Page 31 of 33 FirstFirst ... 212930313233 LastLast
Results 301 to 310 of 330

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

  1. #301
    Sage
    Slyfox696's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    7,974

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

    Quote Originally Posted by OpportunityCost View Post
    You leave out the context of the other person's argument to bolster your argument or leave out key points of their argument
    *sigh*

    No, I didn't. I left it out because I didn't think it was necessary to remind you what you said.

    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.
    You keep saying that, but it's no more true now than it was before. Just because you're offended I thought you were smart enough to remember your own words, that doesn't mean I'm trying to decide the parameters of the conversation. I'm detail quoting what you're saying.

    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.
    Before I want to respond, I want to repeat what you said, so you can remember your own words when you come back to quote me later. Furthermore, I want to clarify what you are saying here.

    You just said this is a 2nd Amendment issue and that there should be a trial to determine if the mentally ill should be able to have a gun. Now, to clarify, are you saying the government should hold a process like a trial for someone who has broken no laws in order to decide if they should be allowed the right you claim Americans have? And, if this is the case, could you please explain to me why you are seeking to deny Americans who have broken no laws their 2nd Amendment rights based upon this trial like process?

    LOL apparently the evidence isnt so concrete...it didnt pass.
    To repeat: You claim the evidence isn't concrete because the law didn't pass.

    This is completely irrelevant to our argument here. The fact the legislation did not pass does not say anything about the validity of my statement, only that there wasn't support for the bill.

    You did not show how the LAW protects gun rights, you showed a damn press release.
    To remind you what you said: You did not show how the LAW protects gun rights, you showed a damn press release.

    I showed a press release from the Republican whose name is on the bill. Are you accusing him of lying?

    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.
    To remind you what you said: Politicians sometimes lie to further their own ends, so a press release from someone wanting the law to pass does not prove it protected gun rights.

    You are now claiming the Senator is lying. It is no longer my responsibility to prove what I'm saying, as I have done so, it is your responsibility to prove my evidence is inaccurate.

    If you wish to claim my source is illegitimate, then you need to do the work to prove it.

    I showed how it violates gun rights. Sorry if that undercuts your argument but it is what it is.
    So you remember your own words: You claim to have shown me how the bill violated gun rights.

    You did? Could you please direct me to where you posted the bill from scribd and quoted the page and passage? I do not recall seeing it, so could you please direct me to where you quoted page and passage, which apparently is the only validation of declaration you believe. It shouldn't be too difficult for you, since you'll already be on there to try and prove the Senator's summary false.

  2. #302
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,624

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

    tl dr. bottom line, the proposed gun laws are all based on dishonesty



  3. #303
    Sage
    OpportunityCost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:23 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,734

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Slyfox696 View Post
    *sigh*

    No, I didn't. I left it out because I didn't think it was necessary to remind you what you said.
    Of course you did, bless your heart.


    You keep saying that, but it's no more true now than it was before. Just because you're offended I thought you were smart enough to remember your own words, that doesn't mean I'm trying to decide the parameters of the conversation. I'm detail quoting what you're saying.

    Before I want to respond, I want to repeat what you said, so you can remember your own words when you come back to quote me later. Furthermore, I want to clarify what you are saying here.

    You just said this is a 2nd Amendment issue and that there should be a trial to determine if the mentally ill should be able to have a gun. Now, to clarify, are you saying the government should hold a process like a trial for someone who has broken no laws in order to decide if they should be allowed the right you claim Americans have? And, if this is the case, could you please explain to me why you are seeking to deny Americans who have broken no laws their 2nd Amendment rights based upon this trial like process?
    Because its very similar to a competency hearing in which people lose almost ALL of their rights, up to and including their freedom. You want to curtail rights completely arbitrarily through the decision of just one person without a hearing or trial--yet you assail a process that would be a good deal more legal. Again, it appears you want to talk out of both sides of your mouth.


    This is completely irrelevant to our argument here. The fact the legislation did not pass does not say anything about the validity of my statement, only that there wasn't support for the bill.

    To remind you what you said: You did not show how the LAW protects gun rights, you showed a damn press release.

    I showed a press release from the Republican whose name is on the bill. Are you accusing him of lying?
    Lies of omission. Yes indeed. One you are complicit in, because you dont want to examine the bill. I already have examined some 50 to 60 pages in select portions.

    To remind you what you said: Politicians sometimes lie to further their own ends, so a press release from someone wanting the law to pass does not prove it protected gun rights.

    You are now claiming the Senator is lying. It is no longer my responsibility to prove what I'm saying, as I have done so, it is your responsibility to prove my evidence is inaccurate.

    If you wish to claim my source is illegitimate, then you need to do the work to prove it.

    So you remember your own words: You claim to have shown me how the bill violated gun rights.
    Yes I did. One simple example---a doctor can enter someone into NICS without a hearing, corroboration and no consent or even knowledge from the person whose rights are being removed on a doctor's say so. Further, a press release only says positive elements and doesnt touch the downsides of the bill. Did you watch the debates or read any of the bill itself? A press release doesnt tell you anything other than what the people that want it passed want it to say.

    You did? Could you please direct me to where you posted the bill from scribd and quoted the page and passage? I do not recall seeing it, so could you please direct me to where you quoted page and passage, which apparently is the only validation of declaration you believe. It shouldn't be too difficult for you, since you'll already be on there to try and prove the Senator's summary false.
    You are completely missing the point, if you want to show what IS in the bill, maybe you ought to be able to show whats there, not rely on a press release. You want to show what the BILL does? Quote the bill. You want to rely on what a politician in Washington says it does? I have a bridge to sell you.

  4. #304
    Sage
    Slyfox696's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    7,974

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

    Quote Originally Posted by OpportunityCost View Post
    Because its very similar to a competency hearing in which people lose almost ALL of their rights, up to and including their freedom. You want to curtail rights completely arbitrarily through the decision of just one person without a hearing or trial--yet you assail a process that would be a good deal more legal. Again, it appears you want to talk out of both sides of your mouth.
    This is untrue, as I don't see stricter gun control as an infringement upon rights. You, however, have taken the position the 2nd Amendment is a right to protect...except for people you don't want to have it.

    Also, and perhaps you just missed it because, after all the time you've talked about people omitting important points certainly you wouldn't miss it intentionally, I did not see where you answered WHY you are wanting to deny these people their 2nd Amendment rights.

    Lies of omission. Yes indeed. One you are complicit in, because you dont want to examine the bill.
    How is it a lie of omission, when no one said there wasn't certain items people like you wouldn't like? The statement was that this legislation supported some rights of gun owners. You still have no proven anything inaccurate of this.

    Yes I did. One simple example---a doctor can enter someone into NICS without a hearing, corroboration and no consent or even knowledge from the person whose rights are being removed on a doctor's say so.
    But, and this is according to your own logic, since you are obviously biased on this issue, your word cannot be trusted. Only the actual page and paragraph of the bill can be used as evidence. So please show me where you cited the page and paragraph from scribd, in accordance to your own demands of proof.

    Further, a press release only says positive elements and doesnt touch the downsides of the bill.
    The "downsides" of the bill are irrelevant to our discussion. I don't have to prove the "downsides" don't exist, you have to prove the good sides do not exist. I never claimed there weren't things you would consider bad, but you did claim my statement of it protecting gun rights was false. I provided evidence of my statement, so it's up to you to prove your statement the good does not exist.

    I already have examined some 50 to 60 pages in select portions.
    How is this possible, when Manchin-Toomey (which is what we're discussing) is only 49 pages in PDF form?

    You are completely missing the point, if you want to show what IS in the bill, maybe you ought to be able to show whats there, not rely on a press release. You want to show what the BILL does? Quote the bill. You want to rely on what a politician in Washington says it does? I have a bridge to sell you.
    No, you are missing the point. You're engaging in a fallacious argument. You cannot dismiss my evidence, without providing evidence of your own to show why mine is to be dismissed.

    But hey, I'm in a giving mood:

    The Federal Bureau of Investigation shall not charge a user fee for a background check conducted pursuant to this subsection.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, upon receiving a request for an instant background check that originates from a gun show or event, the system shall complete the instant background check before completing any pending instant background check that did not originate from a gun show or event.
    Page 21

    The Attorney general may not consolidate or centralize the records of the acquisition or disposition of firearms, or any portion thereof
    Page 27 and 28

    a person who is not prohibited by this chapter from possessing, transporting, shipping or receiving a firearm or ammunition shall be entitled to -
    (1) transport a firearm for any lawful purpose from any place where the person may lawfully possess, carry or transport the firearm to any other such place
    Page 33

    (c) Limitation ON ARREST AUTHORITY - A person who is transporting a firearm or ammunition may not be -

    (1) arrested for violation of any law or any rule or regulation of a State, or any political subdivision thereof, relating to the possession, transportation, or carrying of firearms or ammunition, unless there is probable cause that the transportation is not in accordance with subsection (b)
    Page 35

    There are just a few in Manchin-Toomey. So are you ready to apologize to me for falsely accusing me of rhetoric when I was, in fact, speaking truth?

  5. #305
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 03:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,272

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Slyfox696 View Post
    It wouldn't and I have.

    To fully understand my previous sentence, please go back and read the posts I've made in which I explain it.
    Who cares what your personal agenda against gun ownership is? The bolded part is the only part of your answer that matters....Case closed.
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  6. #306
    Sage
    Slyfox696's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    7,974

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

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    Who cares what your personal agenda against gun ownership is?
    Well...you, I guess, since you asked.

    The bolded part is the only part of your answer that matters....Case closed.
    I said it wouldn't solve the problem, but that does not mean it wouldn't decrease the problem. The mentality you just demonstrated does not make sense. You are essentially saying if you cannot remove the problem completely, then why bother doing anything at all. This type of thinking makes no sense. If we can minimize the problem, then it's worth doing and what I'm suggesting, and what the legislation has suggested, has a good chance of decreasing the problem.

    Now we can say case closed.

  7. #307
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 03:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,272

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Slyfox696 View Post
    Well...you, I guess, since you asked.


    I said it wouldn't solve the problem, but that does not mean it wouldn't decrease the problem. The mentality you just demonstrated does not make sense. You are essentially saying if you cannot remove the problem completely, then why bother doing anything at all. This type of thinking makes no sense. If we can minimize the problem, then it's worth doing and what I'm suggesting, and what the legislation has suggested, has a good chance of decreasing the problem.

    Now we can say case closed.
    No, I asked you a question because of the apparent disconnect from reality in some of your postings is interesting to explore. Now, If you think that increased scrutiny in background checks would do anything but make it harder for law abiding citizens to obtain guns, as is their protected right, then I ask again, what do you think the legislation would do to decrease illegal guns being obtained? My answer is not a GD thing.
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  8. #308
    Sage
    Slyfox696's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    7,974

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

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    No, I asked you a question because of the apparent disconnect from reality in some of your postings is interesting to explore.
    I'm firmly connected to reality. Could you provide a single example of something I've said which cannot be supported with facts?

    Now, If you think that increased scrutiny in background checks would do anything but make it harder for law abiding citizens to obtain guns
    I'm curious. If you're a law abiding citizen, why would increased background checks make it harder for you to obtain a gun? Furthermore, why are you entitled to easily obtain a gun?

    what do you think the legislation would do to decrease illegal guns being obtained?
    There are many things which can happen. First of all, universal background checks would require background checks to be made at these gun shows. This would help eliminate those who are not legally allowed to own a gun from easily obtaining them. Second of all, if we take it a step further and require guns to be registered, it would eliminate many straw buyers, because the last thing they'd want is a gun in their name being used in a murder.

    Just those two things alone would make an impact on illegal guns from being obtained. Throw in some required training to purchase a gun (let's say 8-10 hours) and suddenly getting a gun is not as easy as getting a Big Gulp.

  9. #309
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 03:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,272

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Slyfox696 View Post
    I'm firmly connected to reality. Could you provide a single example of something I've said which cannot be supported with facts?
    Maybe later I can go on your snipe hunt, but not at the moment.

    I'm curious. If you're a law abiding citizen, why would increased background checks make it harder for you to obtain a gun?
    Easy, There is language in the bill, that was shot down BTW, that stated something to the effect that if you, or a family member has ever taken, or been proscribed Psychotropic drugs then you would be disqualified from purchasing a gun. Now, you tell me with all of the over proscribing of any of these drugs, such as Ambien for sleep as an example, how that is not making it harder?

    Furthermore, why are you entitled to easily obtain a gun?
    ...Shall not be infringed. Nuff said.

    There are many things which can happen. First of all, universal background checks would require background checks to be made at these gun shows.
    This is a myth. First of all, if you are a FFL dealer selling your wares at a local gun show, you still must complete a background check. Private citizens can sell a gun to another private citizen, however, it is already against Federal law for you as a private seller to sell to anyone you suspect should not have a gun. So, in short it is a States rights issue at best, and we already have laws on the books.

    This would help eliminate those who are not legally allowed to own a gun from easily obtaining them.
    Nonsense. If the current background check is now in effect, and not stopping illegal guns, then one can only conclude that this redundant legislation is only another knee jerk reaction that will largely do nothing but infringe law abiding citizens.

    Second of all, if we take it a step further and require guns to be registered, it would eliminate many straw buyers, because the last thing they'd want is a gun in their name being used in a murder.
    Funny isn't it how these recent crimes that sparked this were carried out in some of the most restrictive areas for gun ownership in the country? Did increased registration prevent this? No.

    Just those two things alone would make an impact on illegal guns from being obtained.
    And I am saying that they wouldn't do a thing...CT, and CO are registration states. Didn't stop those did it?

    Throw in some required training to purchase a gun (let's say 8-10 hours) and suddenly getting a gun is not as easy as getting a Big Gulp.
    Clearly you don't own any guns. Because if you did, you'd know that it is NOT as easy as buying a Big Gulp....I have two weapons, one is a 12 gauge pump that I bought in Maryland, submitted a background check, and was registered. The second is a S&W 9mm that I bought from a private citizen here in SC, and we provided a receipt of the sale, with both DL # on it, and I had the serial number ran by a State Trooper friend of mine to ensure that the gun was legal. If SC wants to change their laws, it is up to them, NOT the heavy hand of the federal government.
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  10. #310
    Sage
    OpportunityCost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:23 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,734

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Slyfox696 View Post
    This is untrue, as I don't see stricter gun control as an infringement upon rights. You, however, have taken the position the 2nd Amendment is a right to protect...except for people you don't want to have it.

    Also, and perhaps you just missed it because, after all the time you've talked about people omitting important points certainly you wouldn't miss it intentionally, I did not see where you answered WHY you are wanting to deny these people their 2nd Amendment rights.

    How is it a lie of omission, when no one said there wasn't certain items people like you wouldn't like? The statement was that this legislation supported some rights of gun owners. You still have no proven anything inaccurate of this.

    But, and this is according to your own logic, since you are obviously biased on this issue, your word cannot be trusted. Only the actual page and paragraph of the bill can be used as evidence. So please show me where you cited the page and paragraph from scribd, in accordance to your own demands of proof.

    The "downsides" of the bill are irrelevant to our discussion. I don't have to prove the "downsides" don't exist, you have to prove the good sides do not exist. I never claimed there weren't things you would consider bad, but you did claim my statement of it protecting gun rights was false. I provided evidence of my statement, so it's up to you to prove your statement the good does not exist.

    How is this possible, when Manchin-Toomey (which is what we're discussing) is only 49 pages in PDF form?

    No, you are missing the point. You're engaging in a fallacious argument. You cannot dismiss my evidence, without providing evidence of your own to show why mine is to be dismissed.

    But hey, I'm in a giving mood:


    Page 21


    Page 27 and 28


    Page 33


    Page 35

    There are just a few in Manchin-Toomey. So are you ready to apologize to me for falsely accusing me of rhetoric when I was, in fact, speaking truth?
    Which would go directly back to my original story where a citizen was engaging in open carry with a slung rifle and was arrested, his weapon confiscated without receipt and told it would be destroyed....in Texas. We dont need more laws because the ones we have are not enforced properly. So why do we need more when officials dont even know the laws in their own jurisdiction?

    Your false rhetoric would be that Manchin does nothing to restrict gun ownership when you know it does and it will. Thats false rhetoric. Because you are trying to spin your way around it by offering up ammendments that may protect a gun owner when there are numerous others that restrict, such as restrictions upon private sales of guns. No, youre not getting an apology. You are willfully engaging in lies of ommission to bolster the argument for a law that couldnt even get unanimous democrat support.

    Now we can say case closed.
    Shut up, the case is closed when the thread is. Quit trying to tell everyone in the thread how to post.

Page 31 of 33 FirstFirst ... 212930313233 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
  •