http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/26/former-brain-dead-liberal-filmmaker-pens-scathing-column-on-gun-control-a-political-appeal-to-the-ignorant/
Pensacola Discussion Forum
PACEDOG#1 wrote:http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/26/former-brain-dead-liberal-filmmaker-pens-scathing-column-on-gun-control-a-political-appeal-to-the-ignorant/
Sal wrote:Soooo, ... let us give public employees in schools money and guns to protect our children, but prevent other public employees from doing background checks on people who purchase guns because that would cost money ... and Marxism, ... or something?
Brilliant!
newswatcher wrote:Sal wrote:Soooo, ... let us give public employees in schools money and guns to protect our children, but prevent other public employees from doing background checks on people who purchase guns because that would cost money ... and Marxism, ... or something?
Brilliant!
Is or has there been someone that came out against background checks?...
Sal wrote:newswatcher wrote:Sal wrote:Soooo, ... let us give public employees in schools money and guns to protect our children, but prevent other public employees from doing background checks on people who purchase guns because that would cost money ... and Marxism, ... or something?
Brilliant!
Is or has there been someone that came out against background checks?...
Yes.
The person who penned the article upon which this thread is based.
Learn to read.
PACEDOG#1 wrote:what sally and the liberals don't get is that background checks are already standard. Requiring law abiding gun owners to check the background of someone that wants to buy their guns as a resale item is unconstitutional. Criminals and such aren't getting their weapons from gun shows or private sales. They are getting them from One Eyed Mafia dude who is skirting the law.
Floridatexan wrote:PACEDOG#1 wrote:w.
but at least making the law apply to ALL legal gun purchases would improve the odds.
nochain wrote:Floridatexan wrote:PACEDOG#1 wrote:w.
but at least making the law apply to ALL legal gun purchases would improve the odds.
How? If a criminal is going to steal a gun or buy it illegally how are the odds going to be "improved"? I am not even against a background check and waiting period for those who do not have a concealed weapon permit but these little proposals do not address the core problem of criminals doing what they do. I would say dramatically increase the punishment for crimes committed using a firearm and quit letting felons loose after minimal jail time for violent crimes.
Even those measures can't control a mentally ill individual from committing a violent crime.
PACEDOG#1 wrote:nochain wrote:Floridatexan wrote:PACEDOG#1 wrote:w.
but at least making the law apply to ALL legal gun purchases would improve the odds.
How? If a criminal is going to steal a gun or buy it illegally how are the odds going to be "improved"? I am not even against a background check and waiting period for those who do not have a concealed weapon permit but these little proposals do not address the core problem of criminals doing what they do. I would say dramatically increase the punishment for crimes committed using a firearm and quit letting felons loose after minimal jail time for violent crimes.
Even those measures can't control a mentally ill individual from committing a violent crime.
So you admit the controls ALREADY in place suffice? Then why restrict private gun owners? What restrict people who are following the law? Why ban weapons that 99.9% of are being used lawfully for self-protection?
newswatcher wrote:
Where specifically does he state he's against background checks?...He makes some good points about addressing the problem...
Sal wrote:newswatcher wrote:
Where specifically does he state he's against background checks?...He makes some good points about addressing the problem...
Maybe he went out of his way to express his opinion that background checks are a colossal waste of time and money because he's for them?
LOL
PACEDOG#1 wrote:Sal wrote:newswatcher wrote:
Where specifically does he state he's against background checks?...He makes some good points about addressing the problem...
Maybe he went out of his way to express his opinion that background checks are a colossal waste of time and money because he's for them?
LOL
Maybe your an idiot troll.
W_T_M wrote:PACEDOG#1 wrote:Sal wrote:newswatcher wrote:
Where specifically does he state he's against background checks?...He makes some good points about addressing the problem...
Maybe he went out of his way to express his opinion that background checks are a colossal waste of time and money because he's for them?
LOL
Maybe your an idiot troll.
...............................................................
It's you're, you idiot troll.
PACEDOG#1 wrote:W_T_M wrote:PACEDOG#1 wrote:Sal wrote:newswatcher wrote:
Where specifically does he state he's against background checks?...He makes some good points about addressing the problem...
Maybe he went out of his way to express his opinion that background checks are a colossal waste of time and money because he's for them?
LOL
Maybe your an idiot troll.
...............................................................
It's you're, you idiot troll.
Can't add to the debate... nice job Grammar Nazi.
PACEDOG#1 wrote:Can't add to the debate... nice job Grammar Nazi.
nochain wrote:Floridatexan wrote:PACEDOG#1 wrote:w.
but at least making the law apply to ALL legal gun purchases would improve the odds.
How? If a criminal is going to steal a gun or buy it illegally how are the odds going to be "improved"? I am not even against a background check and waiting period for those who do not have a concealed weapon permit but these little proposals do not address the core problem of criminals doing what they do. I would say dramatically increase the punishment for crimes committed using a firearm and quit letting felons loose after minimal jail time for violent crimes.
Even those measures can't control a mentally ill individual from committing a violent crime.
boards of FL wrote:PACEDOG#1 wrote:Can't add to the debate... nice job Grammar Nazi.
Seriously, though. Aren't you a school teacher? Don't you see the irony in someone confusing 'you're' and 'your' within very sentence in which they proclaim someone else to be an idiot?
It's no different than if I were to say, "Hey, PACEDOG! Yor dum and you kan't spel good!"
Floridatexan wrote:nochain wrote:Floridatexan wrote:PACEDOG#1 wrote:w.
but at least making the law apply to ALL legal gun purchases would improve the odds.
How? If a criminal is going to steal a gun or buy it illegally how are the odds going to be "improved"? I am not even against a background check and waiting period for those who do not have a concealed weapon permit but these little proposals do not address the core problem of criminals doing what they do. I would say dramatically increase the punishment for crimes committed using a firearm and quit letting felons loose after minimal jail time for violent crimes.
Even those measures can't control a mentally ill individual from committing a violent crime.
And I say take it one step further and release the NON-VIOLENT inmates so the violent ones can stay in jail where they belong.
PACEDOG#1 wrote:boards of FL wrote:PACEDOG#1 wrote:Can't add to the debate... nice job Grammar Nazi.
Seriously, though. Aren't you a school teacher? Don't you see the irony in someone confusing 'you're' and 'your' within very sentence in which they proclaim someone else to be an idiot?
It's no different than if I were to say, "Hey, PACEDOG! Yor dum and you kan't spel good!"
Uh, who really cares? When grammar corrections are placed on forums, it is usually a sign than the person commenting cannot hold their own within the debate. That is quite true here. There is never a response about the thread itself, just an attack on someone's post that has nothing to do with the topic.
Jeezzzzz
PACEDOG#1 wrote:Uh, who really cares? When grammar corrections are placed on forums, it is usually a sign than the person commenting cannot hold their own within the debate. That is quite true here. There is never a response about the thread itself, just an attack on someone's post that has nothing to do with the topic.
Jeezzzzz
PACEDOG#1 wrote:Maybe your an idiot troll.
W_T_M wrote:PACEDOG#1 wrote:W_T_M wrote:PACEDOG#1 wrote:Sal wrote:newswatcher wrote:
Where specifically does he state he's against background checks?...He makes some good points about addressing the problem...
Maybe he went out of his way to express his opinion that background checks are a colossal waste of time and money because he's for them?
LOL
Maybe your an idiot troll.
...............................................................
It's you're, you idiot troll.
Can't add to the debate... nice job Grammar Nazi.
..................................................................
What the fuck do you think you added with your idiot troll post...?
Asshole.
Go to page : 1, 2
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum