Will Congress act now?

[Rob Roy]

no one cares what shitty euphemisms you use for your love of racial segregation, and you have yet tonameasingle goddamn thing obama did to infringe on gun rights you retarded pedophile.

Did Obama preside over a government which disarmed and jailed people who never used any kind of offensive force and instead they became statutory "criminals" because of some kind of arbitrary law which made them "criminals" when they really weren't?

Notice I'm not even mentioning how he presided over the use of offensive force in foreign lands. You really can't see beyond simple things can you, Simpleton ?

 

[PCXV]

Infringe is the word you are circumventing.

We can go with infringe, sometimes vocab escapes me. So go ahead with infringe.

 

[PCXV]

Did Obama preside over a government which disarmed and jailed people who never used any kind of offensive force and instead they became statutory "criminals" because of some kind of arbitrary law which made them "criminals" when they really weren't?

Notice I'm not even mentioning how he presided over the use of offensive force in foreign lands. You really can't see beyond simple things can you, Simpleton ?

Which law is that?

 

[UncleBuck]

Did Obama preside over a government which disarmed and jailed people who never used any kind of offensive force and instead they became statutory "criminals" because of some kind of arbitrary law which made them "criminals" when they really weren't?

Notice I'm not even mentioning how he presided over the use of offensive force in foreign lands. You really can't see beyond simple things can you, Simpleton ?

and you are still yet to name a single action obama took to infringe on gun rights you pathetic racist disability recipient.

 

[st0wandgrow]

I'm less concerned with who owns them, I am more concerned about people who use them or threaten to use them in an application of offensive force. Hence why I rail against government which exempts itself from the prohibition of the use of offensive force.

So, I don't think any person or group of persons has a right to use weapons offensively and I think using them defensively or simply owning and remaining neutral is beyond my purview to determine for others.

To try to address your question,
I'm not sure what you mean when you say "right" though? Who would determine what a right is or isn't ? Who would have the right to take away another persons right preemptively ?

Ok, I’ll rephrase the question...

Do you feel that the government should be able to prevent an individual from owning a gun? Say someone convicted of a felonious violent crime.

Also, do you make any exceptions to your “forced association” stance? Like if there were only one hospital within a hundred miles, and a black person were having a heart attack. Do you support the idea of the white doctor to deny service to the black person because the white doctor does not want to treat a black persons?

 

[Rob Roy]

We can go with infringe, sometimes vocab escapes me. So go ahead with infringe.

What does infringe mean to you ?

 

[UncleBuck]

You're out of context Poopy Pants.

let's see the full context then:




woops, looks like i had it exactly right.

you think it is polite and reasonable to kick people out of stores based on their race.

 

[Rob Roy]

and you are still yet to name a single action obama took to infringe on gun rights you pathetic racist disability recipient.

Disability recipient ? Hey that's a new one.

Obama continued to oversee felons being stripped of firearms didn't he ? Or can you name an action he took to cease that ?

 

[UncleBuck]

Do you support the idea of the white doctor to deny service to the black person because the white doctor does not want to treat a black persons?

of course he does, he is a racial segregationist. otherwise we are enslaving and raping that poor white.

 

[UncleBuck]

Obama continued to oversee felons being stripped of firearms

not a new action and i don't want to see pedophiles like yo get access to guns anyway.

 

[Rob Roy]

let's see the full context then:

View attachment 4022999


woops, looks like i had it exactly right.

you think it is polite and reasonable to kick people out of stores based on their race.

How does that quote provide evidence of me being a racist ? It doesn't.

It simply means I believe a black racist or a white racist etc. should not have others determine for him how he will use his OWN property. It means I disavow the initiation of forced human interactions. You think they're just fine. By the way isn't slavery a kind of forced human interaction ?

 

[Rob Roy]

not a new action and i don't want to see pedophiles like yo get access to guns anyway.

I accept you conceding the point that he CONTINUED to take actions to strip people who never harmed anyone from owning guns.

 

[PCXV]

What does infringe mean to you ?

Just explain your usage when you give an example.

 

[PCXV]

I accept you conceding the point that he CONTINUED to take actions to strip people who never harmed anyone from owning guns.

Lol you provide no evidence, can't name one law, just some vague statement about how he didn't change the law so convicted felons could own guns, then you claim victory. Typical right wing tactics. Are you really this dumb?

 

[Rob Roy]

Ok, I’ll rephrase the question...

Do you feel that the government should be able to prevent an individual from owning a gun? Say someone convicted of a felonious violent crime.

Also, do you make any exceptions to your “forced association” stance? Like if there were only one hospital within a hundred miles, and a black person were having a heart attack. Do you support the idea of the white doctor to deny service to the black person because the white doctor does not want to treat a black persons?

Thanks for rephrasing the question. I'll answer it, within the context of the way things actually happen, but people are trained to accept as "normal" and therefore beyond reproach...

No PERSON or GROUP OF PEOPLE (even those who call themselves "government" ) have a right to use or threaten to use offensive force. Since all people have the right to use DEFENSIVE force, I can't endorse an institution which relies on the application of offensive force for it's very existence to be the arbiter of who can or cannot have a gun. In other words your question is sort of a non sequitur to me, because I don't believe government as it presently exists has a basis in anything right...since it systemically relies on the use of guns / offensive force to gain compliance and for it's existence.



So, I think the question really ought to be, "if somebody uses a gun or threatens to use guns to get your compliance when you are not doing anything to them, are they wrong" ? I would answer yes to that question.

Your second question is a reasonable one. I don't think my emergency removes your right of self determination though, nor would it create a right for me to force a person to serve me. If it did, how about I clean out your bank account so I can buy my grandson a new bike or a new liver etc ?

Despite all the Uncle Buck tribe fucking with me about racism, I assure you, I think racists are being ignorant.

 

[UncleBuck]

How does that quote provide evidence of me being a racist ?

besides you advocating for denial of service based on race?

 

[UncleBuck]

people who never harmed anyone

funny way to describe felons.

 

[UncleBuck]

the Uncle Buck tribe fucking with me about racism

you advocate for racism though.

 

[Rob Roy]

Lol you provide no evidence, can't name one law, just some vague statement about how he didn't change the law so convicted felons could own guns, then you claim victory. Typical right wing tactics. Are you really this dumb?

Well, I'm sorry to cause your right wing hate boner to go flaccid, but I'm not a "right winger" or a "left winger".

Me dumb? Well, since you asked, no, I typically fall into the high 90th percentile when I'm stoned and a bit higher when I clean up, which might explain why you don't pick up on the ironic subtleties.

 

[PCXV]

Thanks for rephrasing the question. I'll answer it, within the context of the way things actually happen, but people are trained to accept as "normal" and therefore beyond reproach...

No PERSON or GROUP OF PEOPLE (even those who call themselves "government" ) have a right to use or threaten to use offensive force. Since all people have the right to use DEFENSIVE force, I can't endorse an institution which relies on the application of offensive force for it's very existence to be the arbiter of who can or cannot have a gun. In other words your question is sort of a non sequitur to me, because I don't believe government as it presently exists has a basis in anything right...since it systemically relies on the use of guns / offensive force to gain compliance and for it's existence.



So, I think the question really ought to be, "if somebody uses a gun or threatens to use guns to get your compliance when you are not doing anything to them, are they wrong" ? I would answer yes to that question.

Your second question is a reasonable one. I don't think my emergency removes your right of self determination though, nor would it create a right for me to force a person to serve me. If it did, how about I clean out your bank account so I can buy my grandson a new bike or a new liver etc ?

Despite all the Uncle Buck tribe fucking with me about racism, I assure you, I think racists are being ignorant.

To part 1, isn't the government using defensive force in the case of depriving a felon with guns? They are defending the right to life of other individuals, as decided by a democracy.

To part 2, you are undoubtedly a piece of shit for that opinion.