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

Slyfox696 said:

I see. So you're not really interested in good debate, you just wanted to keep repeating empty rhetoric which solves nothing. Aside from the next statement I make which accurately points out how you completely undermine your own argument, there's really nothing left to say since you're not interested in civil discourse.

Click to expand...

This is phony as hell and out of context. You want to be able to decide what is and isnt talking points, you want to frame the conversation so only the talking points of YOUR side are heard. So no I cant agree to let you set the boundaries for what I can say. Your little outrage about rhetoric and talking points is something you only want to apply to the other guy so I not only refuse your offer you can shove it.

There are very few people who so openly and willingly destroy their own argument quite like gun supporters. Apparently not infringing 2nd Amendment rights only apply to certain Americans, not all of them.

Just out of curiosity, how are you going to make sure those who are mentally ill aren't able to purchase a gun? And what if they already have a gun, and then they begin treatment for bipolar disorder, what do you do then?

Click to expand...

You take away their weapons the same way you would remove other rights---through a court judgement that they are a danger to themselves and others. In that way, a doctor can't simply make a snap judgement but his opinion can be entered as evidence to the court. In other words you do it completely legally and aboveboard. If that mechanism were worked on and passed by itself as a special judgement hearing, it would be legal, it would have bipartisan support, and it would pass. It would also keep guns out of the hands of those that liberals say they really want to limit gun rights on in the first place.

Speaking of empty rhetoric and talking points....see bolded for just how hollow you little tantrum about good debate really is. You're a phony, sir.

I don't agree with the mother on the issue but I really can't hate on her after what she has lost. Nobody knows her motivations but her and if she truly believes that if doing this somehow avenges her child's death I say let her get what she wants to say out. Now for the people using her and her grief to further their own agenda, that's just wrong.

ksu_aviator said:

Really? Should we invade ourselves because we've had multiple mass shootings from Americans? There is something to be said for diplomacy when diplomacy is viable. Do you think diplomacy was viable with Iraq? Saudi Arabia isn't a perfect ally, but they are an ally. Iraq was never an ally.

Click to expand...

Except when they fought Iran.

Slyfox696 said:

I suspect most of the people who find this "exploitative" "disgusting" etc. probably do so not because of what happened, but rather because of what the issue is. My guess is if this woman was making the address to encourage awareness (and/or additional funding) about breast cancer because her sister died from cancer, most of you would not care. I cannot prove this in anyway, but it's my suspicion.

Click to expand...

How does defending a right relate to curing cancer:doh

MACS-24 said:

How does defending a right relate to curing cancer:doh

Click to expand...

it doesn't, and talking about cancer does not rape the rights of millions. almost everyone who talks about curing cancer are actually motivated by a desire to cure cancer. most of the gun haters talk about public safety when that plays no role in their true motivations

OpportunityCost said:

This is phony as hell and out of context. You want to be able to decide what is and isnt talking points, you want to frame the conversation so only the talking points of YOUR side are heard. So no I cant agree to let you set the boundaries for what I can say. Your little outrage about rhetoric and talking points is something you only want to apply to the other guy so I not only refuse your offer you can shove it.

Click to expand...

That fits in perfectly with what Obama is doing because how dare anyone speak out against a grieving mother.

MACS-24 said:

How does defending a right relate to curing cancer:doh

Click to expand...

That's not what I said. In the post of mine you quoted, I was talking to those who were aghast at the idea a politician would allow a private citizen to speak out on an issue he/she felt strongly about. I pointed out that most people probably didn't care about the fact this private citizen was allowed to deliver the address, just simply the fact they didn't agree with what she said. If she had been advocating for cancer no one would have cared that Obama was putting a human face on the issue and I seriously doubt people would have been calling her a prostitute.

By the way, I've seen gun supporters actually advocating suppressing 2nd Amendment rights in this thread. So I'm really confused on what argument some of the pro gun people are actually making at this point.

Slyfox696 said:

By the way, I've seen gun supporters actually advocating suppressing 2nd Amendment rights in this thread. So I'm really confused on what argument some of the pro gun people are actually making at this point.

Click to expand...

Thats easy. The point is that there are solutions to gun control that are viable. The problem is they are not sledgehammer solutions, they are scalpel solutions. Your problem and many like you only want and only see the sledgehammer solutions. Thats also simple, this is about political power every bit as it is about gun rights, gun control, and gun victims.

Manchin-Toomey presented an 884 page bill. Hello, sledgehammer. Pass piecemeal solutions to address the real problem and that is mentally disturbed people getting ahold of guns and committing mass murder at schools because they are easy, gun free zones. That is what needs addressed. That is the problem that needs solved.

Looks like the Victim Mother of Sandy Hook was given a real message today.....to bad it isn't sinking in!

Slyfox696 said:

I see what you are saying, but I think your choice of words is incredibly unfair and are prejudicial. I'm not attacking anything, I'm suggesting ways to keep those who would do harm from being able to do harm as easily. An attack suggests an unwarranted and unreasonable action, and I'm not doing such a thing.

Click to expand...

You're not doing personally, no. But you are suggesting that government force be used to effect prior restraint on people's peaceful behavior. This restrain consists of edicts that, if not not followed, will result in an attack.

Someone who is truly wanting a gun for self defense will have no problem hurdling those obstacles, especially with the understanding these obstacles are also a measure of defense.

Click to expand...

You don't regard the obstacles as significant. Others do.

Slyfox696 said:

That's not what I said. In the post of mine you quoted, I was talking to those who were aghast at the idea a politician would allow a private citizen to speak out on an issue he/she felt strongly about. I pointed out that most people probably didn't care about the fact this private citizen was allowed to deliver the address, just simply the fact they didn't agree with what she said. If she had been advocating for cancer no one would have cared that Obama was putting a human face on the issue and I seriously doubt people would have been calling her a prostitute.

By the way, I've seen gun supporters actually advocating suppressing 2nd Amendment rights in this thread. So I'm really confused on what argument some of the pro gun people are actually making at this point.

Click to expand...

That is what you said. Your trying to compare someone advocating removing a right that helps only the criminals to curing cancer, a disease, that would help EVERYONE. Obviously, everyone is for cancer cure and the only looser is cancer. - Bad comparison.

OpportunityCost said:

Thats easy. The point is that there are solutions to gun control that are viable. The problem is they are not sledgehammer solutions, they are scalpel solutions. Your problem and many like you only want and only see the sledgehammer solutions. Thats also simple, this is about political power every bit as it is about gun rights, gun control, and gun victims.

Manchin-Toomey presented an 884 page bill. Hello, sledgehammer. Pass piecemeal solutions to address the real problem and that is mentally disturbed people getting ahold of guns and committing mass murder at schools because they are easy, gun free zones. That is what needs addressed. That is the problem that needs solved.

Click to expand...

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?

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.

Federalist said:

You're not doing personally, no. But you are suggesting that government force be used to effect prior restraint on people's peaceful behavior.

Click to expand...

Not really. I'm looking to provide restraint on people's violent behavior. If you could promise me another person would never again be harmed by a gun, I would not care about stronger gun laws.

You don't regard the obstacles as significant. Others do.

Click to expand...

And I find the opinion of those to think these obstacles as significant to be silly. We register items with the government all the time. We require background checks for employees in government positions (and many times private jobs) all the time. Every person in this country is likely registered with the government. I find it silly to say that an instrument which is designed to cause destruction should not be more regulated. The idea that as many as 40% of gun purchases in this country are made absent a background check is absurd. But more than absurd, it's dangerous.

MACS-24 said:

That is what you said. Your trying to compare someone advocating removing a right that helps only the criminals to curing cancer, a disease, that would help EVERYONE. Obviously, everyone is for cancer cure and the only looser is cancer. - Bad comparison.

Click to expand...

That's not what I said. Just because you want to make an empty point, that doesn't mean you get to change the facts.

My point was CLEARLY about pointing out that most people really didn't care that this woman got to speak, but rather what she spoke about. It's right there in front of you. I wasn't comparing cancer, I was pointing out the faux outrage being expressed in this thread.

Slyfox696 said:

That's not what I said. Just because you want to make an empty point, that doesn't mean you get to change the facts.

My point was CLEARLY about pointing out that most people really didn't care that this woman got to speak, but rather what she spoke about. It's right there in front of you. I wasn't comparing cancer, I was pointing out the faux outrage being expressed in this thread.

Click to expand...

Slyfox696 said:

I suspect most of the people who find this "exploitative" "disgusting" etc. probably do so not because of what happened, but rather because of what the issue is. My guess is if this woman was making the address to encourage awareness (and/or additional funding) about breast cancer because her sister died from cancer, most of you would not care. I cannot prove this in anyway, but it's my suspicion.

Click to expand...

:spin: Obviously people would not be outraged and it is still a bad comparison.

MACS-24 said:

Obviously people would not be outraged

Click to expand...

Exactly. Which just shows most of the people who were acting outraged at the idea Obama was "exploiting" this woman for personal gain really didn't care. They just cared it wasn't something they supported. Thank you for agreeing with me.

and it is still a bad comparison.

Click to expand...

I wasn't comparing them. I was pointing out ridiculousness with parallel example.

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.

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?

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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...

Grant said:

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.

Click to expand...

I'm FAR less ambitious. I just want the criminals out of DC.

KevinKohler said:

I'm FAR less ambitious. I just want the criminals out of DC.

Click to expand...

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.

OpportunityCost said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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...

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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?

Slyfox696 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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?

Click to expand...

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 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?

Dittohead not! said:

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?

Click to expand...

Only if the seller had a Big Bag of Cheesy Cheetos. :2razz:

OpportunityCost said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Slyfox696 said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Dittohead not! said:

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?

Click to expand...

maybe but the pot recipient should have produced a doctor's Rx to get the weed!!