Liberal Forum

Blackvegetable » 21 Apr 2021, 7:25 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Apr 2021, 7:25 pm

It isn't an argument.

You said you did not read it so you are not in a position to make that determination.  If you are not going to counter my argument with supporting comments why are you flapping your gums?  Trolling maybe?

Blackvegetable » 21 Apr 2021, 7:22 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Apr 2021, 7:22 pm

Leave them it of it, loser.

I seem to recall yesterday you had an issue with my kids procreating and the comment was unprovoked concerning family.  So, get it over and stop whining.  

Vegasgiants » 22 Apr 2021, 6:27 am » wrote: ↑

22 Apr 2021, 6:27 am

I dont give out personal information.    I am not an idiot

Your state is not personal info, ****.  It matters because of  differing state laws.  

Let's address your lunacy about FFLs.

1. Federally licensed gun sellers are required to run background checks. But not all sellers are required to be licensed. Some of those unlicensed sellers sell at gun shows.Federal law requires that persons who are engaged in the business of dealing in firearms be licensed by the federal government. Obama’s goal with his new plan is to tighten the screws on who is included in that group.

An FFL, that make up the majority of gun vendors at a gun show, MUST, by law, run a UBC for every sale.

Remember what I said about the gun show loophole:

But private sellers without a federal license don’t have to meet the same requirement. Though this exception is often referred to as the "gun show loophole," it actually applies more broadly to unlicensed individuals, whether they are selling at a gun show or somewhere else. (Some states have implemented their own background check requirement beyond federal law.)

ANd keep in mind what I said about different laws in different states.  In Va ALL transfers must go thru an FFL for a UBC.  
More:

"Existing gun laws apply just as much to gun shows as they do to any other place where guns are sold," he wrote. "If you walk along the aisles at any gun show, you will find that the overwhelming majority of guns offered for sale are from federally licensed dealers. Guns sold by private individuals (such as gun collectors getting rid of a gun or two over the weekend) are the distinct minority."

And:

A 1999 federal study by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms found that those with federal firearm licenses make up 50 to 75 percent of the vendors at gun shows. But that included vendors who sold guns or other paraphernalia and accessories, so it was difficult to tell how many sold only guns. ATF has not updated that study, a spokeswoman told PolitiFact. (A separate outdated study looked at what percentage of gun sales escape background checks, but that study had various shortcomings, according to PolitiFact Virginia.)

Remember I specified GUN VENDORS.  

 3. Experts warn that the phrase "gun show loophole" is imprecise at best. But people do buy guns without having to undergo background checks.Several experts said the phrase "gun show loophole" isn’t the most accurate way to describe the gap in the law."There is a huge loophole in federal law, but it isn't for gun shows," UCLA law professor Adam Winkler said. "What is called the gun-show loophole is misnamed. It should be the ‘private sale loophole’ or the ‘background check loophole.’ ... The reason people talk about gun shows is that they are easily accessible marketplaces for people who don't want to be subject to a background check to find non-licensed gun sellers."

https://www.politifact.com/article/2016 ... show-loop/

Your comments were flat out wrong.  It is an easy fix.  ALL transfers have to thru an FFL.

Now sir, you CAN NOT go to a gun show and walk out with as many guns as you like.   
 

Vegasgiants » 22 Apr 2021, 6:41 am » wrote: ↑

22 Apr 2021, 6:41 am

Yes you can.  You are lying.  If I want 5 guns ar a gun show I can buy them all without a bc.

That is a fact.  I go to massive gun shows

It is quite easy

It is illegal for an FFL to sell you a weapon without a UBC UNLESS the FFL personally owned the weapon for at least a year prior to the sale. 

Your problem is with your state laws.  And I am guessing you don't live in Nevada.  In January 2020 Nevada passed a law that ALL private transfers must go thru an FFL for a Background check.

Since January 2, 2020, Nevada law has required sales and transfers between unlicensed individuals to be processed through a federally licensed dealer to ensure that a background check is conducted.1

https://giffords.org/lawcenter/state-laws/universal-background-checks-in-nevada/
 

((((CAN ANYONE LISTENING GET IT THROUGH THE THICK SKULLS OF THESE REPUBLICAN-RADIO-LEVEL ANAL SPHINCTETRS (bidentards, listen up too) THAT MUCH OF THE IMPETUS FOR "THEIR" STINKING 'GUN LAWS' COMES FROM GUN VIOLENCE DRIVEN BY YOUR STOOOOOOOPID PHUCKING REPUBLICAN-RADIO-LEVEL, BANKSTER PUPPET POLICIES [monetary policies, war on drugs, etc. ad nauseam]))))

..these republicrat trumptarded/bidentarded fools feed off each other... like the food corporation$ feed the 'health', drug, insurance, etc. [ultimately bank] corporation$...you bloviating      trumptards/bidentards 'hate' each other because you mirror each other... word...    
 

Huey » 22 Apr 2021, 6:30 am » wrote: ↑

22 Apr 2021, 6:30 am

I seem to recall yesterday you had an issue with my kids procreating and the comment was unprovoked concerning family.  So, get it over and stop whining.

You're a **** moron.

You bragged about having grandchildren as if it was some achievement.

If you don't mention family, family isn't mentioned, nicklebag of ****.


Nod if you understand.
 

Huey » 22 Apr 2021, 6:29 am » wrote: ↑

22 Apr 2021, 6:29 am

You said you did not read it so you are not in a position to make that determination.  If you are not going to counter my argument with supporting comments why are you flapping your gums?  Trolling maybe?

Dwarf,

You admitted you have no idea what an argument is.
 

Blackvegetable » 22 Apr 2021, 7:10 am » wrote: ↑

22 Apr 2021, 7:10 am

You're a **** moron.

You bragged about having grandchildren as if it was some achievement.

If you don't mention family, family isn't mentioned, nicklebag of ****.

Nod if you understand.

Get over it BV.  You either live by the rule or you don't.  I don't care if you mention family.  It doesn't bother me.  You don't so I see why me telling you I have more to do on a Sat than post here 100 times a day bothers you.  

I didn't mention your family yesterday.  Live by your rule or don't, hypocrite. 

Why are you still on this thread?  You offered no counter argument yet.  If you don't have one you are simply trolling. 

Blackvegetable » 22 Apr 2021, 7:11 am » wrote: ↑

22 Apr 2021, 7:11 am

Dwarf,

You admitted you have no idea what an argument is.

Scrawny, you are lying again.  And trolling.  
 

Huey » 22 Apr 2021, 7:13 am » wrote: ↑

22 Apr 2021, 7:13 am

Scrawny, you are lying again.  And trolling.

No..

If you defined argument, post it..

And trolling.

Responding to your post?

**** idiot.

Blackvegetable » 22 Apr 2021, 7:11 am » wrote: ↑

22 Apr 2021, 7:11 am

Huey » 22 Apr 2021, 6:29 am » wrote: ↑

22 Apr 2021, 6:29 am

You said you did not read it so you are not in a position to make that determination.  If you are not going to counter my argument with supporting comments why are you flapping your gums?  Trolling maybe?

Dwarf,

You admitted you have no idea what an argument is.
 

 

 

Huey » 21 Apr 2021, 3:26 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Apr 2021, 3:26 pm

Blackvegetable » 21 Apr 2021, 2:36 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Apr 2021, 2:36 pm

You're dumber than ****.....

Never, ever presume to dwarfslpain ANYTHING to anyone

So, we have destroyed your alleged counter argument concerning the number of magazines in circulation that will not fall under the law.  Let's move onto another point I made you did not address, simply calling it irrelevant which is your code that you have no clue what is being discussed.

Let's say this cheese law manages to pass.  Meaning no more magazines with 10 + round capacity.  You with me so far?  We will not be discussing clips. 

In this REAL world example I own a 380 EZ that I carry.  It is an 8+1 weapon.  I know you are not schooled in the terminology. That means the magazine carries 8 but I have one chambered when I carry it.  That is the +1 meaning I have nine ready to go.  In my front pocket I have another 8 round magazine.  That means I have 17 rounds.  Remember, it takes a second to change.  That is normally what I carry.

Now if I wanted too I could carry more.  I don't but I could.  I could put 2 magazines in each pocket.  That would be 4 mags x 8 =32.  You with me so far?  So, with the 9 in the weapon we are up to 41.  But wait, there is more.  

I have a shoulder holster I wear sometimes that has two magazine pouches.  Usually in the winter under a jacket.  Two more 8 round magazines = 16.  16 plus 41 is 57.  And no one would ever know.  And it is all perfectly legal under the law you support.  

So according to the law you support a person who was inclined (I am not) to do so could effectively shoot 57 people and the law has done nothing to stop it.  Just like the VA Tech shooting you claimed was irrelevant.  

That is how a man makes an argument Mr. Irrelevant.  I gave you a realistic REAL world example.  

 

Looks like an argument to me.  Keep lying BV.  You make this too easy. 

Huey » 22 Apr 2021, 7:13 am » wrote: ↑

22 Apr 2021, 7:13 am

Get over it BV.  You either live by the rule or you don't.  I don't care if you mention family.  It doesn't bother me.  You don't so I see why me telling you I have more to do on a Sat than post here 100 times a day bothers you.  

I didn't mention your family yesterday.  Live by your rule or don't, hypocrite. 

Why are you still on this thread?  You offered no counter argument yet.  If you don't have one you are simply trolling.

You either live by the rule or you don't.  I don't care if you mention family. 

Post this rule, nicklebag of ****..

  You offered no counter argument yet

You are lying.

Blackvegetable » 22 Apr 2021, 7:16 am » wrote: ↑

22 Apr 2021, 7:16 am

No..

If you defined argument, post it..

Responding to your post?

**** idiot.

I am not here to accede to your off topic demands.  I am here to discuss Gun Control issues, particularly the one in the OP.  It is well known that your are not intellectually capable of participating in this discussion so you troll for personal reasons.  Probably because you live alone and have no life. 

Blackvegetable » 22 Apr 2021, 7:18 am » wrote: ↑

22 Apr 2021, 7:18 am

Post this rule, nicklebag of ****..

You are lying.

Post your counter argument to the topic and the argument I presented it.

Or start a thread where you can divert all you like.  

Huey » 22 Apr 2021, 7:19 am » wrote: ↑

22 Apr 2021, 7:19 am

Post your counter argument to the topic and the argument I presented it.

Or start a thread where you can divert all you like.

Post your counter argument to the topic and the argument I presented it.

you have not posted an argument...I addressed the "points" in your rant.

Nod if you understand.

Or start a thread where you can divert all you like.

Are these your words, witless little ****?

You either live by the rule or you don't.  

Huey » 22 Apr 2021, 7:18 am » wrote: ↑

22 Apr 2021, 7:18 am

I am not here to accede to your off topic demands.  I am here to discuss Gun Control issues, particularly the one in the OP.  It is well known that your are not intellectually capable of participating in this discussion so you troll for personal reasons.  Probably because you live alone and have no life.

It is well known that your are not intellectually capable of participating in this discussion so you troll for personal reasons. 

Can you name one person who "knows" this - who didn't have their tongue deep in their Orange Daddy's ***?

Just one.

**** loser.

Blackvegetable » 22 Apr 2021, 7:25 am » wrote: ↑

22 Apr 2021, 7:25 am

Huey » 22 Apr 2021, 7:19 am » wrote: ↑

22 Apr 2021, 7:19 am

Post your counter argument to the topic and the argument I presented it.

Or start a thread where you can divert all you like.

Post your counter argument to the topic and the argument I presented it.

you have not posted an argument...I addressed the "points" in your rant.

Nod if you understand.

Or start a thread where you can divert all you like.

Are these your words, witless little ****?

You either live by the rule or you don't.  

 

Huey » 21 Apr 2021, 3:26 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Apr 2021, 3:26 pm

Blackvegetable » 21 Apr 2021, 2:36 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Apr 2021, 2:36 pm

You're dumber than ****.....

Never, ever presume to dwarfslpain ANYTHING to anyone

So, we have destroyed your alleged counter argument concerning the number of magazines in circulation that will not fall under the law.  Let's move onto another point I made you did not address, simply calling it irrelevant which is your code that you have no clue what is being discussed.

Let's say this cheese law manages to pass.  Meaning no more magazines with 10 + round capacity.  You with me so far?  We will not be discussing clips. 

In this REAL world example I own a 380 EZ that I carry.  It is an 8+1 weapon.  I know you are not schooled in the terminology. That means the magazine carries 8 but I have one chambered when I carry it.  That is the +1 meaning I have nine ready to go.  In my front pocket I have another 8 round magazine.  That means I have 17 rounds.  Remember, it takes a second to change.  That is normally what I carry.

Now if I wanted too I could carry more.  I don't but I could.  I could put 2 magazines in each pocket.  That would be 4 mags x 8 =32.  You with me so far?  So, with the 9 in the weapon we are up to 41.  But wait, there is more.  

I have a shoulder holster I wear sometimes that has two magazine pouches.  Usually in the winter under a jacket.  Two more 8 round magazines = 16.  16 plus 41 is 57.  And no one would ever know.  And it is all perfectly legal under the law you support.  

So according to the law you support a person who was inclined (I am not) to do so could effectively shoot 57 people and the law has done nothing to stop it.  Just like the VA Tech shooting you claimed was irrelevant.  

That is how a man makes an argument Mr. Irrelevant.  I gave you a realistic REAL world example.  

 

There is the argument you have not read.  I am not interested in your diversion on rules, definitions, or demands.  

There is the argument.  And supporting commentary.  A person could legally carry 57 or more rounds in LEGAL magazines.  The law is cheese.  

Blackvegetable » 22 Apr 2021, 7:28 am » wrote: ↑

22 Apr 2021, 7:28 am

Can you name one person who "knows" this - who didn't have their tongue deep in their Orange Daddy's ***?

Just one.

**** loser.

That is a diversion.  Not a counter argument to what I posted.  

Huey » 22 Apr 2021, 7:29 am » wrote: ↑

22 Apr 2021, 7:29 am

That is a diversion.  Not a counter argument to what I posted.

Are these your words?

It is well known that your are not intellectually capable of participating in this discussion 

 

Blackvegetable » 22 Apr 2021, 7:32 am » wrote: ↑

22 Apr 2021, 7:32 am

Are these your words?

I am not seeing your counter argument but yes, those are definitely my words and accurately describe your knowledge of the subject to a T.