Total Posts:36|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

OSU terrorist attack was Muslim from Somalia

Cubswin
Posts: 22
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2016 4:01:26 PM
Posted: 4 days ago
The terrorist attack at Ohio State University was perpetrated by a Muslim from Somalia. Yup.. the radical liberal Democrats have blood on their hands again!

This guy left Somalia to go to Pakistan,..spent 7yrs there.. then immigrated to Texas! From Texas his family moved to Ohio with government assisted money to go to college

Why was this guy allowed to come here in the first place? We cannot allow Muslims into this nation until we figure out what is going on. This religion is a Trojan horse,.. look at Europe... that is our example

This Muslim became radicalized! There were no signs that he was going to. On the spur of the moment he probably woke up one day and decided to answer the call of Jihad on USA! That is the problem ... they may be peaceful today...what about tomorrow???

It is the ONLY religion with these suicidal fanatics!

Shall we repeat the suicidal radical Muslim mess going on in Europe...here in America??? The state of Minnesota seems to want to repeat it here! Look at all the Muslims already living there! Many from Minnesota left to go fight for ISIS!!!

For some reason many liberal mayors and governors...and even the President... are determined to immigrate as many Muslims as possible here to America!!! Why is that???

Anyway.. so glad Trump is President elect and hopefully he will ban Muslims from immigrating to America and wrecking havoc
FanboyMctroll
Posts: 168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2016 4:11:43 PM
Posted: 4 days ago
At 11/30/2016 4:01:26 PM, Cubswin wrote:
The terrorist attack at Ohio State University was perpetrated by a Muslim from Somalia. Yup.. the radical liberal Democrats have blood on their hands again!

This guy left Somalia to go to Pakistan,..spent 7yrs there.. then immigrated to Texas! From Texas his family moved to Ohio with government assisted money to go to college

Why was this guy allowed to come here in the first place? We cannot allow Muslims into this nation until we figure out what is going on. This religion is a Trojan horse,.. look at Europe... that is our example

This Muslim became radicalized! There were no signs that he was going to. On the spur of the moment he probably woke up one day and decided to answer the call of Jihad on USA! That is the problem ... they may be peaceful today...what about tomorrow???

It is the ONLY religion with these suicidal fanatics!

Shall we repeat the suicidal radical Muslim mess going on in Europe...here in America??? The state of Minnesota seems to want to repeat it here! Look at all the Muslims already living there! Many from Minnesota left to go fight for ISIS!!!

For some reason many liberal mayors and governors...and even the President... are determined to immigrate as many Muslims as possible here to America!!! Why is that???

Anyway.. so glad Trump is President elect and hopefully he will ban Muslims from immigrating to America and wrecking havoc

But what about all the Muslims that are already here, getting radicalized?
Maccabee
Posts: 1,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2016 5:04:00 PM
Posted: 4 days ago
BAN GUNS!!!!!!!!!!!1111!! Wait, what's that? It was a car and mechete? BAN GUNNNNSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!1!!!!1!!!!!!!!!1
Scripture, facts, stats, and logic is how I argue

Evolutionism is a religion, not science

When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

"If guns are the cause of crimes then aren't matches the cause of arson?" D. Boys

"If the death penalty is government sanctioned killing then isn't inprisonment is government sanction kidnapping?" D. B

"Why do you trust the government with machine guns but not honest citizens?" D. B

All those who are pro-death (abortion) is already born
Cubswin
Posts: 22
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2016 8:44:36 PM
Posted: 4 days ago
Look..there is a religious holy war going on worldwide against Western democracy. We must imprison all Muslims currently in America in some kind of internment camp like we did in WW2 to the Japanese Americans unless you not an obvious threat like Kareem Abdul Jabbar or Mike Tyson- well,.. I dunno about him lol

America is one big attack away from doing this. The President must do this to protect our nation. I believe Trump will declare Martial Law if there is another 9/11 attack and you will see this happen

So far it's just been guns and little IED bombs and cars running over people and knives. One day they gonna get a dirty bomb or worse and detonate it....and BOOM... one large city is gone along with 50-100,000 people!

This is serious folks! We just one horrible attack away from America having to take drastic action. The President is mandated by our Constitution to protect America...and he will be forced to take drastic measures

Thank God...we have a man like Trump as President elect
inferno
Posts: 10,556
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2016 8:49:19 PM
Posted: 4 days ago
At 11/30/2016 4:01:26 PM, Cubswin wrote:
The terrorist attack at Ohio State University was perpetrated by a Muslim from Somalia. Yup.. the radical liberal Democrats have blood on their hands again!

This guy left Somalia to go to Pakistan,..spent 7yrs there.. then immigrated to Texas! From Texas his family moved to Ohio with government assisted money to go to college

Why was this guy allowed to come here in the first place? We cannot allow Muslims into this nation until we figure out what is going on. This religion is a Trojan horse,.. look at Europe... that is our example

This Muslim became radicalized! There were no signs that he was going to. On the spur of the moment he probably woke up one day and decided to answer the call of Jihad on USA! That is the problem ... they may be peaceful today...what about tomorrow???

It is the ONLY religion with these suicidal fanatics!

Shall we repeat the suicidal radical Muslim mess going on in Europe...here in America??? The state of Minnesota seems to want to repeat it here! Look at all the Muslims already living there! Many from Minnesota left to go fight for ISIS!!!

For some reason many liberal mayors and governors...and even the President... are determined to immigrate as many Muslims as possible here to America!!! Why is that???

Anyway.. so glad Trump is President elect and hopefully he will ban Muslims from immigrating to America and wrecking havoc

No political party has blood on their hands as this was an isolated incident.
We have had over 200 school shootings over the past 2 years alone.
Most of who are non Muslim, or religious even. The majority of them are White males who have anger issues and low self esteem. Chew on that one if you will.
kevin24018
Posts: 1,804
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2016 9:24:32 PM
Posted: 4 days ago
At 11/30/2016 5:04:00 PM, Maccabee wrote:
BAN GUNS!!!!!!!!!!!1111!! Wait, what's that? It was a car and mechete? BAN GUNNNNSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!1!!!!1!!!!!!!!!1

the irony
FanboyMctroll
Posts: 168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2016 9:27:21 PM
Posted: 4 days ago
At 11/30/2016 5:04:00 PM, Maccabee wrote:
BAN GUNS!!!!!!!!!!!1111!! Wait, what's that? It was a car and mechete? BAN GUNNNNSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!1!!!!1!!!!!!!!!1

If it was a gun it would have been 59 dead, 103 injured
kevin24018
Posts: 1,804
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2016 9:36:02 PM
Posted: 4 days ago
At 11/30/2016 9:27:21 PM, FanboyMctroll wrote:
At 11/30/2016 5:04:00 PM, Maccabee wrote:
BAN GUNS!!!!!!!!!!!1111!! Wait, what's that? It was a car and mechete? BAN GUNNNNSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!1!!!!1!!!!!!!!!1

If it was a gun it would have been 59 dead, 103 injured

or if there had been a few who carried guns there would have been less victims.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,250
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2016 9:38:29 PM
Posted: 4 days ago
At 11/30/2016 9:36:02 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 11/30/2016 9:27:21 PM, FanboyMctroll wrote:
At 11/30/2016 5:04:00 PM, Maccabee wrote:
BAN GUNS!!!!!!!!!!!1111!! Wait, what's that? It was a car and mechete? BAN GUNNNNSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!1!!!!1!!!!!!!!!1

If it was a gun it would have been 59 dead, 103 injured

or if there had been a few who carried guns there would have been less victims.

The response time was fast, but not as fast as if there was conceal carry.
kevin24018
Posts: 1,804
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2016 9:41:38 PM
Posted: 4 days ago
At 11/30/2016 9:38:29 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 11/30/2016 9:36:02 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 11/30/2016 9:27:21 PM, FanboyMctroll wrote:
At 11/30/2016 5:04:00 PM, Maccabee wrote:
BAN GUNS!!!!!!!!!!!1111!! Wait, what's that? It was a car and mechete? BAN GUNNNNSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!1!!!!1!!!!!!!!!1

If it was a gun it would have been 59 dead, 103 injured

or if there had been a few who carried guns there would have been less victims.

The response time was fast, but not as fast as if there was conceal carry.

exactly, if I were king there would be no guns and everyone would carry swords!!!
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,250
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2016 9:43:05 PM
Posted: 4 days ago
At 11/30/2016 9:41:38 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 11/30/2016 9:38:29 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 11/30/2016 9:36:02 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 11/30/2016 9:27:21 PM, FanboyMctroll wrote:
At 11/30/2016 5:04:00 PM, Maccabee wrote:
BAN GUNS!!!!!!!!!!!1111!! Wait, what's that? It was a car and mechete? BAN GUNNNNSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!1!!!!1!!!!!!!!!1

If it was a gun it would have been 59 dead, 103 injured

or if there had been a few who carried guns there would have been less victims.

The response time was fast, but not as fast as if there was conceal carry.

exactly, if I were king there would be no guns and everyone would carry swords!!!

Or pillows, and sport bras.
slo1
Posts: 4,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2016 1:56:08 PM
Posted: 3 days ago
At 11/30/2016 9:24:32 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 11/30/2016 5:04:00 PM, Maccabee wrote:
BAN GUNS!!!!!!!!!!!1111!! Wait, what's that? It was a car and mechete? BAN GUNNNNSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!1!!!!1!!!!!!!!!1

the irony

If you guys see irony in strawman-ing then go for it. To my knowledge people who support closing the background check loop holes and other comments sense regulation have never made the claim that doing as such would eliminate using cars and knives as deadly weapons.

Move along as we see your juvenile tactics.
Vaarka
Posts: 7,546
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2016 1:59:41 PM
Posted: 3 days ago
I saw "OSU", and it was not the osu I was hoping for...
You're probably thinking right now "haha I'm a genius". Well you're not -Valkrin

inferno: "I don't know, are you attracted to women?"
ButterCatX: "No, Vaarka is mine!"

All hail scum Vaarka, wielder of the bastard sword, smiter of nations, destroyer of spiders -VOT

"Vaarka, I've been thinking about this for a long time now," (pulls out small box made of macaroni) "W-will you be my noodle buddy?" -Kirigaya
Iacov
Posts: 10
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2016 2:47:11 PM
Posted: 3 days ago
At 11/30/2016 9:41:38 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 11/30/2016 9:38:29 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 11/30/2016 9:36:02 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 11/30/2016 9:27:21 PM, FanboyMctroll wrote:
At 11/30/2016 5:04:00 PM, Maccabee wrote:
BAN GUNS!!!!!!!!!!!1111!! Wait, what's that? It was a car and mechete? BAN GUNNNNSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!1!!!!1!!!!!!!!!1

If it was a gun it would have been 59 dead, 103 injured

or if there had been a few who carried guns there would have been less victims.

The response time was fast, but not as fast as if there was conceal carry.

exactly, if I were king there would be no guns and everyone would carry swords!!!

I would support this completely!
Wyrd bi" ful ar"d Fate is inexorable.
kevin24018
Posts: 1,804
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2016 2:47:25 PM
Posted: 3 days ago
At 12/1/2016 1:56:08 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 11/30/2016 9:24:32 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 11/30/2016 5:04:00 PM, Maccabee wrote:
BAN GUNS!!!!!!!!!!!1111!! Wait, what's that? It was a car and mechete? BAN GUNNNNSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!1!!!!1!!!!!!!!!1

the irony

If you guys see irony in strawman-ing then go for it. To my knowledge people who support closing the background check loop holes and other comments sense regulation have never made the claim that doing as such would eliminate using cars and knives as deadly weapons.

Move along as we see your juvenile tactics.

there is no loop hole for heavens sake, how anyone still be so uninformed to still believe that, or do people not really understand what loop hole means? There have been threads about this already debunking that myth, people need to read.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,250
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2016 2:59:45 PM
Posted: 3 days ago
At 12/1/2016 2:47:25 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 12/1/2016 1:56:08 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 11/30/2016 9:24:32 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 11/30/2016 5:04:00 PM, Maccabee wrote:
BAN GUNS!!!!!!!!!!!1111!! Wait, what's that? It was a car and mechete? BAN GUNNNNSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!1!!!!1!!!!!!!!!1

the irony

If you guys see irony in strawman-ing then go for it. To my knowledge people who support closing the background check loop holes and other comments sense regulation have never made the claim that doing as such would eliminate using cars and knives as deadly weapons.

Move along as we see your juvenile tactics.

there is no loop hole for heavens sake, how anyone still be so uninformed to still believe that, or do people not really understand what loop hole means? There have been threads about this already debunking that myth, people need to read.

I like how the word loophole rolls off the tongue.
kevin24018
Posts: 1,804
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2016 3:34:20 PM
Posted: 3 days ago
At 12/1/2016 2:59:45 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 12/1/2016 2:47:25 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 12/1/2016 1:56:08 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 11/30/2016 9:24:32 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 11/30/2016 5:04:00 PM, Maccabee wrote:
BAN GUNS!!!!!!!!!!!1111!! Wait, what's that? It was a car and mechete? BAN GUNNNNSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!1!!!!1!!!!!!!!!1

the irony

If you guys see irony in strawman-ing then go for it. To my knowledge people who support closing the background check loop holes and other comments sense regulation have never made the claim that doing as such would eliminate using cars and knives as deadly weapons.

Move along as we see your juvenile tactics.

there is no loop hole for heavens sake, how anyone still be so uninformed to still believe that, or do people not really understand what loop hole means? There have been threads about this already debunking that myth, people need to read.

I like how the word loophole rolls off the tongue.

generally you can preface the word hole with 3 letters and apply that to those who think the loophole really exists.
slo1
Posts: 4,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2016 7:24:06 PM
Posted: 3 days ago
At 12/1/2016 2:47:25 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 12/1/2016 1:56:08 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 11/30/2016 9:24:32 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 11/30/2016 5:04:00 PM, Maccabee wrote:
BAN GUNS!!!!!!!!!!!1111!! Wait, what's that? It was a car and mechete? BAN GUNNNNSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!1!!!!1!!!!!!!!!1

the irony

If you guys see irony in strawman-ing then go for it. To my knowledge people who support closing the background check loop holes and other comments sense regulation have never made the claim that doing as such would eliminate using cars and knives as deadly weapons.

Move along as we see your juvenile tactics.

there is no loop hole for heavens sake, how anyone still be so uninformed to still believe that, or do people not really understand what loop hole means? There have been threads about this already debunking that myth, people need to read.

When I can sell my handgun in TX to an ex-felon or anybody who can't buy one from a licensed seller then there is indeed a loophole. Go ahead and try to debunk that. I dare you to.

Even Switzerland requires that both parties to private sales write down the others party's info and keep it for 10 years.

Regardless your strawman tactic to paint anyone who is for further regulation as unreasonable is not working.
kevin24018
Posts: 1,804
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2016 7:35:33 PM
Posted: 3 days ago
At 12/1/2016 7:24:06 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 12/1/2016 2:47:25 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 12/1/2016 1:56:08 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 11/30/2016 9:24:32 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 11/30/2016 5:04:00 PM, Maccabee wrote:
BAN GUNS!!!!!!!!!!!1111!! Wait, what's that? It was a car and mechete? BAN GUNNNNSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!1!!!!1!!!!!!!!!1

the irony

If you guys see irony in strawman-ing then go for it. To my knowledge people who support closing the background check loop holes and other comments sense regulation have never made the claim that doing as such would eliminate using cars and knives as deadly weapons.

Move along as we see your juvenile tactics.

there is no loop hole for heavens sake, how anyone still be so uninformed to still believe that, or do people not really understand what loop hole means? There have been threads about this already debunking that myth, people need to read.

When I can sell my handgun in TX to an ex-felon or anybody who can't buy one from a licensed seller then there is indeed a loophole. Go ahead and try to debunk that. I dare you to.

Even Switzerland requires that both parties to private sales write down the others party's info and keep it for 10 years.

Regardless your strawman tactic to paint anyone who is for further regulation as unreasonable is not working.

what you are describing is a crime, not a loophole, if you buy alcohol and give it to a minor is that a loophole? debunked and slam dunked.
slo1
Posts: 4,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2016 8:02:55 PM
Posted: 3 days ago
At 12/1/2016 7:35:33 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 12/1/2016 7:24:06 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 12/1/2016 2:47:25 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 12/1/2016 1:56:08 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 11/30/2016 9:24:32 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 11/30/2016 5:04:00 PM, Maccabee wrote:
BAN GUNS!!!!!!!!!!!1111!! Wait, what's that? It was a car and mechete? BAN GUNNNNSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!1!!!!1!!!!!!!!!1

the irony

If you guys see irony in strawman-ing then go for it. To my knowledge people who support closing the background check loop holes and other comments sense regulation have never made the claim that doing as such would eliminate using cars and knives as deadly weapons.

Move along as we see your juvenile tactics.

there is no loop hole for heavens sake, how anyone still be so uninformed to still believe that, or do people not really understand what loop hole means? There have been threads about this already debunking that myth, people need to read.

When I can sell my handgun in TX to an ex-felon or anybody who can't buy one from a licensed seller then there is indeed a loophole. Go ahead and try to debunk that. I dare you to.

Even Switzerland requires that both parties to private sales write down the others party's info and keep it for 10 years.

Regardless your strawman tactic to paint anyone who is for further regulation as unreasonable is not working.

what you are describing is a crime, not a loophole, if you buy alcohol and give it to a minor is that a loophole? debunked and slam dunked.

Nice try, but simply for the fact that I'm not required to run a background check, I can sell my guns to anyone in TX legally.
kevin24018
Posts: 1,804
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2016 8:16:49 PM
Posted: 3 days ago
At 12/1/2016 8:02:55 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 12/1/2016 7:35:33 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 12/1/2016 7:24:06 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 12/1/2016 2:47:25 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 12/1/2016 1:56:08 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 11/30/2016 9:24:32 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 11/30/2016 5:04:00 PM, Maccabee wrote:
BAN GUNS!!!!!!!!!!!1111!! Wait, what's that? It was a car and mechete? BAN GUNNNNSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!1!!!!1!!!!!!!!!1

the irony

If you guys see irony in strawman-ing then go for it. To my knowledge people who support closing the background check loop holes and other comments sense regulation have never made the claim that doing as such would eliminate using cars and knives as deadly weapons.

Move along as we see your juvenile tactics.

there is no loop hole for heavens sake, how anyone still be so uninformed to still believe that, or do people not really understand what loop hole means? There have been threads about this already debunking that myth, people need to read.

When I can sell my handgun in TX to an ex-felon or anybody who can't buy one from a licensed seller then there is indeed a loophole. Go ahead and try to debunk that. I dare you to.

Even Switzerland requires that both parties to private sales write down the others party's info and keep it for 10 years.

Regardless your strawman tactic to paint anyone who is for further regulation as unreasonable is not working.

what you are describing is a crime, not a loophole, if you buy alcohol and give it to a minor is that a loophole? debunked and slam dunked.

Nice try, but simply for the fact that I'm not required to run a background check, I can sell my guns to anyone in TX legally.

not to anyone, you still can't sell them to someone who is precluded by federal law to have them, not legally anyway, then again if you are going to break the law, more laws won't stop you.

exactly so you aren't trying to get around a law that prevents that, hence no loophole
loop"hole
G2;loV2;opG6;(h)!3;l/Submit
noun
1.
an ambiguity or inadequacy in the law or a set of rules.

as a side note, the state police set up a booth at a gun show and offered free background checks for private sales (which as you stated are voluntary) they only did 3 or 4 I think, then again it's difficult to say how many private transactions there were, the couple that I attended way back, there were not many trying to sell privately, the ones I saw had hunting rifles, off topic I know but thought it was worth the clarity.
slo1
Posts: 4,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2016 9:36:27 PM
Posted: 3 days ago
At 12/1/2016 8:16:49 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 12/1/2016 8:02:55 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 12/1/2016 7:35:33 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 12/1/2016 7:24:06 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 12/1/2016 2:47:25 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 12/1/2016 1:56:08 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 11/30/2016 9:24:32 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 11/30/2016 5:04:00 PM, Maccabee wrote:
BAN GUNS!!!!!!!!!!!1111!! Wait, what's that? It was a car and mechete? BAN GUNNNNSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!1!!!!1!!!!!!!!!1

the irony

If you guys see irony in strawman-ing then go for it. To my knowledge people who support closing the background check loop holes and other comments sense regulation have never made the claim that doing as such would eliminate using cars and knives as deadly weapons.

Move along as we see your juvenile tactics.

there is no loop hole for heavens sake, how anyone still be so uninformed to still believe that, or do people not really understand what loop hole means? There have been threads about this already debunking that myth, people need to read.

When I can sell my handgun in TX to an ex-felon or anybody who can't buy one from a licensed seller then there is indeed a loophole. Go ahead and try to debunk that. I dare you to.

Even Switzerland requires that both parties to private sales write down the others party's info and keep it for 10 years.

Regardless your strawman tactic to paint anyone who is for further regulation as unreasonable is not working.

what you are describing is a crime, not a loophole, if you buy alcohol and give it to a minor is that a loophole? debunked and slam dunked.

Nice try, but simply for the fact that I'm not required to run a background check, I can sell my guns to anyone in TX legally.

not to anyone, you still can't sell them to someone who is precluded by federal law to have them, not legally anyway, then again if you are going to break the law, more laws won't stop you.

exactly so you aren't trying to get around a law that prevents that, hence no loophole

I can tell you are trying hard and you are missing the point completely.

I am protected a one word, "knowingly". Since I am not required to pull a background check for intra state personal sales I will be unable to determine felony or any other disqualifier of the buyer. Hence, I have committed no crime or violation of federal or state law. Back ground check loop hole.

http://texasguntrader.com.... (look at all these individual sellers on this site)

loop"hole
G2;loV2;opG6;(h)!3;l/Submit
noun
1.
an ambiguity or inadequacy in the law or a set of rules.

as a side note, the state police set up a booth at a gun show and offered free background checks for private sales (which as you stated are voluntary) they only did 3 or 4 I think, then again it's difficult to say how many private transactions there were, the couple that I attended way back, there were not many trying to sell privately, the ones I saw had hunting rifles, off topic I know but thought it was worth the clarity.
kevin24018
Posts: 1,804
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2016 9:53:12 PM
Posted: 3 days ago
At 12/1/2016 9:36:27 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 12/1/2016 8:16:49 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 12/1/2016 8:02:55 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 12/1/2016 7:35:33 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 12/1/2016 7:24:06 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 12/1/2016 2:47:25 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 12/1/2016 1:56:08 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 11/30/2016 9:24:32 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 11/30/2016 5:04:00 PM, Maccabee wrote:
BAN GUNS!!!!!!!!!!!1111!! Wait, what's that? It was a car and mechete? BAN GUNNNNSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!1!!!!1!!!!!!!!!1

the irony

If you guys see irony in strawman-ing then go for it. To my knowledge people who support closing the background check loop holes and other comments sense regulation have never made the claim that doing as such would eliminate using cars and knives as deadly weapons.

Move along as we see your juvenile tactics.

there is no loop hole for heavens sake, how anyone still be so uninformed to still believe that, or do people not really understand what loop hole means? There have been threads about this already debunking that myth, people need to read.

When I can sell my handgun in TX to an ex-felon or anybody who can't buy one from a licensed seller then there is indeed a loophole. Go ahead and try to debunk that. I dare you to.

Even Switzerland requires that both parties to private sales write down the others party's info and keep it for 10 years.

Regardless your strawman tactic to paint anyone who is for further regulation as unreasonable is not working.

what you are describing is a crime, not a loophole, if you buy alcohol and give it to a minor is that a loophole? debunked and slam dunked.

Nice try, but simply for the fact that I'm not required to run a background check, I can sell my guns to anyone in TX legally.

not to anyone, you still can't sell them to someone who is precluded by federal law to have them, not legally anyway, then again if you are going to break the law, more laws won't stop you.

exactly so you aren't trying to get around a law that prevents that, hence no loophole

I can tell you are trying hard and you are missing the point completely.

I am protected a one word, "knowingly". Since I am not required to pull a background check for intra state personal sales I will be unable to determine felony or any other disqualifier of the buyer. Hence, I have committed no crime or violation of federal or state law. Back ground check loop hole.

http://texasguntrader.com.... (look at all these individual sellers on this site)


ok so how does any of that apply to the definition of loophole or is there a different one you are using? where is ambiguity or inadequacy, since there is NO law that says you have to do a background check for a private sale? How are you circumventing something that just doesn't exist? Maybe I'm misunderstanding this but I don't think so. Isn't the loophole in this context the same as when people get off on a technicality? I think you are confusing your opinion that there should be a law that require background checks for all sales including private ones, but there isn't so again there's no loophole. There are different requirements on commercial and private sales, but a loophole does it not make.

Would you agree not everyone gets off on legal loopholes or technicalities?

loop"hole
G2;loV2;opG6;(h)!3;l/Submit
noun
1.
an ambiguity or inadequacy in the law or a set of rules.

as a side note, the state police set up a booth at a gun show and offered free background checks for private sales (which as you stated are voluntary) they only did 3 or 4 I think, then again it's difficult to say how many private transactions there were, the couple that I attended way back, there were not many trying to sell privately, the ones I saw had hunting rifles, off topic I know but thought it was worth the clarity.
inferno
Posts: 10,556
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2016 9:57:24 PM
Posted: 3 days ago
At 12/1/2016 9:53:12 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 12/1/2016 9:36:27 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 12/1/2016 8:16:49 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 12/1/2016 8:02:55 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 12/1/2016 7:35:33 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 12/1/2016 7:24:06 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 12/1/2016 2:47:25 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 12/1/2016 1:56:08 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 11/30/2016 9:24:32 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 11/30/2016 5:04:00 PM, Maccabee wrote:
BAN GUNS!!!!!!!!!!!1111!! Wait, what's that? It was a car and mechete? BAN GUNNNNSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!1!!!!1!!!!!!!!!1

the irony

If you guys see irony in strawman-ing then go for it. To my knowledge people who support closing the background check loop holes and other comments sense regulation have never made the claim that doing as such would eliminate using cars and knives as deadly weapons.

Move along as we see your juvenile tactics.

there is no loop hole for heavens sake, how anyone still be so uninformed to still believe that, or do people not really understand what loop hole means? There have been threads about this already debunking that myth, people need to read.

When I can sell my handgun in TX to an ex-felon or anybody who can't buy one from a licensed seller then there is indeed a loophole. Go ahead and try to debunk that. I dare you to.

Even Switzerland requires that both parties to private sales write down the others party's info and keep it for 10 years.

Regardless your strawman tactic to paint anyone who is for further regulation as unreasonable is not working.

what you are describing is a crime, not a loophole, if you buy alcohol and give it to a minor is that a loophole? debunked and slam dunked.

Nice try, but simply for the fact that I'm not required to run a background check, I can sell my guns to anyone in TX legally.

not to anyone, you still can't sell them to someone who is precluded by federal law to have them, not legally anyway, then again if you are going to break the law, more laws won't stop you.

exactly so you aren't trying to get around a law that prevents that, hence no loophole

I can tell you are trying hard and you are missing the point completely.

I am protected a one word, "knowingly". Since I am not required to pull a background check for intra state personal sales I will be unable to determine felony or any other disqualifier of the buyer. Hence, I have committed no crime or violation of federal or state law. Back ground check loop hole.

http://texasguntrader.com.... (look at all these individual sellers on this site)


ok so how does any of that apply to the definition of loophole or is there a different one you are using? where is ambiguity or inadequacy, since there is NO law that says you have to do a background check for a private sale? How are you circumventing something that just doesn't exist? Maybe I'm misunderstanding this but I don't think so. Isn't the loophole in this context the same as when people get off on a technicality? I think you are confusing your opinion that there should be a law that require background checks for all sales including private ones, but there isn't so again there's no loophole. There are different requirements on commercial and private sales, but a loophole does it not make.

Would you agree not everyone gets off on legal loopholes or technicalities?

loop"hole
G2;loV2;opG6;(h)!3;l/Submit
noun
1.
an ambiguity or inadequacy in the law or a set of rules.

as a side note, the state police set up a booth at a gun show and offered free background checks for private sales (which as you stated are voluntary) they only did 3 or 4 I think, then again it's difficult to say how many private transactions there were, the couple that I attended way back, there were not many trying to sell privately, the ones I saw had hunting rifles, off topic I know but thought it was worth the clarity.

Just posted a very eye opening thread in Debate.org forum.
Perhaps you can shed some light on that topic. See it for yourself.
You wont regret it. Or will you.
slo1
Posts: 4,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2016 10:06:21 PM
Posted: 3 days ago
At 12/1/2016 9:53:12 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 12/1/2016 9:36:27 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 12/1/2016 8:16:49 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 12/1/2016 8:02:55 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 12/1/2016 7:35:33 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 12/1/2016 7:24:06 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 12/1/2016 2:47:25 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 12/1/2016 1:56:08 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 11/30/2016 9:24:32 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 11/30/2016 5:04:00 PM, Maccabee wrote:
BAN GUNS!!!!!!!!!!!1111!! Wait, what's that? It was a car and mechete? BAN GUNNNNSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!1!!!!1!!!!!!!!!1

the irony

If you guys see irony in strawman-ing then go for it. To my knowledge people who support closing the background check loop holes and other comments sense regulation have never made the claim that doing as such would eliminate using cars and knives as deadly weapons.

Move along as we see your juvenile tactics.

there is no loop hole for heavens sake, how anyone still be so uninformed to still believe that, or do people not really understand what loop hole means? There have been threads about this already debunking that myth, people need to read.

When I can sell my handgun in TX to an ex-felon or anybody who can't buy one from a licensed seller then there is indeed a loophole. Go ahead and try to debunk that. I dare you to.

Even Switzerland requires that both parties to private sales write down the others party's info and keep it for 10 years.

Regardless your strawman tactic to paint anyone who is for further regulation as unreasonable is not working.

what you are describing is a crime, not a loophole, if you buy alcohol and give it to a minor is that a loophole? debunked and slam dunked.

Nice try, but simply for the fact that I'm not required to run a background check, I can sell my guns to anyone in TX legally.

not to anyone, you still can't sell them to someone who is precluded by federal law to have them, not legally anyway, then again if you are going to break the law, more laws won't stop you.

exactly so you aren't trying to get around a law that prevents that, hence no loophole

I can tell you are trying hard and you are missing the point completely.

I am protected a one word, "knowingly". Since I am not required to pull a background check for intra state personal sales I will be unable to determine felony or any other disqualifier of the buyer. Hence, I have committed no crime or violation of federal or state law. Back ground check loop hole.

http://texasguntrader.com.... (look at all these individual sellers on this site)


ok so how does any of that apply to the definition of loophole or is there a different one you are using? where is ambiguity or inadequacy, since there is NO law that says you have to do a background check for a private sale? How are you circumventing something that just doesn't exist? Maybe I'm misunderstanding this but I don't think so. Isn't the loophole in this context the same as when people get off on a technicality? I think you are confusing your opinion that there should be a law that require background checks for all sales including private ones, but there isn't so again there's no loophole. There are different requirements on commercial and private sales, but a loophole does it not make.

Would you agree not everyone gets off on legal loopholes or technicalities?

You are arguing semantics. Call it loop hole, butt hole, or fingernail f's-stcks hole. It does not matter. Back to the original point I made, whenever a Muslim attacks we get this facetious straw man arguments against anyone who wants further gun regulation. This attack didn't even have a gun and we got such silly shenanigans.

loop"hole
G2;loV2;opG6;(h)!3;l/Submit
noun
1.
an ambiguity or inadequacy in the law or a set of rules.

as a side note, the state police set up a booth at a gun show and offered free background checks for private sales (which as you stated are voluntary) they only did 3 or 4 I think, then again it's difficult to say how many private transactions there were, the couple that I attended way back, there were not many trying to sell privately, the ones I saw had hunting rifles, off topic I know but thought it was worth the clarity.
warren42
Posts: 69
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2016 10:13:52 PM
Posted: 3 days ago
At 11/30/2016 8:44:36 PM, Cubswin wrote:
Look..there is a religious holy war going on worldwide against Western democracy. We must imprison all Muslims currently in America in some kind of internment camp like we did in WW2 to the Japanese Americans unless you not an obvious threat like Kareem Abdul Jabbar or Mike Tyson- well,.. I dunno about him lol

Ah yes, recreating one of the worst stains on American history. A wonderful idea.

Imprisoning them all except Kareem and other "good Muslims" is also a great way to make sure we aren't being racist, excellent clause that is not at all subjective!!


America is one big attack away from doing this. The President must do this to protect our nation. I believe Trump will declare Martial Law if there is another 9/11 attack and you will see this happen

Quite possibly true, but not right.


So far it's just been guns and little IED bombs and cars running over people and knives. One day they gonna get a dirty bomb or worse and detonate it....and BOOM... one large city is gone along with 50-100,000 people!

Good thing no nations governed by Muslim theocracies (like Pakistan!) have nuclear weapons! Otherwise we'd be toast!


This is serious folks! We just one horrible attack away from America having to take drastic action. The President is mandated by our Constitution to protect America...and he will be forced to take drastic measures

Love that clause giving complete control to our Supreme Leader! Great mandate! Good thing he isn't restricted by silly things like freedom of religion, right to a fair trial, cruel and unusual punishment, or unlawful imprisonment!


Thank God...we have a man like Trump as President elect

Thank God!!
-warren42

"Give me liberty. That's it. I can handle the rest."
warren42
Posts: 69
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2016 10:50:00 PM
Posted: 3 days ago
At 12/1/2016 1:56:08 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 11/30/2016 9:24:32 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 11/30/2016 5:04:00 PM, Maccabee wrote:
BAN GUNS!!!!!!!!!!!1111!! Wait, what's that? It was a car and mechete? BAN GUNNNNSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!1!!!!1!!!!!!!!!1

the irony

If you guys see irony in strawman-ing then go for it. To my knowledge people who support closing the background check loop holes and other comments sense regulation have never made the claim that doing as such would eliminate using cars and knives as deadly weapons.

Move along as we see your juvenile tactics.

Although it is, indeed a straw man, I don't think you got his point here.

The point is that the mistake in the OSU account's tweet lead pro-regulation people to cry out against gun violence, using this as yet another example, even though he used a car and melee weapon (knife? machete? Not sure, I've heard both.)
-warren42

"Give me liberty. That's it. I can handle the rest."
Quadrunner
Posts: 1,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2016 11:46:41 PM
Posted: 3 days ago
At 12/1/2016 9:53:12 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 12/1/2016 9:36:27 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 12/1/2016 8:16:49 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 12/1/2016 8:02:55 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 12/1/2016 7:35:33 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 12/1/2016 7:24:06 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 12/1/2016 2:47:25 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 12/1/2016 1:56:08 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 11/30/2016 9:24:32 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 11/30/2016 5:04:00 PM, Maccabee wrote:
BAN GUNS!!!!!!!!!!!1111!! Wait, what's that? It was a car and mechete? BAN GUNNNNSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!1!!!!1!!!!!!!!!1

the irony

If you guys see irony in strawman-ing then go for it. To my knowledge people who support closing the background check loop holes and other comments sense regulation have never made the claim that doing as such would eliminate using cars and knives as deadly weapons.

Move along as we see your juvenile tactics.

there is no loop hole for heavens sake, how anyone still be so uninformed to still believe that, or do people not really understand what loop hole means? There have been threads about this already debunking that myth, people need to read.

When I can sell my handgun in TX to an ex-felon or anybody who can't buy one from a licensed seller then there is indeed a loophole. Go ahead and try to debunk that. I dare you to.

Even Switzerland requires that both parties to private sales write down the others party's info and keep it for 10 years.

Regardless your strawman tactic to paint anyone who is for further regulation as unreasonable is not working.

what you are describing is a crime, not a loophole, if you buy alcohol and give it to a minor is that a loophole? debunked and slam dunked.

Nice try, but simply for the fact that I'm not required to run a background check, I can sell my guns to anyone in TX legally.

not to anyone, you still can't sell them to someone who is precluded by federal law to have them, not legally anyway, then again if you are going to break the law, more laws won't stop you.

exactly so you aren't trying to get around a law that prevents that, hence no loophole

I can tell you are trying hard and you are missing the point completely.

I am protected a one word, "knowingly". Since I am not required to pull a background check for intra state personal sales I will be unable to determine felony or any other disqualifier of the buyer. Hence, I have committed no crime or violation of federal or state law. Back ground check loop hole.

http://texasguntrader.com.... (look at all these individual sellers on this site)


ok so how does any of that apply to the definition of loophole or is there a different one you are using? where is ambiguity or inadequacy, since there is NO law that says you have to do a background check for a private sale? How are you circumventing something that just doesn't exist? Maybe I'm misunderstanding this but I don't think so. Isn't the loophole in this context the same as when people get off on a technicality? I think you are confusing your opinion that there should be a law that require background checks for all sales including private ones, but there isn't so again there's no loophole. There are different requirements on commercial and private sales, but a loophole does it not make.

I want to buy a gun.

You'll need a background check.

My friend larry said I don't need one if I buy from him, cuz property rights or somethin

Oh yeah, that's the exception. This is what we call a loophole.

https://en.wikipedia.org...

As you can see in the picture, though the arrow slits are intended otherwise, people still get through them even if they are supposed to go through the gate.

Would you agree not everyone gets off on legal loopholes or technicalities?

loop"hole
G2;loV2;opG6;(h)!3;l/Submit
noun
1.
an ambiguity or inadequacy in the law or a set of rules.

as a side note, the state police set up a booth at a gun show and offered free background checks for private sales (which as you stated are voluntary) they only did 3 or 4 I think, then again it's difficult to say how many private transactions there were, the couple that I attended way back, there were not many trying to sell privately, the ones I saw had hunting rifles, off topic I know but thought it was worth the clarity.
Wisdom is found where the wise seek it.
kevin24018
Posts: 1,804
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2016 12:18:40 AM
Posted: 3 days ago
At 12/1/2016 11:46:41 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 12/1/2016 9:53:12 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 12/1/2016 9:36:27 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 12/1/2016 8:16:49 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 12/1/2016 8:02:55 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 12/1/2016 7:35:33 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 12/1/2016 7:24:06 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 12/1/2016 2:47:25 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 12/1/2016 1:56:08 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 11/30/2016 9:24:32 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 11/30/2016 5:04:00 PM, Maccabee wrote:

I want to buy a gun.

You'll need a background check.

My friend larry said I don't need one if I buy from him, cuz property rights or somethin

Oh yeah, that's the exception. This is what we call a loophole.

https://en.wikipedia.org...

As you can see in the picture, though the arrow slits are intended otherwise, people still get through them even if they are supposed to go through the gate.

yes because of property rights just like you said, you have the legal right to sell your personal property which includes firearms provided it's not a straw purchase, since you have the explicit and spelled out right to do it, it's not a loophole.
This is why forcing even private sales to go through background checks has been shot down, because there is no other personal property that you need government permission to sell.
Since you have the right to sell your personal probably as you said you again are not circumventing the law or exploiting a loophole, therefore no loophole. Though to your credit that was the best argument I have heard.

Would you agree not everyone gets off on legal loopholes or technicalities?

I think you would agree, especially if you have read case studies etc that while these happen, they are rare and don't work for everyone.
kevin24018
Posts: 1,804
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2016 12:44:10 AM
Posted: 3 days ago
At 12/1/2016 10:06:21 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 12/1/2016 9:53:12 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 12/1/2016 9:36:27 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 12/1/2016 8:16:49 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 12/1/2016 8:02:55 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 12/1/2016 7:35:33 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 12/1/2016 7:24:06 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 12/1/2016 2:47:25 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 12/1/2016 1:56:08 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 11/30/2016 9:24:32 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 11/30/2016 5:04:00 PM, Maccabee wrote:
BAN GUNS!!!!!!!!!!!1111!! Wait, what's that? It was a car and mechete? BAN GUNNNNSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!1!!!!1!!!!!!!!!1

the irony

If you guys see irony in strawman-ing then go for it. To my knowledge people who support closing the background check loop holes and other comments sense regulation have never made the claim that doing as such would eliminate using cars and knives as deadly weapons.

Move along as we see your juvenile tactics.

there is no loop hole for heavens sake, how anyone still be so uninformed to still believe that, or do people not really understand what loop hole means? There have been threads about this already debunking that myth, people need to read.

When I can sell my handgun in TX to an ex-felon or anybody who can't buy one from a licensed seller then there is indeed a loophole. Go ahead and try to debunk that. I dare you to.

Even Switzerland requires that both parties to private sales write down the others party's info and keep it for 10 years.

Regardless your strawman tactic to paint anyone who is for further regulation as unreasonable is not working.

what you are describing is a crime, not a loophole, if you buy alcohol and give it to a minor is that a loophole? debunked and slam dunked.

Nice try, but simply for the fact that I'm not required to run a background check, I can sell my guns to anyone in TX legally.

not to anyone, you still can't sell them to someone who is precluded by federal law to have them, not legally anyway, then again if you are going to break the law, more laws won't stop you.

exactly so you aren't trying to get around a law that prevents that, hence no loophole

I can tell you are trying hard and you are missing the point completely.

I am protected a one word, "knowingly". Since I am not required to pull a background check for intra state personal sales I will be unable to determine felony or any other disqualifier of the buyer. Hence, I have committed no crime or violation of federal or state law. Back ground check loop hole.

http://texasguntrader.com.... (look at all these individual sellers on this site)


ok so how does any of that apply to the definition of loophole or is there a different one you are using? where is ambiguity or inadequacy, since there is NO law that says you have to do a background check for a private sale? How are you circumventing something that just doesn't exist? Maybe I'm misunderstanding this but I don't think so. Isn't the loophole in this context the same as when people get off on a technicality? I think you are confusing your opinion that there should be a law that require background checks for all sales including private ones, but there isn't so again there's no loophole. There are different requirements on commercial and private sales, but a loophole does it not make.

Would you agree not everyone gets off on legal loopholes or technicalities?

You are arguing semantics. Call it loop hole, butt hole, or fingernail f's-stcks hole. It does not matter. Back to the original point I made, whenever a Muslim attacks we get this facetious straw man arguments against anyone who wants further gun regulation. This attack didn't even have a gun and we got such silly shenanigans.

you first mentioned loopholes so let's be clear
Correct it didn't have a gun, however someone with a gun may have stopped him much sooner than he was. This is at least the 2nd time this tactic has been used (France being a prime example) so there's no way to stop this from happening. What can be done to minimize the damage someone could do should this happen again? Cop on ever street corner? We accept the harm and death caused until the cops can get there? What if it's better organized and roads are blocked behind the lead vehicle to slow the police from getting there? If you are ok gambling that the police will get there in time before you or a loved one is killed does that mean everyone should be restricted in how or if they can defend themselves because you are ok with it? There's just some very complicated lines to draw here, and at what point do you remove someone's personal choice to protect their body from death and harm? Again it's ironic that pro abortion people can be against someone protecting their bodies from someone outside their body, or does it just apply to females or things that grow inside you? Note this isn't all directed at you, but to anyone else who might be reading it, it's not meant to be an attack but to show how many lines there are and how entangled they are.