• 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!

NYC Mayor Conducts Gun-Sale Sting in Arizona

What? .... er, um, you didn't say this...




j-mac

Do you understand context? What is really being said is that it doesn't matter who claims anyone is using. We're not addressing the issue when we use that tactic.
 
I think you should have quoted Adam, but that would go against your principles to actually criticize a fellow liberal wouldn't it ?

I've quoted him and others before. Sometimes we even disagree. However, you were last in what I read, so I went with you. Now, do you agree or disagree?
 
Do you understand context? What is really being said is that it doesn't matter who claims anyone is using. We're not addressing the issue when we use that tactic.

Keep up my friend, we haven't addressed the issue in this thread since page 2.


j-mac
 
Keep up my friend, we haven't addressed the issue in this thread since page 2.


j-mac

Part of my point. And that happens all too often.
 
How many criminals do you see carrying fully automatic weapons?

very few-and never ones legally acquired. and fully automatic weapons are not necessarily and often less-deadly than semi auto ones
 
So you make a claim about machine guns, and you send me a wiki on handguns.... /facepalm

Maybe you should take your face out of your palm and go back and read what I actually wrote?
 
So you make a claim about machine guns, and you send me a wiki on handguns.... /facepalm
Nevermind the false coorelation that the act dropped gun crime rates......you know, since they are up again. Gun grabbers need to realize that violent crime tends to spike during bad economies, they spiked between '68-'80 dropped off signifigantly from '80-93, further dropped from '94-'08 and are starting to rise again. The common factor is that the economy started to slow in '68 and got bad in the '70s, the '80s were a good economic period as well as the '90s. Of course, gun control advocates always like to put out the isolated data of gun crimes without the added benefit of all violent crimes such as rape, armed robbery, murder, and other aggravated assaullt/battery using weapons as the catagory instead of just guns.
 
Maybe you should take your face out of your palm and go back and read what I actually wrote?



Why bother? You just jump around everytime you get caught. We were talking about machine guns, you were losing that argument so you tried to expand the scope to save face, counselor.
 
Why bother? You just jump around everytime you get caught. We were talking about machine guns, you were losing that argument so you tried to expand the scope to save face, counselor.

Why pretend that you didn't know what I was talking about? Is it because you have a weak argument? I conceded that the machine gun ban didn't reduce homicides, but went on to say that the Brady Bill -- a much broader measure -- appears to have had a significant effect. And your response is to pretend that I said something I didn't say? :2rofll:
 
Why pretend that you didn't know what I was talking about? Is it because you have a weak argument? I conceded that the machine gun ban didn't reduce homicides, but went on to say that the Brady Bill -- a much broader measure -- appears to have had a significant effect. And your response is to pretend that I said something I didn't say? :2rofll:



You just throw out wild nonsense. It's hard to follow your illogic.


but anyway, it's like talking to a wall.... but let's play...


Brady bill? :failpail:


GUN CONTROL FACT-SHEET (2004) - Gun Owners Of America


E. Myth: The Brady registration law is dropping crime rates
* Fact: Anti-gun journal pronounces the failure of the Brady law. One of the nation’s leading anti-gun medical publications, the Journal of the American Medical Association, found that the Brady registration law has failed to reduce murder rates. In August 2000, JAMA reported that states implementing waiting periods and background checks did "not [experience] reductions in homicide rates or overall suicide rates."72

* Fact: Brady checks are not taking criminals off the streets. Not every person who is denied a firearm is truly a criminal, as many persons have been denied erroneously. But even assuming each denial was legitimate, the Brady law is still not taking criminals off the streets (and thus keeping them from getting firearms).

The Washington Times reported in 1999 that, "Although federal officials say about 400,000 persons have been prevented from buying guns by the instant check system, only one has been prosecuted by the Department of Justice in the last three years."73

* Fact: The Brady law has NOT stopped thugs like Benjamin Smith from going on killing sprees. In 1999, Benjamin Smith was rejected by a background check when he tried to buy a firearm from an Illinois gun dealer. But after this initial rejection, "he hit the streets and in just three days had two handguns" from an illegal source, reported the Associated Press. Three days after getting the guns, Smith went on a rampage that killed two people and wounded nine others.

* Fact: The Brady Law is not physically keeping criminals from getting firearms. The simple truth is that any person who’s denied a firearm can simply walk out the door and buy a gun down the street. Ohio's Attorney General, Betty Montgomery, testified to this very irony in the law in 1997:

"In 1996, 60,037 people went to licensed gun dealers to purchase handguns. Of that figure, 327—less than one half of one percent—were denied because of a disqualifying factor. . . . [W]hile we were able to keep 327 people from getting a handgun at point A—each of them was able to purchase a rifle or handgun the very same day at point B. To our knowledge, under the Brady Act, not a single one of the 327 people . . . have been prosecuted by the U.S. Justice Department."74





* Anti-gun journal pronounces the failure of the Brady law. One of the nation’s leading anti-gun medical publications, the Journal of the American Medical Association, found that the Brady registration law has failed to reduce murder rates. In August 2000, JAMA reported that states implementing waiting periods and background checks did "not [experience] reductions in homicide rates or overall suicide rates."5
 
You just throw out wild nonsense. It's hard to follow your illogic.


but anyway, it's like talking to a wall.... but let's play...


Brady bill? :failpail:


GUN CONTROL FACT-SHEET (2004) - Gun Owners Of America


E. Myth: The Brady registration law is dropping crime rates
* Fact: Anti-gun journal pronounces the failure of the Brady law. One of the nation’s leading anti-gun medical publications, the Journal of the American Medical Association, found that the Brady registration law has failed to reduce murder rates. In August 2000, JAMA reported that states implementing waiting periods and background checks did "not [experience] reductions in homicide rates or overall suicide rates."72

* Fact: Brady checks are not taking criminals off the streets. Not every person who is denied a firearm is truly a criminal, as many persons have been denied erroneously. But even assuming each denial was legitimate, the Brady law is still not taking criminals off the streets (and thus keeping them from getting firearms).

The Washington Times reported in 1999 that, "Although federal officials say about 400,000 persons have been prevented from buying guns by the instant check system, only one has been prosecuted by the Department of Justice in the last three years."73

* Fact: The Brady law has NOT stopped thugs like Benjamin Smith from going on killing sprees. In 1999, Benjamin Smith was rejected by a background check when he tried to buy a firearm from an Illinois gun dealer. But after this initial rejection, "he hit the streets and in just three days had two handguns" from an illegal source, reported the Associated Press. Three days after getting the guns, Smith went on a rampage that killed two people and wounded nine others.

* Fact: The Brady Law is not physically keeping criminals from getting firearms. The simple truth is that any person who’s denied a firearm can simply walk out the door and buy a gun down the street. Ohio's Attorney General, Betty Montgomery, testified to this very irony in the law in 1997:

"In 1996, 60,037 people went to licensed gun dealers to purchase handguns. Of that figure, 327—less than one half of one percent—were denied because of a disqualifying factor. . . . [W]hile we were able to keep 327 people from getting a handgun at point A—each of them was able to purchase a rifle or handgun the very same day at point B. To our knowledge, under the Brady Act, not a single one of the 327 people . . . have been prosecuted by the U.S. Justice Department."74





* Anti-gun journal pronounces the failure of the Brady law. One of the nation’s leading anti-gun medical publications, the Journal of the American Medical Association, found that the Brady registration law has failed to reduce murder rates. In August 2000, JAMA reported that states implementing waiting periods and background checks did "not [experience] reductions in homicide rates or overall suicide rates."5

Was it really that hard to figure out what I was talking about? No, not if you had bothered to read what I wrote.

Now, to your silly argument. First you point to the gun death statistics, suggesting that the machine gun ban had no effect because gun deaths didn't decline. Then I pointed out that gun deaths declined markedly after the Brady Bill passed, but apparently this statistic is only relevant with respect to machine guns? I'm starting to think that you're only smarter than maybe 10% of the lawyers.

As far as prosecutions under the Brady Bill goes, my response is that that there should be more. However, your own quote concedes that 400,000 people were prevented from buying guns as a result of their failing to pass a BG check -- a pretty big number. Of course another quote, from an Ohio Republican, states that anyone who fails a BG check can go out and buy a gun on the street. Personally, I would not know where to go on the street to buy a gun. Do you? What I would do, if I wanted a gun and couldn't pass a BG check, is go to a gun show and buy a gun from a so-called non-dealer. Thus the need to close the loophole.
 
Was it really that hard to figure out what I was talking about? No, not if you had bothered to read what I wrote.


We were talking about machine guns, you lost that argument instead of conceding you moved the goal posts.


Now, to your silly argument. First you point to the gun death statistics, suggesting that the machine gun ban had no effect because gun deaths didn't decline. Then I pointed out that gun deaths declined markedly after the Brady Bill passed, but apparently this statistic is only relevant with respect to machine guns? I'm starting to think that you're only smarter than maybe 10% of the lawyers.


Well, I can tell you at least one lawyer The Good Reverend is smarter than, counselor. :shrug:



As far as prosecutions under the Brady Bill goes, my response is that that there should be more. However, your own quote concedes that 400,000 people were prevented from buying guns as a result of their failing to pass a BG check -- a pretty big number. Of course another quote, from an Ohio Republican, states that anyone who fails a BG check can go out and buy a gun on the street. Personally, I would not know where to go on the street to buy a gun. Do you? What I would do, if I wanted a gun and couldn't pass a BG check, is go to a gun show and buy a gun from a so-called non-dealer. Thus the need to close the loophole.


You really are a cherry picker aren't you? anyway, I am sure, if you were as resourceful enough to power down a couple big macs in front of your computer, you might be resourceful enough to find a burner. :shrug: maybe....
 
We were talking about machine guns, you lost that argument instead of conceding you moved the goal posts.

Actually the thread is about gun sales generally, and the gun show loophole in particular. The background check requirement was established in the Brady Bill. It is not about machine guns, which argument I did in fact concede. Reading comprehension -- not the good Revered's strong point.

Well, I can tell you at least one lawyer The Good Reverend is smarter than, counselor. :shrug:

Almost everyone is smarter than TD. ;D
 
Actually the thread is about gun sales generally, and the gun show loophole in particular. The background check requirement was established in the Brady Bill. It is not about machine guns, which argument I did in fact concede. Reading comprehension -- not the good Revered's strong point.


U mad, bro? With all these silly little snipes at the Good Reverend, it seems you are upset. You made a point about machine guns, you lost that point, instead of conceding you tried to twist your point, and failed.


Almost everyone is smarter than TD. ;D


Don't worry, maybe there is a mathnasium or a KUMON in your area. Godspeed bro. :pimpdaddy:
 
U mad, bro? With all these silly little snipes at the Good Reverend, it seems you are upset. You made a point about machine guns, you lost that point, instead of conceding you tried to twist your point, and failed.

I'll admit that liars make me mad, and you are one of those.

To whit:

YOU:
How many people a year were killed before the MG ban, compared to after by machine guns, go on counselor, I'll wait.

ME:
Fair enough, that didn't seem to do much -- or rather, gun deaths increased after.
 
Merely an observation.



Nah, it's a loss of self composure in the face of having your absurd arguments exposed. Losing ones self composure isn't the best trait, Obviously not a trial lawyer eh?


Sorry, but I've grown weary of explaining things to you.



You would have had to delve into coherency before we could start with "explainations" good sir. You moved goal posts, cherry pick and mutter nonsense that it's quite honestly hard to follow. If you have a coherent point you would like to share, The Good Reverend would be happy to consider.
 
Nah, it's a loss of self composure in the face of having your absurd arguments exposed. Losing ones self composure isn't the best trait, Obviously not a trial lawyer eh?

You would have had to delve into coherency before we could start with "explainations" good sir. You moved goal posts, cherry pick and mutter nonsense that it's quite honestly hard to follow. If you have a coherent point you would like to share, The Good Reverend would be happy to consider.

As the saying goes, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him not an idiot. And that, I fear, is the conundrum that I face. You claim I didn't concede your point on the machine gun law. But of course I did, as I've now indicated twice. You claim that the Brady Bill is irrelevant, when it was the foundation for the subject of this thread. You cite gun deaths to support one point, and then ignore them in the bigger picture.

So ... if you have something else to say on topic, I'll be happy to discuss. If you just want to sling poop ... not so much.
 
As the saying goes, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him not an idiot. And that, I fear, is the conundrum that I face. You claim I didn't concede your point on the machine gun law. But of course I did, as I've now indicated twice. You claim that the Brady Bill is irrelevant, when it was the foundation for the subject of this thread. You cite gun deaths to support one point, and then ignore them in the bigger picture.

So ... if you have something else to say on topic, I'll be happy to discuss. If you just want to sling poop ... not so much.




I stopped reading after you called me an idiot. Your loss of composure, demonstrates your loss in this discussion. You have a nice day. :lamo
 
Back
Top Bottom