Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Gun Control & RKBA

In reply to the discussion: today on MHP [View all]
 

SecularMotion

(7,981 posts)
3. You just said you supported background checks
Sat Jan 9, 2016, 12:43 PM
Jan 2016

and then proceeded to argue against their effectiveness.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

today on MHP [View all] Duckhunter935 Jan 2016 OP
What's dishonest is using this one example SecularMotion Jan 2016 #1
as I have said many times Duckhunter935 Jan 2016 #2
You just said you supported background checks SecularMotion Jan 2016 #3
yes, because it is true Duckhunter935 Jan 2016 #4
Your claims are ridiculous and your questions are irrelevant. SecularMotion Jan 2016 #6
but that how the pundits Duckhunter935 Jan 2016 #7
I'll offer a counter question. flamin lib Jan 2016 #10
many collisions are stopped Duckhunter935 Jan 2016 #11
No, Ducky, admit it. Your arguments are specious. flamin lib Jan 2016 #12
this is about background checks, nice try at Duckhunter935 Jan 2016 #13
Your case could be bolstered by an example or two ... DonP Jan 2016 #8
my guess is he will not respond Duckhunter935 Jan 2016 #9
He posted more in this thread than in his own group for a month n/t DonP Jan 2016 #14
I know, lol Duckhunter935 Jan 2016 #15
You can support background checks while detailing the reasons why they're ineffetive, GGJohn Jan 2016 #5
Says the anecdote king. krispos42 Jan 2016 #16
yes, indeed so Duckhunter935 Jan 2016 #19
I support UBC's so long as there are protections against registration lists and the cost is minimal. branford Jan 2016 #17
good response, thank you Duckhunter935 Jan 2016 #18
As a purely practical matter, I believe UBC's are chip I could see being bargained away branford Jan 2016 #20
Bargained? Yes. beevul Jan 2016 #27
There is NO logic in the position that no gun measure is worth considering unless 100% effective in hlthe2b Jan 2016 #21
so who is saying that? Duckhunter935 Jan 2016 #22
I won't give you the time it would take to spew back your gungeon posts... but they are there. hlthe2b Jan 2016 #23
typical, just posting insults Duckhunter935 Jan 2016 #24
Nice strawman argument. branford Jan 2016 #25
Generally, it's the anti-gunners that expect 100 percent effectiveness beardown Jan 2016 #26
And if they don't get it, they push another law! Makes perfect sense. Eleanors38 Jan 2016 #28
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control & RKBA»today on MHP»Reply #3