This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
It's not my permanent record, is it? Because if so, your brilliant debate technique has totally screwed my permanent record. Damn you, genius conspiracy theorists!Wanted to be clear I had on record that you support a police state.
I'm not avoiding it, you're changing it. My point is that you keep listing things that have multiple purposes as things that need to be banned in a juvenile, absurd (and failed) attempt to make a comparison (textbook Hustler). If you want to have a discussion about why not shotguns too, then don't put them in the same sentence with cars and doctors (which is what people are talking about right now in regard to your drivel posts. Your point isn't that shotguns kill, that's just where your trying to track the conversation to avoid, in typical fashion, defneding what people are calling you out for. That is all the absurd things whose sole function isn't killing that you keep listing in your histrionic counter "points". You're probably just a little distracted while still looking for that 3rd suspect that's so elusive that not even a single media outlet reported on him.So you're avoiding the point of the discussion... of course, because you have no answer.. Typical Sweeney..Shotguns kill more people Sweenster, why are we banning "assault Rifles" rather than shotguns?No, you're not catching on. Since those two devices don't fit the description that I wrote, those obviously aren't what I was referring to. The rest of your list is what I'm referring to. You know, the stuff that actually fits the context of what I wrote. I'm surprised you haven't listed water as a supposed counterpoint because people die in it.Shotgun? Pistol? Only "sometimes" used to kill? vs an assault rifle "sole purpose is to kill", yet they both kill more people every year.. I think I'm catching on.. please go on, this is very interesting convo..Please, continue listing other objects whose sole purpose is to kill. I think it's starting to help your argument!PS- That's sarcasm. Comparing thousands of things that sometimes are used to kill (deliberately or accidentally) with a device solely designed to kill (other than your magic non-lethal bullets) is absurd.That explains why they're banning all guns!! Now I understand..Alcohol kills more people every year then "assault rifles"ZOMG yessssssss!!1111!!11!1!!1!!! Cuz cars totally have only one purpose: TO KILL!!!! That comparison is SOOOOOOOOOO pErFEKkkKKTTTTT!!1!!!better take their cars too k?Yes 10 murders are better than 11. In fact 0 murders are better than 10. But since there is no way we can prevent crazy people from killing, how about we try to limit the amount of damage they can attempt to do... so 10 murders or events is ok.. but not 11.. Got it
So do many other weapons..
shotguns, pistols, knives, blunt objects ..
cars, medical malpractice,
drugs..
Yep, between that and your wanting to be more like China and your credibility is dissolving fast.It's not my permanent record, is it? Because if so, your brilliant debate technique has totally screwed my permanent record. Damn you, genius conspiracy theorists!
Easy there buddy. There is no room in this thread for logic.
Not really, only because you're too lazy to find where this has been addressed multiple times.Good to see you endorse a wider gun ban, though. Never thought i'd see the day.
I was conceding the point to you gun folks who say that China has lots of guns and virtually no gun crime. If you want to retract that option on behalf of the gun folks, I guess that's okay.I hope your blinds are closed really tight. I'd hate for the bad guys to see in. Shouldn't you go check?Yep, between that and your wanting to be more like China and your credibility is dissolving fast.It's not my permanent record, is it? Because if so, your brilliant debate technique has totally screwed my permanent record. Damn you, genius conspiracy theorists!
'ichris said:
reluctantly.For weeks now in this thread I have been arguing for a ban on high capacity magazines. I've quoted law enforcement, given examples, and I thought I made a pretty good case. But opponents keep making the highlighted points over and over, and I don't have a satisfactory answer to them, and I can't find any satisfactory answers from others in support, either.
tim, private citizens are not going to run background checks regardless of the law. i have a gun and i am asking 500 dollars for it. you have 500 and want the gun. sold. case closed
There will be some like you who will choose to break the law. I don't think this will apply to the majority. Remember, polling suggests that 75% of gun-owners, as well as a strong majority of NRA members, support universal background checks. Based on those numbers, I think most will obey the law, whatever it is.
do i need to run a background check on my uncle who i am selling a .25-06 to or just people who i dont know
The only way background checks would work is if registration were also in place and private sales would then be required to go through the same process as any other sale.
feinstein is a total idiot when it comes to weapons. i saw a picture of her pointing a gun at a crowd she was talking to with her finger on the trigger. she is the last person who needs to introduce anything regarding guns
It depends what the civil and criminal penalties are. Most people want to avoid going to jail or becoming liable for a wrongful death.
We agree on this totally and I have stated that same opinion many times but I was more curious as to why she only asked the Police Chief and not the others on the panel today.
Everyone. Even if you give the gun to your daughter as a gift. Any transfer of a firearm requires a background check. You want to transfer a gun, you call an 800 number, give the name and Social Security number of the new owner, pay a small fee, and clear the name. If the new owner is a felon or mentally ill, you will be informed that the transfer is illegal.It's really pretty simple, actually. There is no rational reason that I can see to be opposed. There is one irrational reason- that you are afraid the government will have knowledge of what weapons you own.
'ichris said:
I truly, truly believe that if we had a society with no gun magazines that exceeded 10 bullets, we would have a safer society. I believe that mass shootings would, for the most part, involve less casualties, and lives would be saved. But the nay sayers are correct; there's no way to get to that society. We can't confiscate, and there's too many already out there, and this printing technology means it's too easy to make more whatever the law says.
Laws only make sense, ultimately, if they're enforceable. Until someone can demonstrate a satisfactory way to make this law enforceable (and I just don't see how), I'm changing my stance on this issue. It doesn't make any sense.
I applaud you for keeping an open mind and actually acting on logic and not emotion.
I think Feinstein is mistaken on many aspects of this issue. But she is no idiot. She is one of the more capable politicians in Washington, and she is also one of the most decent and honorable women in politics. The personal attacks that she and Gabby Giffords have received from gun-owners in the last few weeks is truly shocking and disgusting.
She is an idiot in regards to this issue Tim and her proposals have shown that once again.It's not a personal attack at all to say her proposals have been misguided and comical.
my rational reason is i dont think the govt is entitled to know what type of guns a private citizen hasi am also not paying one penny to gift the gun santa claus gave me when i was seven to my son.
That's not rational. A gun is a deadly weapon. And before you bring up other items in the household which COULD be deadly, it's not the same: a gun is an item of death. You should be allowed to own them for self-defense, for hunting, for pleasure. But it's the proper role of the government to keep track, to make sure that bad guys aren't getting them from you.
tim, the govt cant keep up with their own guns, money, borders, ect ect.
u cannot be serious. sounds like a win win for big govt. they know who has guns and they profit from every sale.
Actually, Carolyn McCarthy makes Feinstein look like Travis Haley when it comes to guns. She is the speaker of the barrel shroud comment, "It's a shoulder thing that goes up"
Then when that gun gets used in a crime, and you're its registered owner, what kind of defense do you plan to offer on your behalf?
Sorta surprising Santa hasn't been shot yet, breaking into all those homes.
In for a dime, in for a dollar. If one were breaking a law by selling a gun illegally, they might as well remove the serial number...
Oh, right. Sorry.
This is just sad...I can't believe there is room for this in our country and these types of events are just a shrug of the shoulders
i agree that it is sad but the paranoid vet is going to prison for murder just like the gangbanger that shot an innocent child in a drive by
To be fair, I exhausted a considerable amount of time ironing out the substantive pieces of my position much earlier in this thread. When the right wingers came in and started making disingenuous, factually incorrect, and inflammatory statements without any interest in actually consulting the peer-reviewed literature on gun violence or navigating these issues with any reason or common sense, then it warrants calling them out.It's all about meeting folks on their level. Hustler, 5Digit, boots, they're interested only in being paranoid drama queens who misrepresent not only the Constitution and the Second Amendment specifically, but also the goals and aims of folks who want to incorporate some novel approaches to gun control so that we can limit / prevent the types of massacres that have been far too common and traumatizing in the past decade.'Pots said:
It can't and won't work exactly this way. The sale will have to go through an FFA. They won't open the system up to anyone with a telephone and a SS number. Plus, there aren't going to be many people willing to give up their SS number to a random stranger.Like you said, most people won't have a problem with a background check through an FFA. The fee is currently small, usually between $15 and $25. I could see people not doing it if they were selling to someone they know, but there is no way to enforce it without registration. And, as you have seen in this thread, registration will be vehemently opposed.
I hope it goes through the Free For All. We can handle it.
My point is/has/always will be, that a ban on "assault rifles" or "high capacity magazines" is useless and does not server the purpose you and many others are being manipulated into thinking. "assault rifles" is a term being defined by the appearance of the rifle and little else.. The rifles fitting that description are less responsible for murder/deaths then any other class of firearm. The proposed ban is ridiculous.. For many reasons..'mad sweeney said:I'm not avoiding it, you're changing it. My point is that you keep listing things that have multiple purposes as things that need to be banned in a juvenile, absurd (and failed) attempt to make a comparison (textbook Hustler). If you want to have a discussion about why not shotguns too, then don't put them in the same sentence with cars and doctors (which is what people are talking about right now in regard to your drivel posts. Your point isn't that shotguns kill, that's just where your trying to track the conversation to avoid, in typical fashion, defneding what people are calling you out for. That is all the absurd things whose sole function isn't killing that you keep listing in your histrionic counter "points". You're probably just a little distracted while still looking for that 3rd suspect that's so elusive that not even a single media outlet reported on him.'Carolina Hustler said:So you're avoiding the point of the discussion... of course, because you have no answer.. Typical Sweeney..Shotguns kill more people Sweenster, why are we banning "assault Rifles" rather than shotguns?'mad sweeney said:No, you're not catching on. Since those two devices don't fit the description that I wrote, those obviously aren't what I was referring to. The rest of your list is what I'm referring to. You know, the stuff that actually fits the context of what I wrote. I'm surprised you haven't listed water as a supposed counterpoint because people die in it.'Carolina Hustler said:Shotgun? Pistol? Only "sometimes" used to kill? vs an assault rifle "sole purpose is to kill", yet they both kill more people every year.. I think I'm catching on.. please go on, this is very interesting convo..'mad sweeney said:Please, continue listing other objects whose sole purpose is to kill. I think it's starting to help your argument!PS- That's sarcasm. Comparing thousands of things that sometimes are used to kill (deliberately or accidentally) with a device solely designed to kill (other than your magic non-lethal bullets) is absurd.'Carolina Hustler said:That explains why they're banning all guns!! Now I understand..Alcohol kills more people every year then "assault rifles"ZOMG yessssssss!!1111!!11!1!!1!!! Cuz cars totally have only one purpose: TO KILL!!!! That comparison is SOOOOOOOOOO pErFEKkkKKTTTTT!!1!!!better take their cars too k?Yes 10 murders are better than 11. In fact 0 murders are better than 10. But since there is no way we can prevent crazy people from killing, how about we try to limit the amount of damage they can attempt to do.. so 10 murders or events is ok.. but not 11.. Got it
So do many other weapons..
shotguns, pistols, knives, blunt objects ..
cars, medical malpractice,
drugs..
because the proposed ban is ridiculous and indefensible..And I didn't expect you to answer, your never respond when your position is flawed and the conclusion will only hurt your argument..'cobalt_27 said:Not really, only because you're too lazy to find where this has been addressed multiple times.Good to see you endorse a wider gun ban, though. Never thought i'd see the day.'Carolina Hustler said:
You ignore any good point that opposes your argument and answer with insults...
Cool story bro. How does that make banning non-weapons whose sole purpose isn't killing comparable to banning guns again? You make that absurd comparison often, but it still is utterly asinine and doesn't prove the point that you believe. That's why I brought up water. Because that's how stupid your comparisons are. As are the histrionics about "oh, 10's ok, but not 11" and crap like that.And I know it's hard to keep track, but I haven't made my feelings about AW bans made, so you have no idea what I have been "manipulated" into believing. My point is/was/always will be that arming more people and having more guns in public (even responsible, trained gun owners that shoot each other at gun shows, accidentally) is stupid.
^you did it again here..
Yeah, who'd have the nerve to unjustifiably call you a drama queen... so 10 murders or events is ok.. but not 11.. Got itNo, I think the intent here is to limit the number of deaths in a single event. Didn't think I'd have to hold your hand and walk you through this one, but there you go.FWIW, I think it's a weak concession. It's probably an appropriate step, but I'd prefer more systemic licensing and database regulations and outright AR ban.Murders are ok, just not if the bullet exits a high capacity clip..Sorry - I guess 6 a day is under the threshold. Carry on.Nice of you to count the knife death in there. I guess it's progress, I mean only one person was shot at a gun show yesterday.
Seems to be what they resort to when they don't have anything intelligent on the topic to say. For like the hundredth time, until you can provide the data backing this "peer-reviewed literature" we will continue to call you out on this biased fluff with unproven stats. I've posted a link to someone already asking these authors for the data to be exposed and zilch.The fact that Cobalt's focus is on these outlier incidents that are not even a blip on the gun violence scale just goes to show he cares more about "white people gun control issues" then gun violence as a whole.
^you did it again here..
My mind isn't made up on it yet. I do know that it isn't going to happen so your gun-nut buddies' histrionics are ridiculous.Your overdramatic nonsense about household items and interstate economic necessities as being comparable to guns is ridiculous, do you disagree?
I don't have any gun nut buddies.. I have a few hunting buddies, who I have never heard a peep out of in regards to this banning..The nuts are those who think anyone who owns a gun is a killer/murderer, and for which we should ban guns.. Or the nuts who think making guns illegal is a reasonable and achievable goal..
You just can't not be absurd, can you? Way to edit out the question so you don't have to answer it! How can you even look at yourself in the mirror witha straight face?
Whatever articles you purport to be reading are not the same ones I posted. You could not have provided a more inaccurate, ill-informed summary of the literature if you tried. As I suggested the last time we danced, do everyone a favor and actually read the articles beyond the title, beyond even the abstract. Let the information marinate and come back with a more informed synopsis. Let me be crystal clear, if you don't want to do the heavy lifting of actually learning what the preponderance of the data show, but insist on confabulation to fit a position into the story you'd like to tell, then it warrants a rebuke. You've been a recidivist liar in this regard, thus far. That is more a statement of fact, as opposed to an intent to be insulting. I don't even care if you want to be snarky about it in response and stick to your guns, so to speak, pun intended. Please just get your facts straight.Seems to be what they resort to when they don't have anything intelligent on the topic to say. For like the hundredth time, until you can provide the data backing this "peer-reviewed literature" we will continue to call you out on this biased fluff with unproven stats. I've posted a link to someone already asking these authors for the data to be exposed and zilch.The fact that Cobalt's focus is on these outlier incidents that are not even a blip on the gun violence scale just goes to show he cares more about "white people gun control issues" then gun violence as a whole.
^you did it again here..
