Federal appeals court expands gun rights

Xzi · Feb 6, 2023

TraderPatTX said:
People exploit cheap labor. And you can't be against that if you support an open border. You are giving the investment class exactly what they want. Cheap labor.

I'm in favor of a path to citizenship, ensuring immigrants cannot be paid less than minimum wage. I'm also in favor of significantly raising the minimum wage. Neither party is in favor of the former, and only Democrats are tepidly in favor of the latter.

TraderPatTX said:
So black ran schools in the inner cities get zero blame? Interesting.

"Black-ran schools?" So you're blaming black principals for a system they have no control over that extends all the way up to the federal government? We're in agreement that the public education system needs reform, but I have a feeling your idea of a "fix" would be getting rid of it altogether. I think we should start by getting rid of standardized testing instead, as well as making two years of college free for all citizens, paid for by a tax on the 1% who aim to keep the populace ignorant.

TraderPatTX said:
It's not about money. It's about keeping a minority group down.

Survival is about money when you live under capitalism, and unequal opportunities in education lead to unequal opportunities in employment/wage increases.

TraderPatTX said:
Politicians of both parties at the state, local and federal levels are purposefully keeping all of us enslaved.

Once again you're millimeters away from the point and still looking right past it. If we're enslaved, then who are the slavers? Billionaires and corporations, that's who.

TraderPatTX · Feb 6, 2023

Xzi said:
I'm in favor of a path to citizenship, ensuring immigrants cannot be paid less than minimum wage. I'm also in favor of significantly raising the minimum wage. Neither party is in favor of the former, and only Democrats are tepidly in favor of the latter.

It doesn't matter what you are in favor of. Everybody is in favor of an immigration system that works. But the reality is, the uniparty does not fix immigration because neither want it fixed. And as long as they are not held accountable, the immigration system will never be fixed. There is too much money to be made with an open border with drug, gun and human trafficking.

Xzi said:
"Black-ran schools?" So you're blaming black principals for a system they have no control over that extends all the way up to the federal government? We're in agreement that the public education system needs reform, but I have a feeling your idea of a "fix" would be getting rid of it altogether. I think we should start by getting rid of standardized testing instead, as well as making two years of college free for all citizens, paid for by a tax on the 1%.

The current education does not work. Looking to government to fix something that they broke intentionally is insanity. Give control back to the parents and the localities to solve their problems. They can't do any worse than what is being done now.

Xzi said:
Survival is about money when you live under capitalism, and unequal opportunities in education lead to unequal opportunities in employment/wage increases.

Cuba is a socialist country. Do you think money plays no part in their day to day lives? The left's version of equality is to lower standards. That's what was done to hire those police officers in Memphis that led to disastrous results for Tyre Nichols. I would hope that you wouldn't want more of that going around.

Xzi said:
Once again you're millimeters away from the point and still looking right past it. If we're enslaved, then who are the slavers? Billionaires and corporations, that's who.

The central bankers. They are the ones who play countries against each other, offer loans for weapons to both sides and make trillions off of interest. And when they're banking buddies need a helping hand, we borrow money from the central bankers to prop up their buddies on Wall Street. Billionaires and corporations wish they had that kind of power.

You keep saying that I'm so close to the point, but you sit here and are blinded by billionaires and corporations. We all know which billionaires and corporations you hate and which ones you love. You are not talking about Disney, Pfizer, Chase Bank, or Blackrock. You are not talking about Jeff Bezos, Tim Cook, Sundar Pichai or George Soros. This is how everybody knows you are not a serious thinker. You hate who the media tells you to hate and you refuse to take it to the next logical step.

Xzi · Feb 7, 2023

TraderPatTX said:
It doesn't matter what you are in favor of.

Then don't make claims about what it is you think I support.

TraderPatTX said:
But the reality is, the uniparty does not fix immigration because neither want it fixed. And as long as they are not held accountable, the immigration system will never be fixed.

Correct, because the way things are now benefits corporations. As long as every major political party we have are capitalists, the immigration system will not see any meaningful change.

TraderPatTX said:
Give control back to the parents and the localities to solve their problems. They can't do any worse than what is being done now.

And yet homeschooled children do often end up even more ignorant and unprepared for employment than those in public schools. Not to mention it's almost impossible for a working class family to survive now without both parents having a job.

TraderPatTX said:
The left's version of equality is to lower standards.

Incorrect, the left wants basic needs provided for. Desire for luxuries beyond that requires individual effort and hard work.

TraderPatTX said:
That's what was done to hire those police officers in Memphis that led to disastrous results for Tyre Nichols.

Hiring standards for police officers have always been practically non-existent. Tyre Nichols was one of nearly 1100 people murdered by police in 2022. Once again this is a result of capitalism: police aren't legally obligated to protect and serve the citizenry, it's just an empty slogan. They exist solely to protect and serve capital, aka our wealthy overlords.

TraderPatTX said:
The central bankers.

Exist to serve billionaires and corporations, just like the vast majority of politicians.

TraderPatTX said:
You are not talking about Disney, Pfizer, Chase Bank, or Blackrock. You are not talking about Jeff Bezos, Tim Cook, Sundar Pichai or George Soros.

I'm talking about all of those, as well as the ones you worship like Trump and Murdoch. Corporations could be made less problematic if the US started enforcing anti-trust laws again, but billionaires just plain should not exist. Re-distributing their wealth until they're back down to millionaire status would allow this country to become as great as it was actually meant to be. Feed the starving, house the homeless, modernize infrastructure, reform the education system, and so much more. The longer we allow the dragons to keep sleeping on their mountains of gold, the more our problems compound themselves.

TraderPatTX · Feb 7, 2023

Xzi said:
Then don't make claims about what it is you think I support.

Correct, because the way things are now benefits corporations. As long as every major political party we have are capitalists, the immigration system will not see any meaningful change.

There you go with corporations again. Why don't you ever rail against the bankers? Are they paying you to distract people?

Xzi said:
And yet homeschooled children do often end up even more ignorant and unprepared for employment than those in public schools. Not to mention it's almost impossible for a working class family to survive now without both parents having a job.

I'm not going to take your word on this.

Xzi said:
Incorrect, the left wants basic needs provided for. Desire for luxuries beyond that requires individual effort and hard work.

Weird, because that never happens when the left are in power.

Xzi said:
Hiring standards for police officers have always been practically non-existent.

Wrong. Police officers were required to at least have an Associates degree and go through a psychological exams. Those requirements were thrown out in Memphis in the name of diversity.

Xzi said:
Tyre Nichols was one of nearly 1100 people murdered by police in 2022. Once again this is a result of capitalism: police aren't legally obligated to protect and serve the citizenry, it's just an empty slogan. They exist solely to protect and serve capital, aka our wealthy overlords.

I know. If we were a socialist country, we would be living in utopia.

Xzi said:
Exist to serve billionaires and corporations, just like the vast majority of politicians.

Billionaires and corporations serve the central bankers.

Xzi said:
I'm talking about all of those, as well as the ones you worship like Trump and Murdoch.

Murdoch is a leftist. He hates Trump, but he knows his audience.

Xzi said:
Corporations could be made less problematic if the US started enforcing anti-trust laws again, but billionaires just plain should not exist.

I agree, but billionaires exist because our money is made worthless by central bankers.

Xzi said:
Re-distributing their wealth until they're back down to millionaire status would allow this country to become as great as it was actually meant to be. Feed the starving, house the homeless, modernize infrastructure, reform the education system, and so much more.

The money would just go right back to them. Then they would move to a country that won't take their property without a warrant. You really do hate due process. You've spoken out against it a few times now. Your authoritarianism is showing.

Xzi · Feb 7, 2023

TraderPatTX said:
There you go with corporations again. Why don't you ever rail against the bankers? Are they paying you to distract people?

Banks ARE corporations, I didn't think that needed to be clarified.

TraderPatTX said:
I'm not going to take your word on this.

Then Google it. Every study done will tell you the same. You can't expect parents to devote the time or energy necessary to fully educate their children if they aren't being paid for the effort.

TraderPatTX said:
Weird, because that never happens when the left are in power.

The left have never been in power in this country, we have no leftist political parties.

TraderPatTX said:
Wrong. Police officers were required to at least have an Associates degree and go through a psychological exams. Those requirements were thrown out in Memphis in the name of diversity.

Gonna need a source on that, as well as one to prove the officers involved in Tyre Nichols' death (one of whom was white) were any less educated on average than the rest of the force. Police unions always try to protect murderers within their ranks.

TraderPatTX said:
I know. If we were a socialist country, we would be living in utopia.

Certainly the social democracies of Scandinavia have far higher standards of living and almost no police brutality to speak of. So we don't even necessarily need to fully convert to socialism to improve things, only embrace some of its fundamental policies as we did with The New Deal.

TraderPatTX said:
The money would just go right back to them. Then they would move to a country that won't take their property without a warrant. You really do hate due process. You've spoken out against it a few times now. Your authoritarianism is showing.

Ahh so the truth comes out: you enjoy living in your cage, and you're happy to clean your masters' boots with your tongue on the rare occasion they let you out for a bit. Well that's good for you I guess, but not all of us are content with our serfdom in a broken system. Nobody earns a billion dollars, they exploit the labor of others for it.

TraderPatTX · Feb 7, 2023

Xzi said:
Banks ARE corporations, I didn't think that needed to be clarified.

It really does and after all this time when I've been making the distinction, you've always gone back to billionaires and corporations. So you've been separating them this entire time.

Xzi said:
Then Google it. Every study done will tell you the same. You can't expect parents to devote the time or energy necessary to fully educate their children if they aren't being paid for the effort.

Obviously, you are not a parent. You don't need to be paid to do what's best for your children. Those people are called teachers and they fail at that too.

Xzi said:
The left have never been in power in this country, we have no leftist political parties.

Just because a party isn't loony left like you doesn't mean we don't have a leftist party in this country.

Xzi said:
Gonna need a source on that, as well as one to prove the officers involved in Tyre Nichols' death (one of whom was white) were any less educated on average than the rest of the force. Police unions always try to protect murderers within their ranks.

You better appreciate this. You know how much I hate doing things for you.

https://nypost.com/2023/01/28/memph...-murder-hired-after-pd-relaxed-job-standards/

Xzi said:
Certainly the social democracies of Scandinavia have far higher standards of living and almost no police brutality to speak of. So we don't even necessarily need to fully convert to socialism to improve things, only embrace some of its fundamental policies as we did with The New Deal.

There is not a single socialist country in Scandinavia. Government benefits =/= government ownership of private enterprise.

Xzi said:
Ahh so the truth comes out: you enjoy living in your cage, and you're happy to clean your masters' boots with your tongue on the rare occasion they let you out for a bit. Well that's good for you I guess, but not all of us are content with our serfdom in a broken system.

Imagine thinking supporting due process is living in serfdom. Due process is what protects your rights as a citizen. Who am I kidding, you don't even support the right to life. Why would I think you would support due process? I honestly can't think of any part of the Bill of Rights you actually do support. You've come out against almost every single amendment with the exception of maybe the 3rd Amendment.

Xzi · Feb 7, 2023

TraderPatTX said:
It really does and after all this time when I've been making the distinction, you've always gone back to billionaires and corporations. So you've been separating them this entire time.

Right, for a moment I forgot I needed to seriously dumb everything down for you by several notches. Apologies, I'll try not to let it happen again.

TraderPatTX said:
Obviously, you are not a parent. You don't need to be paid to do what's best for your children.

But you do need to have the resources available to be a stay-at-home parent, which is not realistic unless you're already rich. And in that case, you're more likely to be sending your kids to fancy private schools anyway.

TraderPatTX said:
You better appreciate this. You know how much I hate doing things for you.

https://nypost.com/2023/01/28/memph...-murder-hired-after-pd-relaxed-job-standards/

So two out of five involved were hired on relaxed standards. Meaning the majority weren't. I do indeed appreciate the effort you went to in order to disprove your own argument. ACAB.

TraderPatTX said:
There is not a single socialist country in Scandinavia.

Thus the reason I properly labeled them social democracies. Reading comprehension is important.

TraderPatTX said:
Imagine thinking supporting due process is living in serfdom.

Imagine thinking billionaires followed due process when exploiting the labor of others to build their fortune. Your argument boils down to, "I want change, but not enough to disrupt the status quo or displace my current masters from their positions of power." Too spineless to take a real stand.

TraderPatTX · Feb 7, 2023

Xzi said:
Right, for a moment I forgot I needed to seriously dumb everything down for you by several notches. Apologies, I'll try not to let it happen again.

Your goto coping mechanism. Accuse the other person of being stupid. Typical leftist.

Xzi said:
But you do need to have the resources available to be a stay-at-home parent, which is not realistic unless you're already rich. And in that case, you're more likely to be sending your kids to fancy private schools anyway.

Or married.

Xzi said:
So two out of five involved were hired on relaxed standards. Meaning the majority weren't. I do indeed appreciate the effort you went to in order to disprove your own argument. ACAB.

Just like the majority of the people involved in the Whitmer kidnapping were FBI agents. What difference does it make?

Xzi said:
Thus the reason I properly labeled them social democracies. Reading comprehension is important.

I know what you were trying to do.

Xzi said:
Imagine thinking billionaires followed due process when exploiting the labor of others to build their fortune. Your argument boils down to, "I want change, but not enough to disrupt the status quo or displace my current masters from their positions of power." Too spineless to take a real stand.

Didn't you just get done saying that US laws prohibit exploiting labor and that is why you want the easiest path to citizenship for illegal aliens?

I've never stated what I advocate, but since you didn't ask, here it goes. I want to bring the entire diseased temple down on their heads. I want to crush the central banking system completely. I want the central bankers and all of the people they have bought to be tried in military tribunals for crimes against children, crimes against humanity and treason. How's that for disrupting the status quo or displacing my current masters from their positions of power? Can you top that, Sparky? The most you want to do is take Twitter away from Elon Musk. You are nowhere near my level in the amount of change I'd like to see not only in the US, but in every country.

smf · Feb 7, 2023

TraderPatTX said:
You want to confiscate guns on the whims of government, just like a little crazy German guy back in the 30's and 40's.

The nazi's relaxed gun control for their own people, while banning others who didn't have them anyway. The nazi's were elected, there was no way that guns would have helped.

Taking guns away from everyone is not the same. High gun ownership has a much worse outcome than a low gun ownership.
For obvious and well proven reasons

TraderPatTX · Feb 7, 2023

smf said:
The nazi's relaxed gun control for their own people, while banning others who didn't have them anyway. The nazi's were elected, there was no way that guns would have helped.

The left wants to confiscate legal guns from law abiding citizens. Gun laws have zero effect on criminals owning guns. That's by design. And last I checked, Biden and the uniparty were also elected.

smf said:
Taking guns away from everyone is not the same. High gun ownership has a much worse outcome than a low gun ownership.
For obvious and well proven reasons

High gun ownership only has a worse outcome for authoritarian governments. Authoritarians love low gun ownership. It's why gun confiscation is one of the first things dictator do once in office. You should try reading history once in a while.

smf · Feb 7, 2023

TraderPatTX said:
The left wants to confiscate legal guns from law abiding citizens. Gun laws have zero effect on criminals owning guns. That's by design. And last I checked, Biden and the uniparty were also elected.

High gun ownership only has a worse outcome for authoritarian governments. Authoritarians love low gun ownership. It's why gun confiscation is one of the first things dictator do once in office. You should try reading history once in a while.

Gun laws do have an effect on criminals owning guns, because there is no point in risking going to prison for possessing a gun if there is no benefit to owning a gun. Criminals only have guns if they are going to come up against other people with guns.

High gun ownership has a worse outcome for America now. You should try reading once in a while.

"Legal guns from law abiding citizens" is not a great test either, as laws are made up by people. Heroin used to be legal, they confiscated legal heroin from law abiding people.

TraderPatTX · Feb 8, 2023

smf said:
Gun laws do have an effect on criminals owning guns, because there is no point in risking going to prison for possessing a gun if there is no benefit to owning a gun. Criminals only have guns if they are going to come up against other people with guns.

Criminals own guns so they can commit crimes. Robbing a store is infinitely more challenging without a gun as it is with one.

smf said:
High gun ownership has a worse outcome for America now. You should try reading once in a while.

You keep saying this, but you can't back it up.

smf said:
"Legal guns from law abiding citizens" is not a great test either, as laws are made up by people. Heroin used to be legal, they confiscated legal heroin from law abiding people.

Point to the part of the Constitution where it guarantees the right to use heroin.

Three stupid statements and you have the temerity to try and insult me. LOL

MadonnaProject · Feb 11, 2023

Nothereed said:
By the time I have sent this message, the victim would be dead. In less than a full complete second.
Again, ya'll assume that they abuser is going to scream and shout. AND THEN the pull the gun out, for the victim to see and pull out theirs.

That's not how that would play out, the abuser is going to be extra pissed that they got a restraining order against them. and they'll pop that person without warning, no indication.
20 milliseconds is what your up against. 20 milliseconds is the amount of time it takes to pull the trigger.
For comparison, it takes 100 milseconds for us to complete a full blink.

Instead of presuming the victim is going to have enough time to pull out their weapon in less than 20 miliseconds and fire. Or be lucky to at least see the abuser pulling out the gun and comprehend it within that time frame. And have the training and the skill to both pull out the fire arm, and aim it within that near exact time period. Which is pretty unrealistic because the abuser pulled out the gun first and likely will be able to fire first.

It's better to prevent the abuser from getting a firearm.
Because with this court ruling, it punishes the victims, and enables the abuser.
Instead of the victim having to worry about that abuser most likely violating the restraining order. They now have to worry about a unforseen gun they can pull. And have MUCH MUCH easier access to that option.

Edit: for some reason I said microseconds. That is incorrect. 0.2 was referring to seconds. I have amended my posts with that change.

Post automatically merged: Feb 4, 2023

So just because you brought out some time stats, everything else, such as alertness, cisrumstance, environmental factors are out the window. THIS is what I mean about trying to carry a discussion with an american. You people are the most ignorant people on earth (not even arguably) but you do it in such a manner that makes it obvious you're entirely convinced you're not just right but righteous and you will never entertain the thought someone else might not be wrong (right being a far notion). Its the very essence of ignorance. No wonder you're hated the world over.

Deleted member 586536 · Feb 11, 2023

MadonnaProject said:
THIS is what I mean about trying to carry a discussion with an american. You people are the most ignorant people on earth

riiiight. Then let's talk ignorance then.

MadonnaProject said:
if I may say - why are you focusing on this being an issue where the domestic abuser might be able to get a gun.

Your argument goes as:
"Why focus on them getting a gun, they'll just get it anyways"

It's a reductionist argument and ignorant.
Because the thing is, getting a gun isn't exactly as easy as making chemicals, or involving churning food into certain beverage.

Ways your argument fails through basic process of elimination.

Sources of getting a gun:

metal working route of making a gun:
It requires several sources for resources. Usually metals. Which makes it far harder as metals are mostly privately own, or the methods of getting them, owned by those companies. Then there is metal working. The odds of that person having that skill is low. Not impossible. but statistically unlikely.
3d printing a gun:

Then if your going to argue about 3d printed guns. Now you have a new issue. the cost of a 3d printer, and the knowledge to use it. Let alone, again, resources that will work for the construction of that gun. Your not going to super easily find designs for it either, considering it's banned in united states.
So again, another statistically unlikely prospect.

Side note:
The things listed above, also don't mention that buying bullets, is also something you need a gun permit for in some states. Which if your a felon, or someone from before this stupid ruling, that source is also not possible. So your on your own for acquiring the gunpowder somehow or method of ignition if your going the bullet fabrication direction. Also purchases of bullets, are, tracked.
From a friend:
The odds of friends or family handing you a gun, and not knowing that your a domestic abuser, is really low. Since you know, whole court case about it. Additionally, if someone is killed or injured at all with that gun, the gun owner is liable for handing it to them. So it's in the friend or family's best interest not to hand it to them.
Making this situation also incredibly unlikely.
From a store:
If this stupid court ruling didn't happen. The person would be unable to get a gun from a store. They'd fail at the first step 100% of the time. And good luck going to stealing route. I'm sure the police won't be immediately ontop of you viewing the footage.

Do you get the point? Yeah they can get it, but it's really unlikely for them in the past.
All 4 methods are really unlikely to go anywhere. Which means the majority of those cases will fail.

And now they have a 100% chance of getting a gun through a store. The main purchase location where everyone goes to, which substantially increases risk. to, you guess it, victims of domestic abuse. That's why we focus on it, because it's the most immediate group of people who are going to get hurt by this decision.

TraderPatTX · Feb 11, 2023

Nothereed said:
riiiight. Then let's talk ignorance then.

Your argument goes as:
"Why focus on them getting a gun, they'll just get it anyways"

It's a reductionist argument and ignorant.
Because the thing is, getting a gun isn't exactly as easy as making chemicals, or involving churning food into certain beverage.

Ways your argument fails through basic process of elimination.

Sources of getting a gun:

metal working route of making a gun:
It requires several sources for resources. Usually metals. Which makes it far harder as metals are mostly privately own, or the methods of getting them, owned by those companies. Then there is metal working. The odds of that person having that skill is low. Not impossible. but statistically unlikely.

3d printing a gun:

Then if your going to argue about 3d printed guns. Now you have a new issue. the cost of a 3d printer, and the knowledge to use it. Let alone, again, resources that will work for the construction of that gun. Your not going to super easily find designs for it either, considering it's banned in united states.
So again, another statistically unlikely prospect.

Side note:
The things listed above, also don't mention that buying bullets, is also something you need a gun permit for in some states. Which if your a felon, or someone from before this stupid ruling, that source is also not possible. So your on your own for acquiring the gunpowder somehow or method of ignition if your going the bullet fabrication direction. Also purchases of bullets, are, tracked.

From a friend:
The odds of friends or family handing you a gun, and not knowing that your a domestic abuser, is really low. Since you know, whole court case about it. Additionally, if someone is killed or injured at all with that gun, the gun owner is liable for handing it to them. So it's in the friend or family's best interest not to hand it to them.
Making this situation also incredibly unlikely.

From a store:
If this stupid court ruling didn't happen. The person would be unable to get a gun from a store. They'd fail at the first step 100% of the time. And good luck going to stealing route. I'm sure the police won't be immediately ontop of you viewing the footage.

Do you get the point? Yeah they can get it, but it's really unlikely for them in the past.
All 4 methods are really unlikely to go anywhere. Which means the majority of those cases will fail.

And now they have a 100% chance of getting a gun through a store. The main purchase location where everyone goes to, which substantially increases risk. to, you guess it, victims of domestic abuse. That's why we focus on it, because it's the most immediate group of people who are going to get hurt by this decision.

You still haven't stated how a person accused of a crime is the same as a person being convicted of a crime. Can you just drop the emotions and theatrics and answer simple questions for a change?

Deleted member 586536 · Feb 11, 2023

TraderPatTX said:
You still haven't stated how a person accused of a crime is the same as a person being convicted of a crime.

I'll let someone else respond. Tl;Dr, it's convicted, not accused.

Xzi said:
No, a restraining order requires more than a simple accusation to be granted, and the burden of proof to have one granted against a police officer is even greater. It has to be reviewed by a judge all the same.

TraderPatTX · Feb 12, 2023

Nothereed said:
I'll let someone else respond. Tl;Dr, it's convicted, not accused.

You can answer it, but you don't want to, because you know I am right.

Having something reviewed by a judge is still not a conviction. You can sit here and play word games day after day after day. It will never change the meanings of accused and convicted. So just take another L and move on.

smf · Feb 12, 2023

TraderPatTX said:
Point to the part of the Constitution where it guarantees the right to use heroin.

You change the goal posts, first you talk about legal and now you talk about the constitition.

The right to bear arms is an amendment to the constitution, you can make an amendment to take it out again.

TraderPatTX said:
Criminals own guns so they can commit crimes. Robbing a store is infinitely more challenging without a gun as it is with one.

No, robbing a store without a gun is far easier. Using a gun is the dumbest way of robbing a store. It's much easier to wait until it's closed and then break in.

If you make possessing a gun a far stricter sentence than robbing a store, then you're better off finding less violent ways to commit crimes.

American's with guns just want to live in the wild west and shoot people.

TraderPatTX · Feb 12, 2023

smf said:
You change the goal posts, first you talk about legal and now you talk about the constitition.

If you read the thread very carefully, you may notice I didn't even bring heroin use into the conversation.

smf said:
The right to bear arms is an amendment to the constitution, you can make an amendment to take it out again.

Then do it. You are in the majority after all, right? Right? Until that time comes, you got nuthin'.

smf said:
No, robbing a store without a gun is far easier. Using a gun is the dumbest way of robbing a store. It's much easier to wait until it's closed and then break in.

Amazing that people don't do that already. Could be the bulletproof glass and steel bars protecting the store.

smf said:
If you make possessing a gun a far stricter sentence than robbing a store, then you're better off finding less violent ways to commit crimes.

Got to provide proof. I'm not taking braindead leftist talking points on face value.

smf said:
American's with guns just want to live in the wild west and shoot people.

Yep, you figured out the puzzle, Einstein. If all that 80 million gun owners in the US wanted to do was shoot people, there would be a lot less people in the US and illegal aliens wouldn't be risking their lives to come here.

Got anymore idiotic hot takes for the rest of us to laugh at, Scooter?

smf · Feb 12, 2023

TraderPatTX said:
If you read the thread very carefully, you may notice I didn't even bring heroin use into the conversation.

What does that have to do with anything? I was using that as an analogy that you can take something legal and make something illegal. Do you understand english? Do you understand analogies?

or do you expect everyone to just agree with you or shit post until they get bored?

TraderPatTX said:
Yep, you figured out the puzzle, Einstein. If all that 80 million gun owners in the US wanted to do was shoot people, there would be a lot less people in the US and illegal aliens wouldn't be risking their lives to come here.

They are playing the long game. You don't buy a gun unless you want to shoot it.

TraderPatTX said:
Got to provide proof. I'm not taking braindead leftist talking points on face value.

The proof is, countries without guns. Of course you'll hand waive those away because it doesn't meet your reptard views.

Federal appeals court expands gun rights

Time to fly, 621

Well-Known Member

Time to fly, 621

Well-Known Member

Time to fly, 621

Well-Known Member

Time to fly, 621

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Returned shipping and mailing

Well-Known Member

Returned shipping and mailing

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Popular threads in this forum