• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

My Gun Control Plan [W:1271]

My point is you are dishonest and that you cannot or will not explain how your plan will affect straw sales.



No, you responded... Normally with a post number that did not explain.



Specifically HOW WILL YOUR PLAN AFFECT STRAW SALES. Wait. You have been asked SPECIFICALLY that time after time,



You know that was not the topic under discussion... You had been asked how you plan will affect straw sales.



Your dishonesty is noted...


Straw purchases are already illegal...

What benefit does the "Celebrity Plan" offer?

And what of the public disclosure of private information?

I already explained this. Perhaps you should review my post #1760.
 
I already explained this. Perhaps you should review my post #1760.

And another non-answer.

Post #1760 merely references Post #1554. And we both know Post #1554 does not answer the question either.

As far as referencing #1543.....

I suppose they could keep their guns, as long as they were born after a certain date. That way we can just wait for all the elderly straw dealers to die off. Inheritance shouldn't be a problem if it was measured according to date of birth.

This shouldn't apply to states where the fantasy that the Second Amendment grants individual rights has taken root in the legislature.

Thanks for sharing your... opinion. :lol:

pub·lic
/ˈpəblik/
adjective
1.
of or concerning the people as a whole.
"public concern"
synonyms: popular, general, common, communal, collective, shared, joint, universal, widespread
"by public demand"
2.
done, perceived, or existing in open view.

Ideally it increases the exposure of private arms deals by individuals who possess a number of guns greater than eight, whether they are buying or selling. Hypothetical, registered firearms might be bought and sold any number of times. As soon as the firearm turns up in a crime, the last known registered owner could be subpoenaed. Almost like a social requirement for people with tenuous, private business links to other people, enforced by law.

What "exposure"? You will "expose" it to whom? The general populace that WILL NOT and CAN NOT do anything about it? A populace that has no subpoena nor arrest power?

Since your "exposure" won't do jack we are still left with the question:

What benefit does the "Celebrity Plan" offer?
 
Last edited:
the obvious answer to so many of the schemes or solutions that gun haters push

TO HARASS HONEST GUN OWNERS

You know that. I know that. We don't really know if Celebrity knows that because it is apparent he does not know (beyond harassment) what his plan will actually do.
 
You know that. I know that. We don't really know if Celebrity knows that because it is apparent he does not know (beyond harassment) what his plan will actually do.

I've been actively dealing with the anti gun movement since I was 17 and I first joined the NRA and was a top HS level competitive shooter. These people who really haven't thought their anti gun nonsense out are pretty easy to spot and then pick apart their spewage
 
I've been actively dealing with the anti gun movement since I was 17 and I first joined the NRA and was a top HS level competitive shooter. These people who really haven't thought their anti gun nonsense out are pretty easy to spot and then pick apart their spewage

It is apparent Celebrity did not think this one through and is no playing games of avoidance.
 
What "exposure"? You will "expose" it to whom? The general populace that WILL NOT and CAN NOT do anything about it? A populace that has no subpoena nor arrest power?

Since your "exposure" won't do jack we are still left with the question:

What benefit does the "Celebrity Plan" offer?

Finally, a specific question. It seems that some of the neurons are still firing, Fledermaus. I had to put it right where you would see it (in this thread, a second time), but you know what to do, if at first you don't succeed.

Unfortunately you followed up your question with argumentum ad lapidem, so I'm afraid we're at an impasse. You refuse to acknowledge anything that doesn't fit your belief set. I will not waste any more of my time reading your lies while I provide cogent logical arguments.
 
Finally, a specific question. It seems that some of the neurons are still firing, Fledermaus. I had to put it right where you would see it (in this thread, a second time), but you know what to do, if at first you don't succeed.

Unfortunately you followed up your question with argumentum ad lapidem, so I'm afraid we're at an impasse. You refuse to acknowledge anything that doesn't fit your belief set. I will not waste any more of my time reading your lies while I provide cogent logical arguments.

"Finally"? The question has been asked time and again. More Celebrity dishonesty.

Still no answer to the question : What benefit does the "Celebrity Plan" offer?

Merely another episode of Celebrity Dodging...

People usually dodge like this when they have no intelligent answer to the question posed....
 
False, I did explain specifically how it could work.

That is a lie you are impotent to quote it after being requested many many times. You cannot quote how it will work or even why it will work becasue it does not exist. Prove me wrong and respond with a quote of how it will or accept you are lying. Your denial has no evidence to support it. So it must be a lie.

What is 'it,' and what specifically do you want to know about how it will work?

Asked and answered. It is the Celebrity brain fart legislation you proposed. You know this because you have been asked so many times. You are therefore deliberately avoiding a response which you are utterly impotent to produce.

Noting that your argument is fallacious is not an ad hominem attack, which is a non sequitur on your part.

You can note all you like what you are totally impotent to do is show your idiotic incorrect claims are valid. Did you note that as well?

As I recall, you referenced a regulation which prohibits lying on a background check. I have not committed intellectual fraud, nor have I been disingenuous. Your argument is duplicitous.

An outright blatant LIE. Caught out again. FEDERAL FIREARMS REGULATIONS REFERENCE GUIDE 2014

http://www.debatepolitics.com/gun-control/258430-my-gun-control-plan-w-1271-a-post1066404988.html#post1066404988

Your lies and inability to back up the utter crap you write is disgusting.
 
Last edited:
That is a lie you are impotent to quote it after being requested many many times. You cannot quote how it will work or even why it will work becasue it does not exist. Prove me wrong and respond with a quote of how it will or accept you are lying. Your denial has no evidence to support it. So it must be a lie.
I already addressed this multiple times. Comprehension is not your strong point.

Asked and answered. It is the Celebrity brain fart legislation you proposed. You know this because you have been asked so many times. You are therefore deliberately avoiding a response which you are utterly impotent to produce.
You did not clarify what you were asking about, therefore I cannot avoid what you have not asked.

You can note all you like what you are totally impotent to do is show your idiotic incorrect claims are valid. Did you note that as well?
I noted your ad hominem attack, a fallacy, which you used because you cannot prove that my claims are generally invalid. I also noted your argumentum ad lapidem fallacy.



An outright blatant LIE. Caught out again. FEDERAL FIREARMS REGULATIONS REFERENCE GUIDE 2014
You just referenced the entire federal firearms regulations reference guide? Could you possibly be any more vague?

I did not lie. It is illegal to falsify a background check.

I already posted a link to this article, yet I am under the impression that it bears repeating.

https://www.thetrace.org/2015/12/straw-purchase-supreme-court-san-bernardino/
 
I already addressed this multiple times. Comprehension is not your strong point.


You did not clarify what you were asking about, therefore I cannot avoid what you have not asked.


I noted your ad hominem attack, a fallacy, which you used because you cannot prove that my claims are generally invalid. I also noted your argumentum ad lapidem fallacy.




You just referenced the entire federal firearms regulations reference guide? Could you possibly be any more vague?

I did not lie. It is illegal to falsify a background check.

I already posted a link to this article, yet I am under the impression that it bears repeating.

https://www.thetrace.org/2015/12/straw-purchase-supreme-court-san-bernardino/

Post number in which you explained how the CELEBRITY Plan works and the benefits of this plan.

The post number please.
 
I already addressed this multiple times. Comprehension is not your strong point.

Lies you are impotent to produce a quote as requested. You can repeat the same lie over and over again but it will not change the fact you cannot quote how it will work or why. I have no idea why you have to lie so much but the proof is in every line you write.

You did not clarify what you were asking about, therefore I cannot avoid what you have not asked.

Puppy poop lies. That is what you claimed no proof given. I repeated what I had written and showed it was obvious as I had claimed. Note for you. You ask for proof but not once yet have you given proof of a single claim you have made when requested to. Why is that? You make nothing but butt ripped assertions.

I noted your ad hominem attack, a fallacy, which you used because you cannot prove that my claims are generally invalid. I also noted your argumentum ad lapidem fallacy.

You have not proven that so it is crap and more lies. An excellent example of your failing in every response, a failure to offer reasoning, validity or proof.

You just referenced the entire federal firearms regulations reference guide?

I used it as a citation as proof of my claim and suggested you read it. What difference is there to you posing a link? Are you idiotically suggesting a link is not as vague. It is not possible to buy stupidity like this.

Could you possibly be any more vague?

I provided a citation for my claims. There was nothing vague about my clams of the reference I gave.

I did not lie. Yes you did and I proved it. Go read the proof and see how irrelevant your idiotic excuse is.

It is illegal to falsify a background check.

Irrelevant crap You claimed I had not given you the reference when I have just prove you did. WTF did you get the idiotic idea it was anything to do with straw purchases. You are utterly incomprehensible with your flip flopping grasping at straws and fabrication of strawman arguments you hope will act as deflection. It is one lie after another and I have serious doubt if you could tell the truth.

I already posted a link to this article, yet I am under the impression that it bears repeating.

https://www.thetrace.org/2015/12/straw-purchase-supreme-court-san-bernardino/

What is your point? I have absolutely no idea. You take one case and then what? Do you even know what the case was about?
 
Is a Straw Purchase Illegal? Depends Who You Ask.
There is nothing in Farook’s criminal records that would have prevented him from passing a background check. So does it matter that he got two guns through a friend? According to the Supreme Court, it does: Because five of the nine justices signed Justice Kagan’s opinion, the law says Marquez is an illegal straw purchaser. But the victory was narrow — just one vote would have paved the way for legal straw purchasing.

https://www.thetrace.org/2015/12/straw-purchase-supreme-court-san-bernardino/

The law prohibits lying on a background check. This court case is precedent for future cases involving straw purchasing. The reason why this went to court is because both individuals were legally able to pass a background check. Even though the law does not specifically preclude a straw purchase for another person, it is still illegal to lie on form 4473.

The Form 4473 asks each purchaser, “Are you the actual buyer?” Abramski answered, “Yes,” even though he knew he was buying the gun for someone else.
 
Is a Straw Purchase Illegal? Depends Who You Ask.


https://www.thetrace.org/2015/12/straw-purchase-supreme-court-san-bernardino/

The law prohibits lying on a background check. This court case is precedent for future cases involving straw purchasing. The reason why this went to court is because both individuals were legally able to pass a background check. Even though the law does not specifically preclude a straw purchase for another person, it is still illegal to lie on form 4473.

Thank you for confirmation that straw purchases are illegal.

And the link I gave you provided More cases where it is illegal.
 
Last edited:
Is a Straw Purchase Illegal? Depends Who You Ask.


https://www.thetrace.org/2015/12/straw-purchase-supreme-court-san-bernardino/

The law prohibits lying on a background check. This court case is precedent for future cases involving straw purchasing. The reason why this went to court is because both individuals were legally able to pass a background check. Even though the law does not specifically preclude a straw purchase for another person, it is still illegal to lie on form 4473.

Asinine post and about as idiotic as one can get. The law makes provision for proxy purchases which is only sensible. Can you figure out on you own why?

What is illegal is purchasing for somebody who may not own a firearm. Do you have a problem with that? Can you show that this is in doubt? Does it depend on who you ask?

Your link clearly stated that the purchase was made for somebody who could have purchased themselves. Is that correct?

How was it an illegal straw purchase? Explain why you cannot see that it was not an illegal straw purchase.

The prohibited lie was because the intended recipient was not declared as required by law.

You cannot buy stupidity like this.
 
Refer to my post #1554 via my post #1625. We've been over this multiple times, you just refuse to acknowledge my argument because you can't rationalize it according to your ideology.
If somebody would be kind enough to pm me and explain how you link posts like celeb did on this post ild be very appreciative.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
Asinine post and about as idiotic as one can get. The law makes provision for proxy purchases which is only sensible. Can you figure out on you own why?

What is illegal is purchasing for somebody who may not own a firearm. Do you have a problem with that? Can you show that this is in doubt? Does it depend on who you ask?

Your link clearly stated that the purchase was made for somebody who could have purchased themselves. Is that correct?

How was it an illegal straw purchase? Explain why you cannot see that it was not an illegal straw purchase.

The prohibited lie was because the intended recipient was not declared as required by law.

You cannot buy stupidity like this.

Oh, so now we're calling straw purchases "proxy purchases." You're right, one could not buy stupidity like this. The evidence that it is illegal is staring you in the face and you can't help but try to justify the dissenting opinion.
 
Oh, so now we're calling straw purchases "proxy purchases." You're right, one could not buy stupidity like this. The evidence that it is illegal is staring you in the face and you can't help but try to justify the dissenting opinion.

Post number in which you explained how the CELEBRITY Plan works and the benefits of this plan.

The post number please.
 
33,000 people die every year because of gun violence. It's easier to get a gun than it is a car. Ar-15's are being sold at Walmart. Something needs to be done this is my plan

1. Close the gun show loophole
there's no reason that just because weapons are being sold at a gun show that background checks shouldn't be required. This seems like common sense at this point.

2. Impose stricter background checks
People on the terror watch list shouldn't be able to purchase firearms. People with a history of mental health issues shouldn't be allowed to purchase firearms. It should be much more difficult to get a permit to purchase and carry a firearm from where I can obtain a permit in 22 states online.

3. Ban heavy assault weapons
This is my largest point. The only weapons that should be legal to own are 1. Handguns with a magazine capacity of 10 or less 2. That can hold 6 shells or less 3. single shot hunting riffles. There is no reason a private citizen needs an AR-15 heavy assault weapons are used for one purpose and one purpose only to kill and to kill efficiently they have no place in domestic America.

Those are my 3 main points for my gun control plans.
Your thoughts?
What other Constitutional Amendment do you feel the need to modify?
 
What other Constitutional Amendment do you feel the need to modify?

I don't think the person who started this thread has been back in weeks
 
Back
Top Bottom