as my legally transferring ownership via paperwork to someone else absolves me of any crimes or accidents that happen afterwards, because the STATE has the LEGAL DOCUMENTATION of the sale, and therefore the current owner is wholly responsible for all that happens with that vehicle. You seem incapable/unwilling of acknowledging age old knowledge here. The OP proposal would give the same protections and responsibilities regarding guns. No harm, no foul (to rational folk, anyway).

2) A childish and lame dodge on your part. I already gave one of your like minded cohorts the information regarding such. Go to Post #28 and READ IT (especially the links). I tire of willfully ignorant blowhards such as yourself wasting time and space.

3) Again, a willfully ignorant and/or insipidly stubborn retort on your part. This is OLD news....observe and learn: https://giffords.org/lawcenter/gun-...ps://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/7/3/184

4) No son, just because you say "it's not relevant" doesn't make it so. YOU CANNOT LOGICALLY OR FACTUALLY REFUTE MY ASSERTIONS AND STATEMENTS BECAUSE YOU CAN ONLY DENY (BUT NOT FACTUALLY DISPROVE) MY SUPPORTIVE EVIDENCE. Abject denial and bluster won't cut it. No one said you had to be afraid of investigation, just annoyed (learn to comprehend what you read, will ya please?). That you have such a hissy fit over simple paperwork regarding gun ownership and sales suggests your blase attitude about cops questioning your gun ownership is at best dubious.

5) Um, No. You stated a moot point....meaning that I acknowledge the factual base but it does nothing to change the basis of your objection. Explain to the reading audience what you believe you have revealed that I cannot (or have not) countered. We'll wait.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
Hmm, the "idiot left" weren't the ones who made it easy for all the mass shooters who preferred the AR-15 style weapons to easily get one. That honor falls on YOU and your like minded brethren, "hoss".

So, I'm quickly reaching the realization that idiots like you actually research nothing you post before you post it:


Weapons Used In Mass Shootings

So, just like the AWB failed because it allowed the the Mini 14 to remain, it also failed in that it didn't target the type of gun used most commonly in mass shooting.

You idiot libs are funny...

The sad thing is that you actually believe you are being clever and witty when you use this old ploy.

There's an old saying, son.....the devil is in the details. So while you generalized stats are valid, one only has to look into the SPECIFICS to see my point and recognize your intellectual dishonesty:


The following is a partial list of when an AR-15-style weapon was used in a mass shooting:

Feb. 14, 2018: Shooting at Stoneman Douglas High School shooting in Florida leaves 17 people dead.
Oct. 1, 2017: The Las Vegas slaughter of 58 people.
Nov. 5, 2017: The Sutherland Springs, Texas, church shooting that claimed 26 lives.
June 12, 2016: The Pulse nightclub shooting in Orlando, Fla., that left 49 dead.
Dec. 2, 2015: The San Bernardino, Calif., shooting that killed 14 people.
Dec. 14, 2012: The shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut that took 27 lives.


https://www.npr.org/2022/05/26/1101274322/uvalde-ar-15-style-rifle-history-shooter-mass-shooting

Now I don't know about you "hoss", but 200 lives directly tied to weapons YOU and your brethren insist must be in the general public is a sad state of affairs.

And once again, you try to substitute gunner revisionism as reality. The 1994 AWB was allowed to SUNSET via votes from the GOP congressmen courtesy of their gun manufacturer contributors and donations. The GOP has a steadfast block against anything similar....death rates be damned.

The OP assertion stands valid. You may not like it but you can't rationally or logically or factually dismiss it.

 

[Street Glider]

Sentence for sentence response:

1) You hope not. But once that gun leaves your possession, you have no way of knowing for certain. Police departments all over the country proved that such scenarios as I described were happening at gun shows...which is attempts to pass regulation laws to prevent such happened. Surely you remember that? And again, you prove my point....as my legally transferring ownership via paperwork to someone else absolves me of any crimes or accidents that happen afterwards, because the STATE has the LEGAL DOCUMENTATION of the sale, and therefore the current owner is wholly responsible for all that happens with that vehicle. You seem incapable/unwilling of acknowledging age old knowledge here. The OP proposal would give the same protections and responsibilities regarding guns. No harm, no foul (to rational folk, anyway).

2) A childish and lame dodge on your part. I already gave one of your like minded cohorts the information regarding such. Go to Post #28 and READ IT (especially the links). I tire of willfully ignorant blowhards such as yourself wasting time and space.

3) Again, a willfully ignorant and/or insipidly stubborn retort on your part. This is OLD news....observe and learn: https://giffords.org/lawcenter/gun-...ps://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/7/3/184

4) No son, just because you say "it's not relevant" doesn't make it so. YOU CANNOT LOGICALLY OR FACTUALLY REFUTE MY ASSERTIONS AND STATEMENTS BECAUSE YOU CAN ONLY DENY (BUT NOT FACTUALLY DISPROVE) MY SUPPORTIVE EVIDENCE. Abject denial and bluster won't cut it. No one said you had to be afraid of investigation, just annoyed (learn to comprehend what you read, will ya please?). That you have such a hissy fit over simple paperwork regarding gun ownership and sales suggests your blase attitude about cops questioning your gun ownership is at best dubious.

5) Um, No. You stated a moot point....meaning that I acknowledge the factual base but it does nothing to change the basis of your objection. Explain to the reading audience what you believe you have revealed that I cannot (or have not) countered. We'll wait.

I've ruined your arguments time and time again...

 

[Street Glider]

The sad thing is that you actually believe you are being clever and witty when you use this old ploy.

There's an old saying, son.....the devil is in the details. So while you generalized stats are valid, one only has to look into the SPECIFICS to see my point and recognize your intellectual dishonesty:


The following is a partial list of when an AR-15-style weapon was used in a mass shooting:

Feb. 14, 2018: Shooting at Stoneman Douglas High School shooting in Florida leaves 17 people dead.
Oct. 1, 2017: The Las Vegas slaughter of 58 people.
Nov. 5, 2017: The Sutherland Springs, Texas, church shooting that claimed 26 lives.
June 12, 2016: The Pulse nightclub shooting in Orlando, Fla., that left 49 dead.
Dec. 2, 2015: The San Bernardino, Calif., shooting that killed 14 people.
Dec. 14, 2012: The shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut that took 27 lives.


https://www.npr.org/2022/05/26/1101274322/uvalde-ar-15-style-rifle-history-shooter-mass-shooting

Now I don't know about you "hoss", but 200 lives directly tied to weapons YOU and your brethren insist must be in the general public is a sad state of affairs.

Yeah, there sure are a lot of people killed by AR-15 style rifles.

But I also wasn't arguing that there weren't.

A comment you made strongly suggested that you believed that assault rifles were used in more instances. That's the only point I was addressing.

And I proved you wrong...

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
Sentence for sentence response:

1) You hope not. But once that gun leaves your possession, you have no way of knowing for certain. Police departments all over the country proved that such scenarios as I described were happening at gun shows...which is attempts to pass regulation laws to prevent such happened. Surely you remember that? And again, you prove my point....as my legally transferring ownership via paperwork to someone else absolves me of any crimes or accidents that happen afterwards, because the STATE has the LEGAL DOCUMENTATION of the sale, and therefore the current owner is wholly responsible for all that happens with that vehicle. You seem incapable/unwilling of acknowledging age old knowledge here. The OP proposal would give the same protections and responsibilities regarding guns. No harm, no foul (to rational folk, anyway).

2) A childish and lame dodge on your part. I already gave one of your like minded cohorts the information regarding such. Go to Post #28 and READ IT (especially the links). I tire of willfully ignorant blowhards such as yourself wasting time and space.

3) Again, a willfully ignorant and/or insipidly stubborn retort on your part. This is OLD news....observe and learn: https://giffords.org/lawcenter/gun-l...ontent/7/3/184

4) No son, just because you say "it's not relevant" doesn't make it so. YOU CANNOT LOGICALLY OR FACTUALLY REFUTE MY ASSERTIONS AND STATEMENTS BECAUSE YOU CAN ONLY DENY (BUT NOT FACTUALLY DISPROVE) MY SUPPORTIVE EVIDENCE. Abject denial and bluster won't cut it. No one said you had to be afraid of investigation, just annoyed (learn to comprehend what you read, will ya please?). That you have such a hissy fit over simple paperwork regarding gun ownership and sales suggests your blase attitude about cops questioning your gun ownership is at best dubious.

5) Um, No. You stated a moot point....meaning that I acknowledge the factual base but it does nothing to change the basis of your objection. Explain to the reading audience what you believe you have revealed that I cannot (or have not) countered. We'll wait.

I've ruined your arguments time and time again...

As the reader can clearly see, SG cannot logically, rationally or factually handle the previous post. So he does what every intellectually dishonest & bankrupt MAGA minion does....blow smoke with some self aggrandizing fantasy that the chronology of the posts just doesn't support. Only the joker SG sees in the mirror along with equal mindsets on this site buy into his bluff and bluster. He's done folks.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
The sad thing is that you actually believe you are being clever and witty when you use this old ploy.

There's an old saying, son.....the devil is in the details. So while you generalized stats are valid, one only has to look into the SPECIFICS to see my point and recognize your intellectual dishonesty:


The following is a partial list of when an AR-15-style weapon was used in a mass shooting:

Feb. 14, 2018: Shooting at Stoneman Douglas High School shooting in Florida leaves 17 people dead.
Oct. 1, 2017: The Las Vegas slaughter of 58 people.
Nov. 5, 2017: The Sutherland Springs, Texas, church shooting that claimed 26 lives.
June 12, 2016: The Pulse nightclub shooting in Orlando, Fla., that left 49 dead.
Dec. 2, 2015: The San Bernardino, Calif., shooting that killed 14 people.
Dec. 14, 2012: The shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut that took 27 lives.


https://www.npr.org/2022/05/26/11012...-mass-shooting

Now I don't know about you "hoss", but 200 lives directly tied to weapons YOU and your brethren insist must be in the general public is a sad state of affairs.

Yeah, there sure are a lot of people killed by AR-15 style rifles.

But I also wasn't arguing that there weren't.

A comment you made strongly suggested that you believed that assault rifles were used in more instances. That's the only point I was addressing.

And I proved you wrong...

All the rational, objective reader has to do is just back track the chronology of the posts to see what an intellectually dishonest and impotent person SG is.

His first sentence demonstrates the near psychotic attitude that a lot of gunners display when discussing this issue...a blase attitude towards the deaths of those caused by weapons folk like SG STILL INSIST must be on the open market despite the direct cause & effect I've laid out with valid, documented facts.

Now SG claims he wasn't arguing this point, which is a lie as the chronology of the posts shows. SG has gone down every avenue in an attempt to discredit any and all aspects of the proposal in the OP.

He fails, so now he goes the gunner/MAGA revisionist route...then he dishonestly portrays what I exactly stated/responded to and why. He finishes with some self aggrandizing fantasy worthy of a not-too-bright yet insipidly stubborn grade schooler.

Such is the status of gunners being flunkies for the weapons manufacturers and voicing their paranoia. Pathetic.

 

[Street Glider]

All the rational, objective reader has to do is just back track the chronology of the posts to see what an intellectually dishonest and impotent person SG is.

I see.

So you say something which is factually incorrect, but it's the person who corrects you who is wrong.

I had no idea you were so fragile and delicate...

 

[Taichiliberal]

I see.

So you say something which is factually incorrect, but it's the person who corrects you who is wrong.

I had no idea you were so fragile and delicate...

Posts #117, dear readers.

Sorry "hoss", but the chronology of the post demonstrates your inability to factually and logically disprove my posts....all you do is just claim such and then blow all types of MAGA/gunner smoke. Your latest retorts are just lame and sad.....you're done.

 

[Matt Dillon]

Posts #117, dear readers.

Sorry "hoss", but the chronology of the post demonstrates your inability to factually and logically disprove my posts....all you do is just claim such and then blow all types of MAGA/gunner smoke. Your latest retorts are just lame and sad.....you're done.

The type of gun used most in mass murders is pistols, boi.

F'rinstance, that "Pulse Club" shooting. 2 9mm pistols, I believe?

You just want to disarm Americans. Your crusade against semiautomatic rifles is bullshit.

I bet if you were airdropped out in the middle of the woods you'd have a different take on life in America.

I tell you what, I've been out in the woods and a pack of 11 wild dogs rolled by. Yeah, I had a semiautomatic rifle with me, and 2 dogs to protect. I made them lay down and keep still and quiet until the pack of wild dogs was done passing.

Idk if I had enough rounds to hit and put 11 feral dogs down and not get any dogs I'm responsible for killed. I had 18 rounds.. 11 moving wild dogs, eh..not great odds.

I chose to be still and quiet and made sure the dogs did, too.