Should We Add Some Form of Comprehensive Gun Control In America?

Posted by: Berend

Should we add some law? Any kind? This is a broad question to ask if anything should be done or not. If you vote yes, please explain what you want or mean, because yes will be broad. Or in the comment section. Thank you.

Vote
21 Total Votes
1

Yes. A law should be passed. Something. Anything.

Broad question. It can be anything from a gun ban to simple age restriction and background checks. Please explain if you can, so we can see your view.
11 votes
6 comments
2

No. Leave it how it is.

10 votes
5 comments
Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
Thescarecrow066 says2015-10-01T23:02:51.4678518Z
Not* for my post or comment.
Berend says2015-10-01T23:08:48.1843116Z
I... I was about to say. Leave it to responsible citizens? How do you not give a gun to a mentally ill person if you leave it as the system currently is?
russian_metaphor_man says2015-10-02T00:08:43.0394421Z
The Umpqua community college massacre brings the total number of mass shootings in the US this year to 294 there have only been 274 days this year. Meanwhile countries with sensible gun reform like Australia have only had 1 mass shooting since 1996 coincidentally the same year gun reform was introduced.
Berend says2015-10-02T00:20:18.2356110Z
^ Right? Though a ban wont work with the Cartel. However, it shouldn't, in my view, be so caviler.
idoubtit says2015-10-02T00:22:09.9961602Z
Gun control laws will not work when you have borders that are routinely crossed by drug and gun smugglers that interact with the criminal element in this country. Maybe if our borders were sealed, it could work. The problem is that the same people who want the gun controls don't want to control the borders. That is one issue. Another issue is that when a government takes away gun ownership of the people, the government can then massacre anyone who protests, which is one reason why this country was founded with citizens having the right to bear arms. Another is that armed citizens are an army in the event of invasion by an enemy.
MakeSensePeopleDont says2015-10-02T00:31:08.2065102Z
What a Leftist, Democrat question. To get the answer you want, you bulk lump every possible solution into one answer and the opposing answer is designed to look like only crazy people would pick it. Why don't you create a proper poll and split up your "Yes, Comprehensive Gun Control" response into separate categories. What sense does it make to lump common sense items like age restrictions and background checks (which already exist) in with over the top items like weapons bans and magazine restrictions (which are actually gun control items)?
Berend says2015-10-02T01:46:16.0535979Z
What a strawman, sophomoric, uneducated statement. You're not the only one who can throw that around. Not only that, but you seem to completely failed ot see the intent of the poll. It's meant to be vague. To see if people want ti to remain how it is or if they want something done. I'm not looking for votes on a particular idea, just if they want change. Not only that, nothing about gun control inherently means the removal of rights of citizens who use guns intelligently, as I see in your vote comment, which is incredibly idiotic to say. Which is the same as one asking if we need gun control laws and people assuming it means banning guns. As for your criminal assertion, just like the other horrible arguments that "criminals don't follow the law" being a 'criminal' doesn't mean you inherently will break every single law. If you daily drive over the speed limits, even by five, and it's not an issue to you, and you do it every day, you're a criminal. Doesn't mean you'll automatically break every law. If you smoke pot in Texas for fun or personal non-medical use, you are by definition a criminal. Doesn't mean you'll by pass laws to illegally get a gun. Now, to address your comment on the boarder. A sealed boarder still doesn't matter. Because by your logic, criminals are criminals and they will still get in. Plus as long as the cartel exist you will not stop them from entering. You will just delay the ones who want a better life. I mean, the leader escaped a prison via a hole and on a dirt bike for Christ Sake. You will never have a intelligent boarder fixed to prevent cartel from entering. Especially with the power and money they have which only increased due to the war on drugs. It would, as you would likely agree, make more sense if Mexico and all of the Americas were more industrialized like Europe, Australia and the US and not rampant with crime. The same people who want gun control don't want to control the boarder? What an incredibly stupid thing to say. This needs no rebuttal. The fallacy of it is quite evident. What? You fear the government taking control? If you are so paranoid that they will take your guns and make the next move to massacre you, you might as well off yourself to remove the possibility of living in a world where you think everyone is out to kill you. Yes, they can do that. But it wont happen, or very unlikely,and any tyrannical government would fall. First the other nations would eventually step in. Second, it's not like we couldn't bring it down. The military, for the most part, would side with the people. And, no. The second amendment wasn't just for that. It was also used to keep uprising slaves in check. The last part is paranoids if that is your reasoning to keep it. Though no one is even arguing the removal of all guns.
Berend says2015-10-02T01:47:58.1263608Z
That was to both of you. MSPD, just stop with your asinine post. They will not be missed.
MakeSensePeopleDont says2015-10-02T02:04:53.7458693Z
Im sorry, what was your rant about? Something else that makes absolutely no sense? And can we please use the word "Juvenile" instead of "sophmoric"? You're trying way too hard.
Berend says2015-10-02T02:14:25.9872960Z
I'll use whatever word I feel like using. So, instead of going after such minute crap, actually present something that holds water.
whiplatch says2015-10-02T02:18:02.9718687Z
The government already scares people to death with fear propaganda then they expect you to give up your firearms!! The same people who spy on you through the patriot act want you to give up your rights!! Smh
MakeSensePeopleDont says2015-10-02T02:20:07.1190561Z
OK fine, how about this one: Gun Control = The regulation of TYPES of firearms to the public. Gun Control != (does NOT equal) age restrictions and background checks. Why don't you figure out what the heck you're talking about before you open your mouth.
MakeSensePeopleDont says2015-10-02T03:46:29.6479182Z
Funny how quick he shut up.
Berend says2015-10-02T03:49:24.0996768Z
Wrong. Gun control is any form of law on guns, any form of restriction, such as background checks, mental health evaluation, etc. It is not strictly a type removal or ban. I also didn't reply because I was doing other things. Don't be so full of yourself. You're proving yourself to be ignorant on a lot of topics you get involved in.
MakeSensePeopleDont says2015-10-02T04:01:15.4017516Z
No dumbass. Gun control is the regulation of TYPES of firearms to the public. Democrats updated their terminology to "Comprehensive Gun Control" which in their own eyes was to encompass EVERYTHING from age and background checks to bans; this was a failed attempt to lump bans together with checks so they could look at the public and say "See all we want is better background checks" while in the background they are laughing about how they are hiding bans from the public. Bet you think assault weapons are bad too don't you? It's kind of like the whole Assault Weapons fight...You know, those pesky assault weapons that don't actually exist because no classification of "Assault Weapons" has ever been used in the firearms world. It's literally a phrase created by Democrats with no actual definition. It's all games democrats play to press on people's emotions.
Berend says2015-10-02T04:14:11.9846856Z
Once more, gun control is the legislator of firearms of all types to the public. Things like adding background checks for people wanting guns is gun control. It has nothing to do with bans. No, and you are not only paranoid, but clearly a conspiracy theorist, based on this and the other poll comments. Never said anything on assault rifles. I don't care. I could live in a nation with no guns and I wouldn't care. But at the same time, you don't need one. Did you just say assault rifle is a word created by the democrats with no actual definition? No, but continue being paranoid.
MakeSensePeopleDont says2015-10-02T04:20:42.6629985Z
I said NOTHING about assault rifles; assault rifles are military issue with select fire capabilities (single, burst, full auto). I said ASSAULT WEAPONS, you know like the whole Assault Weapons Ban. Learn to read. No, I am not a conspiracy theorist. Yes I do understand definitions, clearly you don't. You also clearly have no idea how politics is played, and you're clearly no detail oriented enough to comprehend the little things Democrats do to trick people just like you.
MakeSensePeopleDont says2015-10-02T04:25:30.2701293Z
As far as living in a nation with no guns, then go ahead, get out, go to a little tiny country somewhere. But here, in America; bans, restrictions, and "controls" as you put it have time and time again PROVEN to have the opposite effect as what you assume it does.
Mister_Man says2015-10-02T04:26:45.6089087Z
Just jumping in here, gun control refers to the laws that regulate the manufacture, distribution, possession, modification and use of firearms. Notice how POSSESSION is in there - which means gun control isn't strictly referring to the types of guns or mods, but the people who use them.
MakeSensePeopleDont says2015-10-02T04:42:19.4067354Z
Now read back on the HISTORY of that definition to understand what distribution and possession originally referred to.
Mister_Man says2015-10-02T04:45:03.2672728Z
Gimmie your link to the definition of gun control and I will.
Mister_Man says2015-10-02T04:45:39.9124379Z
Or gimmie a link to whatever you're talking about.
Berend says2015-10-02T05:03:38.3242660Z
LOL "I said NOTHING about assault rifles" You literally did. OMG, this is hilarious. I said ASSAULT WEAPONS, you know like the whole Assault Weapons Ban." Hence why I questioned what you were saying. It was a question, dumb ass. I questioned you because you have crap communication skills. It's a huge convoluted mess. You write one sentence to make a point and other to another point, neither of which are related. I proved to you last night, the only one with a reading issue is yourself. "No, I am not a conspiracy theorist." I doubt anything you say at this point. "You also clearly have no idea how politics is played," Nothing has been said for that to be warranted. Especially when everything I said was very much valid. "and you're clearly no detail oriented enough to comprehend the little things Democrats do to trick people just like you." Again, conspiracy theorist. OK, I'm done with you. You've proven all I need t know about you. I'm willing to debate issues with you, but no more in the comment section. If you disagree, create a debate thread about guns or the Iran Nuke Deal or Obama. Otherwise, I'm done with your childish banter.
MakeSensePeopleDont says2015-10-02T05:05:10.5853340Z
There is no magic link that shows you everything the world has to offer. Sometimes you have to be ready to stop listening to what the world is telling you is right and start finding your own path. History is always there, you just have to be willing to search for it. Start by searching where background checks began, search where gun bans began, search where "gun control" began, search where "comprehensive gun control" began. Do some research friend.
MakeSensePeopleDont says2015-10-02T05:09:33.7262170Z
Berend -- Once again I'll offer my account to you for life. Copy and paste the part where I said anything about assault rifles and I will hand over my credentials to you.
MakeSensePeopleDont says2015-10-02T05:18:03.2149644Z
@Berend -- So I ask you, who has the reading comprehension issues here?
Berend says2015-10-02T05:28:35.0419314Z
Or, no, you're right on the word "rifle" an "Weapon". I'll admit that. I have no issue there, but that doesn't prove a lack of reading comprehension in my state. Though, knowing you, you have no ground to stand on to state someone has a lack of reading comprehension, especially for my mistake I made. Especially when I'm willing to admit, I mistyped what you wrote. You proved that last night, showing your own comprehensions issue.
Berend says2015-10-02T05:29:31.1869715Z
However, I will say, I did mean to type Assault Weapon, not rifle. Not that it matters, especially now. Yet, my points still remain quite valid.
MakeSensePeopleDont says2015-10-02T05:32:09.4177572Z
Assault weapons don't exist.
Berend says2015-10-02T05:37:49.5297770Z
They do, and that was not my only point. It's a term coined to many types of weapons, I would say more specifically to automatic weapons, like SMG's, and assault rifles. But that is one point, and in the end, still paranoid, and also gun control does not equal ban and you lack the understand of the word today. You keep going back to "That is not what it is, it was fabricated" etc, but that is what the word is today. It's a sticky situation since words change. Take for example you say the Democratic party (I'm no democrat, and you'd know that if you researched me) created it? Guess what, words are created by people all the time. It's how gay went from being happy to also homosexuality and later to lame and boring and stupid. So the fact they created it, which doesn't matter, shows the evolution of words. And these are all moot points. They have, really, nothing to do with my points originally said, that you seemed to gloss over and actually read, as evidence by your post earlier.
Berend says2015-10-02T05:39:01.7105143Z
The word, 'assault weapon' is very broad. It's simply an umbrella term.
MakeSensePeopleDont says2015-10-02T05:48:51.5395340Z
Show me the classification of "Assault Weapon". I can classify Assault Rifle, machine pistols, machine guns, etc. So why don't you indulge us with the classification of "Assault Weapon". See, now you're starting to go down the rabbit hole that is...The liberal word game. Now take your newly found knowledge of how the game is played and send it to your research on the history of "Gun Control", how it was changed, why it was changed, and when it was changed; the full evolution from weapon bans being separate from background checks and age restrictions, to the present day convoluted false terminology of "Comprehensive Gun Control". Now everything is starting to make sense to you hopefully.
Berend says2015-10-02T06:05:48.2568603Z
No one is going down a rabbit hole. You're the one derailing to the entire premise of "assault weapon". That's not even part of the entire topic of gun control. And again, you are not understanding the concept that gun control now is not the same as it was before. It does not mean what you think it does. It's not even convoluted, as you like to think. The word "Gun Control" itself is a brad term. You're the one coming in claiming the word is not what it means, so that part requires evidence. All my poll ask is for your views. Should we implement gun control, of any kind, in which the poll makes clear is a broad term for any idea. Or should we not? I'm not going to research your claim. Gun control does not mean what you think it does, you admit it changes, and words change, encase you're ignorant of how languages work. Granted, I'm sure you'll make all kinds of arguments about me "avoiding" your argument, which you are the one to originally make claims and have not backed, yet demand me to back claims, like assault weapon and gun control, when that has nothing to do with the actual topic. Sadly, we have derailed enough. I prefer to not make a habit of derailment. Your original post was idiotic, it's a huge generalization, it's still in the realm of conspiracy theories, such as "the demo's created this to do this!" with no evidence yourself. Yet demand me to do your homework. Also, I should add now. You originally asked me as to why I did not originally make many options, and the reason is simple. I do not know their options, their ideas, what they want, and how they would go about it, so I left it open. The question is not what plan you want, but if you want change to it or to keep it. Otherwise I would have also included options for decreased law on guns. Your definition of gun control has no true existence in the United States of America anymore.
Berend says2015-10-02T06:08:36.9897051Z
As for your fetish rant on "assault weapon", which I said was only brought up by accident, I said in my post before, enough prior to you requesting detailed classifications. It is enough to even satisfy that question.
Berend says2015-10-02T06:09:35.4908301Z
You're losing all credibility by using crap like "The liberal word game, as you did in your firs post.
MakeSensePeopleDont says2015-10-02T06:10:26.9718201Z
My goodness do I have to force feed you everything? That's the point Berend, it's a broad topic with no constraints, no borders, no boundaries, no limitations defined. Just like "Assault Weapons", the term "Comprehensive Gun Control" or even just "Gun Control" are all terms created by liberals to mass cover EVERY piece of anything that they could EVER want it to be. There is no end, no beginning, it's just THERE. It can be expanded at any point and in any way they want it to.
Berend says2015-10-02T06:35:05.0222436Z
And right back at you, my god, you kiss the point. You don;'t even understand the use of this poll. You even use typical conservative phrases, like "liberal this or that" The topic of "Gun Control" is fine in this poll and situation. When it comes to law, like Obama and Congress making one, it's what is on paper. You, for one who claims to kn ow it is broad, reacts as if it isn't, or that it shouldn't be brad, or it being broad is bad. When people like Obama claim we need gun control, he isn't being broad to make slippery slope agendas to ban guns, it means he wants anything, any law, that does not prevent such things as today, that was in my own backyard. If you actually listen to the people talking about gun control, you'd see they don't, for the most part, want to ban guns. You can't. Not with the cartel. My points on gun control have already been made clear, you're just the only one complaining like a child about it being "to broad" or "made up". The very fact you state it is create by liberals to cover everything proves my point, once again, how much of a conspiracy theorist you are. You have no proof. You never presented it. You act like the word 'liberal' is associated to this group controlling the god damn nation, changing things to purposefully get what they want, and as if no conservative has ever done that. You've presented nothing but meaningless rants that have nothing to do with the poll. Just as your comment vote on the Iran Deal was the most convoluted mess of pure gibberish I have ever seen on this sight next to Vi_Spex. And, assuming you do not know him, makes post that are literally unreadable. You think you win every argument you post. You walk around with a huge ego. You are far to confident in your own right to think anyone can be wrong. To the point I doubt anything I say could possibly, in any reality, change your mind. Which, in case you do not know, means arguing is pointless. I mean, seriously. Last night when I told you why you were wrong, you came in, made a rebuttal, which is fine, then commented after I said I'd rather do this in a thread or debate, for good reason, that you "won" or "proved" me wrong. Even though you didn't, it was just pure monotonous bull at that point that I had no reason to continue. Hence why I told you "everyone on the internet who makes an argument thinks they won when they leave". And for good reason, because it's true. You alone proved that. Without actually doing anything, like here, you assume you won, you are right, you have no mind open to anything, you demand others to prove themselves or bring evidence when you don't, you make ad hominess (to be fair, so have I from time to time). I rather not continue derailment from the meaning of the post or cartnooish arguments. Yes, the word "Gun Control" is broad, but that doesn't make it wrong nor bad. Both poll wise and in terms of the English Language. It actually logically fits better being broad, as it in of itself is broad, just by how it reads. It's a word that speaks of control over guns. What control? That's the thing, it's broad. Which, once again, you can tell what one means. And when Obama has a plan, which his first did not work, we will know what it is. It;s that you can tear apart, not assume "gun control" or "Comprehensive Gun Control" and label it this or that when it isn't. As for the "new" word, the word itself is fine. And really, you jumping on the definitions, the origins, the current and past meaning a are pure semantics and things that are, as I addressed already, semantic.
MakeSensePeopleDont says2015-10-02T06:40:25.0433044Z
Now, since you probably still don't get it, here is why these terms are "created". 1) Everyone agrees background checks are reasonable. 2) Everyone agrees age restrictions are reasonable. 3) Less than 40% of people agree that gun bans are reasonable 4) Less than 40% of the nation thinks magazine restrictions are reasonable. 5) Over 60% of the nation believes measures against guns themselves are a violation of our 2nd amendment rights as Americans. As a liberal Democrat, you want ALL of these. However, you see that America will only approve of 2 of them. So how do you get them? You lump them all together under an umbrella term like "Comprehensive Gun Control" and publicly push the Background checks because that's what EVERYONE will agree to, but hide the gun restriction areas in the background. When conservative Republicans vote it down because of the other 3 parts involved, you say "Look! They won't agree to background checks! Those dirty Republicans!"
MakeSensePeopleDont says2015-10-02T06:41:22.4519364Z
THAT is the rabbit hole of liberal word games. Welcome, thank you, and hope you enjoyed the show.
MakeSensePeopleDont says2015-10-02T06:43:38.1516668Z
OK Berend, here's the million dollar question: AHEM.....What laws, including gun bans, would have kept the 20 year old CRIMINAL from committing the CRIME he did today?
idoubtit says2015-10-02T15:02:59.6403162Z
So let me get this straight. Berand posts a poll asking for vote yea or nay and requests opinions why. I vote and state why, and because it apparently conflicts with whatever agenda is up Berands butt, I'm included on the receiving end of some spittle-flying rant? LOL. I think sensible people can agree: Berend should not be allowed to own a gun. Special law, just for him. @MSPD You make sense, as usual.
Mister_Man says2015-10-03T01:01:33.7088071Z
I see MSPD is living in the 18th century. Definitions change. Times change. Governments change. People change. The history/beginning of gun control is irrelevant. I gave you my definition, from Wikipedia and from other experiences (in the current time period), which was "gun control refers to the laws that regulate the manufacture, distribution, possession, modification and use of firearms." If you feel this is wrong, or that possession shouldn't belong in there, you can feel free to explain why. Saying "that's now how it was originally intended" is literally irrelevant. If you want us to use every single word and anything created in the original way it was intended to be used, we'd still be living in the stone age.
MakeSensePeopleDont says2015-10-03T04:25:32.5224650Z
@Mister_Man -- Really? Wikipedia? Nice.....Greatest source on the planet. Look guy, I already explained it...You see that post where explained how it's an umbrella term that was created for POLITICAL reasons? Yeah....Great reading. Then again, what can the world expect from a guy that quotes Wikipedia as his source....Winning.
MakeSensePeopleDont says2015-10-03T04:31:18.1276496Z
How about that response Berend? Did you just vanish from another poll?
endermend says2015-10-03T05:50:06.1261318Z
Well I personally think the US should have a licence for us Californians to get firearms with standard mags and mag releases
Berend says2015-10-03T08:52:21.2068976Z
Idoubtit -I included you because I disagree with you. Just because I make a poll saying to give your view doesn't mean I can't disagree. You have, as do I, freedom of speech and expression.
Berend says2015-10-03T08:54:05.9941127Z
MSPD - I have a counter. I didn't respond because I went to bed. I had to work. I have a life. How do you not understand that people actually have lives? Just because I do not reply within two hours of you posting or twelve doesn't mean I'm some how running off or anything. Though your post is still incredibly stupid. Though I don't expect you to understand with the lack of self awareness you keep displaying.
MakeSensePeopleDont says2015-10-03T08:59:23.7098225Z
Hmmmm more like 24 hours but who's counting? Anyway...Should I chalk your response up to quitting without admitting you're quitting? Cuz it had no substance what-so-ever....Or do you wanna say sophmoric one last time before bowing out?
Berend says2015-10-03T09:01:09.9946664Z
----"Now, since you probably still don't get it, here is why these terms are "created."---- I don’t think you understand the words "moot point". ----"1) Everyone agrees background checks are reasonable."---- Ye not always exclusively done. People are actually able to bypass the system because of how it works. Remember Dylan Ruff? ----"2) Everyone agrees age restrictions are reasonable."---- um, no they do not. Do you know how many nuts think it is OK for kids to have a gun on the logic of "your parents let you drive a car as a kid, and you turned out fine"? Sadly, I have to deal with this idiotic crap quite a lot. So that is not as common as you wish to think it is. ----"3) Less than 40% of people agree that gun bans are reasonable"---- No one is arguing gun bans in here, at the moment. To that is a fruitless point. ----"4) Less than 40% of the nation thinks magazine restrictions are reasonable."---- Sources, please. With how the gun laws are in many of the industrial nations, who have gun control plans, and do not deal with the mass shootings we have. We have more mass killings than we do days in this year. That's sad. And we're supposed to be leading and be an example. Obviously not. ----"5) Over 60% of the nation believes measures against guns themselves are a violation of our 2nd amendment rights as Americans."---- What is better? The options of the mass, or what fixes the issue? You seem to like to use polls to argue from authority. By your logic, from before, roughly about 40% or more Americans believed Evolution did not happen and that creation happened less than 6,000 years ago based on the book of Genesis in the Bible. Should that be noted as important because of the population number of a poll? No, because your vote on reality is meaningless. So they can think and vote on what is best, doesn't mean their right. More than half the nation doesn't know the history of the 2nd Amazement. ----"As a liberal Democrat, you want ALL of these."---- See that? Remember when I said you use typical conservative terminology? This here proves it. Yes, we both use "typical" words by each side, difference is, I called you out after you begun to use it. You on the other hand used it with nothing to link it. I'm not a democrat, as already stated. Had you actually read or comprehended what I stated or even did a little research, you’d know that. Which is more evidence why no one should take anything you say seriously. Remember that argument about reading comprehension? Yea, once again you prove to be an absolute failure. A joke. You clearly do not have the intellectual capability to continue on. You try to make jabs at people without the ability to truly do it accurately, and efficiently. Nice work. You discredit yourself once more. ----"You lump them all together under an umbrella term like "Comprehensive Gun Control" and publicly push the Background checks because that's what EVERYONE will agree to, but hide the gun restriction areas in the background. When conservative Republicans vote it down because of the other 3 parts involved, you say "Look! They won't agree to background checks! Those dirty Republicans!"--- Oh my god, no and that is the most idiotic counter you could make to me. You’re simply starwmanning me. No, not just me, but every liberal or democrat. This is why I stopped replying to you. Like with the Iran deal. You don’t provide anything of substance. You have no evidence. You have nothing but assertions wrapped in claims and lumps.
Berend says2015-10-03T09:08:32.2631714Z
Not only did you not actually prove a rabbit hole, you never proved I used one. "OK Berend, here's the million dollar question: AHEM.....What laws, including gun bans, would have kept the 20 year old CRIMINAL from committing the CRIME he did today?" If there was a gun ban, the event very likely never would have happened. You do understand that, right? Oh, right, he's a 'criminal', and by your logic he will automatically get guns illegally. Because by your logic, criminals break every law. I guess every pot head in America would and will do anything and break any laws, because if you break one law, that means you have no limit and will break every law. A very fallacious proposition. If you do not want to use gun bans or even simple comprehensive gun control plans that people present because criminals break laws, why do you even have laws? Just get rid of them. If that is your logic, to not enforce gun regulation because criminals always break them, then get rid of every law. Their pointless, criminals break them anyways. Having a gun would not have stopped it, and there were armed people there. The systems broken. The fact we have these events happening this much and we're really the only industrialized nation having them, it's clear this lax gun control system is not working and making it more lax will only allow people to continue. What would I personally want? For one, extensive background checks that we do not have. That means you shouldn't be able to buy a gun online, from a civilian and gun shows without a background. If you can't get the test done, you don't get it. Something that failed with Dylan Ruff, who was being screened, took to long and they just gave it too him. It shouldn't be this easy. What we should do is something that needs to be discussed. Not a spur of the moment thing. It needs to be debated.
Berend says2015-10-03T09:13:11.3213378Z
----"Hmmmm more like 24 hours but who's counting?"---- Clearly you, and the only one who cared enough to comment and question my being of not responding within less than 24 hours. ----"Anyway...Should I chalk your response up to quitting without admitting you're quitting?"----- Do what you want. That's just be you making a cop out. You already have proven your worthlessness for me to continue replying to you. Which this is likely to be the last. ----"Cuz it had no substance what-so-ever....Or do you wanna say sophmoric one last time before bowing out?"---- It has more substance than anything you've presented. And yes, continue attacking at words I use. Clearly you have nothing if that is all you have. Good bye. I have time that can be used for people of high quality. Anything past this comment, or just before it, has nothing worth replying towards. You are, as I have said, quite sophomoric.
MakeSensePeopleDont says2015-10-03T09:29:45.1852502Z
My goodness it's seriously a headache reading your rants, I start reading them and you clearly don't read what you're responding to at all. I can't even breakdown your nonsense. Just your first sentence going off about background checks not being done fully and people getting by them....I said everyone says they are REASONABLE...Nothing about them being 100% perfect and nothing needing to be done to them. And who is Dylan Ruff? Scruff McGruff? It's ROOF. When you can put together a statement that actually responds to the points put forward and you put forward statements and facts that are actually correct, then I can respond. I'm not going to do your research for you and correct you at every turn.
MakeSensePeopleDont says2015-10-03T09:31:24.3563573Z
And finally, just to show how gosh darn stupid you are: You say gun bans are not being argued here? Well here is a DIRECT quote from your poll answer: "It can be anything from a gun ban to simple age restriction and background checks. " Sooooooo who is not talking about gun bans?

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.