Guns: how much longer will it take ....

By everyone's definition. People use the terms interchangeably.

That doesn't make the more specific use of the term fraudulent.

No, my facts are impeccabl and are underpinned by layers and layers of supportive evidence.
Up , has been the direction upon which your jig now is.

As we say herein dutch country "Du kanst nich mich verkauft". YOU are all vines and no taters.

Irrelevant (if it's even true). You're still a fake who cannot back up any of your accusations of me being wrong about anything.



When you can't even point out a single thing that I am wrong about? Do you dress in a clown suit when you post here?



Wrong again. I can provide a reliable cite to back up every fact that I've ever claimed.

You are the only person here who doesn't (can't) back up his claims.

What makes the progressives' definition fraudulent is the fact that it is completely contrary to the real definition.

AOC and Dan Crenshaw clash over whether people should lend guns to friends
CNN Digital Expansion 2018 Clare Foran
By Clare Foran, CNN
Updated 2:37 PM ET, Wed September 4, 2019

Washington (CNN)Two high profile freshmen House members publicly clashed Wednesday over the issue of background checks for purchasing guns and being able to lend out firearms, a fight that previews just one part of the polarizing debate over gun control awaiting members of Congress when lawmakers return from recess next week.

The exchange followed Republican Rep. Dan Crenshaw of Texas sending a tweet linked to a Houston-based ABC affiliate story that reported on an incident where a woman shot and wounded a suspected robber who attempted to grab her purse.

"With universal background checks, I wouldn't be able to let my friends borrow my handgun when they travel alone like this. We would make felons out of people just for defending themselves," Crenshaw wrote in the tweet.
Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York replied to the tweet with, "You are a member of Congress. Why are you 'lending' guns to people unsupervised who can't pass a basic background check? The people you're giving a gun to have likely abused their spouse or have a violent criminal record, & you may not know it. Why on earth would you do that?"

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
✔
@AOC
You are a member of Congress. Why are you “lending” guns to people unsupervised who can’t pass a basic background check?

The people you’re giving a gun to have likely abused their spouse or have a violent criminal record, & you may not know it.

Why on earth would you do that? https://twitter.com/DanCrenshawTX/status/1169078474226765825 …

Dan Crenshaw
✔
@DanCrenshawTX
Situations like this story are why we protect the 2nd Amendment.

Side note: With universal background checks, I wouldn’t be able to let my friends borrow my handgun when they travel alone like this. We would make felons out of people just for defending themselves. https://twitter.com/abc13miya/status/1168993652150026244 …
10:04 AM - Sep 4, 2019

The exchange comes as congressional Democrats have been attempting to put pressure on Senate Republicans to take up and pass a background checks bill that the Democratic-controlled House passed earlier this year. The push comes in response to a series of mass shootings that have shocked the nation while lawmakers have been back in their congressional districts for a summer recess period. Both chambers will come back into session next week.

After shootings in El, Paso, Texas and Dayton, Ohio, President Donald Trump suggested that he was looking into the possibility of passing background checks. But the President has since publicly backed away from that. In more recent comments, the President appeared to defend existing US gun control measures, saying, "We do have a lot of background checks right now."

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said on Tuesday that he will not put a gun bill of any kind on the Senate floor unless the President says he would sign it into law.

Crenshaw pushed back on Ocasio-Cortez's tweet, saying, "Just so I'm clear: you think my friends are domestic abusers/criminals? Seriously that's your argument? That they can't pass a background check? Wrong. People lend guns to friends, esp if they don't own a gun, for self-defense and hunting purposes. This is America outside NYC."

In response to the ABC news story, Crenshaw wrote in his initial tweet, "Situations like this story are why we protect the 2nd Amendment."

Ocasio-Cortez later followed up to say, "You said w/ universal background checks, you wouldn't be able to 'lend' guns to friends. If a background check would be a problem, then you shouldn't 'lend' a gun. And btw, NY is one of the safest states in the country when it comes to guns, incl rural areas. Try to keep up."

By my reckoning we've already won the war and there will be no new gun control laws passed without our agreement.

The next few weeks will just be for progressive politicians to throw temper tantrums on the floors of the House and Senate.

I've already conceded we need help passing gun reform laws. What is interesting is that you think a war has to break out in order to make that happen.

The war is already over. The war was the attempt to force unconstitutional gun laws despite our opposition.

Whatcha gonna do when gun reform is done constitutionally?

Constitutionally would mean it does not violate the right to keep and bear arms.

It's the unconstitutional stuff that I most object to.

I guess my reaction in this hypothetical scenario depends on the details of what exactly is being done.

Probably more than you're comfortable with and less than we want.

The odds of anything passing that I'm uncomfortable with are virtually zero.

Most likely nothing at all is going to pass.

If anything does pass, it will almost certainly stay well within the zone of "things that I am comfortable with".


But then again, most gun laws that would be Constitutional I am comfortable with.

I can think of only a handful of gun laws that would be Constitutional that I would not be comfortable with.

I can think of only one gun law that would be Constitutional that I would be dead set against no matter what.

We've been thru this already. You were challenged to back up your posts with cites and evidence and you failed abysmally. You finally admitted you were guilty as charged about posting mere opinion, which finally blew apart your incessant claim of always posting facts

your whine of this AM about the GOP trying to work with OBAMA is such a lie based upon your delusional self-adbsorbance I and several others told you that you were a liar and yet you fake your ernest belief that you know of what you speak and its all BS and you have to know it if you think youre such an intellect. Id have that looked at. Till then you can go play with yerself asswipe. Im done with you for this subject. You dont ebate, you merely engage in seriatem re-utterance of the same BS bumpr stickers.

That gets rally old and is unimpressive as debate. Now youre getting testy , when it gets man and pesonal, I like to just back off with the scary "W" contingent herein(of which you are a card carrying charter member)

Wrong again. You cannot show a single example of me failing to back up my facts with reliable cites.



Wrong again. I never admitted that I post only opinion, or that I do not post facts.

Such an admission would be plainly untrue, as I post facts all the time.

This whole debate misses the salient fact that a standard AR-15 with a standard ten shot magazine is completely capable of committing an act which meets the standard definition of mass murder in under ten seconds.

So what? So can any other rifle with ten shot detachable magazines. The AR-15 is nothing unique when it comes to detachable magazines.

Wrong again. Boehner tried quite hard to reach a budget deal with Obama.

GOP senators were going to try to pass immigration reform before Obama undercut them.

The GOP also had nothing to do with Obama's decision to waste the entire first hundred days of his second term fighting with the NRA instead of getting something done for the country.



Your false accusations reflect on you, not on me.



I always know what I'm talking about. That's why you can't point out any errors in my posts.



Says the person who can't back up his claims and point out anything that I'm wrong about.



I'm smart enough to know that everything I said is correct. If you aren't smart enough to know this too, that's on you.



Progressives always have the most charming reactions when people post facts.



I'm not the person who is throwing a temper tantrum here.

You were challenged onone of your repeated utrageous claims that you always post as fact. We went round and round and you never ;presented anything. Finally you claimed that it was an opinion and oinions cannot be true or false because they are truly an opinion. You admitted for the first time you post opinion. Guilty as charged.. You really are a poseur.