if you say so, bone smoker.Cannonpointer » 15 Mar 2023, 7:11 pm » wrote: ↑ I voted for neither, pole vault.
I guess that makes me smarter'n bothaya.
To me, what "shall not be infringed" means is that... you're not gonna take my ****' guns.
I never intended to post a iie. I intend to suggest that a lot of kids are getting killed by guns in America. If we take the 18 and 19 year olds out of the data, does the number shrink to a level that is anywhere near the level in any other first world country? I doubt it. The fact is: we DO have a gun violence problem in America. Either you agree with that fact and are willing to come to the table to work together to find consensus solutions to solving that gun violence problem or you want to retreat to the absolute nature of the 2A text. You know where I stand......where do you stand.... after you get up off your knees after sucking yet another cock, that is?Cannonpointer » 15 Mar 2023, 7:10 pm » wrote: ↑ He also lied that the number one cause of death among "children" is incidents involving firearms.
Truns out "children" means anyone less than 20 years old.![]()
![]()
Then he tried to niggle that his statistic only cheated on one year - small matter. But it was two years. His fake statistic includes soldier, cops, gang bangers - it's a totally **** statistic. He STILL has not owned up to the lie - keeps trying to pretend the people calling a lie by its name are the assholes - not the guy who posted the lie.
universal background checks? eliminating gun show loopholes? waiting periods? age limits? red flag laws" no gun ownership for convicted felons? high capacity magazine restrictions?RedheadedStranger » 15 Mar 2023, 8:45 pm » wrote: ↑ To me, what "shall not be infringed" means is that... you're not gonna take my ****' guns.
It certainly doesn't mean that I'm against making the ownership and handling of said "guns" as safe as possible.
Universal checks eliminates the loophole, in theory.maineman » 15 Mar 2023, 9:05 pm » wrote: ↑ universal background checks? eliminating gun show loopholes? waiting periods? age limits? red flag laws" no gun ownership for convicted felons? high capacity magazine restrictions?
thumbs up?
high capacity is a political decision.... you and I will not be at the table when that number is agreed to. But my guess is we will both begrudgingly agree to it.RedheadedStranger » 15 Mar 2023, 9:12 pm » wrote: ↑ Universal checks eliminates the loophole, in theory.
Waiting periods are unnecessary if the background checks work.
Age limits are 18 at a minimum. If you can go to war or vote, you can own a firearm.
Felon , no gun. Check.
Define "high capacity".
I say so, pecker trap.maineman » 15 Mar 2023, 8:38 pm » wrote: ↑ if you say so, bone smoker.
I willingly admit to voting for the loser in 2016 and the WINNER in 2020.
Then why did you DEFEND the lie you posted, liar? Why did you try to minimize it - try to make out that the people CALLING THE LIE OUT were the bad guys and you were their victim?
Bla bla bla, ***. You posted a lie. Clean it up.maineman » 15 Mar 2023, 8:58 pm » wrote: ↑I intend to suggest that a lot of kids are getting killed by guns in America.
And there you go AGAIN, defending the lie instead of owning it, you stupid jackass.maineman » 15 Mar 2023, 8:58 pm » wrote: ↑If we take the 18 and 19 year olds out of the data, does the number shrink to a level that is anywhere near the level in any other first world country? I doubt it.
lose the insults and see what that gets you. I have already admitted that the statistic contained two years of deaths of children that were not children. I have already suggested that, even if those two years would be extrapolated out of the data, America still would lead the developed world in child deaths by gun violence. That was my opinion and I would agree that I do not have any hard data to back it up. that is not to say that such hard data does not exist...only that I don't really give that much of a **** to spend any time grinding through google to verify that opinion just to prove a point to a tinpot dictator political website admin who has admitted he sucks cock.Cannonpointer » 15 Mar 2023, 9:28 pm » wrote: ↑ I say so, pecker trap.
You are a willing groomer, too. AND a *** who still owes an apology for posting a lie, and then insisting he is not a liar.
Clean it up, groomer.
maineman » 15 Mar 2023, 9:39 pm » wrote: ↑ lose the insults and see what that gets you. I have already admitted that the statistic contained two years of deaths of children that were not children. I have already suggested that, even if those two years would be extrapolated out of the data, America still would lead the developed world in child deaths by gun violence. That was my opinion and I would agree that I do not have any hard data to back it up. that is not to say that such hard data does not exist...only that I don't really give that much of a **** to spend any time grinding through google to verify that opinion just to prove a point to a tinpot dictator political website admin who has admitted he sucks cock.
Like you had a choice? You were CAUGHT. You had every opportunity tojust say, "My bad - I received BAD INFORMATION. Clearly I am trusting the wrong mother ****, and I won't be trusting them again."maineman » 15 Mar 2023, 9:39 pm » wrote: ↑ lose the insults and see what that gets you. I have already admitted that the statistic contained two years of deaths of children that were not children.
EXACTLY. Instead of admitting error and cleaning up your reputation, you hastily moved **** goal posts, groomer.maineman » 15 Mar 2023, 9:39 pm » wrote: ↑I have already suggested that, even if those two years would be extrapolated out of the data, America still would lead the developed world in child deaths by gun violence.
To which you have every right - once you've cleaned up your lie like a man.
Son, you don't even give enough of a **** about your opinion to base it on facts rather than propaganda - that much has been established.maineman » 15 Mar 2023, 9:39 pm » wrote: ↑and I would agree that I do not have any hard data to back it up. that is not to say that such hard data does not exist...only that I don't really give that much of a **** to spend any time...
O5DeplorablePatriot » 15 Mar 2023, 9:43 pm » wrote: ↑ Settle down, and count to ten, boy...
You just entered the "lost it" zone.
Were you really in the Navy? Retired YN3?
yawn. you really need to find a hobby.....Cannonpointer » 15 Mar 2023, 9:53 pm » wrote: ↑ Like you had a choice? You were CAUGHT. You had every opportunity tojust say, "My bad - I received BAD INFORMATION. Clearly I am trusting the wrong mother ****, and I won't be trusting them again."
That's how it's done.
Instead, you mocked ME for niggling about "one year" (when it was two). You DEFENDED the lie - made ME the bad guy for calling you on it. You played like I was splitting **** hairs for calling out a perfectly dishonest **** statistic invented by propagandists to be spread abut by willing dupes.
EXACTLY. Instead of admitting error and dleaning up your reputation, you hastily moved **** goal posts, groomer.
To which you have every right - once you've cleaned up your lie like a man.
Son, you don't even give enough of a **** about your opinion to base it on facts rather than propaganda - that much has been established.
Your opinion is CLEARLY molded by propagandists, fool. No one cares what you've been progammed to spew, tard.
Ah, the old stage yawn - a well known "bottom" signal to a "top" that he wants a mouthful.
OK... move on. I have no desire for you to suck my dick.Cannonpointer » 15 Mar 2023, 10:26 pm » wrote: ↑ Ah, the old stage yawn - a well known "bottom" signal to a "top" that he wants a mouthful.
The answer remains no. No to remaking "In the Bedroom," no to filling your ball washer, fruity.
Pics of the guns, loser.maineman » 15 Mar 2023, 10:33 pm » wrote: ↑ OK... move on. I have no desire for you to suck my dick.
adios amigo.
You weren't an 05
Looks like you CAN take no for an answer - just takes a while, groomer.maineman » 15 Mar 2023, 10:33 pm » wrote: ↑OK... move on.Cannonpointer » 15 Mar 2023, 10:26 pm » wrote: ↑ Ah, the old stage yawn - a well known "bottom" signal to a "top" that he wants a mouthful.
The answer remains no. No to remaking "In the Bedroom," no to filling your ball washer, fruity.
maineman » 15 Mar 2023, 6:45 pm » wrote: ↑ and POM just talks.
and threatens.
and talks.
and talks
and talks some more.
What else ya got, big shooter?