Simple solutions to school shootings

Superfreak said:
No moron, you are the one that is trying to talk about the very early AR's and pretend that has anything to do with what todays AR's are capable of. The AR15 is NOT a military rifle.
Click to expand...

Try reading the rest of the link, stupid....and then continue with your silly assed myopia to support your gunner wet dream....mass shooting deaths be damned so long as your ideals aren't bruised, right? You disgusting cretin. https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...ons-to-school-shootings&p=2251729#post2251729
 
Superfreak said:
Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
Pay attention, because I'm tired of schooling you clowns. YOU STILL HAVE TO HAVE A DRIVERS LICENSE TO DRIVE THE VECHICLE ANYWHERE YOU WANT. So again, why not the same for gun ownership?

And please provide the documented proof where an insurance company provides basic auto insurance to people without a driver's license. I think you are confusing/conflating illegal aliens and fake I.D.'s, which is a whole other smoke.

Again and again, you and your like minded brethren are going down various avenues to avoid the simple truths of the OP, because you have yet to succinctly prove why it's such a bad idea.
Click to expand...

why not for Voting?
Click to expand...

Because for well over 60 years each state has had voting laws that adequately kept voter fraud down to virtually zero across the 5 states. Got that bunky?

You're not going to change the subject. If you can't answer the questions, then just either man-up and admit you're wrong or STFU, because these lame dodges and insipid stubbornness by you is getting boring.
 
Taichiliberal said:
and you need a license to drive it or else get the car impounded and a summons/fine. And I noticed that you can't even meet a simple burden of proof that I asked for....just a repeat of your previous BS. Typical.
Click to expand...

i've been stopped here in Texas 5 times in 20 years, all with NO DRIVERS LICENSE!!!!!!!, and only one single time did they write me a ticket.......fucker still never showed up for court and ticket was dismissed.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
i've been stopped here in Texas 5 times in 20 years, all with NO DRIVERS LICENSE!!!!!!!, and only one single time did they write me a ticket.......fucker still never showed up for court and ticket was dismissed.
Click to expand...

Not surprising, given it's Texas and you've got your oather/threeper stickers on the car and your rifle on your gun rack and all (yeah, I had to take that shot folks...the set up was too easy).

But seriously, I DON'T BELIEVE YOU. What possible cock & bull story could you have floated 4 times to get out from under? And guess what micro-brain? The system DID NAIL YOU AND YOU WENT TO COURT. Now the ticket may have been dismissed, but if you're nailed again that dismissal is going to show up on your record, and the judge is going to ask WTF is the matter with you driving without a license.

Fortunately, the rest of the country's traffic law enforcement is not as inefficient as you would have us believe Texas is. You try that crap in NYC or it's suburbs, and either your car gets impounded and/or you get fined up the wazoo or you spend a little time in local lock-up for repeat violations.

So one can only imagine if guns were licensed and registered like cars, how you would fair in court....because guns are killing machines. Carry on.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Not surprising, given it's Texas and you've got your oather/threeper stickers on the car and your rifle on your gun rack and all (yeah, I had to take that shot folks...the set up was too easy).

But seriously, I DON'T BELIEVE YOU. What possible cock & bull story could you have floated 4 times to get out from under? And guess what micro-brain? The system DID NAIL YOU AND YOU WENT TO COURT. Now the ticket may have been dismissed, but if you're nailed again that dismissal is going to show up on your record, and the judge is going to ask WTF is the matter with you driving without a license.

Fortunately, the rest of the country's traffic law enforcement is not as inefficient as you would have us believe Texas is. You try that crap in NYC or it's suburbs, and either your car gets impounded and/or you get fined up the wazoo or you spend a little time in local lock-up for repeat violations.

So one can only imagine if guns were licensed and registered like cars, how you would fair in court....because guns are killing machines. Carry on.
Click to expand...

wow, there is no limit to your ignorance and stupidity, is there? I don't care if you don't believe me, especially when it's the truth, and FYI, the dismissal was the FIRST time, after that, it was NEVER brought up by any of the cops that stopped me. But now that we know you LOVE a police state where the government can take your property nilly willy for something as stupid as not obeying an unconstitutional law.....well I was right the first time.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Try reading the rest of the link, stupid....and then continue with your silly assed myopia to support your gunner wet dream....mass shooting deaths be damned so long as your ideals aren't bruised, right? You disgusting cretin. https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...ons-to-school-shootings&p=2251729#post2251729
Click to expand...

How about you simply point to the portion you think helps your case? You are a fucking idiot, that has no comprehension when it comes to gun knowledge. You have proven that time and again. But do go on... show us which portion of your link you wish to be ridiculed for now.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Because for well over 60 years each state has had voting laws that adequately kept voter fraud down to virtually zero across the 5 states. Got that bunky?

You're not going to change the subject. If you can't answer the questions, then just either man-up and admit you're wrong or STFU, because these lame dodges and insipid stubbornness by you is getting boring.
Click to expand...

LMAO... how do you prove voter fraud if you have no system in place to verify ID at the booth?

Oh yeah, you don't... which is why Dems are so desperate to never allow ID verification. I wonder what they are so protective of?
 
Superfreak said:
LMAO... how do you prove voter fraud if you have no system in place to verify ID at the booth?

Oh yeah, you don't... which is why Dems are so desperate to never allow ID verification. I wonder what they are so protective of?
Click to expand...

Think about it. In order to vote, you need to go to a poll. The one that the voters bureau assigned you. You tell them who you are and hand them your voters card. They look up your name and if it is there they hand you a ballot. Then they mark you as voted. That means nobody else can use your name and vote.

If you want to try voting for another person, you need their voters card. You have to sign their name and the worker has to accept that signature. Have you ever voted?
 
Nordberg said:
Think about it. In order to vote, you need to go to a poll. The one that the voters bureau assigned you. You tell them who you are and hand them your voters card. They look up your name and if it is there they hand you a ballot. Then they mark you as voted. That means nobody else can use your name and vote.

If you want to try voting for another person, you need their voters card. You have to sign their name and the worker has to accept that signature. Have you ever voted?
Click to expand...

That doesn't keep you from using someone else's that isn't going to vote.

In my State, the poll workers are so old Willard Scott has recognized most of them on his 100th birthday segment.

By the way, Oregon votes by mail. What poll do they go to and sign in?
 
Nordberg said:
Think about it. In order to vote, you need to go to a poll. The one that the voters bureau assigned you. You tell them who you are and hand them your voters card. They look up your name and if it is there they hand you a ballot. Then they mark you as voted. That means nobody else can use your name and vote.

If you want to try voting for another person, you need their voters card. You have to sign their name and the worker has to accept that signature. Have you ever voted?
Click to expand...

And so what's to stop someone else from using another person's voter card and voting?
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
And so what's to stop someone else from using another person's voter card and voting?
Click to expand...

They have to have it. How do you get it? And they take a chance at big penalties for a crummy vote.They also have to forge the name. Polls are not huge places. The workers might know you or the person that you are pretending to be. Impersonation is such a difficult thing to do and it would have no impact. Do you imagine a person on a chopper blasting from poll to poll false voting? C'mon, make some sense.The premise is stupid.
 
Nordberg said:
They have to have it. How do you get it? And they take a chance at big penalties for a crummy vote.They also have to forge the name. Polls are not huge places. The workers might know you or the person that you are pretending to be. Impersonation is such a difficult thing to do and it would have no impact. Do you imagine a person on a chopper blasting from poll to poll false voting? C'mon, make some sense.The premise is stupid.
Click to expand...

Gee, let's see.

Maybe it's someone they're taking care of.
Maybe it's a relative and they know that they're not going to vote
Maybe they paid the other person for it
etc.

You're just showing more of your stupidity; if you think that the volunteers at the voting sites, know who everyone else is.

Did I say anything about anyone "blasting" from voting place to voting place?

Nope, I didn't; but someone could go from one to at least one more.

You don't want voter ID; because you need the fraud votes so the left can have a dream of winning.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
Not surprising, given it's Texas and you've got your oather/threeper stickers on the car and your rifle on your gun rack and all (yeah, I had to take that shot folks...the set up was too easy).

But seriously, I DON'T BELIEVE YOU. What possible cock & bull story could you have floated 4 times to get out from under? And guess what micro-brain? The system DID NAIL YOU AND YOU WENT TO COURT. Now the ticket may have been dismissed, but if you're nailed again that dismissal is going to show up on your record, and the judge is going to ask WTF is the matter with you driving without a license.

Fortunately, the rest of the country's traffic law enforcement is not as inefficient as you would have us believe Texas is. You try that crap in NYC or it's suburbs, and either your car gets impounded and/or you get fined up the wazoo or you spend a little time in local lock-up for repeat violations.

So one can only imagine if guns were licensed and registered like cars, how you would fair in court....because guns are killing machines. Carry on.
Click to expand...



wow, there is no limit to your ignorance and stupidity, is there? I don't care if you don't believe me, especially when it's the truth, and FYI, the dismissal was the FIRST time, after that, it was NEVER brought up by any of the cops that stopped me. But now that we know you LOVE a police state where the government can take your property nilly willy for something as stupid as not obeying an unconstitutional law.....well I was right the first time.
Click to expand...

So now the story changes: your first violation resulted in a court case of which was dismissed because the officer did not show...then you went on to be stopped 3 more times for driving without a license but NOT given a ticket or summons in each case. Yeah, right. So again, either the traffic cops in your area/state are totally incompetent or corrupt in some fashion, as they let a rookie violation pass or potential criminal or uninsured accident just go on his merry way.

And as for your usual sovereign citizen, oather/threeper BS regarding what is and what isn't constitutional and a "police state", :gives:

The OP stands....you don't like a country of rule and law, LEAVE..unlike communist and fascist nations, no one here will stop you. Hell, you might even get a farewell party! So unless you've got something stronger than your usual moronic ramblings, I'd say we're done here.
 
Superfreak said:
Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
Try reading the rest of the link, stupid....and then continue with your silly assed myopia to support your gunner wet dream....mass shooting deaths be damned so long as your ideals aren't bruised, right? You disgusting cretin. https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...29#post2251729
Click to expand...

How about you simply point to the portion you think helps your case? You are a fucking idiot, that has no comprehension when it comes to gun knowledge. You have proven that time and again. But do go on... show us which portion of your link you wish to be ridiculed for now.
Click to expand...

Translation: another Super Freaking Dumb smoke blowing and insipid stubbornness. Anyone with an 8th grade reading comprehension skill can understand the clear statements of the OP and subsequent responses. But rather than just concede a point, SF just displays the usual intellectual dishonesty we all expect from the rabid fringe gunner/conservative.

The point is that the AR-15 (style) rifle(s) sold commercially are ASSAULT RIFLES....originally designed for military use and is highly adaptable for modifications....but STILL an assault rifle.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/kelly-a-scaletta/ar15s-are-basically-assau_b_10469112.html



The firearms industry itself introduced the term "assault weapon" to build interest in new product lines.[8] Phillip Peterson, the author of Gun Digest Buyer’s Guide to Assault Weapons (2008) wrote:

The popularly held idea that the term 'assault weapon' originated with anti-gun activists is wrong. The term was first adopted by manufacturers, wholesalers, importers and dealers in the American firearms industry to stimulate sales of certain firearms that did not have an appearance that was familiar to many firearms owners. The manufacturers and gun writers of the day needed a catchy name to identify this new type of gun.[23]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon
 
Last edited:
Superfreak said:
LMAO... how do you prove voter fraud if you have no system in place to verify ID at the booth?

Oh yeah, you don't... which is why Dems are so desperate to never allow ID verification. I wonder what they are so protective of?
Click to expand...

My God man, its bad enough that you display ignorance....that you are seemingly proud of it and then condescend to others is so much more to pity you. Small wonder Trump, Bush and Reagan love fools like you.

But hope springs eternal. You need to understand the difference between fraudulent ID & registration, and actual voter fraud. For your education:

http://www.scholarsstrategynetwork.org/brief/misleading-myth-voter-fraud-american-elections

https://www.brennancenter.org/issues/voter-fraud
 
Taichiliberal said:
Translation: another Super Freaking Dumb smoke blowing and insipid stubbornness. Anyone with an 8th grade reading comprehension skill can understand the clear statements of the OP and subsequent responses. But rather than just concede a point, SF just displays the usual intellectual dishonesty we all expect from the rabid fringe gunner/conservative.

The point is that the AR-15 (style) rifle(s) sold commercially are ASSAULT RIFLES....originally designed for military use and is highly adaptable for modifications....but STILL an assault rifle.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/kelly-a-scaletta/ar15s-are-basically-assau_b_10469112.html



The firearms industry itself introduced the term "assault weapon" to build interest in new product lines.[8] Phillip Peterson, the author of Gun Digest Buyer’s Guide to Assault Weapons (2008) wrote:

The popularly held idea that the term 'assault weapon' originated with anti-gun activists is wrong. The term was first adopted by manufacturers, wholesalers, importers and dealers in the American firearms industry to stimulate sales of certain firearms that did not have an appearance that was familiar to many firearms owners. The manufacturers and gun writers of the day needed a catchy name to identify this new type of gun.[23]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon
Click to expand...

No moron, an assault rifle has the ability to switch from semi to fully automatic. The AR15 does not. You fucking idiot. They are not 'highly adaptable'. You are simply making shit up.
 
Taichiliberal said:
My God man, its bad enough that you display ignorance....that you are seemingly proud of it and then condescend to others is so much more to pity you. Small wonder Trump, Bush and Reagan love fools like you.

But hope springs eternal. You need to understand the difference between fraudulent ID & registration, and actual voter fraud. For your education:

http://www.scholarsstrategynetwork.org/brief/misleading-myth-voter-fraud-american-elections

https://www.brennancenter.org/issues/voter-fraud
Click to expand...

No moron, you need to learn reading comprehension skills.
 
Superfreak said:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Translation: another Super Freaking Dumb smoke blowing and insipid stubbornness. Anyone with an 8th grade reading comprehension skill can understand the clear statements of the OP and subsequent responses. But rather than just concede a point, SF just displays the usual intellectual dishonesty we all expect from the rabid fringe gunner/conservative.

The point is that the AR-15 (style) rifle(s) sold commercially are ASSAULT RIFLES....originally designed for military use and is highly adaptable for modifications....but STILL an assault rifle.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/kelly..._10469112.html



The firearms industry itself introduced the term "assault weapon" to build interest in new product lines.[8] Phillip Peterson, the author of Gun Digest Buyer’s Guide to Assault Weapons (2008) wrote:

The popularly held idea that the term 'assault weapon' originated with anti-gun activists is wrong. The term was first adopted by manufacturers, wholesalers, importers and dealers in the American firearms industry to stimulate sales of certain firearms that did not have an appearance that was familiar to many firearms owners. The manufacturers and gun writers of the day needed a catchy name to identify this new type of gun.[23]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon
Click to expand...

No moron, an assault rifle has the ability to switch from semi to fully automatic. The AR15 does not. You fucking idiot. They are not 'highly adaptable'. You are simply making shit up.
Click to expand...

Try reading carefully and comprehensively, my intellectually impotent friend. I did not "make up" the terms....the military did and the gun manufacturers followed suit...definitions that did NOT depend solely on the rifle being fully automatic...a matter of fact, a matter of history documented time and again. But do continue to be willfully ignorant....most entertaining.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top