Credit Card Companies to Violate Your Rights

[dilligaf]

This video starts out with a LIE!  There are NO LAWS that protect gun manufacturers as opposed to any other industry.   This is a lie that is repeated over and over by loony lieberals.   I challenge any lieberal here to post such a law.

Cancel your credit cards.  They don't do you any favors, and you aren't going to buy a car using American Express anyway.

Pay CASH at the gun store.

www.newsnationnow.com/video/credit-cards-tracking-gun-sales-how-effective-will-it-be-morning-in-america/7986199/

[Walter]

Here ya go...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_in_Arms_Act

[Walter]

Sept 12, 2022 18:17:14 GMT -5 Walter said:

Here ya go...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_in_Arms_Act

Go ahead and name another industry with similar protections.

[dilligaf]

Sept 12, 2022 18:17:14 GMT -5 Walter said:

Here ya go...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_in_Arms_Act

I stand corrected, and that is a JUST law.

You can't sue Ford when someone uses their car to commit vehicular homicide, so it is only right and proper that you can't sue Glock when some criminal misuses one of their guns.

You CAN sue both Ford AND Glock if they put out a defective product that causes or has the potential to cause injury to the consumer.   THAT is correct and proper as well.

The fact that we even NEED a law to protect gun manufacturers from frivolous lawsuits shows just how sick anti-gun wackos are.


Getting back on track concerning credit card bullshit:

[Walter]

Sept 13, 2022 8:35:08 GMT -5 dilligaf said:

Sept 12, 2022 18:17:14 GMT -5 Walter said:

Here ya go...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_in_Arms_Act

I stand corrected, and that is a JUST law.

You can't sue Ford when someone uses their car to commit vehicular homicide, so it is only right and proper that you can't sue Glock when some criminal misuses one of their guns.

You CAN sue both Ford AND Glock if they put out a defective product that causes or has the potential to cause injury to the consumer.   THAT is correct and proper as well.

The fact that we even NEED a law to protect gun manufacturers from frivolous lawsuits shows just how sick anti-gun wackos are.

The problem with your argument is that a firearm has virtually no purpose other than killing something.
Nobody buys a Ford for the specific purpose of killing school children or people in a church. For that reason you cannot make the comparison appropriately.
I am not a fan of this backdoor approach to gun control, but I understand the intent.

[Panama pfRedd]

Sept 13, 2022 10:42:40 GMT -5 Walter said:

Sept 13, 2022 8:35:08 GMT -5 dilligaf said:

I stand corrected, and that is a JUST law.

You can't sue Ford when someone uses their car to commit vehicular homicide, so it is only right and proper that you can't sue Glock when some criminal misuses one of their guns.

You CAN sue both Ford AND Glock if they put out a defective product that causes or has the potential to cause injury to the consumer.   THAT is correct and proper as well.

The fact that we even NEED a law to protect gun manufacturers from frivolous lawsuits shows just how sick anti-gun wackos are.

The problem with your argument is that a firearm has virtually no purpose other than killing something.
Nobody buys a Ford for the specific purpose of killing school children or people in a church. For that reason you cannot make the comparison appropriately.
I am not a fan of this backdoor approach to gun control, but I understand the intent.

You are so full of shit as usual. Brown eyes and nose?

[Walter]

Sept 13, 2022 10:48:16 GMT -5 Panama pfRedd said:

Sept 13, 2022 10:42:40 GMT -5 Walter said:

The problem with your argument is that a firearm has virtually no purpose other than killing something.
Nobody buys a Ford for the specific purpose of killing school children or people in a church. For that reason you cannot make the comparison appropriately.
I am not a fan of this backdoor approach to gun control, but I understand the intent.

You are so full of shit as usual. Brown eyes and nose?

Go ahead and list all the other things a gun can do for you.

[Panama pfRedd]

Sept 13, 2022 11:05:14 GMT -5 Walter said:

Sept 13, 2022 10:48:16 GMT -5 Panama pfRedd said:

You are so full of shit as usual. Brown eyes and nose?

Go ahead and list all the other things a gun can do for you.

If you're too stupid to figure it out we won't waste our time.
Let us know if when you figure it out. Until then we'll keep laughing at you.

[Walter]

Sept 13, 2022 11:16:36 GMT -5 Panama pfRedd said:

Sept 13, 2022 11:05:14 GMT -5 Walter said:

Go ahead and list all the other things a gun can do for you.

If you're too stupid to figure it out we won't waste our time.
Let us know if when you figure it out. Until then we'll keep laughing at you.

Does your gun have a corkscrew accessory?
Scizzors? nail clipper attachment? Can opener? What?

[Panama pfRedd]

Sept 13, 2022 11:32:21 GMT -5 Walter said:

Sept 13, 2022 11:16:36 GMT -5 Panama pfRedd said:

If you're too stupid to figure it out we won't waste our time.
Let us know if when you figure it out. Until then we'll keep laughing at you.

Does your gun have a corkscrew accessory?
Scizzors? nail clipper attachment? Can opener? What?

Your stupidity is boundless. Anything else?

[Walter]

Sept 13, 2022 12:38:49 GMT -5 Panama pfRedd said:

Sept 13, 2022 11:32:21 GMT -5 Walter said:

Does your gun have a corkscrew accessory?
Scizzors? nail clipper attachment? Can opener? What?

Your stupidity is boundless. Anything else?

No...go ahead and put your head back in the sand and pretend reality doesn't exist.

[dilligaf]

Sept 13, 2022 10:42:40 GMT -5 Walter said:

Sept 13, 2022 8:35:08 GMT -5 dilligaf said:

I stand corrected, and that is a JUST law.

You can't sue Ford when someone uses their car to commit vehicular homicide, so it is only right and proper that you can't sue Glock when some criminal misuses one of their guns.

You CAN sue both Ford AND Glock if they put out a defective product that causes or has the potential to cause injury to the consumer.   THAT is correct and proper as well.

The fact that we even NEED a law to protect gun manufacturers from frivolous lawsuits shows just how sick anti-gun wackos are.

The problem with your argument is that a firearm has virtually no purpose other than killing something.
Nobody buys a Ford for the specific purpose of killing school children or people in a church. For that reason you cannot make the comparison appropriately.
I am not a fan of this backdoor approach to gun control, but I understand the intent.

You have been told many times that firearms have MANY uses, no matter if YOU like them or not.   That is not your call to make. 
You have been told many times that most legally owned firearms are NEVER used to commit crimes.   My firearms are used mostly to kill paper targets.
You have been told that you don't punish everyone because of a few.
According to you, we should bring back stop and frisk of minorities and Middle Eastern looking people.    You know, just in case.   One of them MIGHT be a bad guy.

A Ford is NOT specifically mentioned and protected in the Constitution.   Horses aren't mentioned.  Buggies aren't mentioned.   Shovels and plows aren't mentioned.

Firearms ARE.

Just stop.   You are looking REALLY ignorant again.

[Walter]

Sept 13, 2022 16:21:40 GMT -5 dilligaf said:

Sept 13, 2022 10:42:40 GMT -5 Walter said:

The problem with your argument is that a firearm has virtually no purpose other than killing something.
Nobody buys a Ford for the specific purpose of killing school children or people in a church. For that reason you cannot make the comparison appropriately.
I am not a fan of this backdoor approach to gun control, but I understand the intent.

You have been told many times that firearms have MANY uses, no matter if YOU like them or not.   That is not your call to make. 
You have been told many times that most legally owned firearms are NEVER used to commit crimes.   My firearms are used mostly to kill paper targets.
You have been told that you don't punish everyone because of a few.
According to you, we should bring back stop and frisk of minorities and Middle Eastern looking people.    You know, just in case.   One of them MIGHT be a bad guy.

A Ford is NOT specifically mentioned and protected in the Constitution.   Horses aren't mentioned.  Buggies aren't mentioned.   Shovels and plows aren't mentioned.

Firearms ARE.

Just stop.   You are looking REALLY ignorant again.

1. Beyond killing things and target shooting, list some the other uses of a gun.
2. Hardly anyone hijacks airplanes. Should we stop security checks?

[Panama pfRedd]

Sept 13, 2022 16:21:40 GMT -5 dilligaf said:

Sept 13, 2022 10:42:40 GMT -5 Walter said:

The problem with your argument is that a firearm has virtually no purpose other than killing something.
Nobody buys a Ford for the specific purpose of killing school children or people in a church. For that reason you cannot make the comparison appropriately.
I am not a fan of this backdoor approach to gun control, but I understand the intent.

You have been told many times that firearms have MANY uses, no matter if YOU like them or not.   That is not your call to make. 
You have been told many times that most legally owned firearms are NEVER used to commit crimes.   My firearms are used mostly to kill paper targets.
You have been told that you don't punish everyone because of a few.
According to you, we should bring back stop and frisk of minorities and Middle Eastern looking people.    You know, just in case.   One of them MIGHT be a bad guy.

A Ford is NOT specifically mentioned and protected in the Constitution.   Horses aren't mentioned.  Buggies aren't mentioned.   Shovels and plows aren't mentioned.

Firearms ARE.

Just stop.   You are looking REALLY ignorant again.

As told, his stupidity is boundless.
Also, his ass holery.

[dilligaf]

Sept 13, 2022 16:42:48 GMT -5 Walter said:

Sept 13, 2022 16:21:40 GMT -5 dilligaf said:

You have been told many times that firearms have MANY uses, no matter if YOU like them or not.   That is not your call to make. 
You have been told many times that most legally owned firearms are NEVER used to commit crimes.   My firearms are used mostly to kill paper targets.
You have been told that you don't punish everyone because of a few.
According to you, we should bring back stop and frisk of minorities and Middle Eastern looking people.    You know, just in case.   One of them MIGHT be a bad guy.

A Ford is NOT specifically mentioned and protected in the Constitution.   Horses aren't mentioned.  Buggies aren't mentioned.   Shovels and plows aren't mentioned.

Firearms ARE.

Just stop.   You are looking REALLY ignorant again.

1. Beyond killing things and target shooting, list some the other uses of a gun.
2. Hardly anyone hijacks airplanes. Should we stop security checks?

1.  Hunting and target shooting are both legal activities, therefore there is no reason to list any more reasons.    But we can add personal protection to that list.  All it really takes is ONE reason to justify the 2nd Amendment.

2. Flying on an airliner is NOT a right.   If you want to fly, you will subject yourself to being treated like cattle through a chute.

I keep knocking you down.   Easily.

Stay down.