If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Talking Points Memo)   NRA: We can't catch every criminal out there, so why bother with background checks at all?   (livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 382
    More: Dumbass, NRA, Wayne LaPierre, waste of time, background checks, crimes  
•       •       •

2893 clicks; posted to Politics » on 29 Jan 2013 at 5:13 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



382 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-29 09:07:42 PM

Mrbogey: It's not hyperbole when you call a scumbag a scumbag or a liar a liar. Gun control advocates are liars.



So ... what exactly is it, then, when you call a strawman a scumbag? Or call a strawman a liar?
 
2013-01-29 09:11:53 PM

Mike_1962: Um, not sure if serious. Family/friends and blackmarket are both private sales.


I believe by "private sale" it refers to sales made between two strangers where the seller could legally possess it and sold it to the person believing they were a non-prohibited person.
 
2013-01-29 09:15:24 PM

Thrag: tenpoundsofcheese: lennavan: I mean, you don't hear people biatching about how you have to register your newborn baby with the government

You have to register a new born baby with the government?
Which government is that?

Wow, a right winger who has never heard of a birth certificate. Who would have thought such a thing could exist in this day and age?


Keep your government hands off my birth certifict!
 
2013-01-29 09:20:41 PM
Someone turns into your driveway by mistake? Well, it seems that there's a 2nd amendment solution to that problem:

Friends of Diaz, of Duluth, told Channel 2 Action News that he and others were trying to find a friend's house, but their GPS instead led them to the home on Hillcrest Road, off Indian Trail Road.

After seeing the car in his driveway, Sailors came out of his home, went back inside, then came out again with a gun and shot in the air, Yeson Jimenez, 15, told Channel 2. Jimenez said he and his brother were in the car with Diaz, along with a female passenger.

Diaz tried to drive away, but Sailors shot again, striking Diaz in the head, according to police.

An attorney for Sailors told Channel 2 the man shot because he feared his life was in danger.

"He is very distraught over the loss of life from the defense of his home," attorney Michael Puglise said. "This incident happened late in the evening hours when he was home with his wife and he assumed it was a home invasion and he maintains his innocence."


This incident happened in Georgia, which has a "stand your ground" law. One wonders if this murderous POS will use that defense to get away with his crime.  The police report confirms that the vehicle was pulling out of the driveway when Sailors killed the driver (Sailors is claiming the vehicle was moving toward him).
 
2013-01-29 09:25:13 PM
I have heard this again and again by the gun nuts "Hey if we pass these laws they will not be 100% effective". Hey, we have rape and murder laws, and we still have rape and murder, so lets get rid of those laws too?

And they get so mad when you point out that their argument is this stupid.
 
2013-01-29 09:27:10 PM

Nabb1: I own guns and I went through a background check. I don't see the big deal.


Because you are a responsible gun owner, not a gun nut that believes any restriction on the use of guns is the same as taking all guns away. Today we have a group of extremists who believe that either you can have pure ideology or you have nothing.
 
2013-01-29 09:30:57 PM

BMulligan: Thrag: tenpoundsofcheese: lennavan: I mean, you don't hear people biatching about how you have to register your newborn baby with the government

You have to register a new born baby with the government?
Which government is that?

Wow, a right winger who has never heard of a birth certificate. Who would have thought such a thing could exist in this day and age?

Keep your government hands off my birth certifict!


Actually you as a parrent are not required to register your children with the govt. Insta put into adoption or drop offs come to mind
 
2013-01-29 09:31:40 PM
Dimensio
I am open to a registration requirement, if the legal requirement includes specific language that mandates the complete destruction of the registry (and any copies) and nullifies the requirement for registration should any legislation that would have the effect of banning from civilian ownership any currently legal civilian firearm model pass both houses of Congress. The clause would also be applicable for any legislation attempting to repeal the clause itself.

An interesting suggestion. Unfortunately, as a practical matter, it is not possible for one Congress to bind a subsequent Congress. Later Congresses can always repeal and amend earlier laws.

What if a unanimous or near-unanimous U.S. Supreme Court decision held that although registration of guns is permissible, any use of the registry to confiscate guns from their lawful owners is unconstitutional based on the Second Amendment's requirement that the people may "keep" arms? (Additionally, assume that no serious contender for federal office advocated overturning the unanimous or near-unanimous decision.)
 
2013-01-29 09:32:15 PM

Uranus Is Huge!: Gun free zones = juicy target for criminals because there's no guns

Houses with guns = juicy target for criminals because there's guns

Gun threads are very educational.


Hey, look everybody, someone on fark is being deliberately obtuse!
 
2013-01-29 09:32:50 PM
That is the exact same argument that liberals use to whine about sending illegals back to Mexico...we can't get them all so why bother with any of them? Let's just make the legal!
 
2013-01-29 09:33:54 PM

richard_1963: Someone turns into your driveway by mistake? Well, it seems that there's a 2nd amendment solution to that problem:

Friends of Diaz, of Duluth, told Channel 2 Action News that he and others were trying to find a friend's house, but their GPS instead led them to the home on Hillcrest Road, off Indian Trail Road.

After seeing the car in his driveway, Sailors came out of his home, went back inside, then came out again with a gun and shot in the air, Yeson Jimenez, 15, told Channel 2. Jimenez said he and his brother were in the car with Diaz, along with a female passenger.

Diaz tried to drive away, but Sailors shot again, striking Diaz in the head, according to police.

An attorney for Sailors told Channel 2 the man shot because he feared his life was in danger.

"He is very distraught over the loss of life from the defense of his home," attorney Michael Puglise said. "This incident happened late in the evening hours when he was home with his wife and he assumed it was a home invasion and he maintains his innocence."

This incident happened in Georgia, which has a "stand your ground" law. One wonders if this murderous POS will use that defense to get away with his crime.  The police report confirms that the vehicle was pulling out of the driveway when Sailors killed the driver (Sailors is claiming the vehicle was moving toward him).


Nah, PMITA prison for that guy. He has no way to prove his life was in any danger given that evidence, Not really like the Zimmerman case in any respect.
 
2013-01-29 09:43:14 PM
richard_1963
Diaz tried to drive away, but Sailors shot again, striking Diaz in the head, according to police.

An attorney for Sailors told Channel 2 the man shot because he feared his life was in danger there were brown people in the car, and this happened in Georgia.


FTFY.
 
2013-01-29 09:45:02 PM

shotglasss: That is the exact same argument that liberals use to whine about sending illegals back to Mexico...we can't get them all so why bother with any of them? Let's just make the legal!


Really? What liberals are asking for removing all laws on immigration? Not many, and none that are politicians however many right wingers are saying we can have no new gun laws at all including the NRA.
 
2013-01-29 09:51:25 PM
And by "ready to participate in a meaningful effort," they mean "as long as you never, ever, EVER mention guns in any capacity other than assuring us we can have as many of whatever kind as we like, regardless of criminal history or mental illness because background checks impinge on our liberties."

I don't suppose they're going to take up a collection for the NIMH, either.
 
2013-01-29 09:53:34 PM

shotglasss: That is the exact same argument that liberals use to whine about sending illegals back to Mexico...we can't get them all so why bother with any of them? Let's just make the legal!


Actually no, no liberals are saying that. That's what we call a strawman, or just a flat out lie to appeal to the "both sides are bad" argument.

Same with the war on drugs. No, no one is proposing full legalization of all drugs, and if they were, it's not because "the laws dont work so lets not try."

But please do continue, every time you guys speak, you show everyone how dishonest and ignorant you are and weaken your position further.
 
2013-01-29 10:10:55 PM

chairmanoohmowmow: "The war on drugs was a failure."

"We can't stop teens from having sex so we should give them condoms."

"It's stupid to think we can control the border with mexico."

"We need need gun control."

One of these things is not like the other...


Yes, the very last thing you said. The first 4 things are dissimilar items. The last statement is a strawman.
 
2013-01-29 10:15:05 PM

Corvus: I have heard this again and again by the gun nuts "Hey if we pass these laws they will not be 100% effective". Hey, we have rape and murder laws, and we still have rape and murder, so lets get rid of those laws too?

And they get so mad when you point out that their argument is this stupid.


Sort of like immigration laws? We can't seem to find and deport X million illegals so hey, amnesty!

/yeah get to the back of the line.......but stay here.

//vote Dem, vote often
// no ID required
 
2013-01-29 10:18:11 PM

Nabb1: I own guns and I went through a background check. I don't see the big deal.


This, LaPierre is a moron.

I wish the NRA had sane leadership. Compromise on issues like this, but never allow bans.
 
2013-01-29 10:19:41 PM

justtray: Actually no, no liberals are saying that. That's what we call a strawman, or just a flat out lie to appeal to the "both sides are bad" argument.


And where were you to point out that nobody is saying there needs to be no gun regulations?

Where were you to point out they're not saying the law won't be 100% effective so we shouldn't try?

Oh, that's right... that's the "right" side making those strawmen. You can't be outraged at that.
 
2013-01-29 10:20:14 PM

gilgigamesh: Now opposing criminal background checks may seem baffling, but that would be because you are wrongly assuming that the point is to reduce gun violence.  Once you consider that LaPierre's sole motive is to ensure that his gun manufacturer masters maximize sales of their product, it makes sense.

Take any proposition LaPierre and the NRA make, strip it of any moral context whatsoever, run it through this formula, and you will see it fits 100% of the time.


Manufacturers would have already made their money on the first legal sale to the FFL dealer, unless I'm misunderstanding that the universal background check is the closing of the "gunshow loophole."
 
2013-01-29 10:22:27 PM

manimal2878: gilgigamesh: Now opposing criminal background checks may seem baffling, but that would be because you are wrongly assuming that the point is to reduce gun violence.  Once you consider that LaPierre's sole motive is to ensure that his gun manufacturer masters maximize sales of their product, it makes sense.

Take any proposition LaPierre and the NRA make, strip it of any moral context whatsoever, run it through this formula, and you will see it fits 100% of the time.

Manufacturers would have already made their money on the first legal sale to the FFL dealer, unless I'm misunderstanding that the universal background check is the closing of the "gunshow loophole."


The gun manufacturers are a huge lobby is a nice conspiracy theory. It does highlight how little people know about it considering what happened with Ruger and S&W.
 
2013-01-29 10:25:53 PM

Darth_Lukecash: vernonFL: Wherever the next mass shooting is, Wayne LaPierre should be forced to wipe up the blood and carry the bodies to the morgue.

Better yet, be the one who tells the grieving family that their loved ones died for freedom of gunn ownersship.


If you have ever drank a beer you should have to tell the grieving family of dead DUI victims that they died so you could have the freedom to get a buzz from your pabst blue ribbon.

Yes, that's how retarded your statement sounds.
 
2013-01-29 10:31:14 PM

Corvus: Nabb1: I own guns and I went through a background check. I don't see the big deal.

Because you are a responsible gun owner, not a gun nut that believes any restriction on the use of guns is the same as taking all guns away. Today we have a group of extremists who believe that either you can have pure ideology or you have nothing.


The reason why is many of us have been through this before. We did the FFL system, and the background checks, and the machine gun registry (which turned into a ban), and then the AWB with its feature bans and magazine limits. It was always for the kids and to keep guns in the right hands. It's always in the interest of the greater good.
Now we're here again looking for further tightening of new and existing restrictions.

If every infringement is reasonable because you wants it then is there any limit to this desire?
Is there an end point where you decide to look somewhere else for the solution to violence?

If playing along means choking the life out of our weapon rights then there isn't much of a difference for you if we draw the line in the sand here or down the road. You cant be satisfied.

It makes a pretty big difference to the rest of us tho, since we're trying to hang on to what's left until this political tornado blows itself out.
 
2013-01-29 10:31:54 PM

manimal2878: Nabb1: I own guns and I went through a background check. I don't see the big deal.

This, LaPierre is a moron.

I wish the NRA had sane leadership. Compromise on issues like this, but never allow bans.


Yes but compomise before the actual debate starts has been Obama's largest negotiational failing. I see no problem at thowing red meat and setting a negotiating start point and then moving in. Otherwise you move in once and then hve to move in again.
 
2013-01-29 10:33:42 PM

Facetious_Speciest: omnibus_necanda_sunt

They'd trace it to you. They'd bend the crook's arm until he gave up the guy who sold to him, then so on up the chain until you get to people following the new registry law.

Right, but in the example, I was the end of the chain, and all the cops had was a criminal's accusation.

It's very similar to the "lol, they won't register, so they're no longer law-abiding gun owners, so confiscate their firearms!" idea in that it misses the basic fact that you won't know who to go after for having illegal firearms, as they declined to register them with anyone to begin with. You'd have to wait until someone did something crazy, rather like now.

"Following the chain" would work for everything after the registration law (in theory), but not for all the weapons from the past century or so we have in every third house in this country, many of which are not registered and have absolutely no government records of possession to begin with.


You are correct in that there could and almost certainly would be a lot of non compliance. Now, what is your point? Are you on some kind of 'Perfect Solution' falllacy riff?
 
2013-01-29 10:37:28 PM
Mike_1962

You are correct in that there could and almost certainly would be a lot of non compliance. Now, what is your point?

I already made it. Hours ago.

Are you on some kind of 'Perfect Solution' falllacy riff?

Not at all. I was simply pointing out the flaws as I saw them with certain lines of reasoning. They were valid, if based on a poster and I not quite being on the same page.

Do you disagree with something I said? Do you have a point?
 
2013-01-29 10:43:58 PM

Dimensio: omnibus_necanda_sunt: Dimensio: lennavan: Firethorn: You need to double check your stats. Right now the #1 source for guns is apparently straw purchase - where a non-convicted criminal legally buys the firearms and provides them to the criminals.

This is a great argument for requiring gun owners to register their guns.

I am open to a registration requirement, if the legal requirement includes specific language that mandates the complete destruction of the registry (and any copies) and nullifies the requirement for registration should any legislation that would have the effect of banning from civilian ownership any currently legal civilian firearm model pass both houses of Congress. The clause would also be applicable for any legislation attempting to repeal the clause itself.

What the fark, dude? The registry will just get dumped on WikiLeaks anyway.

Are you worried about the government confiscating your car, via their handy-dandy vehicle registries? No? Then why be worried about guns?

I am aware of no government that has utilized an automobile registry for confiscation. I am aware of multiple governments that have utilized a firearm registry for confiscation.


Really? I'm curious. Who?
 
2013-01-29 10:53:27 PM

Facetious_Speciest: Mike_1962

Well, maybe nothing, as long as you are OK with being an accessory to murder before the fact.

So, mostly nothing. If one had compunctions of that sort, they probably wouldn't be illegally selling firearms to begin with.


I disagree, based largely on points you hav made. It would seem that a lot of gun owners are 'mavericky' enough to refuse to register, but might still sell a gun. I would not accept that those same people have the same scofflaw attitude to murder.
 
2013-01-29 10:53:27 PM

WE SHOULDN'T HAVE GUN LAWS BECAUSE SOME PEOPLE BREAK LAWS?
manhattaninfidel.com
SO WHY HAVE ANY LAWS?
 
2013-01-29 10:56:32 PM
Wow, this guy is really farking losing it.

First, "video games are bad!"

Then "play our NRA video game!"

And now "Background checks are bad!"
 
2013-01-29 10:57:46 PM
coeyagi: Yes, the very last thing you said. The first 4 things are dissimilar items. The last statement is a straw man.

Little tip:

You can spout all of the sophomore debate class vocabulary you want but you can't explain how the left argues against control when they like the behavior but argue for it when it's something they despise like Jesus, corporations and of course, guns.

to wit: "We can't prevent abortions! If they're made illegal people will go to back alleys or to Mexico and it won't be safe!"

"We can prevent criminal activity by passing more laws!"

argument: No, you can't. Adam Lanza didn't give fark about the number of laws he was breaking.

just saying "straw man" or "red herring" doesn't break the argument.

Thanks for playing. We have some nice parting gifts for you backstage.
 
2013-01-29 10:59:22 PM

Mike_1962: Dimensio: omnibus_necanda_sunt: Dimensio: lennavan: Firethorn: You need to double check your stats. Right now the #1 source for guns is apparently straw purchase - where a non-convicted criminal legally buys the firearms and provides them to the criminals.

This is a great argument for requiring gun owners to register their guns.

I am open to a registration requirement, if the legal requirement includes specific language that mandates the complete destruction of the registry (and any copies) and nullifies the requirement for registration should any legislation that would have the effect of banning from civilian ownership any currently legal civilian firearm model pass both houses of Congress. The clause would also be applicable for any legislation attempting to repeal the clause itself.

What the fark, dude? The registry will just get dumped on WikiLeaks anyway.

Are you worried about the government confiscating your car, via their handy-dandy vehicle registries? No? Then why be worried about guns?

I am aware of no government that has utilized an automobile registry for confiscation. I am aware of multiple governments that have utilized a firearm registry for confiscation.

Really? I'm curious. Who?


who else but....
 
2013-01-29 11:00:02 PM
Mike_1962

I disagree, based largely on points you hav made. It would seem that a lot of gun owners are 'mavericky' enough to refuse to register, but might still sell a gun.

I honestly don't follow what you're saying. Sorry. I do believe many Americans will not comply with a governmental demand for weapons registration. I do not believe this suggests they will be fine with selling their unregistered weapons to strangers who might then go out and murder someone.

Hypothetically speaking, if I had firearms, I would not register them. I also would have no interest in selling them illegally. I am only one individual, though.
 
2013-01-29 11:01:55 PM

Jackpot777: WE SHOULDN'T HAVE GUN LAWS BECAUSE SOME PEOPLE BREAK LAWS?
[manhattaninfidel.com image 300x300]
SO WHY HAVE ANY LAWS?


As opposed to tackling items that respresent a minor par of the overall issue?

Most of us want to do something that does tackle the issue in a statistically significant way without infringing upon enumerated rights.
 
2013-01-29 11:03:39 PM

Jackpot777: WE SHOULDN'T HAVE GUN LAWS BECAUSE SOME PEOPLE BREAK LAWS?
[manhattaninfidel.com image 300x300]
SO WHY HAVE ANY LAWS?


Laws don't exist to prevent people from doing certain things, they're there so people can be punished after they do them. So, after someone murders a few people with that illegally modified weapon, people can feel some smug satisfaction that instead of life in prison, the murderer will be serving life plus 15 years.
 
2013-01-29 11:04:04 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Uranus Is Huge!: Gun free zones = juicy target for criminals because there's no guns

Houses with guns = juicy target for criminals because there's guns

Gun threads are very educational.

Hey, look everybody, someone on fark is being deliberately obtuse!


Um, no. It is not obtuse to point out through ridicule the ridiculous.
 
2013-01-29 11:05:35 PM

Facetious_Speciest: I honestly don't follow what you're saying. Sorry. I do believe many Americans will not comply with a governmental demand for weapons registration. I do not believe this suggests they will be fine with selling their unregistered weapons to strangers who might then go out and murder someone.

Hypothetically speaking, if I had firearms, I would not register them. I also would have no interest in selling them illegally. I am only one individual, though.


Pretty much the same here and everyone else I know is pretty much in the same boat. Most recognize that they do need to keep guns out of the hands of bad folks, but don't trust the government when it comes to gun registration.

Simple as that.
 
2013-01-29 11:14:20 PM
LaPierre's only goal is to sell more guns, whether they end up in the hands of felons or insane people, it's all good to him and the gun industry that he lobbies for.

The only reason why a good person would need gun for personal defense is because the NRA has made damn sure that the bad people have easy access to them.
 
2013-01-29 11:22:21 PM

Mike_1962: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Uranus Is Huge!: Gun free zones = juicy target for criminals because there's no guns

Houses with guns = juicy target for criminals because there's guns

Gun threads are very educational.

Hey, look everybody, someone on fark is being deliberately obtuse!

Um, no. It is not obtuse to point out through ridicule the ridiculous.


In the way it was done, it sure is. Do people who want to kill others want to find people who can't offer resistance? Yes, they do!

Do people who want to steal guns target gun owners. Yes, they do!

The intent here, which is to convey an absurd no win scenario, relies on the fact that you conveniently omit the fact that each of these situations is from different criminals with vastly different motives. It also relies on ignorance of the fact that very simple concessions be given to law abiding gun owners would neutralize the risks associated with each scenario. The first would be to end "gun free zones" since they've been working such wonders with keeping psychopathic murderers at bay, the second would be to end any collection of data on who owns guns. So if it wasn't "deliberately" obtuse, then you're both useless in the realm of critical thought and have no place in this or any other debate which is more substantial than what brand of hand soap smells the best.
 
2013-01-29 11:24:21 PM

richard_1963: LaPierre's only goal is to sell more guns, whether they end up in the hands of felons or insane people, it's all good to him and the gun industry that he lobbies for.


Actaully, if that was teh case, he would be all for the ban and confiscation. Manufacturers would need to update thier models so they don't technically fitt under the ban's cosmetics and you have the recipe for more sales.

All the current hoarding does right now is offset future sales to the present.

The only reason why a good person would need gun for personal defense is because the NRA has made damn sure that the bad people have easy access to them.

Bad people will find a way to own guns regardless of whether the NRA exist or not.
 
2013-01-29 11:24:47 PM

Facetious_Speciest: Mike_1962

You are correct in that there could and almost certainly would be a lot of non compliance. Now, what is your point?

I already made it. Hours ago.

Are you on some kind of 'Perfect Solution' falllacy riff?

Not at all. I was simply pointing out the flaws as I saw them with certain lines of reasoning. They were valid, if based on a poster and I not quite being on the same page.

Do you disagree with something I said? Do you have a point?


I assumed that pointing out that registration would not be 100% effective (which is obvious and need not be belaboured) was a support for non registration. If your whole point was pendantry rather than meaning, I beg your pardon.
 
2013-01-29 11:24:52 PM

richard_1963: LaPierre's only goal is to sell more guns, whether they end up in the hands of felons or insane people, it's all good to him and the gun industry that he lobbies for.


I'm pretty sure they realize that the revenue generated by the mentally unstable segment of the market doesn't offset the risk posed to the entire industry, but keep clinging to that delusion if it makes you feel better.
 
2013-01-29 11:31:28 PM

Facetious_Speciest: Mike_1962

I disagree, based largely on points you hav made. It would seem that a lot of gun owners are 'mavericky' enough to refuse to register, but might still sell a gun.

I honestly don't follow what you're saying. Sorry. I do believe many Americans will not comply with a governmental demand for weapons registration. I do not believe this suggests they will be fine with selling their unregistered weapons to strangers who might then go out and murder someone.

Hypothetically speaking, if I had firearms, I would not register them. I also would have no interest in selling them illegally. I am only one individual, though.


Well, amend your statement to never sell or give the guns to anyone in that case. Don't try to say 'Well, I'm not going to sell my gun to someone who might commit a crime'. You are not in a position to make that judgement call.
 
2013-01-29 11:35:21 PM

HeadLever: Mike_1962: Dimensio: omnibus_necanda_sunt: Dimensio: lennavan: Firethorn: You need to double check your stats. Right now the #1 source for guns is apparently straw purchase - where a non-convicted criminal legally buys the firearms and provides them to the criminals.

This is a great argument for requiring gun owners to register their guns.

I am open to a registration requirement, if the legal requirement includes specific language that mandates the complete destruction of the registry (and any copies) and nullifies the requirement for registration should any legislation that would have the effect of banning from civilian ownership any currently legal civilian firearm model pass both houses of Congress. The clause would also be applicable for any legislation attempting to repeal the clause itself.

What the fark, dude? The registry will just get dumped on WikiLeaks anyway.

Are you worried about the government confiscating your car, via their handy-dandy vehicle registries? No? Then why be worried about guns?

I am aware of no government that has utilized an automobile registry for confiscation. I am aware of multiple governments that have utilized a firearm registry for confiscation.

Really? I'm curious. Who?

who else but....


Really? REALLY? Try to think rationally about the differences and stop masturbating to your underdog lonely hero/rebel fantasies.
 
2013-01-29 11:36:02 PM
Mike_1962

I assumed that pointing out that registration would not be 100% effective (which is obvious and need not be belaboured) was a support for non registration.

No, I decline to support registration for other reasons. And in fact, I was pointing out why certain measures would be less than effective, the details of which are apparently obscure to many anti-firearm folks who simply don't understand how firearm ownership works in the States.

To be fair, the confusion was mine, but the other poster involved admitted they had been less than clear regarding their point. If you read the exchange, it might be helpful.

If your whole point was pendantry rather than meaning, I beg your pardon.

Yeah, it was totally pedantry. Because that's what the word means. Except not.

Seems like you're trying to argue, but aren't sure how.

Let's start again, just for you. A poster suggested the solution to people not registering their weapons is to fine them. I pointed out that you can't do that until they do something wrong that reveals their unregistered weapons. A lot of people don't get this point, because they think all legally purchased firearms in America are registered, or licensed, or tracked, because they saw something on the telly and that's obviously how things work.

In reality, this is not how things work. If I owned firearms, not a single one of them would be registered, and there would be no record of any transfer. As far as the government is concerned, I would have no weapons. How would you know to fine me, confiscate my weapons or intern me? You wouldn't.

Do you disagree, and if so, why?
 
2013-01-29 11:40:42 PM
Mike_1962

Well, amend your statement to never sell or give the guns to anyone in that case. Don't try to say 'Well, I'm not going to sell my gun to someone who might commit a crime'. You are not in a position to make that judgement call.

Once again, you seem to be ignorant of reality. It is exclusively my call at present. In the event of my theoretical noncompliance with registration, should I choose to sell my weapons it would still be my call, as I'm hardly likely to consult the feds over whether it's allowed or not...I'm already engaged in legal activity.
 
2013-01-29 11:41:28 PM
Illegal, even. Derp.
 
2013-01-29 11:42:31 PM

Mike_1962: Well, amend your statement to never sell or give the guns to anyone in that case. Don't try to say 'Well, I'm not going to sell my gun to someone who might commit a crime'. You are not in a position to make that judgement call.


Why? it is the basics of the illegality of knowingly selling firearms to prohibited individuals.
 
2013-01-29 11:43:14 PM

Facetious_Speciest: Mike_1962

I assumed that pointing out that registration would not be 100% effective (which is obvious and need not be belaboured) was a support for non registration.

No, I decline to support registration for other reasons. And in fact, I was pointing out why certain measures would be less than effective, the details of which are apparently obscure to many anti-firearm folks who simply don't understand how firearm ownership works in the States.

To be fair, the confusion was mine, but the other poster involved admitted they had been less than clear regarding their point. If you read the exchange, it might be helpful.

If your whole point was pendantry rather than meaning, I beg your pardon.

Yeah, it was totally pedantry. Because that's what the word means. Except not.

Seems like you're trying to argue, but aren't sure how.

Let's start again, just for you. A poster suggested the solution to people not registering their weapons is to fine them. I pointed out that you can't do that until they do something wrong that reveals their unregistered weapons. A lot of people don't get this point, because they think all legally purchased firearms in America are registered, or licensed, or tracked, because they saw something on the telly and that's obviously how things work.

In reality, this is not how things work. If I owned firearms, not a single one of them would be registered, and there would be no record of any transfer. As far as the government is concerned, I would have no weapons. How would you know to fine me, confiscate my weapons or intern me? You wouldn't.

Do you disagree, and if so, why?


What's your point? Sure seems like, "since not everyone will register, there's no point to have registration."

And to answer your question, no one would, unless you ever intended to carry those weapons anywhere in public and got stopped, and then arrested for not having them registered. A risk I frankly don't think you, or may other people with this position are actually willing to take.

Now - back to my original question here, what is your point?
 
2013-01-29 11:45:35 PM

Mike_1962: Really? REALLY? Try to think rationally about the differences and stop masturbating to your underdog lonely hero/rebel fantasies.


Lol, I was just responding to a request for information and you start foaming at the mouth.

Are you mad for some other reason as to lash out at someone that is simply responding to a question, or are ad homimems all you have?
 
Displayed 50 of 382 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report