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

Slyfox696 · Apr 18, 2013

OpportunityCost said:
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.

TurtleDude · Apr 18, 2013

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

OpportunityCost · Apr 18, 2013

Slyfox696 said:
*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.

Slyfox696 · Apr 18, 2013

OpportunityCost said:
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?

j-mac · Apr 19, 2013

Slyfox696 said:
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.

Slyfox696 · Apr 19, 2013

j-mac said:
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.

j-mac · Apr 19, 2013

Slyfox696 said:
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.

Slyfox696 · Apr 19, 2013

j-mac said:
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.

j-mac · Apr 19, 2013

Slyfox696 said:
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.

OpportunityCost · Apr 19, 2013

Slyfox696 said:
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.

j-mac · Apr 19, 2013

I'd like to post this for those liberals whom are in here saying that gun grabbing is not the goal....My friends it has already happened....

We've heard it over and over again, particularly on shows like Morning Joe. Anyone who thinks that the government is "coming to take your guns" is a paranoid loon, watching for black helicopters and guarding their sheep from soldiers. Unfortunately for those formerly right leaning, Second Amendment minded folks who bought into this story, reality has come screaming up from behind well ahead of schedule.
Following the passage of "The SAFE Act" in New York State, Big Brother got busy pretty quickly grabbing up the guns. Of course nobody was reporting on it very much until they managed to collect them from the wrong guy and a judge made them give them back.
BUFFALO, N.Y. -- Thursday, a state Supreme Court Judge ruled guns seized from David Lewis, 35, must be returned to him after he was incorrectly identified as violating the mental health provision of the SAFE Act.
"We know that from the health care agency to the State Police, there was some kind of breach," said Lewis' attorney, Jim Tresmond.
I don't know how much more chilling that lede could be, really. This isn't some worry about the government possibly confiscating guns. These are guns that were already confiscated by the government. But if you think that's as bad as it gets, guess again. Here's why his guns were taken.
Tresmond says his client was ordered to turn in his weapons last week because he was once on anti-anxiety medication, which is a violation of the SAFE Act. Wednesday, State Police informed the Erie County Clerk's Office that it made a mistake when it said Lewis was in violation of the state's new gun law.
For all of our more liberal leaning readers who continue to ask "what's so bad" about universal background checks before we've even seen the specifics, this is your answer. In New York, you can be placed on a "list"of people with no Second Amendment rights on the say so of any doctor who has questions. And it already happened to David Lewis. Thankfully, he's getting his guns back... for now. But what is the larger effect of this if we put it on a national scale?

Read more: Blog: Gun confiscation begins in New York
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

j-mac · Apr 19, 2013

OpportunityCost said:
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.

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

Wasn't this guy in TX the one that he and his son were on a hike in rural TX when the police approached him? I heard about that...I find it chilling that at one point he asked about the law, and the cop responded "I am the law"....

:shock:

Slyfox696 · Apr 19, 2013

j-mac said:
Maybe later I can go on your snipe hunt, but not at the moment.

Thank you for agreeing with me that what you allege did not happen.

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?

I consider that to be different from extending background checks. When I think of increased background checks, I think of every sale needing a check, not increasing the requirements to pass it.

But, if that's true, it's a fair point you make (though I'd point out the mental illness portion of gun control is something the pro gun crowd has been clamoring for). But it's not really how I was intending.

...Shall not be infringed. Nuff said.

That doesn't mean it cannot be regulated. You don't have a right to any weapon you choose any time you want it. I do not agree with you on this and neither do the multiple laws we have in this country which regulate guns.

This is a myth.

It's not a myth, it was in the Manchin-Toomey amendment.

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.

The current background check has gaping holes in it. That's the point. If I give you a cup with holes in the bottom and duct tape and tell you to fill the cup with water, are you just going to pour the water in the cup over and over and then say "this cup cannot hold water"? Or would you use the tape to cover the holes the best you could, and then pour the water in?

You cannot say we shouldn't use the duct tape because the cup doesn't hold water. The entire point of the duct tape is to close the holes. Similarly, you cannot say we shouldn't fix the holes in existing legislation because the current legislation isn't working optimally. It makes no sense.

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.

I don't see how that's funny, either in the amusing or ironic sense. All the says to me is that we cannot piecemeal gun legislation from one state to the next, but instead need a consistent set of laws across the country, especially now that people are more mobile than every before. But I'm not really sure what your statement has to do with mine.

And I am saying that they wouldn't do a thing...CT, and CO are registration states. Didn't stop those did it?

Nothing will stop it completely. That is such a fallacy of the pro gun crowd, to think anyone is arguing that any legislation will stop everything. The point isn't to stop it, but to minimize it.

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

Americans for Responsible Solutions » Guess how long it took me to complete a background check

My bad. It's as easy as playing the lottery and 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.

Wait a second...

So you're telling me a background check and registering your gun DIDN'T prevent you from obtaining your weapon?

OpportunityCost said:
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?

What does this have to do with what I said regarding 2nd Amendment rights for all and me asking you why you want to restrict the mentally ill from being allowed to exercise their rights? You keep accusing me of diverting the thread and trying to set my own parameters and all that, but you just mentioned something which appears to have had nothing to do with anything I asked you. I don't understand why you posted this in response to me, perhaps you could clear it up?

Your false rhetoric would be that Manchin does nothing to restrict gun ownership when you know it does and it will. Thats false rhetoric.

Except that's not what I said. Here's what I actually said:

Slyfox696 said:
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.

Now I know I've said this multiple times. But maybe you just forgot, I know you sometimes struggle to remember what has been posted. So now that you know what I said, which is completely different from what you accused me of saying, can you please admit you were wrong?

You are willfully engaging in lies

Is this how all of the pro gun crowd is on the Internet? Whenever you've been clearly shown to be wrong, you just start calling people liars? Do you realize how sad it appears when you intentionally misquoted what I said to try and save face and then accuse me of being the liar?

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

I wasn't telling anyone how to post, I was merely returning the phrase when it was made to me.

j-mac said:
I'd like to post this for those liberals whom are in here saying that gun grabbing is not the goal....My friends it has already happened....

So...gun grabbing is what happens when the authorities give back possessions they acknowledge they shouldn't have taken?

Some of you gun people have a very weird sense of reality.

j-mac · Apr 19, 2013

Slyfox696 said:
Thank you for agreeing with me that what you allege did not happen.

Mistaken victory on your part. Not allowing you to lead me around to what you want me to do, doesn't imply that you are either correct, or victorious on the matter.

I consider that to be different from extending background checks. When I think of increased background checks, I think of every sale needing a check, not increasing the requirements to pass it.

So, if I want to sell my shotgun to my son, you want me to go to a dealer, pay a fee, and have the dealer BC my son whom also will pay a fee to get the check, probably cost more to have the checks than the gun would be sold for....All so you can say to yourself, that you did something, that likely will NOT have any effect on illegal guns in this country....Just like libs to always think of new ways to have their hands in my pockets.

But, if that's true, it's a fair point you make (though I'd point out the mental illness portion of gun control is something the pro gun crowd has been clamoring for). But it's not really how I was intending.

What do you mean "if"? You haven't read the bill? Or you haven't had your leftest buddies on MSDNC tell you what to think about it? Either way you just disqualified yourself from discussing the topic.

That doesn't mean it cannot be regulated. You don't have a right to any weapon you choose any time you want it. I do not agree with you on this and neither do the multiple laws we have in this country which regulate guns.

Some of which are proper, some of which are infringement. Just because progressives have been successful in passing garbage doesn't mean it is proper.

It's not a myth, it was in the Manchin-Toomey amendment.

How would you know? You clearly didn't read it.

The current background check has gaping holes in it.

Such as?

That's the point. If I give you a cup with holes in the bottom and duct tape and tell you to fill the cup with water, are you just going to pour the water in the cup over and over and then say "this cup cannot hold water"? Or would you use the tape to cover the holes the best you could, and then pour the water in?

No system is perfect, but we need to understand that everything we pass has unintended consequence...Liberals never seem to think that part through....

You cannot say we shouldn't use the duct tape because the cup doesn't hold water. The entire point of the duct tape is to close the holes. Similarly, you cannot say we shouldn't fix the holes in existing legislation because the current legislation isn't working optimally. It makes no sense.

We should refrain from passing laws in the heat of any particular tragedy. Just as when a loved one passes away, they say you shouldn't make any big decisions.....

I don't see how that's funny, either in the amusing or ironic sense. All the says to me is that we cannot piecemeal gun legislation from one state to the next, but instead need a consistent set of laws across the country, especially now that people are more mobile than every before. But I'm not really sure what your statement has to do with mine.

Central government is not what this country is...If you want that move.

Nothing will stop it completely. That is such a fallacy of the pro gun crowd, to think anyone is arguing that any legislation will stop everything. The point isn't to stop it, but to minimize it.

Completely? hell, it won't even slow it down...Which poses the question what is the true underlying agenda here....We know full well what that is don't we.

Americans for Responsible Solutions » Guess how long it took me to complete a background check

My bad. It's as easy as playing the lottery and buying a Big Gulp.

Ah yes, Bloomberg and his merry band of fallacious, heavy handed liars...He already started grabbing guns...

Wait a second...

So you're telling me a background check and registering your gun DIDN'T prevent you from obtaining your weapon?

I am not a criminal, so I didn't have a problem....But there are plenty of cases, as there are with anything knee jerk like this where innocent law abiding adults get caught up in the system. The question should be why are you so eager to trample others rights?

So...gun grabbing is what happens when the authorities give back possessions they acknowledge they shouldn't have taken?

Some of you gun people have a very weird sense of reality.

So I see you completely ignored the meat of the story...The man had to take it to court to get his weapons back...I am sure all of that costs money. What of those who don't have the means to fight it? I guess to you their rights don't matter. Reality? pfft, yeah right....:roll:

OpportunityCost · Apr 19, 2013

Slyfox696 said:
Except that's not what I said. Here's what I actually said:

Now I know I've said this multiple times. But maybe you just forgot, I know you sometimes struggle to remember what has been posted. So now that you know what I said, which is completely different from what you accused me of saying, can you please admit you were wrong?

What does "that" refer to? Because it looks like it refers to Manchin-Toomey which is what I referenced.

Is this how all of the pro gun crowd is on the Internet? Whenever you've been clearly shown to be wrong, you just start calling people liars? Do you realize how sad it appears when you intentionally misquoted what I said to try and save face and then accuse me of being the liar?

What does "that" refer to? You answer and then I will.

I wasn't telling anyone how to post, I was merely returning the phrase when it was made to me.

You were trying to shut down conversation. Quit prevaricating.

So...gun grabbing is what happens when the authorities give back possessions they acknowledge they shouldn't have taken?

Actually without lengthy and costly court fights they dont get them back. Which is almost exactly why the 2nd is so unequivocal about shall not be infringed.

Some of you gun people have a very weird sense of reality.

That almost seems like bigotry.

Slyfox696 · Apr 20, 2013

j-mac said:
Mistaken victory on your part. Not allowing you to lead me around to what you want me to do, doesn't imply that you are either correct, or victorious on the matter.

A snipe hunt is when you take someone to go looking for something which doesn't exist. You said I offered you a chance to go looking for something which doesn't exist, which clearly means I didn't post anything which could not be supported with facts.

It's not a mistaken victory, it's simply a case of me taking your words at their meaning.

So, if I want to sell my shotgun to my son, you want me to go to a dealer, pay a fee, and have the dealer BC my son whom also will pay a fee to get the check, probably cost more to have the checks than the gun would be sold for

No, because I've already said multiple times in this thread I'd be happy to have tax dollars pay for a background check.

Just like libs to always think of new ways to have their hands in my pockets.

And just like a pro gun supporter to live in their own reality, where truth never gets in the way of a good story.

Now that we've proven we can both make ridiculous and baseless claims, do you think we can just discuss the issue?

What do you mean "if"? You haven't read the bill? Or you haven't had your leftest buddies on MSDNC tell you what to think about it? Either way you just disqualified yourself from discussing the topic.

You do realize I don't consider myself left or right, a liberal or conservative, don't you? It amazes me how much hatred people like you have for anyone who simply disagrees with you.

Some of which are proper, some of which are infringement. Just because progressives have been successful in passing garbage doesn't mean it is proper.

But it does mean it's legal. And once we establish regulating automatic rifles, C4 and grenade launchers is legal, then it's easy to make the next step.

You don't have the right to simply say "I want it, therefor I should have it". It does not work that way.

How would you know? You clearly didn't read it.

I did read it, actually. In fact, I even quoted sections of it to Opportunity Cost. Once more, your reality and what is proven true do not seem to align.

Such as?

What do you mean "such as?" You haven't read the bill? Or you haven't had your rightest buddies on Fox News tell you what to think about it?

Have I made my point yet? But to answer your question, the fact somewhere up to 40% of guns in this country are transferred in ownership without a background check would be what I consider "gaping holes".

No system is perfect

And only fools would would stop trying to make it perfect.

We should refrain from passing laws in the heat of any particular tragedy.

Since these tragedies are happening at an alarming frequency, this certainly is convenient for you, isn't it? The fact is, this argument is beyond stupid, because tragedies are happening all the time. A tragedy is the BEST time to examine what we're doing right and what we're doing wrong, and finding ways to fix it. Only a moron would say, "well, I know I failed this time, but as long as I don't change anything, I know I won't fail next time".

You don't strike me as a moron, you strike me as being fairly intelligent (if a little confused). So why are you repeating this nonsense?

Central government is not what this country is...If you want that move.

You're just denying to yourself at this point if you believe that. The country our founders envisioned does not exist today, and quite frankly, could not exist today. And I believe our founding fathers would be appalled at the idea of a citizenry which is not willing to adapt with the times.

Completely? hell, it won't even slow it down

I believe it would, and there are plenty of countries to support my belief.

Which poses the question what is the true underlying agenda here....We know full well what that is don't we.

No, "we" don't. But I would love to hear whichever conspiracy theory you believe.

Ah yes, Bloomberg and his merry band of fallacious, heavy handed liars...He already started grabbing guns...

Again, you and reality don't seem to mesh well. What does Bloomberg have to do with being able to purchase a gun in 5 and a half minutes? I don't understand.

I am not a criminal, so I didn't have a problem

THEN WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU ARGUING ABOUT!?!?!?

Excuse the "shouting" I just wanted you to pay particular attention to what you just said. You just said going through a background check and registering your gun did not cause you a problem. So why in the world are you fighting this?

The question should be why are you so eager to trample others rights?

But your rights were not trampled, so on what basis do you claim others' will be? Because it MIGHT happen? I'm sorry, that's a terrible argument in light of the thousands of people killed every year with a gun.

So I see you completely ignored the meat of the story...The man had to take it to court to get his weapons back...I am sure all of that costs money. What of those who don't have the means to fight it? I guess to you their rights don't matter. Reality? pfft, yeah right....:roll:

No, I just focused on the important part, but you just don't like the fact you were wrong. You posted a "gun grab" which really wasn't. It's not my fault you cannot twist the facts into something they are not.

By the way, if the person doesn't have the money for court, how did they buy a gun?

OpportunityCost said:
What does "that" refer to? Because it looks like it refers to Manchin-Toomey which is what I referenced.

The quote of mine I posted is what led to our discussion about whether I was speaking rhetoric or fact. I've proven I was speaking fact. So now it's your turn to apologize. You were 100% wrong. Just admit it. The longer you try to dance around the fact you were wrong, the more you just prove yourself a gun "nut". Now I don't want to think of you as a nut, but it's hard to come to any other conclusion when you refuse the facts which are right in front of you.

You were trying to shut down conversation. Quit prevaricating.

:lamo

No, I wasn't, I was merely repeating his words for effect.

Actually without lengthy and costly court fights they dont get them back.

Really? I've looked at a couple of different articles and it doesn't say anything about the length or the cost. Before I respond to this, could you please cite where you found this?

That almost seems like bigotry.

You do realize you lied about what I said in order to be able to accuse me of being a liar based upon your fictitious representation of my claim, right?

Federalist · Apr 20, 2013

In my opinion, if a person is considered to be so dangerous that we can't trust him to walk armed among us, then he really shouldn't be walking among us at all.

Also, I don't subscribe to the "once a criminal, always a criminal" mentality. Once a person has paid his debt and been deemed rehabilitated enough to rejoin society, he should be free again.

The whole need for background checks is based on this growing class of criminals for life.

Goshin · Apr 20, 2013

Federalist said:
In my opinion, if a person is considered to be so dangerous that we can't trust him to walk armed among us, then he really shouldn't be walking among us at all.

Also, I don't subscribe to the "once a criminal, always a criminal" mentality. Once a person has paid his debt and been deemed rehabilitated enough to rejoin society, he should be free again.

The whole need for background checks is based on this growing class of criminals for life.

Problem is, we don't do rehabilitation very well, and mostly just tend to warehouse criminals for X years under conditions that do not often assist that much in reforming them.

Pragmatically speaking, there ought to be two classes of criminals - those who can be rehabilitated and made safe and productive members of society again with some reasonable effort... and dead criminals.

The former should not be released from a reform institution until there is strong and near-certain evidence of major changes in their mindset, behavior and intentions... in short, until we're pretty damn sure they're safe to let out as free citizens again, including the restoration of all rights. If they never get to that point, they never get out.

Unfortunately that isn't current reality...

Thoreau72 · Apr 20, 2013

j-mac said:
Wasn't this guy in TX the one that he and his son were on a hike in rural TX when the police approached him? I heard about that...I find it chilling that at one point he asked about the law, and the cop responded "I am the law"....

:shock:

I'm reminded of the Lucifer Effect, as described by Philip Zimbardo after having conducted the Stanford Prison Experiment back in the 70's.

Zealous young cops, having been convinced that they are on a mission from god, will quickly escalate the police ego. They can't help it, because it seems to have been programmed into the human condition.

OpportunityCost · Apr 20, 2013

Slyfox696 said:
The quote of mine I posted is what led to our discussion about whether I was speaking rhetoric or fact. I've proven I was speaking fact. So now it's your turn to apologize. You were 100% wrong. Just admit it. The longer you try to dance around the fact you were wrong, the more you just prove yourself a gun "nut". Now I don't want to think of you as a nut, but it's hard to come to any other conclusion when you refuse the facts which are right in front of you.

I see you did not answer what "that" referred to. Your refusal to answer and dodge is noted---it is in fact, Manchin-Toomey, making my point a valid one.

No, I wasn't, I was merely repeating his words for effect.

Except I didnt use those words, so you are still prevaricating.

Really? I've looked at a couple of different articles and it doesn't say anything about the length or the cost. Before I respond to this, could you please cite where you found this?

If you are charged, if you want to fight it, you will be paying a lot of attorneys fees and quite possibly court fees. Stop being obtuse.

You do realize you lied about what I said in order to be able to accuse me of being a liar based upon your fictitious representation of my claim, right?

Really because you seem bigoted not only towards gun owners but anyone that defends them.

JayDubya · Apr 20, 2013

I'm sorry for your loss, Francine Wheeler.

Why you chose to try to channel your grief into hurting this nation and encouraging elected politicians to violate my constitutional rights is incomprehensible. It is wrong. This evil is potentially forgivable, but reprehensible just the same, and you do not get a pass for it because of your loss.

So **** you, Francine Wheeler.

Goshin · Apr 20, 2013

Moderator's Warning:

The level of snarkiness and thinly veiled personal attacks needs to decline about 99%, or infractions will be forthcoming. Discuss the topic, rather than slinging mud at the opposition.

Edited to add: seriously, I just had to read several pages of this thread, and now I have a headache. Several of you are pushing the envelope hard. BEHAVE... this thread is on ZERO tolerance from this point on for ANY remarks disparaging another poster, however cleverly veiled or parsed.

Slyfox696 · Apr 21, 2013

OpportunityCost said:
I see you did not answer what "that" referred to.

"that" referred to the words you attributed to me which I did not say. Since I posted that statement right after the quote of yours which falsely attributed to me something I did not say, I thought it would be clear. But now it should be clear.

Your refusal to answer and dodge is noted---it is in fact, Manchin-Toomey, making my point a valid one.

I'm not refusing or dodging anything. I made a statement, you accused me of rhetoric, I proved my statement, you then twisted my statement to something I did not say, and I then corrected you on what I actually said, at which time I asked for your apology on accusing me of rhetoric when the facts supported my statement. And I'm still waiting on the apology.

Except I didnt use those words, so you are still prevaricating.

And I didn't post "case closed" in response to you. So I don't understand your point.

If you are charged, if you want to fight it, you will be paying a lot of attorneys fees and quite possibly court fees. Stop being obtuse.

Again, I'm asking for a source. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just asking to prove it, like I did my statement earlier about the legislation providing gun protections.

Really because you seem bigoted not only towards gun owners but anyone that defends them.

Not at all.

j-mac · Apr 22, 2013

Slyfox696 said:
A snipe hunt is when you take someone to go looking for something which doesn't exist. You said I offered you a chance to go looking for something which doesn't exist, which clearly means I didn't post anything which could not be supported with facts.

It's not a mistaken victory, it's simply a case of me taking your words at their meaning.

I simply mean that....Think of it as if we were having a conversation sitting by the pool, sipping a beer or two. In that vein of friendly conversation you would not say to me that I need to come armed with a file cabinet of documentation backing up everything offered in opinion, would you? Because that would not be a very friendly, nor productive conversation....

No, because I've already said multiple times in this thread I'd be happy to have tax dollars pay for a background check.

So, You're not a liberal, or conservative, but you ascribe others paying for something that you require....That is a progressive idea at best. Why should I pay for your BC?

And just like a pro gun supporter to live in their own reality, where truth never gets in the way of a good story.

Now that we've proven we can both make ridiculous and baseless claims, do you think we can just discuss the issue?

So, you like to use "snark" toward others, but no one can use it back otherwise you get offended....Hmmmm...Ok...

You do realize I don't consider myself left or right, a liberal or conservative, don't you? It amazes me how much hatred people like you have for anyone who simply disagrees with you.

Telling you that you are wrong is not 'hatred'....

But it does mean it's legal. And once we establish regulating automatic rifles, C4 and grenade launchers is legal, then it's easy to make the next step.

So your argument is really an incremental approach to eliminating my rights....Thanks for proving that for me.

You don't have the right to simply say "I want it, therefor I should have it". It does not work that way.

Why not? Show me in the 2nd amendment where it restricts different types of weaponry....Hint, it doesn't.

I did read it, actually. In fact, I even quoted sections of it to Opportunity Cost. Once more, your reality and what is proven true do not seem to align.

Cherry picking sections, without looking at the unintended consequences of the language is not a whole lot to hang your hat on sir. I'll give you an example....

As NRA v. Reno and long-gun registration cases demonstrate, the problem with the registration ban in Toomey-Manchin (and the parallel language in the instant-check statute) is that it has very broad language (“any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or dispositions”) that the courts construe very narrowly, by acting as if “any system of registration” only applies to a system which registers everyone or everything.

Now look at how Manchin-Toomey makes things worse:

(c) Prohibition of National Gun Registry.-Section 923 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

(m) The Attorney General may not consolidate or centralize the records of the-

(1) acquisition or disposition of firearms, or any portion thereof, maintained by-

(A) a person with a valid, current license under this chapter;
(B) an unlicensed transferor under section 922(t); or

(2) possession or ownership of a firearm, maintained by any medical or health insurance entity.

Now, we have a specific answer to the judicial question “What is gun registration?” The answer provided by Manchin-Toomey is that gun registration is only something which is done by “the Attorney General.” It is something that only involves the attorney general acquiring particular types of records.

So now suppose that a few months after Manchin-Toomey becomes law, the Department of Homeland Security begins collecting all state gun-registration records, and all state records of persons with concealed-carry permits. Just this month, it was revealed that the Department of Homeland Security has been working with the Missouri Department of Revenue to obtain electronic access to its permit list. In addition, the federal Social Security Administration, in a joint project with the ATF, had requested and been sent a complete list of all of Missouri’s concealed-carry-permit holders. The data sharing violated Missouri state law, and the revelations led to the resignation of Missouri’s director of the Department of Revenue.

When people complain that DHS (or the Social Security Administration) is violating the ban on federal gun registration, DHS and Social Security can reply, accurately, that they are doing no such thing. Manchin-Toomey specifically defines “national gun registry” as only something which is under the control of the attorney general, which Homeland Security and Social Security are not.

Further, Manchin-Toomey says that the only kinds of records which could constitute a “national gun registry” are the records which are maintained by gun sellers or records maintained by medical or health insurance entities. DHS and Social Security, in contrast, would be collecting only records that belong to state governments.

If Manchin-Toomey had gone through the normal committee process with earings, the problem might have been pointed out and fixed, so that the entire federal government was expressly prohibited from compiling gun registrations lists from any source, rather than just prohibiting the attorney general from compiling just two particular types of documents.

Or, to take another approach, suppose that Eric Holder decides to repeal the Ashcroft regulation, and begins keeping instant-check records for three years. He won’t be violating Manchin-Toomey, because instant check records of gun sale approvals by the FBI aren’t records that belong to gun sellers or health-insurance entities — they already belong to the FBI.

The Problems of Toomey-Manchin | National Review Online

Now, care to explain why it is that we have to constantly scour language from our legislators, and this administration for what they don't include, to ensure that they don't back door take our freedom? It's BS!

What do you mean "such as?" You haven't read the bill? Or you haven't had your rightest buddies on Fox News tell you what to think about it?

Have I made my point yet? But to answer your question, the fact somewhere up to 40% of guns in this country are transferred in ownership without a background check would be what I consider "gaping holes".

So you are not a liberal, but are using Obama's argument of 40%....It is false ofcourse....

The president kept claiming this week and last week that: “as many as 40 percent of all gun purchases take place without a background check” and that "background checks have kept more than 2 million dangerous people from buying a gun.” But both statistics are false.
There is no real scientific evidence among criminologists and economists that background checks actually reduce crime.
Start with the 40 percent figure. That number comes from a very small study covering purchases during 1991 to 1994. Not only is that two decades-old data, but it covered sales before the federal Brady Act took effect on February 28, 1994. The act required federally licensed dealers to perform background checks.
And what's more, Mr. Obama conveniently forgets that the researchers gave this number (well, actually 36%, not his rounding up to 40%) for all transfers, not just for guns sold. Most significantly, the vast majority of these transfers involved within-family inheritances and gifts.
Counting only guns that were sold gives a very different perspective, with only 14 percent not actually going through federally licensed dealers. But even that is much too high as there were biases in the survey. For example, two-thirds of federally licensed dealers at the time were so-called “kitchen table” dealers who sold gun out of their homes and most buyers surveyed were likely unaware these individuals were indeed licensed.
By the way, that survey also found that all gun-show sales went through federally licensed dealers. If President Obama really trusts the study, he should stop raging about the “gun show loophole.”
The truth is, the databases the government uses to determine eligibility for gun purchases are rife with errors.

Read more: Fact vs. fiction on background checks and the gun control debate | Fox News

And only fools would would stop trying to make it perfect.

Then it should be easy for you to explain how making it harder for legal citizens to obtain firearms, will stop illegal firearms from being sold....It's like saying I want to mulch my flowerbed, so I think I'll demo the kitchen....

Since these tragedies are happening at an alarming frequency, this certainly is convenient for you, isn't it?

So this is how you have a civil conversation? Thank goodness you're not in person...I don't think many people would take a statement like that too kindly...

The fact is, this argument is beyond stupid, because tragedies are happening all the time. A tragedy is the BEST time to examine what we're doing right and what we're doing wrong, and finding ways to fix it. Only a moron would say, "well, I know I failed this time, but as long as I don't change anything, I know I won't fail next time".

No....It isn't the frequency at all....It is more reported due to the agenda of the MSM, coupled with a 24/7 news media....Progressivism is a cancer to freedom.

You don't strike me as a moron, you strike me as being fairly intelligent (if a little confused). So why are you repeating this nonsense?

What a backhanded way to get away with calling names....Again, I hope you have better manners in person.

You're just denying to yourself at this point if you believe that. The country our founders envisioned does not exist today, and quite frankly, could not exist today. And I believe our founding fathers would be appalled at the idea of a citizenry which is not willing to adapt with the times.

I have no problem with change, but why can't you progressives effect change the way it is laid out in the constitution? My guess is that you know full well it would never pass.

I believe it would, and there are plenty of countries to support my belief.

We are talking about this country...I don't base what we should, or shouldn't do on what other countries do...If you think a different country has a better idea, you should go there.

No, "we" don't. But I would love to hear whichever conspiracy theory you believe.

No conspiracy here....You even stated it in this post....Remember?

"...once we establish regulating automatic rifles, C4 and grenade launchers is legal, then it's easy to make the next step.

You don't have the right to simply say "I want it, therefor I should have it". It does not work that way."

Incremental creep of progressive ideas, circumventing the amendment process is not what this country is supposed to be.

Again, you and reality don't seem to mesh well. What does Bloomberg have to do with being able to purchase a gun in 5 and a half minutes? I don't understand.

Are you serious? You used his group to highlight a point of yours...I dismiss him, and Kelly as unabashed gun grabbing elites....

THEN WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU ARGUING ABOUT!?!?!?

Excuse the "shouting" I just wanted you to pay particular attention to what you just said. You just said going through a background check and registering your gun did not cause you a problem. So why in the world are you fighting this?

Registries are a step in confiscation....

But your rights were not trampled, so on what basis do you claim others' will be? Because it MIGHT happen? I'm sorry, that's a terrible argument in light of the thousands of people killed every year with a gun.

More people are killed with hammers, and other blunt objects, than with rifles in this country...Should we register hammers?

No, I just focused on the important part, but you just don't like the fact you were wrong. You posted a "gun grab" which really wasn't. It's not my fault you cannot twist the facts into something they are not.

By the way, if the person doesn't have the money for court, how did they buy a gun?

My 9mm cost me $300.00, My Shotgun cost me $125.00...To take a wrongful confiscation case to court would cost me potentially thousands....I don't have it. Why should I have to?

j-mac · Apr 22, 2013

Henry David said:
I'm reminded of the Lucifer Effect, as described by Philip Zimbardo after having conducted the Stanford Prison Experiment back in the 70's.

Zealous young cops, having been convinced that they are on a mission from god, will quickly escalate the police ego. They can't help it, because it seems to have been programmed into the human condition.

Indeed....But I think we need to be on the lookout for that...It is a short step to historical police forces in the past that have taken that to the extreme....The SS is but one example....Now I am not saying that we are anywhere near close to an "SS" type of mentality in this country, but individuals need to be constantly assessed so that we limit 'rouge cops' like this one....

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

Slyfox696

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands

OpportunityCost

Slyfox696

j-mac

Slyfox696

j-mac

Slyfox696

j-mac

OpportunityCost

j-mac

j-mac

Slyfox696

j-mac

OpportunityCost

Slyfox696

Federalist

Goshin

Burned Out Ex-Mod

Thoreau72

OpportunityCost

JayDubya

Struggler

Goshin

Burned Out Ex-Mod

Slyfox696

j-mac

j-mac