Englebert

Since no Liberals will respond to the background check topic, would any of you anti-gun nuts like to opine on the susceptibility of so-called "Red Flag Laws". If you think background check laws are subjective to abuse...let's delve into this brain-dead idea. I'm guessing the enlargement of Red Flag Laws against those who purposely interact with firearms should also apply to any "pedophiles" that have the audacity to purposely interact with children. I want you to keep in mind that idea as one of many conundrums when you attempt to explain the benefits of Red Flag Laws. Please outline who has the ability to subject a person to gun confiscation. Can anyone call authorities to generate an investigation of a gun owner? Do we have a litmus test for the competency of the accuser? Will the accuser be subjected to an analytical skills test to prove they are capable of analyzing suspicious behavior? Will the accuser's motive be analyzed? If so, by who? Someone qualified? And as with the background check test, what behavioral attributes will dictate a confiscation of one's constitutionally guaranteed right? Will a LEO, who has enormous skill in law enforcement but has zero experience in psychological behavior be the deciding factor of stripping one's guaranteed right? Should a psychologist be called in to evaluate the situation? Who gets to decide? What behaviors are listed as "bad"? Please explain the parameters and standards of Red Flag Laws. Also, identify and explain recourse for those accused, especially for those falsely accused. And just as important, please explain measures that will be implemented that dissuade false accusations and confiscation based on incompetence by the confiscator. Name the checks and balances. If you are in favor of Red Flag laws, please type your full legal name here. Someone might want to experiment on how to abuse these laws. I'm betting it will not be hard.

I was pretty confident no Liberal would respond to this. I'm also confident that any Liberal who reads this will realize the fallacy of their position, but will maintain their rabid support of background checks. The hypocrisy will be lost (or ignored). I don't know how many sane people have given thought to background checks. My fear is that these checks are simply a gateway for gun registration, restriction, then ultimately confiscation. Registration: I have no doubt the registration data (background check data) is currently being saved. No doubt. No proof other than past history...like Google claiming they don't save personal data. (Yes, they claimed this for years, and paid billions of dollars in fines...but still kept doing it.) Once established (practically there now), how much burden of time and cost will it become to continually register...I mean, consent to a background check. Will these checks become annual, monthly, weekly? How much will you have to pay for the privilege of registering your constitutionally protected right? Who gets to decide? Biden? AOC? Restriction: Like in my initial post, who gets to decide what qualifies as revocation criteria? Who gets to modify these qualifications, and how easy will it become for additional restrictions? Will Biden get to add restrictions? Pelosi? Schumer? Joe Blow who is unelected but serves a vital role as hallway monitor in FBI headquarters? Confiscation: You register (background check) your gun, you then get put on the restriction list...you then lose your ability to exercise your second amendment right. Not a hard path to navigate. Anti-gun nuts are coming at all angles. From terrorizing gun and ammo manufactures through litigation liability, to financial terrorism by forcing banks not to associate in any form or fashion with gun and ammo manufactures, to slowly introducing limitations to the type and capabilities of guns, to publicly demonizing gun owners, to forcing registration and restrictions on gun owners. I hope we are paying attention...and act accordingly. If I wanted to get rid of guns in the United States, establishing, mandating, then abusing background checks would be my first route.

He dropped a F bomb. Then put LOL behind it. That in itself deserves a LOL. I still can't believed he lasted this long. Anybody that immature will eventually show their true colors. I'll still sleep fine tonight, but yeah...the comedic relief he provided will be missed (although I still feel somewhat bad about laughing at people that intellectually stunted).

I've posted this topic before, and got zero responses from the anti-gun nuts. Let's try this again, since the anti-gun nut administration is in charge. Biden has said that universal background checks should be mandatory for all gun purchases. What does he mean? What is the Liberal agenda for this? Registration? Confiscation? Let's begin. What questions should be asked on a background check that prohibits guns from being in the hands of criminals but lets law abiding citizens exercise their 2nd amendment right? Please outline these inquiries that distinguishes who qualifies and who is prohibited? Furthermore, and just importantly, who gets to add/delete/edit these questions on the background check? Do any edits/adds/deletes require a vote from a particular governing body? If someone (who knows who) decides that a speeding ticket should prohibit one from owning a gun, can that "czar" add this provision to the background checklist? Who oversees the questions asked on the form? Are these people elected? What provisions do we have to stop abuse of the background check interrogation? What questions determine qualification, what questions determine disqualification? I'm not asking what is the current format, I'm asking what is the future format...and who has authority to alter it? And as a reminder, a certain Senator has already stated that United States veterans, who have been trained in gun safety, should be disqualified. Another Senator has stated that anyone going through a divorce should be disqualified. So I'm highly interested in hearing other brain-dead rationale for disqualifications, as well as rational disqualifications. Furthermore, if someone is deemed to be too unstable as to have their constitutional right to own a firearm revoked, is that person also too unstable to vote? Should ethnicity/race continue to be one of the questions? Please outline the questions that should be asked that determines your ability to exercise your right to own a firearm? As a bonus (LOL), please specify how often a person must submit to the background check? And how much should he have to pay for the privilege of this interrogation. (I'm not even going to mention Jim Crow...the liberal dog whistle)

The self described "elitists" do love attempting to denigrate others while failing to recognize their own limited cognitive abilities, contributing to the comic relief for the masses...I will give you that. I have no doubt that you have no comprehension of my reply. Grade schoolers will get a chuckle, but you...well, you are bewildered by the complexity of the "tone and timbre" of my reply. So to be clear, I am mocking you. Once you do an internet search on the meaning of the word "mocking", you will undoubtedly be confronted with your shame of being "disrespected". Your only choice is to lash out. But since your limited intelligence only allows you to respond in childish insults, I anticipate your reply to bring us straight into elementary banter. Unlike normal folks, I will follow you down there...just to see how far you will go. So please respond in the manner you feel most comfortable with. I will respond in kind. I'm guessing that you will concede your inability to read my post due to it's length, and will try to run away from such a challenge using this dismissive (although childish) tactic.

Wow, you can count to five. That is impressive. But then you go and ruin it with your last comment. Can you please explain why you feel posting consecutively would be evidence of mental instability? Is falsely accusing someone of mental illness actually a sign of their own mental illness?

Can you quit crying about everything?

"Wackos"? Have you ever read your posts? You attack the person who posted a link to an article instead of debating the merits of the article. "Wackos"? Are you engaging in self-reflection and projection at the same time? We all know you can't debate, and your intellectual skills are severely lacking, so why do you keep trying. Just give it up already!

Where did you buy your "superiority complex"? And speaking of naivety...well, who better to speak on the subject. Keep the jokes coming.

That's what you get for trying to think...and stereotype. By now you should realize how foolish you look when you attempt it.

Spoken like a true liberal. It's a crying shame people with this stunted intellectual skillset are allowed to spew this nonsense. If you had one iota of a brain cell you would quit trying to "analyze" (lol) people by putting them in a box with a stereotypical label. That's so boring and childish. Non-liberals are not trying to end healthcare or food stamps. That is a lie perpetuated by the liberals for their sheeple to eat up. Consider yourself full...of it. Most non-liberals want only those that need help to receive it, not make a living off of it. It's a simple concept, but apparently too hard for some to grasp. You should be embarrassed for trying to label people you know nothing about. Maybe we should analyze you. Why do you want children to grow up as government slaves? Or would you rather just kill them and be done with it?

You just got schooled on a topic you started. The posters responded with logical answers...dispelling your "you suckers" nose-ring led mantra your masters have programmed you to believe. You have been thoroughly embarrassed on this topic. But I have a feeling you will brush off the responses and run your mental gymnastics to convince yourself that you have won the internet today by making redneck rubes expose themselves. Since I believe this is the case, please refute my analysis with your own rationale. Which response, so far, is out of line with your thinking?...and why? Which poster, based on their reply, has denigrated themselves in your eyes? In case your refuse to respond, keep this in mind...when you think you have a "gotcha" question, most are laughing at your adolescent, feeble attempts to rise to seriousness. It is an amazing feat of resilience that you keep trying.

Your analysis of how a Trump supporter thinks is based on your warped sense of reality guided by hate. Your description of Hitler supporters' delusional sense of reality seems more analogous to you than to Trump supporters. And just for a laugh, please back up your claim of my "fanaticism"? Scour my posts to find this evidence. Or maybe save some time and admit your judgment is just stereotyping based on hate.

And your analysis of Trump is just as wrong. TDS at it's finest, and everyone not afflicted with it must be a Nazi sympathizer. Comical.

Who are these people? Who do think is excusing his actions? Do people that disagree with your analysis of Trump deserve your scorn and wrath? Why do you think your simplistic analysis of Trump is beyond reproach, while disagreeing views are indications of idolatry. Do you think I should vote for a senile old man that wants to lead this country into socialism because the other guy hurt your feelings? TDS is comical, but oh so dangerous to the future of the United States.

Again, who are you claiming is worshipping Trump?

Who. Is. Worshipping. It? Does. Writing. In. This. Style. Feel. As. Stupid. To. You. As. It. Does. To. Me?

Are people that band together to wallow in hate brought on by TDS be considered a cult? Do you consider yourself an exalted member of this clan?

"Trump worshipers"...hyperbole at it's comical best. Embarrassing analysis don't you think? Who are these people you speak of that don't recognize Trumps faults played a part in the elections? But let's vote for a senile old man that embraces socialist edicts because the other guy hurt my feelings. Again, embarrassing.

The auto insurance companies are spending unfathomable amounts of money on commercials to reign supreme in the business. State Farm, Farmers, Geico, Progressive, Liberty, etc. spend tons on advertisement. Some commercials are initially funny, many are just downright pathetic. Some adopt a logical, results driven strategy. Some adopt a Sesame Street puppet show strategy. Some implore catchy slogans of persuasion. Practically all claim that their company can save you a fortune. Can anyone tell me the difference between the companies as far as results? Who is the fairest at resolving claims? Who is the fastest? Who is the cheapest? Who is the most politically correct in resolving these claims? (But that is not the subject of this topic.) If 92% of the media picked out a company to disparage, how long would that company last? If practically every mainstream media outlet, every late show comedian, every daytime talk show host came out to denigrate State Farm, how would they fair? If these groups ignored, and even lied about State Farm's payout amount rate, rejection rate, and even criticized every aspect of their policies...while simultaneously ignoring the same aspects of all of the other companies, how long would State Farm last? Does it even remotely matter how good/bad State Farm's performance data is? Would it even matter one iota if an outside entity (Russia, Russia, Russia) spent a couple of thousand dollars in a campaign to influence State Farm's image? What if social media (Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, etc...repeat...etc.) conspired to ban all positive information about State Farm, but encouraged negative (and mostly false) information about State Farm. What if these companies conspired to disallow any truth about State Farm, and even ban any new startup companies from existing because of their perceived sympathy for State Farm? Would you still go with the talking lizard?

Don't forget cow farts.

I agree with your posts. But I will disagree with your opinion that Trump's "talking too much" made the moderate swing voters hate him. The media's 92% negative coverage (not to mention ignored accomplishments) (also not to mention social media's ban on anything negative towards Biden) made swing voters hate him. George Bush faced almost the same thing. Liberals hated the man. Same with Reagan. Liberals hated the man. Same with Romney and McCain. It will be exactly the same with the next GOP president/candidate. The liberal media will guide Liberals to hate him/her, no matter what that person does or says. I like that Trump fought back. I'm hoping the next GOP president fights back even harder against the biased (self-proclaimed) elitists who dictate what the Liberals think. If we had an unbiased media I have no doubt Trump would have won in an overwhelming landslide. I'm thinking at least 47 to 48 state win. And if you use Obama's geography, probably 54 to 55 state win.

I know of a person that was sane, analytical, thoughtful, unbiased but now honestly believes that Trump almost single-handedly ruined the United States of America. This guy thought that feelings, as preached by the media, was the true soul of America...be damned rule of law. Yes, hurt feelings would be the downfall of the greatest country this Earth has ever seen. He is willing to overlook every accomplishment by the Trump/Admin team, and almost unforgivably recognizes only personal "failures" mirroring that of the persona of satan himself...as told to him by his new god...the liberal medial. And there's a lot more like him. This is so easy. How can anyone take someone serious that can't back up their claims. Care to continue belittling people you know little about? Let's analyze you instead. Do you think you will come out looking any better than the little old lady you described?

You once again show your lack of any semblance of intelligence or analytical skills. You post just to attack. And you had the nerve to try to blame non-Liberals for running off past posters. Apparently you own no mirrors.

Too bad we have people like you that, while not too bright, constantly tries to denigrate people. Every post contains attacks on groups of people you know nothing about, and displayed with a superiority complex that can only be described as legendary disillusion. Maybe we can setup a swap program with other countries. We will take whoever we can get in an even swap for you. Citizenship for citizenship. Anyone that reads your childish posts can agree on that plan.