Page 30 of 33 FirstFirst ... 202829303132 ... LastLast
Results 291 to 300 of 330

Thread: Mother of Sandy Hook Victim Delivers White House Weekly Address.....[W322]

  1. #291
    Sage
    OpportunityCost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:02 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,782

    re: Mother of Sandy Hook Victim Delivers White House Weekly Address.....[W322]

    Thank you for a quality post absent empty rhetoric.

    However, I'm very curious as to how you can claim to stand for 2nd Amendment rights for law abiding citizens, and then actively work to remove 2nd Amendment rights for law abiding citizens, just because you fear them (and how that differs from the perception pro gun people have of pro gun control people). That's not an attack, it's an honest question. You claimed you would have the law determine who could not be able to own a gun, so essentially you made the argument the government should get to decide which law abiding citizens get to own a gun.

    Does that not defeat the basic premise of 2nd Amendment rights?
    You know how I know youre full of it? You dont add the context from the previous post describing exactly whose rights would be curtailed and exactly why. Youre a phony. Those who commit violent felonies have violated the rights of others and as such give up portions of their rights due to the nature of their crimes. Those who are judged by a court of law to be mentally unstable to the extent they are deemed a threat to themselves and others are not in their right frame of mind, as such weapons that can be used to harm themselves or others should not be within their control.

    I did already post this. You are spinning your side of the argument, apparently in ignorance of the previous post.

    As far as your sledgehammer goes, you do realize that quite a bit of that legislation actually supported gun rights, correct? I don't think the Manchin-Toomey bill was a sledgehammer nearly as much as it was a flyswatter with a hole in the middle.
    This is known as rhetoric, and rhetoric that you know to be false. The restrcitions within Manchin-Toomey far outweigh any protections. Someone isnt presenting their arguments in good faith anymore...

  2. #292
    Sage
    KevinKohler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    CT
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:00 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    15,989
    Blog Entries
    1

    re: Mother of Sandy Hook Victim Delivers White House Weekly Address.....[W322]

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    Instead of getting guns off the streets, Obama and law enforcement agencies should be working harder to get criminals and crazy people off the streets.
    I'm FAR less ambitious. I just want the criminals out of DC.
    Quote Originally Posted by calamity View Post
    Reports indicate that everyone knew he was hauling a bunch of guns up there. But, since you brought it up, there's something which should be illegal: guns that breakdown.

  3. #293
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    re: Mother of Sandy Hook Victim Delivers White House Weekly Address.....[W322]

    Quote Originally Posted by KevinKohler View Post
    I'm FAR less ambitious. I just want the criminals out of DC.
    Well, the majority of the electorate voted them in so it seems the crazies have finally taken control of the asylum.

    An irresponsible government voted in by an irresponsible electorate leads pretty much to what we see today.

  4. #294
    Sage
    Slyfox696's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    7,985

    re: Mother of Sandy Hook Victim Delivers White House Weekly Address.....[W322]

    Quote Originally Posted by OpportunityCost View Post
    You know how I know youre full of it? You dont add the context from the previous post describing exactly whose rights would be curtailed and exactly why.
    I've already done that, twice I believe. I would have expected you to remember you are trying to deprive felons and the mentally ill of gun rights.

    So are you saying I'm full of it because I assumed you knew who you were wanting to deprive of 2nd Amendment rights?

    Those who commit violent felonies have violated the rights of others and as such give up portions of their rights due to the nature of their crimes.
    I was not discussing them. I completely understand where you are coming from, and it is a logical thought.

    Those who are judged by a court of law to be mentally unstable to the extent they are deemed a threat to themselves and others are not in their right frame of mind, as such weapons that can be used to harm themselves or others should not be within their control.
    This is the part I'm curious about.

    Has the "mentally unstable" taken an improper action? Are they not law-abiding citizens? Why are their rights less than yours? If we deem something to be dangerous, does that give us the right to deprive a person of their rights?

    For the record, while I struggle with this issue personally, I'm not really in disagreement with you. The difference is I'm not the one talking about protecting rights with no infringement.

    This is known as rhetoric, and rhetoric that you know to be false. The restrcitions within Manchin-Toomey far outweigh any protections. Someone isnt presenting their arguments in good faith anymore...
    It's not rhetoric. Here's what it did, from Pat Toomey's (the Republican) website:

    TITLE ONE: GETTING ALL THE NAMES OF PROHIBITED PURCHASERS INTO THE BACKGROUND CHECK SYSTEM
    Summary of Title I: This section improves background checks for firearms by strengthening the instant check system.
    • Encourage states to provide all their available records to NICS by restricting federal funds to states who do not comply.
    • Allow dealers to voluntarily use the NICS database to run background checks on their prospective employees
    • Clarifies that submissions of mental health records into the NICS system are not prohibited by federal privacy laws (HIPAA).
    Provides a legal process for a veteran to contest his/her placement in NICS when there is no basis for barring the right to own a firearm.

    TITLE TWO: REQUIRING BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR FIREARM SALES
    Summary of Title II: This section of the bill requires background checks for sales at gun shows and online while securing certain aspects of 2nd Amendment rights for law abiding citizens.
    • Closes the gun show and other loopholes while exempting temporary transfers and transfers between family members.
    Protects gun owners from arrest and detention by fixing interstate travel laws for gun owners who are transporting legal firearms across state lines.

    • Protects sellers from lawsuits if the weapon cleared through the expanded background checks and is subsequently used in a crime. This is the same treatment gun dealers receive now.
    • Allows dealers to complete transactions at gun shows that take place in a state for which they are not a resident.
    • Ensures that sales at gun shows are not prevented by delayed approvals from NICS.
    • Requires the FBI to give priority to finalizing background checks at gun shows over checks at store front dealerships.
    • Authorizes use of a state concealed carry permit instead of a background check when purchasing a firearm from a dealer.
    • Permits interstate handgun sales from dealers.
    • Allows active military to buy firearms in their home states.
    • Family transfers and some private sales (friends, neighbors, other individuals) are exempt from background checks
    • Adds a 15 year penalty for improper use or storage of records.
    TITLE THREE: NATIONAL COMMISSION ON MASS VIOLENCE
    Summary of Title III: : This section of the bill creates a commission to study the causes of mass violence in the United States, looking at all aspects of the problem, including guns, school safety, mental health, and violent media or video games.
    The Commission would consist of six experts appointed by the Senate Majority Leader and six experts appointed by the Speaker of the House. They would be required to submit an interim report in three months and a completed report in six months.
    WHAT THE BILL WILL NOT DO:
    The bill will not take away anyone's guns.
    The bill will not ban any type of firearm.
    The bill will not ban or restrict the use of any kind of bullet or any size clip or magazine.
    The bill will not create a national registry; in fact, it specifically makes it illegal to establish any such registry.
    The bill will not, in any way at all, infringe upon the Constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens.




    http://www.toomey.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=965

    EDIT: I underlined the ones which provide more protections and/or freedoms. Please understand that by not underlining them, I'm not saying they are definitely restrictions (for example, Title III).

    So contrary to your statement, mine wasn't rhetoric and contrary to your statement, the restrictions did not outweigh the protections.

    So what we've now established is that you accuse me of being full of it for assuming you would know your own statements, you wish to allow the government to selectively choose which law abiding citizen gets 2nd Amendment rights and who doesn't, and you accuse me of posting rhetoric when the summary from the Republican's website shows me to be telling the truth, or at the very least, shows me to be posting a supported conclusion.

    I'll ask again. Could we please just discuss this civilly without the accusations?

  5. #295
    Sage
    OpportunityCost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:02 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,782

    re: Mother of Sandy Hook Victim Delivers White House Weekly Address.....[W322]

    Quote Originally Posted by Slyfox696 View Post
    I've already done that, twice I believe. I would have expected you to remember you are trying to deprive felons and the mentally ill of gun rights.
    I see, so you ignore what I have said previously then make a snarky ploy that I am incompetent. Bait and troll somewhere else.

    So are you saying I'm full of it because I assumed you knew who you were wanting to deprive of 2nd Amendment rights?

    I was not discussing them. I completely understand where you are coming from, and it is a logical thought.
    Ah, but I was, in the context of what limitations on the second I would support. You again assume you control the coversation, even after asking an open, indirect question. Attempt to divert noted.

    Has the "mentally unstable" taken an improper action? Are they not law-abiding citizens? Why are their rights less than yours? If we deem something to be dangerous, does that give us the right to deprive a person of their rights?

    For the record, while I struggle with this issue personally, I'm not really in disagreement with you. The difference is I'm not the one talking about protecting rights with no infringement.
    Summary judgements of incompetence can lead to curtailing of all sorts of rights, including loss of freedom due to incarceration for treatment, but you know this, youre just trolling now.

    It's not rhetoric. Here's what it did, from Pat Toomey's (the Republican) website:


    The Public Safety and Second Amendment Rights Protection Act | Pat Toomey | Senator for Pennsylvania

    EDIT: I underlined the ones which provide more protections and/or freedoms. Please understand that by not underlining them, I'm not saying they are definitely restrictions (for example, Title III).

    So contrary to your statement, mine wasn't rhetoric and contrary to your statement, the restrictions did not outweigh the protections.

    So what we've now established is that you accuse me of being full of it for assuming you would know your own statements, you wish to allow the government to selectively choose which law abiding citizen gets 2nd Amendment rights and who doesn't, and you accuse me of posting rhetoric when the summary from the Republican's website shows me to be telling the truth, or at the very least, shows me to be posting a supported conclusion.

    I'll ask again. Could we please just discuss this civilly without the accusations?
    If civilly means ignoring points already made and tossing out your rhetoric and parsing points and devaluing them out of context....I guess we can, because that is what you have been doing for several pages. I say again, you are not debating in good faith.

    For the record some of the problems with Manchin-Toomey is only on a doctors say so: a person under mental illness treatmnent can be denied access to a gun AND entered into the NICS system. At least under my proposal, a hearing is convened to allow someone to defend their rights.

    Manchin-Toomey also had provisions dealing with gun sales and storage of guns that did not require warrants to verify. It also had provisions about family sales in the context of limiting them to certain numbers.

    If its such a good bill, provisions of it can be passed peicemeal and what cant get passed, wont get passed. Thats a litmus test I can live with. Bills with 800+ pages are the perfect vehicle for allowing regulations to provide for things the law never intended. Happens all the time. ATF has more than enough authority, they dont need anymore. I dont see this bill strengthening state capabilities at all but giving the fed more and more power to interfere in things that are not their pervue or business.

  6. #296
    Sage
    Dittohead not!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The Golden State
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    41,561

    re: Mother of Sandy Hook Victim Delivers White House Weekly Address.....[W322]

    I was talking to a friend yesterday who happens to be a police officer. He was telling me about a police involved shooting that happened recently. It seems the perp had a gun that he had traded for in the park, exchanging pot for the gun.

    Should the pot recipient have been obligated to have done a background check?
    "Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud... [he's] playing the American public for suckers." Mitt Romney

  7. #297
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    56,981

    re: Mother of Sandy Hook Victim Delivers White House Weekly Address.....[W322]

    Quote Originally Posted by Dittohead not! View Post
    I was talking to a friend yesterday who happens to be a police officer. He was telling me about a police involved shooting that happened recently. It seems the perp had a gun that he had traded for in the park, exchanging pot for the gun.

    Should the pot recipient have been obligated to have done a background check?
    Only if the seller had a Big Bag of Cheesy Cheetos.

  8. #298
    Sage
    Slyfox696's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    7,985

    re: Mother of Sandy Hook Victim Delivers White House Weekly Address.....[W322]

    Quote Originally Posted by OpportunityCost View Post
    I see, so you ignore what I have said previously then make a snarky ploy that I am incompetent. Bait and troll somewhere else.


    Ah, but I was, in the context of what limitations on the second I would support. You again assume you control the coversation, even after asking an open, indirect question. Attempt to divert noted.


    Summary judgements of incompetence can lead to curtailing of all sorts of rights, including loss of freedom due to incarceration for treatment, but you know this, youre just trolling now.



    If civilly means ignoring points already made and tossing out your rhetoric and parsing points and devaluing them out of context....I guess we can, because that is what you have been doing for several pages. I say again, you are not debating in good faith.

    For the record some of the problems with Manchin-Toomey is only on a doctors say so: a person under mental illness treatmnent can be denied access to a gun AND entered into the NICS system. At least under my proposal, a hearing is convened to allow someone to defend their rights.

    Manchin-Toomey also had provisions dealing with gun sales and storage of guns that did not require warrants to verify. It also had provisions about family sales in the context of limiting them to certain numbers.

    If its such a good bill, provisions of it can be passed peicemeal and what cant get passed, wont get passed. Thats a litmus test I can live with. Bills with 800+ pages are the perfect vehicle for allowing regulations to provide for things the law never intended. Happens all the time. ATF has more than enough authority, they dont need anymore. I dont see this bill strengthening state capabilities at all but giving the fed more and more power to interfere in things that are not their pervue or business.
    I had a longer post earlier but the forum crash destroyed it. Here's the short version.

    1) You getting upset with me because I assumed you were intelligent enough to remember what you posted is your problem. I would prefer not think of you as an idiot who is incapable of remembering your own words, but I'll leave the decision to you. Should I assume you can remember what you have written or not?

    2) The only person acting like a troll here is you, who has constantly rejected my offer to a civil and mature debate, launching into personal attacks for no reason. If you cannot debate civilly, as you did in an earlier post I commended, then I see no need to continue wasting my time with you.

    3) You have to decide if this is a 2nd Amendment issue or not. One cannot claim the government should not be allowed to curtail a people's rights and then in the next breath provide an example of how you believe a government can curtail people's rights. So is this a 2nd Amendment issue or is this a safety issue? These seem to be the two sides you are taking, I just want to know which one you most believe.

    4) Your response to Manchin-Toomey did not once deny my concrete evidence my earlier statement regarding the protections provided by the legislation was true. All you did was provide some parts of it you believed were negative, but I never once said there was nothing negative about it (from the perspective of someone like you). What I said was that quite a bit of the legislation supported gun rights, at which point you accused me of "rhetoric", which I then provided concrete evidence to support my conclusion. Now it is your turn to show why my concrete evidence does not support my earlier statement of how Manchin-Toomey supported gun rights. Your comments about the things you feel are negative are irrelevant to our current discussion over whether my comment was factual or rhetoric. You either need to logically defeat my concrete evidence to prove your accusation, or admit you were mistaken.


    And yes, this really is the short version. Try to imagine the long.

  9. #299
    Sage
    OpportunityCost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:02 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,782

    re: Mother of Sandy Hook Victim Delivers White House Weekly Address.....[W322]

    Quote Originally Posted by Slyfox696 View Post
    I had a longer post earlier but the forum crash destroyed it. Here's the short version.

    1) You getting upset with me because I assumed you were intelligent enough to remember what you posted is your problem. I would prefer not think of you as an idiot who is incapable of remembering your own words, but I'll leave the decision to you. Should I assume you can remember what you have written or not?
    You leave out the context of the other person's argument to bolster your argument or leave out key points of their argument---also known as being disingenuous or debating in bad faith by deliberately twisting arguments you cannot refute. You have been doing it for pages and pages now.

    2) The only person acting like a troll here is you, who has constantly rejected my offer to a civil and mature debate, launching into personal attacks for no reason. If you cannot debate civilly, as you did in an earlier post I commended, then I see no need to continue wasting my time with you.
    Your idea of civil and mature debate is where you decide the parameters of the conversation and what is and is not talking points. Thats not debate, thats shutting debate down because you dont like what they are saying.

    3) You have to decide if this is a 2nd Amendment issue or not. One cannot claim the government should not be allowed to curtail a people's rights and then in the next breath provide an example of how you believe a government can curtail people's rights. So is this a 2nd Amendment issue or is this a safety issue? These seem to be the two sides you are taking, I just want to know which one you most believe
    This is a 2nd Am issue. I never claimed they could not, this is your strawman. I claimed that there should be a process akin to a trial and not done by in an arbitrary way by an unelected official or even a police officer. Legislative drafts law, executive brings charge, judicial tries. Balanced. Different from whats being proposed in Manchin-Toomey.

    4) Your response to Manchin-Toomey did not once deny my concrete evidence my earlier statement regarding the protections provided by the legislation was true. All you did was provide some parts of it you believed were negative, but I never once said there was nothing negative about it (from the perspective of someone like you). What I said was that quite a bit of the legislation supported gun rights, at which point you accused me of "rhetoric", which I then provided concrete evidence to support my conclusion. Now it is your turn to show why my concrete evidence does not support my earlier statement of how Manchin-Toomey supported gun rights. Your comments about the things you feel are negative are irrelevant to our current discussion over whether my comment was factual or rhetoric. You either need to logically defeat my concrete evidence to prove your accusation, or admit you were mistaken.


    And yes, this really is the short version. Try to imagine the long.
    LOL apparently the evidence isnt so concrete...it didnt pass. You did not show how the LAW protects gun rights, you showed a damn press release. If you want to show how it protects gun rights, since you need to prove that before I need to refute it, you go load it up on scribd and quote the page and passage. A press release by the people wanting to pass the law doesnt prove anything. Maybe you havent noticed but politicians tend to lie a little to get what they want.

    I showed how it violates gun rights. Sorry if that undercuts your argument but it is what it is.

  10. #300
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,715

    re: Mother of Sandy Hook Victim Delivers White House Weekly Address.....[W322]

    Quote Originally Posted by Dittohead not! View Post
    I was talking to a friend yesterday who happens to be a police officer. He was telling me about a police involved shooting that happened recently. It seems the perp had a gun that he had traded for in the park, exchanging pot for the gun.

    Should the pot recipient have been obligated to have done a background check?
    maybe but the pot recipient should have produced a doctor's Rx to get the weed!!



Page 30 of 33 FirstFirst ... 202829303132 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •