• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Another reason why INTRA-STATE private sales should not require a background check

Re: Another reason why INTRA-STATE private sales should not require a background chec

jet57 said:
Yeah - nice try.
Click to expand...

How would you know?

So, show me where it defines that self defense with any gun you want is the subject.
Click to expand...

What an idiotic response.

Absolutely amazing that this is thought to be an intelligent response. It would seem that "shall not be infringed" has more than one meaning. What a pity jet57 can't back up any of his utterly false claims.
 
Re: Another reason why INTRA-STATE private sales should not require a background chec

Moot said:
That's a dumb comment.
Click to expand...

I suppose it is when offering verifiable counter argument has yet to be done
 
Re: Another reason why INTRA-STATE private sales should not require a background chec

jet57 said:
What''s your point!? You're regurgitating what is now common information in this discussion.
Click to expand...

Oh now it common information? How come you did not know? Can you prove my claim wrong?

You don't bother to read references do you. Tough others do and catch you out all the time. Brilliant debate is actually proving your case not ignoring others arguments.

Well when are you going to take note of it? At what point did you recognise Miller had died. Please point to your post. I can show you a number in which you make reference to things that could only be true if he were alive. All made after this vital point had been made.

When caught with your pants down don't try to cover up with crap. Nobody here is fooled by any of your false claims.
 
Re: Another reason why INTRA-STATE private sales should not require a background chec

jet57 said:
This what you said in post 407:

YOU have to porve that self defense was the motivator for the second amendment. You're trying to skirt, but that's where you're going.
Click to expand...

why are you now talking about self defense being a "motivation" for the 2nd amendment now?... your inability to address what is actually being said is not a valid excuse to change the discussion mid stride.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom