There is an actual guide for gun control advocates to follow when debating.

[Th'Pusher]

It never ends with you.





Here you can see Winehole was comparing gun owners to smokers. Smoking isn't protected under the BoR. Gun ownership is.

You honestly do care, but you're too ing intellectually lazy to mount a decent rebuttal. You're a low information poster. In fact you're a low information poster poster child.

You then went on to whine about how this tax would disenfranchise gun ownership. There’s nothing to rebut as we’re in agreement. Increasing taxes on ammo by 50% isn’t uncons utional.

[Pavlov]

Chumpy crying out for company again.

Sorry, dude. Det right has been infringed from the start and you have done all about it.

Gonna fight det mean ol' gubmit!

[Th'Pusher]

Doesn't care, responds to same post twice
owned again

That one was for chucho, not you.

[Blake]

Because you lack capacity for abstract thought.

Here's what you actually said:

"A 21 year old can buy a handgun and give it to an 18 year old."

straw purchase

a criminal act in which something, especially a firearm, is bought by one person on behalf of another who is legally unable to make the purchase themselves.

And then here's what you said:

An 18 year old can legally acquire a firearm from a 21 year old

You concur but then somehow trying to argue against it still.

Weird.

[DMC]

That one was for chucho, not you.

You quoted me and you spoke to me.

[DMC]

You then went on to whine about how this tax would disenfranchise gun ownership. There’s nothing to rebut as we’re in agreement. Increasing taxes on ammo by 50% isn’t uncons utional.

You can be disenfranchised without having your cons utional rights violated. Once again though you were sloppy and lazy and created your own narrative. Now you have a mess to clean up again.

Multiple times you said I claimed it was uncons utional but I never once said that.

[DMC]

And then here's what you said:



You concur but then somehow trying to argue against it still.

Weird.

Because straw purchase doesn't affect the 18-year-old legally. Are you completely daft?

The 18 year old can... is different than saying the 21 one year old can where legality is concerned.

[DMC]

Sorry, dude. Det right has been infringed from the start and you have done all about it.

Gonna fight det mean ol' gubmit!

Yet I still own firearms and even have a concealed carry permit. I know you said you own a firearm but you're afraid to have it in your house because you know firearms in the home are so dangerous. You might get depressed and blow your brains out.

But you and your ilk have done nothing but lampoon Trump since he took office and for some reason now you're lampooning the concept that the government is bad.

[Chucho]

That one was for chucho, not you.

LOL mad you're "Argument" was and DMC took a piece of your ass.

[Chucho]

You can probably get chucho to suck on your though tbh.

Really, really mad that your "arguments" are getting shat all over by chunky digits.

[Pavlov]

Yet I still own firearms and even have a concealed carry permit. I know you said you own a firearm but you're afraid to have it in your house because you know firearms in the home are so dangerous. You might get depressed and blow your brains out.

another DMC narrative.

Why do you have to lie, tough guy?

But you and your ilk have done nothing but lampoon Trump since he took office and for some reason now you're lampooning the concept that the government is bad.

The government that lets you have firearms, tough guy?

The government you're going to shoot with those firearms they let you have?

I'm lampooning you, tough guy. Get it straight.

[Th'Pusher]

You can be disenfranchised without having your cons utional rights violated. Once again though you were sloppy and lazy and created your own narrative. Now you have a mess to clean up again.

Multiple times you said I claimed it was uncons utional but I never once said that.

Show me where I said it was uncons utional multiple times.

[ElNono]

That's a pointless argument because it's not outside the scope of the government to completely change any aspect of the cons ution. Sure, mountains would have to be moved, blood in the streets etc... but the government holds the power. No one else does. This is why the 2nd Amendment exists.

I disagree, it's a crucial argument, despite the ability to amend the Cons ution The Cons ution set up the Judicial as a line of last resort, and thus delegated to interpret the law, including what's Cons utional or not (After all, the Cons ution itself is a set of laws with a heightened bar for changing). The SCOTUS, which is the last line of defense in the Judicial, has plenty of la ude to adjudicate such disputes. This is largely aided by the lack of clarity in all sorts of areas of the Cons ution and an ever evolving environment.

Glossing over such power, and the many instances where the composition of such tribunal reshaped the Cons utional umbrella (too many to cite, but things like "separate but equal" or sexual orientation as a protected class come to mind) is at the very least disingenuous, and certainly disconnected from how the government was setup and operates.

[DMC]

I disagree, it's a crucial argument, despite the ability to amend the Cons ution The Cons ution set up the Judicial as a line of last resort, and thus delegated to interpret the law, including what's Cons utional or not (After all, the Cons ution itself is a set of laws with a heightened bar for changing). The SCOTUS, which is the last line of defense in the Judicial, has plenty of la ude to adjudicate such disputes. This is largely aided by the lack of clarity in all sorts of areas of the Cons ution and an ever evolving environment.

Glossing over such power, and the many instances where the composition of such tribunal reshaped the Cons utional umbrella (too many to cite, but things like "separate but equal" or sexual orientation as a protected class come to mind) is at the very least disingenuous, and certainly disconnected from how the government was setup and operates.

What you're saying is what probably would happen. Since all three branches comprise the federal government, then if all three branches agreed, they could absolutely change the cons ution or even abolish it. The likelihood of that happening is small, but it's within their power to do so.

There are instances in history where this kind of thing has happened. It could happen in the US. Otherwise the watchdogs would be nuts for sounding out when these rights get violated by new bills, and some that have even been made into laws that later get overturned.

[DMC]

Show me where I said it was uncons utional multiple times.

in response to this that you even quoted:

"Multiple times you said I claimed it was uncons utional but I never once said that.

Again, you look like a ing re .

[DMC]

another DMC narrative.

Why do you have to lie, tough guy?

It's here for anyone who cares to look.

"tough guy" shtick again with zero bites

The government that lets you have firearms, tough guy?

Not your president

The government you're going to shoot with those firearms they let you have?

More narrative from old lonely man. Create a story and run with it, marathon man

I'm lampooning you, tough guy. Get it straight.

With a false narrative? Ok, if you say so lonely man.

[DMC]

LOL mad you're "Argument" was and DMC took a piece of your ass.

It's like playing chess against a Downs syndrome kid.

[Pavlov]

It's here for anyone who cares to look.

Where?

Link to it.

You lied, dude.

You don't "bite" on tough guy because you're not a tough guy. That's what I'm lampooning.

[DMC]

Where?

Link to it.

You lied, dude.

You don't "bite" on tough guy because you're not a tough guy. That's what I'm lampooning.

Lonely man up at 2:20 AM on Monday morning still posting under his alt..

[Pavlov]

Lonely

Narrative.

Where?

Link to it.

You lied, dude.

[DMC]

Narrative.

Where?

Link to it.

You lied, dude.

Time in Austin: 2:32am

[Pavlov]

Time in Austin: 2:32am

And here you are, lying about me.



Where's that link, tough guy?

[DMC]

And here you are, lying about me.



Where's that link, tough guy?

But it's only 7:20pm here.

I didn't realize until recently that you were severely injured by a car. I realize now that you could be crippled and perhaps even a bit unstable mentally. It makes sense that you are up all hours of the day and night as you perhaps cannot do anything else. I should stop conversing with you, don't want to be responsible for your seizure.

[Pavlov]

But it's only 7:20pm here.

I didn't realize until recently that you were severely injured by a car. I realize now that you could be crippled and perhaps even a bit unstable mentally. It makes sense that you are up all hours of the day and night as you perhaps cannot do anything else. I should stop conversing with you, don't want to be responsible for your seizure.

more narrative and no link
tough guy

[DMC]

more narrative and no link
tough guy

I was severely injured by a car.

And I don't plan on killing any drivers.

Why are you so concerned about being raped that you lost it as a reason to prepare to kill someone every night?

How wheelchair accessable is that place?

Just saying. No hard feelings, hope you cope ok.