So, how do you think the school walkout helped? No ban list, accept for Annie

[itsKingD]

And yet, you just ignore the obvious.

You want to penalize people who have committed no wrong with a firearm; because others have committed a wrong with a firearm.
But when it's brought up regarding drunk drivers, you are unable to see how both would be punishing those who haven't committed an illegal act.

When did I say or suggest that we should penalize responsible gun owners?

Sent from my SM-G530T using Tapatalk

[itsKingD]

So because your neighbor is a drunk driver, you have no problem with penalizing those who have committed no wrong.

Please read what I said.
I said. "I would do so in a way that didn't hurt CURRENT drivers"


Sent from my SM-G530T using Tapatalk

[CFM]

Internet hero knows that requesting or posting private info is bannable and is trying to bait. What a pathetic little pussy you are.

I'm expecting the internet coward to be a man once in his life. You've shown you don't know what that is.

You can post all the private info about yourself you want. I've requested none from you.

[RB 60]

Ugh.
There's many different types of "guilt"
You have "guilty" as in crime, guilt as in responsible for something, white guilt (that's a new one). This guilt i'm talking about is moral.

Meaning, you being a witness and him as the suspect, besides the fact they committed the crime, are viewed the same.

It's like when Donald Trump didn't condemn the white supremacists and because of that is now being viewed just as racist.


Sent from my SM-G530T using Tapatalk

Again, you're an idiot. I have no "moral" guilt of any kind. If you think you can pin this "moral guilt" as you call it on any responsible and law abiding citizen, you're insane.
If you can prove we do, then do it. Otherwise, crawl back under your rock and hide from the intelligent among us.

[itsKingD]

Again, you're an idiot. I have no "moral" guilt of any kind. If you think you can pin this "moral guilt" as you call it on any responsible and law abiding citizen, you're insane.
If you can prove we do, then do it. Otherwise, crawl back under your rock and hide from the intelligent among us.

Idiot? Coming form the person who clearly can't see the point?
It's my perception so whether you accept it or not is irrelevant. That's the point. Donald Trump doesn't think he's racist, but he's precieved that way. That's the guilty as the rest. You may not think so, BUT THATS HOW YOUR PERCEIVED!



Sent from my SM-G530T using Tapatalk

[ThatOwlWoman]

When did I say or suggest that we should penalize responsible gun owners?

I guess you don't understand that disallowing the sales of ARs, bump stocks, and other weapons of mass destruction; requiring more stringent background checks; and raising the legal age of purchase to 21 are exactly the same as confiscating all firearms everywhere and punishing the self-described good guys. It's true. Just ask your typical gun-humper. The NRA says so, so it is true.

[itsKingD]

I guess you don't understand that disallowing the sales of ARs, bump stocks, and other weapons of mass destruction; requiring more stringent background checks; and raising the legal age of purchase to 21 are exactly the same as confiscating all firearms everywhere and punishing the self-described good guys. It's true. Just ask your typical gun-humper. The NRA says so, so it is true.

That's not a punishment because no ones taking the guns already in possession by those gun owners.

And honestly, all those restrictions you mentioned are exactly what needs to take place and MORE.

Sent from my SM-G530T using Tapatalk

[RB 60]

Idiot? Coming form the person who clearly can't see the point?
It's my perception so whether you accept it or not is irrelevant. That's the point. Donald Trump doesn't think he's racist, but he's precieved that way. That's the guilty as the rest. You may not think so, BUT THATS HOW YOUR PERCEIVED!



Sent from my SM-G530T using Tapatalk

You've made no legitimate point. Again, I have no "moral guilt" of any kind. You're accusations are falling on deaf ears. How you (or others here) perceive me makes no difference to me whatsoever.

[ThatOwlWoman]

That's not a punishment because no ones taking the guns already in possession by those gun owners.
And honestly, all those restrictions you mentioned are exactly what needs to take place and MORE.

I know they're not punishments. I forgot to use my sarcasm font. lol

You're absolutely right, btw, about the restrictions.

[Leonthecat]

I see you still can't bring yourself to condemn Buckly for his racism.

Is it because you secretly agree with him and are just trying to hide your own racism?

You don't even make a good PeeWee Herman. FAIL!

[itsKingD]

You've made no legitimate point. Again, I have no "moral guilt" of any kind. You're accusations are falling on deaf ears. How you (or others here) perceive me makes no difference to me whatsoever.

Your right. I am falling on deaf ears. Your clearly not smart enough to understand what I'm saying.

You will at some point.

Sent from my SM-G530T using Tapatalk

[RB 60]

Your right. I am falling on deaf ears. Your clearly not smart enough to understand what I'm saying.

You will at some point.

Sent from my SM-G530T using Tapatalk

Make a little sense and I'm sure we can figure it out.
For the third time, though, I have no "moral" responsibility for what others do. Nor will I take any.

[USFREEDOM911]

When did I say or suggest that we should penalize responsible gun owners?

Sent from my SM-G530T using Tapatalk

If an item that is currently legal to buy and possess becomes no longer available because of a NEW LAW, you don't consider that a penalty for those who have committed no illegal act?

[USFREEDOM911]

You don't even make a good PeeWee Herman. FAIL!

So you just have decided to support Buckly's racism and try to appear blameless by accusing others of your own behavior.

[itsKingD]

Make a little sense and I'm sure we can figure it out.
For the third time, though, I have no "moral" responsibility for what others do. Nor will I take any.

OK.. Example.

I'm not sure what case it was, but it involved the killing of an unarmed black man in which the poliece officer involved was indicted on charges of murder.

In a jury of his peers, most were white, all but one white man, accused the officer of being guilty.

Because there was no unanimous decision, obviously he was acquitted.

When word got out, that man was not only perceived by the people, but also by multiple news outlets just as racist and wrong as the officer who actually commited the act. So much so, they had to protect his identity due to death threats.

He claimed he truly didn't feel the officer was guilty and didn't want to sentence him to jail, however;* That didn't stop the general public from lumping them together in the same group.

It's kinda like when those whites we're defending the existence of the Robert E.* Lee statue. They claimed they we're protecting history,* but from my point, and many others, those people are no different and just as "guilty" as the KKK.

Sent from my SM-G530T using Tapatalk