Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.atheism > #2574662 > unrolled thread

Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands

Back to article view | Back to alt.atheism

Contents

  Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2019-01-04 09:03 -0800
    Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Klaus  Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2019-01-04 12:04 -0800
    Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-05 06:07 +0000
      Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2019-01-04 22:41 -0800
        Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-05 06:52 +0000
          Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> - 2019-01-04 23:03 -0800
            Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Max Planck <Melchizedek_KingofSalem@aol.com> - 2019-01-04 23:07 -0800
            Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-05 07:08 +0000
              Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> - 2019-01-04 23:10 -0800
                Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-05 07:16 +0000
                  Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> - 2019-01-04 23:43 -0800
                    THE LAST JUDGMENT Max Planck <Melchizedek_KingofSalem@aol.com> - 2019-01-04 23:46 -0800
                    THE LAST JUDGMENT Madame Curie <donnadenke@gmail.com> - 2019-01-04 23:50 -0800
                Perhaps a 48 inch oilfield pipe wrench rammed up your ass and out your mouth would help? Max Planck <Melchizedek_KingofSalem@aol.com> - 2019-01-04 23:19 -0800
                Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2019-01-05 03:41 -0500
                  Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-07 16:34 -0700
                    Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2019-01-07 23:01 -0700
                      Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-08 06:18 +0000
                        Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2019-01-08 01:49 -0700
                          Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-08 13:59 +0000
                            Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2019-01-08 12:04 -0700
                              Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> - 2019-01-08 11:12 -0800
                                Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2019-01-08 12:38 -0700
                                  Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-08 12:57 -0700
                                    Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2019-01-08 13:36 -0700
                                      Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Sir Gaygory's Owner's Owner 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2019-01-08 14:42 -0600
                                      Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-08 13:47 -0700
                                        Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Sir Gaygory's Owner's Owner 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2019-01-08 14:52 -0600
                                  Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> - 2019-01-08 11:58 -0800
                                    Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Cloud Hobbit <youngblood2949@gmail.com> - 2019-01-08 12:11 -0800
                                    Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2019-01-08 13:14 -0700
                                      Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-08 13:17 -0700
                                        Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2019-01-08 14:05 -0700
                                          Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-08 14:30 -0700
                                            Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2019-01-08 16:33 -0700
                                              Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-09 00:05 +0000
                                                Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2019-01-08 17:09 -0700
                                                  Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-08 17:42 -0700
                                      Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2019-01-09 00:44 -0500
                                        Re: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands "Michael Ejercito" <mejercit@hotmail.com> - 2019-01-09 09:47 -0800
                                          Re: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2019-01-10 00:20 -0500
                                            Re: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands BeamMeUpScotty <Not-Sure@idiocracy.gov> - 2019-01-10 06:53 -0500
                                              Re: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2019-01-11 00:44 -0500
                                Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2019-01-09 00:43 -0500
                              Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-08 13:14 -0700
                                Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2019-01-08 14:11 -0700
                                  Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-08 14:29 -0700
                                    Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2019-01-08 16:37 -0700
                                      Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-09 00:05 +0000
                    Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Klaus  Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2019-01-08 12:08 -0800
              Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Max Planck <Melchizedek_KingofSalem@aol.com> - 2019-01-04 23:16 -0800
            Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2019-01-05 03:39 -0500
              Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-07 16:35 -0700
          Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2019-01-05 02:26 -0500
          Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2019-01-05 03:17 -0700
          Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2019-01-05 03:19 -0700
            Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2019-01-07 22:19 -0500
              Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-08 06:18 +0000
                Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2019-01-08 01:50 -0700
                  Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-08 13:59 +0000
                    Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2019-01-08 12:00 -0700
                      Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-08 12:02 -0700
                      Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-08 13:16 -0700
                        Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2019-01-08 14:00 -0700
                          Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-08 14:02 -0700
                          Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-08 14:22 -0700
                        Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> - 2019-01-08 13:24 -0800
                    Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> - 2019-01-08 11:11 -0800
                  Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2019-01-09 00:40 -0500
                    Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-09 06:39 +0000
          Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2019-01-05 07:08 -0800
            Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-05 18:03 +0000
              Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2019-01-05 10:33 -0800
                Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-05 18:45 +0000
                  Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> - 2019-01-05 10:54 -0800
                    Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-05 19:16 +0000
                      No we don't was Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2019-01-05 12:40 -0700
                        Re: No we don't was Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-05 19:56 +0000
                          Re: No we don't was Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> - 2019-01-05 12:09 -0800
                          Re: No we don't was Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2019-01-05 13:27 -0700
                            Re: No we don't was Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-05 14:02 -0700
                          Re: No we don't was Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Klaus  Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2019-01-05 13:50 -0800
                            Re: No we don't was Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2019-01-07 22:21 -0500
                              Re: No we don't was Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-08 06:18 +0000
                                Re: No we don't was Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Cloud Hobbit <youngblood2949@gmail.com> - 2019-01-08 00:04 -0800
                                Re: No we don't was Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Klaus  Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2019-01-08 04:24 -0800
                                  Re: No we don't was Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2019-01-09 00:54 -0500
                                    Re: No we don't was Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-09 06:39 +0000
                                      Re: No we don't was Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Klaus  Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2019-01-09 05:46 -0800
                  Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Klaus  Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2019-01-05 11:06 -0800
                    Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-05 19:16 +0000
                      Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Klaus  Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2019-01-05 11:35 -0800
                        Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2019-01-07 22:25 -0500
                          Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Antitheism <Alt.Atheism@aol.com> - 2019-01-07 21:39 -0800
                          Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-08 06:18 +0000
                            Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Klaus  Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2019-01-08 04:22 -0800
                      Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-05 19:52 +0000
                        Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2019-01-05 13:18 -0800
                          Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-05 22:15 +0000
                            Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> - 2019-01-05 14:16 -0800
                        Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Klaus  Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2019-01-05 13:41 -0800
                    Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2019-01-07 22:23 -0500
                      Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-08 06:18 +0000
                  Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2019-01-05 12:10 -0700
                    Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-05 19:52 +0000
                      Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2019-01-05 13:21 -0700
                        Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-05 13:32 -0700
                          Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2019-01-05 13:49 -0700
                            Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-05 14:04 -0700
                              Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> - 2019-01-05 13:37 -0800
                          Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> - 2019-01-05 12:55 -0800
                          Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-05 15:41 -0700
                            Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> - 2019-01-05 14:47 -0800
                      Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> - 2019-01-05 12:24 -0800
            Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> - 2019-01-05 10:46 -0800
              Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-05 19:16 +0000
              Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2019-01-05 12:21 -0800
                Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-05 13:57 -0700
                  Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2019-01-05 18:36 -0800
                    Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-05 19:49 -0700
                      Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Cloud Hobbit <youngblood2949@gmail.com> - 2019-01-09 14:59 -0800
                Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> - 2019-01-05 13:36 -0800
      Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2019-01-05 03:15 -0700
        Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2019-01-07 22:19 -0500
          Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-08 06:18 +0000
            Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> - 2019-01-07 23:30 -0800
              Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2019-01-08 03:23 -0500
                Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-09 05:49 +0000
                  Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Cloud Hobbit <youngblood2949@gmail.com> - 2019-01-09 13:15 -0800

Page 2 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7  Next page →

#2576702

On 1/8/2019 6:59 AM, Snit wrote:
> Just Wondering <JW@me.com> wrote:
>> On 1/7/2019 11:18 PM, Snit wrote:
>>> Just Wondering <JW@me.com> wrote:
>>>> On 1/7/2019 4:34 PM, Snit wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> We make it quite hard to have a fully automatic weapon.
>>>>
>>>> Not really.  Anyone with a clean background can get one.
>>>> Government regulations have artificially raised the price,
>>>> but that's another matter.
>>>
>>> There are hurdles. As their should be.
>>
>> Those "hurdles" are not "quite hard".  There are only three hurdles:
>> (1) You have to pass a background check, which if you have a clean
>> background is not hard.  (2) You have to pay a $200 tax.  (3) You
>> have to be able to pay the purchase price.
>>
>> ["As their should be" - another example of your functional illiteracy.
>>   That wasn't a type, it was the incorrect word choice.]
> 
> So you deem background checks to be not a big hurdle.
> Great. Let’s make them universal for all gun purchases. 
> Good to see agreement here.

Liar.  There is no agreement here.  I just pointed out that
you lied when you wrote "We make it quite hard to have a fully
automatic weapon."  I am totally opposed to universal background
checks for all gun purchases.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2576711

On 1/8/2019 11:04 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
> On 1/8/2019 6:59 AM, Snit wrote:
>> Just Wondering <JW@me.com> wrote:
>>> On 1/7/2019 11:18 PM, Snit wrote:
>>>> Just Wondering <JW@me.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 1/7/2019 4:34 PM, Snit wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> We make it quite hard to have a fully automatic weapon.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not really.  Anyone with a clean background can get one.
>>>>> Government regulations have artificially raised the price,
>>>>> but that's another matter.
>>>>
>>>> There are hurdles. As their should be.
>>>
>>> Those "hurdles" are not "quite hard".  There are only three hurdles:
>>> (1) You have to pass a background check, which if you have a clean
>>> background is not hard.  (2) You have to pay a $200 tax.  (3) You
>>> have to be able to pay the purchase price.
>>>
>>> ["As their should be" - another example of your functional illiteracy.
>>>   That wasn't a type, it was the incorrect word choice.]
>>
>> So you deem background checks to be not a big hurdle.
>> Great. Let’s make them universal for all gun purchases. Good to see 
>> agreement here.
> 
> Liar.  There is no agreement here.  I just pointed out that
> you lied when you wrote "We make it quite hard to have a fully
> automatic weapon."  I am totally opposed to universal background
> checks for all gun purchases.

Meaning you don't care if bad guys have guns, and meaning you think your 
right to arms is unlimited.  Well, you're wrong - the right is not unlimited.

-- 
Snot's '.sig' is wrong, sophomoric and indicative of
his bloated ego.  Snot fancies himself the Great
Tribune of Usenet, who is going to tell all the
rest of us What It All Means.

Well...no.  Just no.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2576724

On 1/8/2019 12:12 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
> On 1/8/2019 11:04 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
>> On 1/8/2019 6:59 AM, Snit wrote:
>>> Just Wondering <JW@me.com> wrote:
>>>> On 1/7/2019 11:18 PM, Snit wrote:
>>>>> Just Wondering <JW@me.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/7/2019 4:34 PM, Snit wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We make it quite hard to have a fully automatic weapon.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not really.  Anyone with a clean background can get one.
>>>>>> Government regulations have artificially raised the price,
>>>>>> but that's another matter.
>>>>>
>>>>> There are hurdles. As their should be.
>>>>
>>>> Those "hurdles" are not "quite hard".  There are only three hurdles:
>>>> (1) You have to pass a background check, which if you have a clean
>>>> background is not hard.  (2) You have to pay a $200 tax.  (3) You
>>>> have to be able to pay the purchase price.
>>>>
>>>> ["As their should be" - another example of your functional illiteracy.
>>>>   That wasn't a type, it was the incorrect word choice.]
>>>
>>> So you deem background checks to be not a big hurdle.
>>> Great. Let’s make them universal for all gun purchases. Good to see 
>>> agreement here.
>>
>> Liar.  There is no agreement here.  I just pointed out that
>> you lied when you wrote "We make it quite hard to have a fully
>> automatic weapon."  I am totally opposed to universal background
>> checks for all gun purchases.
> 
> Meaning you don't care if bad guys have guns, and meaning 
> you think your right to arms is unlimited.  Well, you're 
> wrong - the right is not unlimited.

Meaning just what I said, I am totally opposed to universal
background checks for all gun purchases.  Must I now add your
name to the list of functional illiterates?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2576737

On 1/8/19 12:38 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
> On 1/8/2019 12:12 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> On 1/8/2019 11:04 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
>>> On 1/8/2019 6:59 AM, Snit wrote:
>>>> Just Wondering <JW@me.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 1/7/2019 11:18 PM, Snit wrote:
>>>>>> Just Wondering <JW@me.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/7/2019 4:34 PM, Snit wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We make it quite hard to have a fully automatic weapon.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not really.  Anyone with a clean background can get one.
>>>>>>> Government regulations have artificially raised the price,
>>>>>>> but that's another matter.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are hurdles. As their should be.
>>>>>
>>>>> Those "hurdles" are not "quite hard".  There are only three hurdles:
>>>>> (1) You have to pass a background check, which if you have a clean
>>>>> background is not hard.  (2) You have to pay a $200 tax.  (3) You
>>>>> have to be able to pay the purchase price.
>>>>>
>>>>> ["As their should be" - another example of your functional illiteracy.
>>>>>   That wasn't a type, it was the incorrect word choice.]
>>>>
>>>> So you deem background checks to be not a big hurdle.
>>>> Great. Let’s make them universal for all gun purchases. Good to see 
>>>> agreement here.
>>>
>>> Liar.  There is no agreement here.  I just pointed out that
>>> you lied when you wrote "We make it quite hard to have a fully
>>> automatic weapon."  I am totally opposed to universal background
>>> checks for all gun purchases.
>>
>> Meaning you don't care if bad guys have guns, and meaning you think 
>> your right to arms is unlimited.  Well, you're wrong - the right is 
>> not unlimited.
> 
> Meaning just what I said, I am totally opposed to universal
> background checks for all gun purchases.

Would you remain opposed even if research showed such laws bring more 
benefit than harm?

> Must I now add your
> name to the list of functional illiterates?


-- 
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They 
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel 
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

<https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2576774

On 1/8/2019 12:57 PM, Snit wrote:
> On 1/8/19 12:38 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
>> On 1/8/2019 12:12 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>> On 1/8/2019 11:04 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
>>>> On 1/8/2019 6:59 AM, Snit wrote:
>>>>> Just Wondering <JW@me.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/7/2019 11:18 PM, Snit wrote:
>>>>>>> Just Wondering <JW@me.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/7/2019 4:34 PM, Snit wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We make it quite hard to have a fully automatic weapon.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not really.  Anyone with a clean background can get one.
>>>>>>>> Government regulations have artificially raised the price,
>>>>>>>> but that's another matter.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There are hurdles. As their should be.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Those "hurdles" are not "quite hard".  There are only three hurdles:
>>>>>> (1) You have to pass a background check, which if you have a clean
>>>>>> background is not hard.  (2) You have to pay a $200 tax.  (3) You
>>>>>> have to be able to pay the purchase price.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ["As their should be" - another example of your functional 
>>>>>> illiteracy.
>>>>>>   That wasn't a type, it was the incorrect word choice.]
>>>>>
>>>>> So you deem background checks to be not a big hurdle.
>>>>> Great. Let’s make them universal for all gun purchases. Good to see 
>>>>> agreement here.
>>>>
>>>> Liar.  There is no agreement here.  I just pointed out that
>>>> you lied when you wrote "We make it quite hard to have a fully
>>>> automatic weapon."  I am totally opposed to universal background
>>>> checks for all gun purchases.
>>>
>>> Meaning you don't care if bad guys have guns, and meaning you think 
>>> your right to arms is unlimited.  Well, you're wrong - the right is 
>>> not unlimited.
>>
>> Meaning just what I said, I am totally opposed to universal
>> background checks for all gun purchases.
> 
> Would you remain opposed even if research showed such laws 
> bring more benefit than harm?

I would have to see the specific research to answer that question. 
Without more information, I do not think it possible to do
the sort of research that would be necessary to objectively
come to such a conclusion.

>> Must I now add your
>> name to the list of functional illiterates?
> 
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2576776

On Tue, 8 Jan 2019 13:36:55 -0700, LO AND BEHOLD; Just Wondering
<JW@me.com> determined that the following was of great importance and
subsequently decided to freely share it with us in
<IR7ZD.5031$xN2.4584@fx17.iad>:
 
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ On 1/8/2019 12:57 PM, Snit wrote:
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ On 1/8/19 12:38 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ On 1/8/2019 12:12 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ On 1/8/2019 11:04 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ On 1/8/2019 6:59 AM, Snit wrote:
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ Just Wondering <JW@me.com> wrote:
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ On 1/7/2019 11:18 PM, Snit wrote:
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ Just Wondering <JW@me.com> wrote:
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ On 1/7/2019 4:34 PM, Snit wrote: 
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ We make it quite hard to have a fully automatic weapon.
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ Not really.  Anyone with a clean background can get one. Government
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ regulations have artificially raised the price, but that's another
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ matter.
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ There are hurdles. As their should be.
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ Those "hurdles" are not "quite hard".  There are only three hurdles:
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ (1) You have to pass a background check, which if you have a clean
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ background is not hard.  (2) You have to pay a $200 tax.  (3) You
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ have to be able to pay the purchase price. ["As their should be" -
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ another example of your functional illiteracy.   That wasn't a type,
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ it was the incorrect word choice.]
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ So you deem background checks to be not a big hurdle. Great. Let’s
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ make them universal for all gun purchases. Good to see agreement here.
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ Liar.  There is no agreement here.  I just pointed out that you lied
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ when you wrote "We make it quite hard to have a fully automatic
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ weapon."  I am totally opposed to universal background checks for all 
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ gun purchases.
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ Meaning you don't care if bad guys have guns, and meaning you think your
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ right to arms is unlimited.  Well, you're wrong - the right is not
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ unlimited.
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ Meaning just what I said, I am totally opposed to universal background
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ checks for all gun purchases.
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ Would you remain opposed even if research showed such laws bring more
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ benefit than harm?
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ 
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ I would have to see the specific research to answer that question.
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ Without more information, I do not think it possible to do the sort of 
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ research that would be necessary to objectively come to such a
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ conclusion.
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ 
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ Must I now add your name to the list of functional illiterates?

and yet you'll throw out the window any empirical evidence that less guns means less gun violence.

this behaviour is prevalent in gun-toting dumbfucks.

-- 
[THIS POAST HAS PASSED TRIMCHECK® VALIDATION]

THIS SPACE FOR RENT
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iB6B8jGSdLA

"Thanks to muzzies and their apologist-enablers like puppy whistle, this 
seems to be the new norm in the world.  It's spreading like a cancer, 
and it's time we admit we're at war with pure evil.  We need to put an 
end to this muzzie plague, or life on Earth is going to become pure hell 
everywhere.  We need to get these people out of every civilized 
country, and there's only one way to do it.  IOW, we have to become 
like them, with an emphasis on expediency over cruelty." - Checkmate (of alt.checkmate) 

"Pussy Willow has just proven that Trump's crackdown on previously
unenforced immigration policies is working.  We'll deal with the domestic
terrorists as needed, but we don't need to be letting the muzzie
terrorists get a foothold in our country too.  One need only look at what
they're doing in Europe right now to know we're doing the right thing by
keeping them out, which is our right and our duty. - Checkmate (#1 pussy willow fan)

-

"You just made puppy whistle's sig line longer." - Janithor

-

"If I have a complaint about the (Southern Poverty) Law Center's description (of the alt-right movement), it is the phrase "heavy use of social media," which implies the alt-right is a real-world movement which uses a lot of social media. This is backwards: it is an online movement which occasionally appears in the real world. Where it gets punched." - Jason Rhode 

-

"I think we should destroy every last fucking mosque in America." - "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> proves for us that white males are violent in Message-ID: <MPG.32c5bfefd18c9a698f0a8@news.altopia.com>

-

Golden Killfile, June 2005
KOTM, November 2006
Bob Allisat Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker, November 2006
Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart, November 2006
Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart, September 2007
Tony Sidaway Memorial "Drama Queen" Award, November 2006
Busted Urinal Award, April 2007
Order of the Holey Sockpuppet, September 2007
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, September 2006
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, April 2008
Tinfoil Sombrero, February 2007
AUK Mascot, September 2007
Putting the Awards Out of Order to Screw With the OCD Fuckheads, March 2016 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2576782

On 1/8/19 1:36 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
> On 1/8/2019 12:57 PM, Snit wrote:
>> On 1/8/19 12:38 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
>>> On 1/8/2019 12:12 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>> On 1/8/2019 11:04 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
>>>>> On 1/8/2019 6:59 AM, Snit wrote:
>>>>>> Just Wondering <JW@me.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/7/2019 11:18 PM, Snit wrote:
>>>>>>>> Just Wondering <JW@me.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 1/7/2019 4:34 PM, Snit wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> We make it quite hard to have a fully automatic weapon.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Not really.  Anyone with a clean background can get one.
>>>>>>>>> Government regulations have artificially raised the price,
>>>>>>>>> but that's another matter.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There are hurdles. As their should be.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Those "hurdles" are not "quite hard".  There are only three hurdles:
>>>>>>> (1) You have to pass a background check, which if you have a clean
>>>>>>> background is not hard.  (2) You have to pay a $200 tax.  (3) You
>>>>>>> have to be able to pay the purchase price.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ["As their should be" - another example of your functional 
>>>>>>> illiteracy.
>>>>>>>   That wasn't a type, it was the incorrect word choice.]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So you deem background checks to be not a big hurdle.
>>>>>> Great. Let’s make them universal for all gun purchases. Good to 
>>>>>> see agreement here.
>>>>>
>>>>> Liar.  There is no agreement here.  I just pointed out that
>>>>> you lied when you wrote "We make it quite hard to have a fully
>>>>> automatic weapon."  I am totally opposed to universal background
>>>>> checks for all gun purchases.
>>>>
>>>> Meaning you don't care if bad guys have guns, and meaning you think 
>>>> your right to arms is unlimited.  Well, you're wrong - the right is 
>>>> not unlimited.
>>>
>>> Meaning just what I said, I am totally opposed to universal
>>> background checks for all gun purchases.
>>
>> Would you remain opposed even if research showed such laws bring more 
>> benefit than harm?
> 
> I would have to see the specific research to answer that question. 
> Without more information, I do not think it possible to do
> the sort of research that would be necessary to objectively
> come to such a conclusion.

You have a very strong bias against research... and it shows here, too.

It is easy to think of what such research might find: that having 
universal background checks would reduce the number of suicides, 
homicides, and accidental deaths.

As you have said, it is not a big hurdle to go through such a check, so 
there is no real downside to such checks.

What down sides do you see? Also keep in mind the vast majority of 
Americans back such checks... and the House is almost surely going to 
pass such a bill soon (though the Senate might block it).


-- 
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They 
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel 
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

<https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2576787

On Tue, 8 Jan 2019 13:47:01 -0700, LO AND BEHOLD; Snit
<usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> determined that the following was of
great importance and subsequently decided to freely share it with us in
<g9kgi6F16vnU1@mid.individual.net>:
 
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ On 1/8/19 1:36 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ On 1/8/2019 12:57 PM, Snit wrote:
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ On 1/8/19 12:38 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ On 1/8/2019 12:12 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ On 1/8/2019 11:04 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ On 1/8/2019 6:59 AM, Snit wrote:
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ Just Wondering <JW@me.com> wrote:
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ On 1/7/2019 11:18 PM, Snit wrote:
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ Just Wondering <JW@me.com> wrote:
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ On 1/7/2019 4:34 PM, Snit wrote: 
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ We make it quite hard to have a fully automatic weapon.
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ Not really.  Anyone with a clean background can get one. Government
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ regulations have artificially raised the price, but that's another
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ matter.
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ There are hurdles. As their should be.
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ Those "hurdles" are not "quite hard".  There are only three hurdles:
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ (1) You have to pass a background check, which if you have a clean
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ background is not hard.  (2) You have to pay a $200 tax.  (3) You
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ have to be able to pay the purchase price. ["As their should be" -
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ another example of your functional illiteracy.   That wasn't a type,
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ it was the incorrect word choice.]
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ So you deem background checks to be not a big hurdle. Great. Let’s
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ make them universal for all gun purchases. Good to see agreement here.
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ Liar.  There is no agreement here.  I just pointed out that you lied
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ when you wrote "We make it quite hard to have a fully automatic
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ weapon."  I am totally opposed to universal background checks for all 
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ gun purchases.
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ Meaning you don't care if bad guys have guns, and meaning you think your
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ right to arms is unlimited.  Well, you're wrong - the right is not
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ unlimited.
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ Meaning just what I said, I am totally opposed to universal background
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ checks for all gun purchases.
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ Would you remain opposed even if research showed such laws bring more
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ benefit than harm?
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ I would have to see the specific research to answer that question.
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ Without more information, I do not think it possible to do the sort of 
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ research that would be necessary to objectively come to such a
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ conclusion.
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ 
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ You have a very strong bias against research... and it shows here, too.
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ 
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ It is easy to think of what such research might find: that having
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ universal background checks would reduce the number of suicides,
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ homicides, and accidental deaths.
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ 
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ As you have said, it is not a big hurdle to go through such a check, so 
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ there is no real downside to such checks.
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ 
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ What down sides do you see? Also keep in mind the vast majority of
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ Americans back such checks... and the House is almost surely going to
✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡ pass such a bill soon (though the Senate might block it).

i would be fine with all gun owners being put in a database and their homes randomly inspected to make sure they have their guns and ammo stored and locked away properly.

hell, we expect more responsibility and adherence to laws and regulations from people running hot dog stands than we do these fucking gun nuts.

-- 
[THIS POAST HAS PASSED TRIMCHECK® VALIDATION]

THIS SPACE FOR RENT
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iB6B8jGSdLA

"Thanks to muzzies and their apologist-enablers like puppy whistle, this 
seems to be the new norm in the world.  It's spreading like a cancer, 
and it's time we admit we're at war with pure evil.  We need to put an 
end to this muzzie plague, or life on Earth is going to become pure hell 
everywhere.  We need to get these people out of every civilized 
country, and there's only one way to do it.  IOW, we have to become 
like them, with an emphasis on expediency over cruelty." - Checkmate (of alt.checkmate) 

"Pussy Willow has just proven that Trump's crackdown on previously
unenforced immigration policies is working.  We'll deal with the domestic
terrorists as needed, but we don't need to be letting the muzzie
terrorists get a foothold in our country too.  One need only look at what
they're doing in Europe right now to know we're doing the right thing by
keeping them out, which is our right and our duty. - Checkmate (#1 pussy willow fan)

-

"You just made puppy whistle's sig line longer." - Janithor

-

"If I have a complaint about the (Southern Poverty) Law Center's description (of the alt-right movement), it is the phrase "heavy use of social media," which implies the alt-right is a real-world movement which uses a lot of social media. This is backwards: it is an online movement which occasionally appears in the real world. Where it gets punched." - Jason Rhode 

-

"I think we should destroy every last fucking mosque in America." - "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> proves for us that white males are violent in Message-ID: <MPG.32c5bfefd18c9a698f0a8@news.altopia.com>

-

Golden Killfile, June 2005
KOTM, November 2006
Bob Allisat Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker, November 2006
Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart, November 2006
Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart, September 2007
Tony Sidaway Memorial "Drama Queen" Award, November 2006
Busted Urinal Award, April 2007
Order of the Holey Sockpuppet, September 2007
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, September 2006
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, April 2008
Tinfoil Sombrero, February 2007
AUK Mascot, September 2007
Putting the Awards Out of Order to Screw With the OCD Fuckheads, March 2016 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2576739

On 1/8/2019 11:38 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
> On 1/8/2019 12:12 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> On 1/8/2019 11:04 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
>>> On 1/8/2019 6:59 AM, Snit wrote:
>>>> Just Wondering <JW@me.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 1/7/2019 11:18 PM, Snit wrote:
>>>>>> Just Wondering <JW@me.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/7/2019 4:34 PM, Snit wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We make it quite hard to have a fully automatic weapon.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not really.  Anyone with a clean background can get one.
>>>>>>> Government regulations have artificially raised the price,
>>>>>>> but that's another matter.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are hurdles. As their should be.
>>>>>
>>>>> Those "hurdles" are not "quite hard".  There are only three hurdles:
>>>>> (1) You have to pass a background check, which if you have a clean
>>>>> background is not hard.  (2) You have to pay a $200 tax.  (3) You
>>>>> have to be able to pay the purchase price.
>>>>>
>>>>> ["As their should be" - another example of your functional illiteracy.
>>>>>   That wasn't a type, it was the incorrect word choice.]
>>>>
>>>> So you deem background checks to be not a big hurdle.
>>>> Great. Let’s make them universal for all gun purchases. Good to see 
>>>> agreement here.
>>>
>>> Liar.  There is no agreement here.  I just pointed out that
>>> you lied when you wrote "We make it quite hard to have a fully
>>> automatic weapon."  I am totally opposed to universal background
>>> checks for all gun purchases.
>>
>> Meaning you don't care if bad guys have guns, and meaning you think your 
>> right to arms is unlimited.  Well, you're wrong - the right is not 
>> unlimited.
> 
> Meaning just what I said, I am totally opposed to universal
> background checks for all gun purchases. 

For no rational reason.

-- 
Snot's '.sig' is wrong, sophomoric and indicative of
his bloated ego.  Snot fancies himself the Great
Tribune of Usenet, who is going to tell all the
rest of us What It All Means.

Well...no.  Just no.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2576750

Rudy Canoza said:

>Meaning just what I said, I am totally opposed to universal 
> background checks for all gun purchases. 

For no rational reason. 
- show quoted text -

Many people feel as if it's treating one as a criminal and that there is no need to give the government more info to possibly use against you.

That the government keeps a record of all gun buyers seems like a bad thing because it gives the government a list to work from in case guns are banned.

The feds already have more info than they need through the census
every 10 years.

Then there's the cell phone monitoring.

 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2576754

On 1/8/2019 12:58 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
> On 1/8/2019 11:38 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
>> On 1/8/2019 12:12 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>> On 1/8/2019 11:04 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
>>>> On 1/8/2019 6:59 AM, Snit wrote:
>>>>> Just Wondering <JW@me.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/7/2019 11:18 PM, Snit wrote:
>>>>>>> Just Wondering <JW@me.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/7/2019 4:34 PM, Snit wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We make it quite hard to have a fully automatic weapon.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not really.  Anyone with a clean background can get one.
>>>>>>>> Government regulations have artificially raised the price,
>>>>>>>> but that's another matter.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There are hurdles. As their should be.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Those "hurdles" are not "quite hard".  There are only three hurdles:
>>>>>> (1) You have to pass a background check, which if you have a clean
>>>>>> background is not hard.  (2) You have to pay a $200 tax.  (3) You
>>>>>> have to be able to pay the purchase price.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ["As their should be" - another example of your functional 
>>>>>> illiteracy.
>>>>>>   That wasn't a type, it was the incorrect word choice.]
>>>>>
>>>>> So you deem background checks to be not a big hurdle.
>>>>> Great. Let’s make them universal for all gun purchases. Good to see 
>>>>> agreement here.
>>>>
>>>> Liar.  There is no agreement here.  I just pointed out that
>>>> you lied when you wrote "We make it quite hard to have a fully
>>>> automatic weapon."  I am totally opposed to universal background
>>>> checks for all gun purchases.
>>>
>>> Meaning you don't care if bad guys have guns, and meaning you think 
>>> your right to arms is unlimited.  Well, you're wrong - the right is 
>>> not unlimited.
>>
>> Meaning just what I said, I am totally opposed to universal
>> background checks for all gun purchases. 
> 
> For no rational reason.

Among other things, a UBC law is unenforceable without universal
gun registration, and THAT will never happen.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2576758

On 1/8/19 1:14 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
> On 1/8/2019 12:58 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> On 1/8/2019 11:38 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
>>> On 1/8/2019 12:12 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>> On 1/8/2019 11:04 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
>>>>> On 1/8/2019 6:59 AM, Snit wrote:
>>>>>> Just Wondering <JW@me.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/7/2019 11:18 PM, Snit wrote:
>>>>>>>> Just Wondering <JW@me.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 1/7/2019 4:34 PM, Snit wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> We make it quite hard to have a fully automatic weapon.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Not really.  Anyone with a clean background can get one.
>>>>>>>>> Government regulations have artificially raised the price,
>>>>>>>>> but that's another matter.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There are hurdles. As their should be.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Those "hurdles" are not "quite hard".  There are only three hurdles:
>>>>>>> (1) You have to pass a background check, which if you have a clean
>>>>>>> background is not hard.  (2) You have to pay a $200 tax.  (3) You
>>>>>>> have to be able to pay the purchase price.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ["As their should be" - another example of your functional 
>>>>>>> illiteracy.
>>>>>>>   That wasn't a type, it was the incorrect word choice.]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So you deem background checks to be not a big hurdle.
>>>>>> Great. Let’s make them universal for all gun purchases. Good to 
>>>>>> see agreement here.
>>>>>
>>>>> Liar.  There is no agreement here.  I just pointed out that
>>>>> you lied when you wrote "We make it quite hard to have a fully
>>>>> automatic weapon."  I am totally opposed to universal background
>>>>> checks for all gun purchases.
>>>>
>>>> Meaning you don't care if bad guys have guns, and meaning you think 
>>>> your right to arms is unlimited.  Well, you're wrong - the right is 
>>>> not unlimited.
>>>
>>> Meaning just what I said, I am totally opposed to universal
>>> background checks for all gun purchases. 
>>
>> For no rational reason.
> 
> Among other things, a UBC law is unenforceable without universal
> gun registration, and THAT will never happen.

You already said it was not a big deal to have background checks.

Now you back away from that position.

It is fun to see you flip flop.

-- 
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They 
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel 
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

<https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2576803

On 1/8/2019 1:17 PM, Snit wrote:
> On 1/8/19 1:14 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
>> On 1/8/2019 12:58 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>> On 1/8/2019 11:38 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
>>>> On 1/8/2019 12:12 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>> On 1/8/2019 11:04 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/8/2019 6:59 AM, Snit wrote:
>>>>>>> Just Wondering <JW@me.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/7/2019 11:18 PM, Snit wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Just Wondering <JW@me.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 1/7/2019 4:34 PM, Snit wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> We make it quite hard to have a fully automatic weapon.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Not really.  Anyone with a clean background can get one.
>>>>>>>>>> Government regulations have artificially raised the price,
>>>>>>>>>> but that's another matter.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There are hurdles. As their should be.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Those "hurdles" are not "quite hard".  There are only three 
>>>>>>>> hurdles:
>>>>>>>> (1) You have to pass a background check, which if you have a clean
>>>>>>>> background is not hard.  (2) You have to pay a $200 tax.  (3) You
>>>>>>>> have to be able to pay the purchase price.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ["As their should be" - another example of your functional 
>>>>>>>> illiteracy.
>>>>>>>>   That wasn't a type, it was the incorrect word choice.]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So you deem background checks to be not a big hurdle.
>>>>>>> Great. Let’s make them universal for all gun purchases. Good to 
>>>>>>> see agreement here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Liar.  There is no agreement here.  I just pointed out that
>>>>>> you lied when you wrote "We make it quite hard to have a fully
>>>>>> automatic weapon."  I am totally opposed to universal background
>>>>>> checks for all gun purchases.
>>>>>
>>>>> Meaning you don't care if bad guys have guns, and meaning you think 
>>>>> your right to arms is unlimited.  Well, you're wrong - the right is 
>>>>> not unlimited.
>>>>
>>>> Meaning just what I said, I am totally opposed to universal
>>>> background checks for all gun purchases. 
>>>
>>> For no rational reason.
>>
>> Among other things, a UBC law is unenforceable without universal
>> gun registration, and THAT will never happen.
> 
> You already said it was not a big deal to have background checks.

Liar.  You wrote, "We make it quite hard to have a fully
automatic weapon."  I showed your statement was bullshit,
because aside from ponying up money, you only "have to pass
a background check, which if you have a clean  background
is not hard."  That has nothing to do with the advisability
of a law requiring universal background checks.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2576824

On 1/8/19 2:05 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
> On 1/8/2019 1:17 PM, Snit wrote:
>> On 1/8/19 1:14 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
>>> On 1/8/2019 12:58 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>> On 1/8/2019 11:38 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
>>>>> On 1/8/2019 12:12 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/8/2019 11:04 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/8/2019 6:59 AM, Snit wrote:
>>>>>>>> Just Wondering <JW@me.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 1/7/2019 11:18 PM, Snit wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Just Wondering <JW@me.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/7/2019 4:34 PM, Snit wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> We make it quite hard to have a fully automatic weapon.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Not really.  Anyone with a clean background can get one.
>>>>>>>>>>> Government regulations have artificially raised the price,
>>>>>>>>>>> but that's another matter.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There are hurdles. As their should be.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Those "hurdles" are not "quite hard".  There are only three 
>>>>>>>>> hurdles:
>>>>>>>>> (1) You have to pass a background check, which if you have a clean
>>>>>>>>> background is not hard.  (2) You have to pay a $200 tax.  (3) You
>>>>>>>>> have to be able to pay the purchase price.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ["As their should be" - another example of your functional 
>>>>>>>>> illiteracy.
>>>>>>>>>   That wasn't a type, it was the incorrect word choice.]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So you deem background checks to be not a big hurdle.
>>>>>>>> Great. Let’s make them universal for all gun purchases. Good to 
>>>>>>>> see agreement here.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Liar.  There is no agreement here.  I just pointed out that
>>>>>>> you lied when you wrote "We make it quite hard to have a fully
>>>>>>> automatic weapon."  I am totally opposed to universal background
>>>>>>> checks for all gun purchases.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Meaning you don't care if bad guys have guns, and meaning you 
>>>>>> think your right to arms is unlimited.  Well, you're wrong - the 
>>>>>> right is not unlimited.
>>>>>
>>>>> Meaning just what I said, I am totally opposed to universal
>>>>> background checks for all gun purchases. 
>>>>
>>>> For no rational reason.
>>>
>>> Among other things, a UBC law is unenforceable without universal
>>> gun registration, and THAT will never happen.
>>
>> You already said it was not a big deal to have background checks.
> 
> Liar.  You wrote, "We make it quite hard to have a fully
> automatic weapon."  I showed your statement was bullshit,
> because aside from ponying up money, you only "have to pass
> a background check, which if you have a clean  background
> is not hard."  That has nothing to do with the advisability
> of a law requiring universal background checks.

You should talk to this guy:

Just Wondering
-----
Those "hurdles" are not "quite hard".  There are only three hurdles:
(1) You have to pass a background check, which if you have a clean
background is not hard.  (2) You have to pay a $200 tax.  (3) You
have to be able to pay the purchase price.
-----

Clearly to him they were not a big deal.
-- 
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They 
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel 
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

<https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2576884

On 1/8/2019 2:30 PM, Snit wrote:
> On 1/8/19 2:05 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
>> On 1/8/2019 1:17 PM, Snit wrote:
>>> On 1/8/19 1:14 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
>>>> On 1/8/2019 12:58 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>> On 1/8/2019 11:38 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/8/2019 12:12 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/8/2019 11:04 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/8/2019 6:59 AM, Snit wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Just Wondering <JW@me.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 1/7/2019 11:18 PM, Snit wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Just Wondering <JW@me.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/7/2019 4:34 PM, Snit wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> We make it quite hard to have a fully automatic weapon.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Not really.  Anyone with a clean background can get one.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Government regulations have artificially raised the price,
>>>>>>>>>>>> but that's another matter.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> There are hurdles. As their should be.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Those "hurdles" are not "quite hard".  There are only three 
>>>>>>>>>> hurdles:
>>>>>>>>>> (1) You have to pass a background check, which if you have a 
>>>>>>>>>> clean
>>>>>>>>>> background is not hard.  (2) You have to pay a $200 tax.  (3) You
>>>>>>>>>> have to be able to pay the purchase price.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ["As their should be" - another example of your functional 
>>>>>>>>>> illiteracy.
>>>>>>>>>>   That wasn't a type, it was the incorrect word choice.]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So you deem background checks to be not a big hurdle.
>>>>>>>>> Great. Let’s make them universal for all gun purchases. Good to 
>>>>>>>>> see agreement here.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Liar.  There is no agreement here.  I just pointed out that
>>>>>>>> you lied when you wrote "We make it quite hard to have a fully
>>>>>>>> automatic weapon."  I am totally opposed to universal background
>>>>>>>> checks for all gun purchases.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Meaning you don't care if bad guys have guns, and meaning you 
>>>>>>> think your right to arms is unlimited.  Well, you're wrong - the 
>>>>>>> right is not unlimited.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Meaning just what I said, I am totally opposed to universal
>>>>>> background checks for all gun purchases. 
>>>>>
>>>>> For no rational reason.
>>>>
>>>> Among other things, a UBC law is unenforceable without universal
>>>> gun registration, and THAT will never happen.
>>>
>>> You already said it was not a big deal to have background checks.
>>
>> Liar.  You wrote, "We make it quite hard to have a fully
>> automatic weapon."  I showed your statement was bullshit,
>> because aside from ponying up money, you only "have to pass
>> a background check, which if you have a clean  background
>> is not hard."  That has nothing to do with the advisability
>> of a law requiring universal background checks.
> 
> You should talk to this guy:
> 
> Just Wondering
> -----
> Those "hurdles" are not "quite hard".  There are only three hurdles:
> (1) You have to pass a background check, which if you have a clean
> background is not hard.  (2) You have to pay a $200 tax.  (3) You
> have to be able to pay the purchase price.
> 
> Clearly to him they were not a big deal.

Clearly your functional illiteracy prevents you from seeing the 
difference between "hard" (or not hard) and "big deal" (or not a big 
deal).  To illustrate, posting your social security number online for 
the world to see would be not hard, but it would be a big deal.  There 
are all sorts of invasions of your privacy that it would be not hard to 
allow, but would be a big deal to allow.  It would be not hard to open 
your home to vagrants, but you wouldn't do it because that would be a 
big deal.  It would be not hard to crash your car, but doing it would be 
a big deal.  There are a myriad crimes that would be not hard to commit, 
but the consequences of getting caught at it would be a big deal.  Even 
you should now be able to get a glimpse at the difference between "not 
hard" and "not a big deal".

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2576904

Just Wondering <JW@me.com> wrote:
> On 1/8/2019 2:30 PM, Snit wrote:
>> On 1/8/19 2:05 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
>>> On 1/8/2019 1:17 PM, Snit wrote:
>>>> On 1/8/19 1:14 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
>>>>> On 1/8/2019 12:58 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/8/2019 11:38 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/8/2019 12:12 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/8/2019 11:04 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 1/8/2019 6:59 AM, Snit wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Just Wondering <JW@me.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/7/2019 11:18 PM, Snit wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Just Wondering <JW@me.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/7/2019 4:34 PM, Snit wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We make it quite hard to have a fully automatic weapon.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not really.  Anyone with a clean background can get one.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Government regulations have artificially raised the price,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> but that's another matter.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> There are hurdles. As their should be.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Those "hurdles" are not "quite hard".  There are only three 
>>>>>>>>>>> hurdles:
>>>>>>>>>>> (1) You have to pass a background check, which if you have a 
>>>>>>>>>>> clean
>>>>>>>>>>> background is not hard.  (2) You have to pay a $200 tax.  (3) You
>>>>>>>>>>> have to be able to pay the purchase price.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> ["As their should be" - another example of your functional 
>>>>>>>>>>> illiteracy.
>>>>>>>>>>>   That wasn't a type, it was the incorrect word choice.]
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> So you deem background checks to be not a big hurdle.
>>>>>>>>>> Great. Let’s make them universal for all gun purchases. Good to 
>>>>>>>>>> see agreement here.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Liar.  There is no agreement here.  I just pointed out that
>>>>>>>>> you lied when you wrote "We make it quite hard to have a fully
>>>>>>>>> automatic weapon."  I am totally opposed to universal background
>>>>>>>>> checks for all gun purchases.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Meaning you don't care if bad guys have guns, and meaning you 
>>>>>>>> think your right to arms is unlimited.  Well, you're wrong - the 
>>>>>>>> right is not unlimited.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Meaning just what I said, I am totally opposed to universal
>>>>>>> background checks for all gun purchases. 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> For no rational reason.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Among other things, a UBC law is unenforceable without universal
>>>>> gun registration, and THAT will never happen.
>>>> 
>>>> You already said it was not a big deal to have background checks.
>>> 
>>> Liar.  You wrote, "We make it quite hard to have a fully
>>> automatic weapon."  I showed your statement was bullshit,
>>> because aside from ponying up money, you only "have to pass
>>> a background check, which if you have a clean  background
>>> is not hard."  That has nothing to do with the advisability
>>> of a law requiring universal background checks.
>> 
>> You should talk to this guy:
>> 
>> Just Wondering
>> -----
>> Those "hurdles" are not "quite hard".  There are only three hurdles:
>> (1) You have to pass a background check, which if you have a clean
>> background is not hard.  (2) You have to pay a $200 tax.  (3) You
>> have to be able to pay the purchase price.
>> 
>> Clearly to him they were not a big deal.
> 
> Clearly your functional illiteracy prevents you from seeing the 
> difference between "hard" (or not hard) and "big deal" (or not a big 
> deal).  To illustrate, posting your social security number online for 
> the world to see would be not hard, but it would be a big deal.  There 
> are all sorts of invasions of your privacy that it would be not hard to 
> allow, but would be a big deal to allow.  It would be not hard to open 
> your home to vagrants, but you wouldn't do it because that would be a 
> big deal.  It would be not hard to crash your car, but doing it would be 
> a big deal.  There are a myriad crimes that would be not hard to commit, 
> but the consequences of getting caught at it would be a big deal.  Even 
> you should now be able to get a glimpse at the difference between "not 
> hard" and "not a big deal".
> 

You twist and split hairs to try to back out of your hypocrisy. It was
clear the hurdles you spoke of were not a big deal to you. 

You flip flop a lot. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2576905

On 1/8/2019 5:05 PM, Snit wrote:
> Just Wondering <JW@me.com> wrote:
>> On 1/8/2019 2:30 PM, Snit wrote:
>>> On 1/8/19 2:05 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
>>>> On 1/8/2019 1:17 PM, Snit wrote:
>>>>> On 1/8/19 1:14 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/8/2019 12:58 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/8/2019 11:38 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/8/2019 12:12 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 1/8/2019 11:04 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 1/8/2019 6:59 AM, Snit wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Just Wondering <JW@me.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/7/2019 11:18 PM, Snit wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just Wondering <JW@me.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/7/2019 4:34 PM, Snit wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We make it quite hard to have a fully automatic weapon.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not really.  Anyone with a clean background can get one.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Government regulations have artificially raised the price,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but that's another matter.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are hurdles. As their should be.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Those "hurdles" are not "quite hard".  There are only three
>>>>>>>>>>>> hurdles:
>>>>>>>>>>>> (1) You have to pass a background check, which if you have a
>>>>>>>>>>>> clean
>>>>>>>>>>>> background is not hard.  (2) You have to pay a $200 tax.  (3) You
>>>>>>>>>>>> have to be able to pay the purchase price.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ["As their should be" - another example of your functional
>>>>>>>>>>>> illiteracy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>    That wasn't a type, it was the incorrect word choice.]
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So you deem background checks to be not a big hurdle.
>>>>>>>>>>> Great. Let’s make them universal for all gun purchases. Good to
>>>>>>>>>>> see agreement here.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Liar.  There is no agreement here.  I just pointed out that
>>>>>>>>>> you lied when you wrote "We make it quite hard to have a fully
>>>>>>>>>> automatic weapon."  I am totally opposed to universal background
>>>>>>>>>> checks for all gun purchases.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Meaning you don't care if bad guys have guns, and meaning you
>>>>>>>>> think your right to arms is unlimited.  Well, you're wrong - the
>>>>>>>>> right is not unlimited.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Meaning just what I said, I am totally opposed to universal
>>>>>>>> background checks for all gun purchases.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For no rational reason.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Among other things, a UBC law is unenforceable without universal
>>>>>> gun registration, and THAT will never happen.
>>>>>
>>>>> You already said it was not a big deal to have background checks.
>>>>
>>>> Liar.  You wrote, "We make it quite hard to have a fully
>>>> automatic weapon."  I showed your statement was bullshit,
>>>> because aside from ponying up money, you only "have to pass
>>>> a background check, which if you have a clean  background
>>>> is not hard."  That has nothing to do with the advisability
>>>> of a law requiring universal background checks.
>>>
>>> You should talk to this guy:
>>>
>>> Just Wondering
>>> -----
>>> Those "hurdles" are not "quite hard".  There are only three hurdles:
>>> (1) You have to pass a background check, which if you have a clean
>>> background is not hard.  (2) You have to pay a $200 tax.  (3) You
>>> have to be able to pay the purchase price.
>>>
>>> Clearly to him they were not a big deal.
>>
>> Clearly your functional illiteracy prevents you from seeing the
>> difference between "hard" (or not hard) and "big deal" (or not a big
>> deal).  To illustrate, posting your social security number online for
>> the world to see would be not hard, but it would be a big deal.  There
>> are all sorts of invasions of your privacy that it would be not hard to
>> allow, but would be a big deal to allow.  It would be not hard to open
>> your home to vagrants, but you wouldn't do it because that would be a
>> big deal.  It would be not hard to crash your car, but doing it would be
>> a big deal.  There are a myriad crimes that would be not hard to commit,
>> but the consequences of getting caught at it would be a big deal.  Even
>> you should now be able to get a glimpse at the difference between "not
>> hard" and "not a big deal".
>>
> 
> You twist and split hairs to try to back out of your hypocrisy. 

Repeat after me, slowly:  WORDS  HAVE  MEANING.

> It was clear the hurdles you spoke of were not a big deal to you.

That's yet another confession of your functional illiteracy.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2576921

On 1/8/19 5:09 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
> On 1/8/2019 5:05 PM, Snit wrote:
>> Just Wondering <JW@me.com> wrote:
>>> On 1/8/2019 2:30 PM, Snit wrote:
>>>> On 1/8/19 2:05 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
>>>>> On 1/8/2019 1:17 PM, Snit wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/8/19 1:14 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/8/2019 12:58 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/8/2019 11:38 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 1/8/2019 12:12 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 1/8/2019 11:04 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/8/2019 6:59 AM, Snit wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Just Wondering <JW@me.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/7/2019 11:18 PM, Snit wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just Wondering <JW@me.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/7/2019 4:34 PM, Snit wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We make it quite hard to have a fully automatic weapon.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not really.  Anyone with a clean background can get one.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Government regulations have artificially raised the price,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but that's another matter.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are hurdles. As their should be.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Those "hurdles" are not "quite hard".  There are only three
>>>>>>>>>>>>> hurdles:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (1) You have to pass a background check, which if you have a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> clean
>>>>>>>>>>>>> background is not hard.  (2) You have to pay a $200 tax.  
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (3) You
>>>>>>>>>>>>> have to be able to pay the purchase price.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ["As their should be" - another example of your functional
>>>>>>>>>>>>> illiteracy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>    That wasn't a type, it was the incorrect word choice.]
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So you deem background checks to be not a big hurdle.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Great. Let’s make them universal for all gun purchases. Good to
>>>>>>>>>>>> see agreement here.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Liar.  There is no agreement here.  I just pointed out that
>>>>>>>>>>> you lied when you wrote "We make it quite hard to have a fully
>>>>>>>>>>> automatic weapon."  I am totally opposed to universal background
>>>>>>>>>>> checks for all gun purchases.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Meaning you don't care if bad guys have guns, and meaning you
>>>>>>>>>> think your right to arms is unlimited.  Well, you're wrong - the
>>>>>>>>>> right is not unlimited.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Meaning just what I said, I am totally opposed to universal
>>>>>>>>> background checks for all gun purchases.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For no rational reason.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Among other things, a UBC law is unenforceable without universal
>>>>>>> gun registration, and THAT will never happen.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You already said it was not a big deal to have background checks.
>>>>>
>>>>> Liar.  You wrote, "We make it quite hard to have a fully
>>>>> automatic weapon."  I showed your statement was bullshit,
>>>>> because aside from ponying up money, you only "have to pass
>>>>> a background check, which if you have a clean  background
>>>>> is not hard."  That has nothing to do with the advisability
>>>>> of a law requiring universal background checks.
>>>>
>>>> You should talk to this guy:
>>>>
>>>> Just Wondering
>>>> -----
>>>> Those "hurdles" are not "quite hard".  There are only three hurdles:
>>>> (1) You have to pass a background check, which if you have a clean
>>>> background is not hard.  (2) You have to pay a $200 tax.  (3) You
>>>> have to be able to pay the purchase price.
>>>>
>>>> Clearly to him they were not a big deal.
>>>
>>> Clearly your functional illiteracy prevents you from seeing the
>>> difference between "hard" (or not hard) and "big deal" (or not a big
>>> deal).  To illustrate, posting your social security number online for
>>> the world to see would be not hard, but it would be a big deal.  There
>>> are all sorts of invasions of your privacy that it would be not hard to
>>> allow, but would be a big deal to allow.  It would be not hard to open
>>> your home to vagrants, but you wouldn't do it because that would be a
>>> big deal.  It would be not hard to crash your car, but doing it would be
>>> a big deal.  There are a myriad crimes that would be not hard to commit,
>>> but the consequences of getting caught at it would be a big deal.  Even
>>> you should now be able to get a glimpse at the difference between "not
>>> hard" and "not a big deal".
>>>
>>
>> You twist and split hairs to try to back out of your hypocrisy. 
> 
> Repeat after me, slowly:  WORDS  HAVE  MEANING.
> 
>> It was clear the hurdles you spoke of were not a big deal to you.
> 
> That's yet another confession of your functional illiteracy.
> 

See how you cry when your hair splitting and flip flops are called out. 
You were very clear with how it was no big deal to jump through the 
hoops to get an automatic weapon. But now you realize your:

     WORDS HAVE MEANING

And you are crying over it.

Come in, repeat after me:

     WORDS HAVE MEANING

Stop trying to get out from what you said.

-- 
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They 
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel 
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

<https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2577048

"Just Wondering" <JW@me.com> wrote in message 
news:ow7ZD.8486$C64.4172@fx21.iad...
> On 1/8/2019 12:58 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> On 1/8/2019 11:38 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
>>> On 1/8/2019 12:12 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>> On 1/8/2019 11:04 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
>>>>> On 1/8/2019 6:59 AM, Snit wrote:
>>>>>> Just Wondering <JW@me.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/7/2019 11:18 PM, Snit wrote:
>>>>>>>> Just Wondering <JW@me.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 1/7/2019 4:34 PM, Snit wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> We make it quite hard to have a fully automatic weapon.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Not really.  Anyone with a clean background can get one.
>>>>>>>>> Government regulations have artificially raised the price,
>>>>>>>>> but that's another matter.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There are hurdles. As their should be.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Those "hurdles" are not "quite hard".  There are only three hurdles:
>>>>>>> (1) You have to pass a background check, which if you have a clean
>>>>>>> background is not hard.  (2) You have to pay a $200 tax.  (3) You
>>>>>>> have to be able to pay the purchase price.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ["As their should be" - another example of your functional 
>>>>>>> illiteracy.
>>>>>>>   That wasn't a type, it was the incorrect word choice.]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So you deem background checks to be not a big hurdle.
>>>>>> Great. Let’s make them universal for all gun purchases. Good to see 
>>>>>> agreement here.
>>>>>
>>>>> Liar.  There is no agreement here.  I just pointed out that
>>>>> you lied when you wrote "We make it quite hard to have a fully
>>>>> automatic weapon."  I am totally opposed to universal background
>>>>> checks for all gun purchases.
>>>>
>>>> Meaning you don't care if bad guys have guns, and meaning you think 
>>>> your right to arms is unlimited.  Well, you're wrong - the right is not 
>>>> unlimited.
>>>
>>> Meaning just what I said, I am totally opposed to universal
>>> background checks for all gun purchases.
>>
>> For no rational reason.
>
> Among other things, a UBC law is unenforceable without universal
> gun registration, and THAT will never happen.

Particularly among criminals since the Courts have ruled that criminals 
can't be prosecuted for such crimes.
 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2577195 — Re: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands

"Scout"  wrote in message news:q142n8$dha$4@dont-email.me... 



>"Just Wondering" <JW@me.com> wrote in message 
>news:ow7ZD.8486$C64.4172@fx21.iad...
>> On 1/8/2019 12:58 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>> On 1/8/2019 11:38 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
>>>> Meaning just what I said, I am totally opposed to universal
>>>> background checks for all gun purchases.
>>>
>>> For no rational reason.
>>
>> Among other things, a UBC law is unenforceable without universal
>> gun registration, and THAT will never happen.

>Particularly among criminals since the Courts have ruled that criminals 
>can't be prosecuted for such crimes.
   Which court was that?


Michael

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | alt.atheism

csiph-web