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 All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

X_Digger

(18,585 posts)
81. I have claimed no such thing.
Thu Dec 13, 2012, 11:32 PM
Dec 2012

Feel free to find a non-butchered quote of mine saying that.

I'll wait.

Some what disingenuous Trunk Monkey Dec 2012 #1
Read the article... sendero Dec 2012 #2
I read the article twice Trunk Monkey Dec 2012 #3
I don't want to ban any sales.. sendero Dec 2012 #5
I don't object in theory Trunk Monkey Dec 2012 #16
I don't subscribe.. sendero Dec 2012 #27
Re: prosecute the assholes that knowingly sell guns to people they shouldn't Trunk Monkey Dec 2012 #28
Leaving aside "perfection," there is the Interstate Commerce Clause... Eleanors38 Dec 2012 #41
Private citizens CANNOT legally access the BATF instant-background check system NickB79 Dec 2012 #30
This is not true. You can ship to someone IN YOUR STATE without a background check. Atypical Liberal Dec 2012 #6
Thanks for squaring me away on that . Trunk Monkey Dec 2012 #17
There is a lot of confusion on this issue, even among FFLs Atypical Liberal Dec 2012 #21
No, a "bunch of RW troll NRA/GOP Nugent-loving gun nutz." nt Eleanors38 Dec 2012 #42
Can you? quakerboy Dec 2012 #201
You are correct I was using craigslist as an example Trunk Monkey Dec 2012 #204
A private seller still is required to ship via a dealer hack89 Dec 2012 #4
You still have to mail from FFL to FFL obamanut2012 Dec 2012 #202
This article is misleading. There is nothing special about what Armslist is doing. Atypical Liberal Dec 2012 #7
didn't expect so many gun nuts on DU. Phillip McCleod Dec 2012 #8
Perhaps 60-70% of Democrats support RKBA and DU is no different. Perhaps you jody Dec 2012 #11
Do you have a citation for that? primavera Dec 2012 #14
Browse DUs group on RKBA re support for RKBA. nt jody Dec 2012 #18
So, you don't have a citation? primavera Dec 2012 #20
I do but the topic has been discussed so often over the last 11 years that I've become weary of jody Dec 2012 #22
I can relate primavera Dec 2012 #23
We agree on those points. DoJ has the most credible data but even that depends on reports submitted jody Dec 2012 #24
And so much of it is unknowable primavera Dec 2012 #25
Agree and some DoJ reports that should trigger govt. programs are ignored, e.g. jody Dec 2012 #29
He is referring to a poll bongbong Dec 2012 #31
Yep. +1. n/t. apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #38
Bullshit DainBramaged Dec 2012 #197
"Public Support for Second Amendment Remains Strong" US News & World Report jody Dec 2012 #210
Your continued use of Right wing talking points is noted by all DainBramaged Dec 2012 #212
Who knew?! Apparently public support of a position is a 'right wing talking point'! *snort* n/t X_Digger Dec 2012 #213
Public support of gun control, who knew. DainBramaged Dec 2012 #217
*yawn* X_Digger Dec 2012 #218
Can you post another cropped picture to confirm your position? nt WinniSkipper Dec 2012 #214
Another Johnny come lately blurts out shit DainBramaged Dec 2012 #216
No, I'm a Yellow Dog Democrat and I sypport our platform that says jody Dec 2012 #215
The same Yellow Dogs who wrecked havoc four years ago who are now out of office DainBramaged Dec 2012 #219
You really are in a state of bliss. nt jody Dec 2012 #220
You claimed Democrats support was 60-70%. So now you are engaged in bullshit. Warren Stupidity Dec 2012 #272
Factually wrong. The number is around 24%. Warren Stupidity Dec 2012 #271
We are everywhere ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2012 #26
Simple, sell your guns through FFL if you really care who you sell it to. Hoyt Dec 2012 #53
Required in CA and some states, not in others ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2012 #54
If gun culture would do the right thing, the laws would not matter. Hoyt Dec 2012 #56
Your view of the right thing and the views of others on what is the right thing diverge to the ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2012 #58
Like I said, you need those lines because the gun culture will push it to satisfy their needs. Hoyt Dec 2012 #70
There are no lines, just laws ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2012 #208
At least your bigotry is openly displayed. n/t PavePusher Dec 2012 #32
For your disappointment pleasure! Try this... Eleanors38 Dec 2012 #44
What is a "gun nut"? obamanut2012 Dec 2012 #203
they're pretty easy to spot on DU shanti Dec 2012 #237
Yep, that's the billh58 Dec 2012 #9
Sad that you can't support Obama and the Democratic Party because they both support jody Dec 2012 #12
Please see post 14 primavera Dec 2012 #15
Please see post 18 jody Dec 2012 #19
Awwww... someone woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning. -..__... Dec 2012 #13
Yep. Excellent post. apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #36
You have been selling that smear for some time, bud... Eleanors38 Dec 2012 #46
That wasn't a news article, that was a Lurks Often Dec 2012 #10
No factual evidence was presented as to whether this sale... PavePusher Dec 2012 #33
from the link provided on the news story booley Dec 2012 #34
Arrgh, my bad, I skimmed to fast and didn't see the link. PavePusher Dec 2012 #35
Needs to go through FFL - record keeping, oversight, responsibility, etc. Hoyt Dec 2012 #167
And there are ways to avoid that which have been discussed here numerous times. PavePusher Dec 2012 #205
If you really care when you sell a weapon, go through FFL. It's really that simple. Hoyt Dec 2012 #206
We'll eventually get meaningful gun control because the country is turning Blue, Democratic. apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #37
You realize you're promoting an unconstitutional measure, right? X_Digger Dec 2012 #39
Baloney - there is a federal excise tax on ammo right now, as well as state taxes. apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #43
Yes, I knew about the excise tax. Why would you think I didn't? X_Digger Dec 2012 #47
No, you didn't know about the tax, by your own admission: apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #50
*cough* It hadn't been ruled a fundamental right until McDonald confirmed it. X_Digger Dec 2012 #51
Now comes the subject-changing: no on is talking about McDonald. We are talking about apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #60
No, you just ignored the part of my statement that you didn't like.. X_Digger Dec 2012 #62
No: you just ignore the fact that Congress has power to tax ammunition. When it was pointed out apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #65
Please point out me refuting that "Congress has no power to tax ammunition" X_Digger Dec 2012 #76
"You realize you're promoting an unconstitutional measure, right?" <--X_Digger's words. apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #101
*yawn* X_Digger Dec 2012 #105
Congress could raise the tax on ammo to whatever it wanted regardless of motive, and it would pass apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #107
*yawn* X_Digger Dec 2012 #109
I've addressed the "right now" portion, repeatedly. (presumptively constitutional before challenge,) X_Digger Dec 2012 #96
"You realize you're promoting an unconstitutional measure, right?" <--X_Digger's words. apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #100
I own all my words. Even those that are chopped into bits. X_Digger Dec 2012 #110
"You realize you're promoting an unconstitutional measure, right?" <--Full quote, un-chopped. Link: apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #112
You can still edit post #50, btw.. X_Digger Dec 2012 #115
No need: unlike you, I stand by my words and posts. But keep dodging: the link ain't going away: apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #116
*yawn* X_Digger Dec 2012 #118
... apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #123
So, is the Congressional tax on ammo constitutional, or not? Answer the straight question. n/t. apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #165
You need to go back and reread what X-Digger said in post 37: petronius Dec 2012 #68
No, I don't; the simple fact of the matter is that apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #72
Then why were poll taxes ruled unconstitutional in some places before the 24th amendment? X_Digger Dec 2012 #77
Non responsive. We are talking about Congress's power to tax ammunition, not "poll" taxes. apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #78
We're talking about congress' power to tax. Which you keep falling back on, as though it's absolute. X_Digger Dec 2012 #80
You are the one that said Congress could not tax ammo; I pointed out it could and does. You keep apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #83
Still waiting.. third time asking.. X_Digger Dec 2012 #85
"You realize you're promoting an unconstitutional measure, right?" <--X_Digger's words. apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #88
No, you can't restrict a fundamental right by taxation *just because you don't like it. * also mine. X_Digger Dec 2012 #90
Congress could raise the tax on ammo to whatever it wanted regardless of motive, and it would pass apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #94
"You realize you're promoting an unconstitutional measure, right?" <--X_Digger's words. apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #106
No, you can't restrict a fundamental right by taxation *just because you don't like it. * also mine. X_Digger Dec 2012 #121
Congress could raise the tax on ammo to whatever it wanted, and the courts would affirm it. apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #125
... apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #126
*yawn* X_Digger Dec 2012 #129
Congress could raise the tax on ammo to whatever it wanted, and the courts would affirm it. apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #132
What is this, you think you'll be right if you post last?!? LOL X_Digger Dec 2012 #135
And back to Projection we go. n/t. apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #138
Is the Congressional tax on ammo constitutional, or not? Answer the straight question. n/t. apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #166
The present tax is hack89 Dec 2012 #211
Congress could raise the tax on ammo to whatever it wanted, and the courts would affirm it. apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #222
They didn't affirm poll taxes hack89 Dec 2012 #224
The discussion is not about poll taxes; quit trying to change the subject. I am telling you again: apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #225
I posted before the shooting was announced. You replied 3 hours later - after the shooting. hack89 Dec 2012 #226
Keep at it: I want all of DU to see this garbage. Again: apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #227
So why did you resume the conversation? hack89 Dec 2012 #228
I answered YOUR question; you could have used JUDGEMENT and thought "today, I'm not going apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #229
Why in the face of such tragedy was my question that important that you couldn't ignore it? hack89 Dec 2012 #230
I answered YOUR question; you could have used JUDGEMENT and thought "today, I'm not going apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #231
You answered after the shooting. You wanted to continue the conversation. hack89 Dec 2012 #233
I answered your unsolicited question; you chose to keep the argument going. And are continuing to do apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #235
"this is my last post on the matter" <--hack89, Post #230. apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #238
You INITIATED the conversation; hell, my post above wasn't addressed to you! But keep apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #232
You had the first post after the shooting was announced. hack89 Dec 2012 #234
NO: I answered your unsolicited question. You could have chosen decency and discretion, and simply apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #236
A question posted before the shooting was announced. hack89 Dec 2012 #240
"this is my last post on the matter" <--hack89, Post #230. apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #239
Right now we are merely trading insults hack89 Dec 2012 #242
"Now I am merely curious just how long I can string you along" - it's all a game to you, isn't it? apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #245
You can always stop talking to me. Correct? hack89 Dec 2012 #248
Once again: I answered YOUR question; you could have used JUDGEMENT and thought apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #241
And you could have ignored me considering a massive tragedy just occurred hack89 Dec 2012 #244
NO: I answered your unsolicited question. You could have chosen decency and discretion, and simply apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #247
But why were you even thinking about me at such a time? hack89 Dec 2012 #249
No one was "thinking about" you: I answered your unsolicited question. You chose at that time apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #252
So while watching coverage of a horrific tragedy hack89 Dec 2012 #255
NO: I answered your unsolicited question. You could have chosen decency and discretion, and simply apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #258
"this is my last post on the matter" <--hack89, Post #230. apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #261
"Now I am merely curious just how long I can string you along" - hack89, having fun on a tragic day. apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #264
You INITIATED the conversation; my post above wasn't even addressed to you. apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #243
Before the shooting. You came back 3 hours after the shooting to pick a fight. nt hack89 Dec 2012 #246
I "came back" and answered your unsolicited question. n/t. apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #250
But you didn't have to. hack89 Dec 2012 #251
"this is my last post on the matter" <--hack89, Post #230. apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #253
But go right ahead and keep peddling those pro-NRA talking points: the rest of DU is getting apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #254
You being disingenuous is not a NRA talking point hack89 Dec 2012 #257
You wanting to continue an argument about taxes on ammo from the NRA point of view apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #259
No - you did. Who posted first after the shooting. nt hack89 Dec 2012 #265
I answered your unsolicited question; you are still here at it, peddling NRA talking points. n/t apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #266
"Now I am merely curious just how long I can string you along" - hack89, on why he continues to apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #267
"this is my last post on the matter" <--hack89, Post #230. Too eager to keep the NRA talking points apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #268
"this is my last post on the matter" <--hack89, Post #230. apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #260
"Now I am merely curious just how long I can string you along" - it's all a game to our Gungeoneers, apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #262
"Now I am merely curious just how long I can string you along" - hack89, having fun on a tragic day. apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #263
"this is my last post on the matter" <--hack89, Post #230. apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #256
Keep slicing. Take "your" tax to court, and the court will throw it out... Eleanors38 Dec 2012 #48
Wrong: YOU take the tax that is imposed on ammo RIGHT NOW to court, and try to apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #63
No onus on me, no desire to overturn present tax... Eleanors38 Dec 2012 #209
Congress could raise the tax on ammo to whatever it wanted, and the courts would affirm it. apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #223
Keep wishing. Cause that's all it is.nc Eleanors38 Dec 2012 #269
So you say; but that day is coming. Get over it. n/t. apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #270
Interesting, you didn't post a link to summary of the case - but, then, not really: apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #49
Ooh, he can google.. but can he read? X_Digger Dec 2012 #52
And where's the part about how they can't tax ammunition? Oooooh, that's right: apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #59
Discrimination was legal before it wasn't.. X_Digger Dec 2012 #61
We're not talking about "discrimination": we're talking about Congress's power to impose a tax apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #64
Still ignoring what I actually said? X_Digger Dec 2012 #67
I say Congress has the constitutional authority to tax ammo, you say they don't. Go get you a apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #71
Propose the law in your state legislature, let's see what the courts say X_Digger Dec 2012 #74
Again trying to change the subject; not gonna happen. Again, Congress has the power to tax apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #82
Mein Gott in Himmel! I have claimed no such thing. X_Digger Dec 2012 #84
"You realize you're promoting an unconstitutional measure, right?" <--X_Digger's words. apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #87
No, you can't restrict a fundamental right by taxation *just because you don't like it. * also mine. X_Digger Dec 2012 #92
Congress could raise the tax on ammo to whatever it wanted regardless of motive, and it would pass apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #98
"Regardless of motive?" Now you've stepped out onto a ledge. X_Digger Dec 2012 #102
Congress could raise the tax on AMMO to whatever it wanted regardless of motive, and it would pass apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #104
So, is the Congressional tax on ammo constitutional, or not? Answer the straight question. n/t. apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #164
So, what's stopping you? Get you a lawyer and sue the Feds! If you are so confident that apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #66
Why should I? I don't mind paying it. X_Digger Dec 2012 #69
Hey, you're the one who made the claim that such a tax is unconstitutional. It's not, of course: apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #73
Let's try this one last time.. X_Digger Dec 2012 #75
Let's not. You claim Congress has no power to tax ammunition, Congress claims it does, and taxes apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #79
I have claimed no such thing. X_Digger Dec 2012 #81
"You realize you're promoting an unconstitutional measure, right?" <--X_Digger's words. apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #86
Did you actually read the body? X_Digger Dec 2012 #89
Ahhh, the old "I didn't mean what I typed" defense. Sure. There's time to edit your post on DU3, apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #91
I won't rise to the bait.. X_Digger Dec 2012 #93
I plainly quoted your own words back to you un-edited and un-"choppped": there's still time to edit apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #95
You removed six words. Still time for you to edit. n/t X_Digger Dec 2012 #97
Nope: quoted you directly, YOUR words. Either own them or edit them. n/t. apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #99
"You realize you're promoting an unconstitutional measure, right?" <--X_Digger's words. apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #103
Here's a link showing you removing six words.. X_Digger Dec 2012 #108
"You realize you're promoting an unconstitutional measure, right?" <--X_Digger's words. apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #111
Are you seriously saying you didn't read the body of the post you're regurgitating? X_Digger Dec 2012 #113
Trying to change the subject again: I would too, were I you. Own your words or edit them. n/t. apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #114
*yawn* X_Digger Dec 2012 #117
All that dodging and back-pedaling tiring you out, eh? apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #119
*yawn* X_Digger Dec 2012 #120
BTW, Congress could raise the tax on ammo to whatever it wanted, and the courts would affirm it. apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #122
Your recycling material.. I've already said I don't mind paying it.. X_Digger Dec 2012 #124
And right on cue, here comes the Projection again. n/t. apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #128
I shouldn't be surprised you've ran out of material.. X_Digger Dec 2012 #131
You've been "out of material" since your opening reply was proven false. Link: apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #134
*snort* Please keep regurgitating. n/t X_Digger Dec 2012 #137
Still time to edit this post: apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #130
*yawn* still time for you to edit this one.. X_Digger Dec 2012 #133
No need: unlike you, I stand by my words and posts. But keep dodging: the link ain't going away: apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #136
This is tickling me to no end.. X_Digger Dec 2012 #139
Congress could raise the tax on ammo to whatever it wanted, and the courts would affirm it. apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #140
*yawn* Because I *like* the PR Act. X_Digger Dec 2012 #141
No, it's because Congress has the right to tax ammo to its heart's content, and there's not a court apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #143
Telepsychic, are you? X_Digger Dec 2012 #146
So, if Congress did raise to $100 a box you'd be okay with it because of the "PR Act"? Great! apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #144
Have you stopped beating your wife? (my standard reply to loaded questions.) X_Digger Dec 2012 #147
Good: at least you now concede Congress CAN tax ammunition, after all those posts to the contrary apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #151
Take your imaginary victories anywhere you can. X_Digger Dec 2012 #154
Not a bit of it: you declared such taxes "unconstitutional" in this reply: apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #160
I never claimed ammo taxes can't be levied.. X_Digger Dec 2012 #162
Yes, you did. apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #168
*yawn* X_Digger Dec 2012 #171
"You realize you're promoting an unconstitutional measure, right?" <--X_Digger's words. apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #175
Of course, if Congress raised it to a $100 a round you'd have to be "fine with it," too, or find apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #153
No, congress would have to justify such an increase to meet the burden of strict scrutiny. X_Digger Dec 2012 #155
No, it wouldn't. Congress could raise it to a MILLION dollars a round, and the courts apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #169
Also, this post, where X_Digger claims Congress can't tax ammo, even though Congress does: apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #145
If I thought you seriously didn't understand, I'd feel sorry for you. X_Digger Dec 2012 #148
Uh-huh: now comes another dodge. Typical. n/t. apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #149
Feel free to continue to misquote me. It only makes you look foolish. X_Digger Dec 2012 #150
"You realize you're promoting an unconstitutional measure, right?" <--X_Digger's words. apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #152
*yawn* X_Digger Dec 2012 #157
Congress could raise the tax on ammo to whatever it wanted, and the courts would affirm it. apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #158
I am quoting the complete sentence from your subject line; you can quit pretending anything is being apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #163
You initiated this entire sub-thread by claiming that my tax proposal was "unconstitutional": when apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #156
All laws / taxes / regs are constitutional until they aren't. That's not semantics, that's history. X_Digger Dec 2012 #159
So, is the Congressional tax on ammo constitutional, or not? Answer the straight question. n/t. apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #161
Now who's dodging? LOL! X_Digger Dec 2012 #170
And you dodge again. Answer the question put to you: apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #173
All legislative acts are presumed to be constitutional until they're ruled as not. (procedure aside) X_Digger Dec 2012 #177
Dodge, dodge, dodge. n/t. apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #198
BTW, you did declare such taxes "unconstitutional" (link below with money quote): apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #176
No, actually, I didn't declare such taxes unconstitutional.. just your proposal.. X_Digger Dec 2012 #179
My "proposal" is already constitutional because ammo is already taxed: my proposal would apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #182
Circular reasoning- by that *cough* logic, no law would ever be unconstitutional because it passed. X_Digger Dec 2012 #186
No, it is not "circular reasoning": I don't think you understand what "circular reasoning" is. apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #199
"is already constitutional because ammo is already taxed" -- therefore, any law that is implemented X_Digger Dec 2012 #207
NO, it is not: again, you simply do not grasp the concept of what it means to engage in "circular apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #221
Quit dodging: is the tax on ammo constitutional, or nay? apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #184
Up, or down? Do you need me to repeat the question?> apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #191
*yawn* X_Digger Dec 2012 #172
Is the Congressional tax on ammo constitutional, or not? Answer the question put to you. apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #174
The law taxing ammo - no matter how high the rate was increased - would never be found apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #178
Congress's taxing power isn't absolute. What gives you the notion that it is? n/t X_Digger Dec 2012 #180
Is the Congressional tax on ammo constitutional, or not? Answer the question put to you. apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #181
*yawn* X_Digger Dec 2012 #183
Quit dodging: is the tax on ammo constitutional, or nay? It's not a hard question, apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #185
It is constitutional until it isn't. X_Digger Dec 2012 #190
So, more semantics games. Dodge, dodge, dodge! Typical. n/t. apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #193
"It is constitutional until it isn't" - Pretty much sums it up your bizarre pretzel-logic throughout apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #194
But this entire sub-thread was started by your insistence that such taxation was "unconstitutional": apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #187
I made no such insistence. X_Digger Dec 2012 #192
"You realize you're promoting an unconstitutional measure, right?" <--X_Digger's words. apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #195
"And with that, I'm done." - You were done a long time ago, as the facts are on my side. apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #196
Yay, or nay? apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #189
Yes, or no? apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #188
Here's the bottom line of this entire sub-thread, from stem to stern: apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #200
We certainly wouldn't want "undesirables" to be able to afford to buy dangerous weapons slackmaster Dec 2012 #40
I see now why you quietly self-deleted that reply where you promised to ignore my posts. apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #45
Bullshit. I never promised I would ignore your posts. slackmaster Dec 2012 #55
Sure you did. n/t. apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #57
Everyone knows that you are a master baiter, and I'm not going to fall for it. slackmaster Dec 2012 #127
Good thing you self-deleted that post, ain't it? apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #142
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Armslist Lawsuit Seeks to...»Reply #81