CDZ Another Question for Gun Owners

[Fair&Balanced]

It's a trick question

Guns themselves were OBVIOUSLY invented to kill. But that doesn't mean that other uses haven't been found for them.

By the way, the same could be said for nearly every tool invented by man. This internet we are posting on right now was originally designed as a tool to make it easier for our military to coordinate killing our enemies. That is just a fact. We have since found other uses for it, like porn.

Precisely. Because none of the gun crazies are interested in honest debate. They HAVE to deflect and make up false equivalencies, which only fool the dumbest among us.

On the other hand, don't pretend that only gun owners do that, that's as dumb as those who deny it happens at all.

I'm a gun owner. This isn't about banning all guns. But the Gun crazies aren't interested in discussing actual proposals.

There are people who want to ban all guns. Be honest about that.

Sure. But there are MORE people who want guns in the hands of ALL people.

Which proposal is more insane? I'd argue putting guns in the hands of terrorists and lunatics is worse. But that's because I have a normal functioning frontal lobe.

I can demonstrably show you posters who want to ban ALL semi automatic guns, I don't believe you could present one single poster who believes terrorists should be allowed to get guns. Please tell me you are basing that on more than people who oppose removing the 2nd amendment rights of people who are on the no fly list, b/c I oppose that, and I assure you that I would remove the 2nd Amendment rights from as many or more people than you would , just not via that list.

 

[GaryDog]

Precisely. Because none of the gun crazies are interested in honest debate. They HAVE to deflect and make up false equivalencies, which only fool the dumbest among us.

On the other hand, don't pretend that only gun owners do that, that's as dumb as those who deny it happens at all.

I'm a gun owner. This isn't about banning all guns. But the Gun crazies aren't interested in discussing actual proposals.

There are people who want to ban all guns. Be honest about that.

Sure. But there are MORE people who want guns in the hands of ALL people.

Which proposal is more insane? I'd argue putting guns in the hands of terrorists and lunatics is worse. But that's because I have a normal functioning frontal lobe.

I can demonstrably show you posters who want to ban ALL semi automatic guns, I don't believe you could present one single poster who believes terrorists should be allowed to get guns. Please tell me you are basing that on more than people who oppose removing the 2nd amendment rights of people who are on the no fly list, b/c I oppose that, and I assure you that I would remove the 2nd Amendment rights from as many or more people than you would , just not via that list.

It's the NRA's policy to make sure laws allow EVERYONE to have all the guns they want. Hence they do not support expanding background checks.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

On the other hand, don't pretend that only gun owners do that, that's as dumb as those who deny it happens at all.

I'm a gun owner. This isn't about banning all guns. But the Gun crazies aren't interested in discussing actual proposals.

There are people who want to ban all guns. Be honest about that.

Sure. But there are MORE people who want guns in the hands of ALL people.

Which proposal is more insane? I'd argue putting guns in the hands of terrorists and lunatics is worse. But that's because I have a normal functioning frontal lobe.

I can demonstrably show you posters who want to ban ALL semi automatic guns, I don't believe you could present one single poster who believes terrorists should be allowed to get guns. Please tell me you are basing that on more than people who oppose removing the 2nd amendment rights of people who are on the no fly list, b/c I oppose that, and I assure you that I would remove the 2nd Amendment rights from as many or more people than you would , just not via that list.

It's the NRA's policy to make sure laws allow EVERYONE to have all the guns they want. Hence they do not support expanding background checks.

I'm not high on the NRA myself, but no their policy is NOT to allow EVERYONE to have all the guns they want.

OF COURSE they take a hard line stance on any and all intrusions on the 2nd because it is absolutely true that if you given humans an inch, they will take a mile. No one believes that if the NRA and gun owners would just give a little on back ground checks that the anti gun crowd would be satisfied and stop asking for more gun control measures. Why, because the anti gun crowd has proven that to be a valid concern time after time after time.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Precisely. Because none of the gun crazies are interested in honest debate. They HAVE to deflect and make up false equivalencies, which only fool the dumbest among us.

Ironic statement, as anti-gun loons can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It's the NRA's policy to make sure laws allow EVERYONE to have all the guns they want.

This is a lie.
(See my immediately previous post)

 

[GaryDog]

It's the NRA's policy to make sure laws allow EVERYONE to have all the guns they want.

This is a lie.
(See my immediately previous post)

No it's not. They want it to remain perfectly legal for any felon, terrorist, or psychopath to buy a gun -- legally -- from a private party. No registration, no background check, nothing.

Please try and prove any of the above wrong. I dare you.

 

[GaryDog]

I'm a gun owner. This isn't about banning all guns. But the Gun crazies aren't interested in discussing actual proposals.

There are people who want to ban all guns. Be honest about that.

Sure. But there are MORE people who want guns in the hands of ALL people.

Which proposal is more insane? I'd argue putting guns in the hands of terrorists and lunatics is worse. But that's because I have a normal functioning frontal lobe.

I can demonstrably show you posters who want to ban ALL semi automatic guns, I don't believe you could present one single poster who believes terrorists should be allowed to get guns. Please tell me you are basing that on more than people who oppose removing the 2nd amendment rights of people who are on the no fly list, b/c I oppose that, and I assure you that I would remove the 2nd Amendment rights from as many or more people than you would , just not via that list.

It's the NRA's policy to make sure laws allow EVERYONE to have all the guns they want. Hence they do not support expanding background checks.

I'm not high on the NRA myself, but no their policy is NOT to allow EVERYONE to have all the guns they want.

OF COURSE they take a hard line stance on any and all intrusions on the 2nd because it is absolutely true that if you given humans an inch, they will take a mile. No one believes that if the NRA and gun owners would just give a little on back ground checks that the anti gun crowd would be satisfied and stop asking for more gun control measures. Why, because the anti gun crowd has proven that to be a valid concern time after time after time.

It absolutely is. Transactions between private parties for gun sales are not subject to any regulation whatsoever. And the NRA has rebuffed any attempts to change that.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

There are people who want to ban all guns. Be honest about that.

Sure. But there are MORE people who want guns in the hands of ALL people.

Which proposal is more insane? I'd argue putting guns in the hands of terrorists and lunatics is worse. But that's because I have a normal functioning frontal lobe.

I can demonstrably show you posters who want to ban ALL semi automatic guns, I don't believe you could present one single poster who believes terrorists should be allowed to get guns. Please tell me you are basing that on more than people who oppose removing the 2nd amendment rights of people who are on the no fly list, b/c I oppose that, and I assure you that I would remove the 2nd Amendment rights from as many or more people than you would , just not via that list.

It's the NRA's policy to make sure laws allow EVERYONE to have all the guns they want. Hence they do not support expanding background checks.

I'm not high on the NRA myself, but no their policy is NOT to allow EVERYONE to have all the guns they want.

OF COURSE they take a hard line stance on any and all intrusions on the 2nd because it is absolutely true that if you given humans an inch, they will take a mile. No one believes that if the NRA and gun owners would just give a little on back ground checks that the anti gun crowd would be satisfied and stop asking for more gun control measures. Why, because the anti gun crowd has proven that to be a valid concern time after time after time.

It absolutely is. Transactions between private parties for gun sales are not subject to any regulation whatsoever. And the NRA has rebuffed any attempts to change that.

True they oppose that, but felons are ALREADY not allowed to own firearms and making individuals perform back ground checks would not change that at all., plus how would even hope to enforce such a law?

 

[GaryDog]

Sure. But there are MORE people who want guns in the hands of ALL people.

Which proposal is more insane? I'd argue putting guns in the hands of terrorists and lunatics is worse. But that's because I have a normal functioning frontal lobe.

I can demonstrably show you posters who want to ban ALL semi automatic guns, I don't believe you could present one single poster who believes terrorists should be allowed to get guns. Please tell me you are basing that on more than people who oppose removing the 2nd amendment rights of people who are on the no fly list, b/c I oppose that, and I assure you that I would remove the 2nd Amendment rights from as many or more people than you would , just not via that list.

It's the NRA's policy to make sure laws allow EVERYONE to have all the guns they want. Hence they do not support expanding background checks.

I'm not high on the NRA myself, but no their policy is NOT to allow EVERYONE to have all the guns they want.

OF COURSE they take a hard line stance on any and all intrusions on the 2nd because it is absolutely true that if you given humans an inch, they will take a mile. No one believes that if the NRA and gun owners would just give a little on back ground checks that the anti gun crowd would be satisfied and stop asking for more gun control measures. Why, because the anti gun crowd has proven that to be a valid concern time after time after time.

It absolutely is. Transactions between private parties for gun sales are not subject to any regulation whatsoever. And the NRA has rebuffed any attempts to change that.

True they oppose that, but felons are ALREADY not allowed to own firearms and making individuals perform back ground checks would not change that at all., plus how would even hope to enforce such a law?

If anyone knows that by selling their weapon to someone without doing a background check they could face weapons charges, it would be self-enforcing.

That's how laws work. Punishment tends to deter some. It won't catch everyone, but it's a common sense law that could prevent some violence. Unfortunately, the NRA places more value on a buck than they do a life.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No it's not. They want it to remain perfectly legal for any felon, terrorist, or psychopath to buy a gun -- legally -- from a private party.

You're right -- it may be ignorance.
First is it not "perfectly legal" for any felon, terrorist, or psychopath to buy a gun from a private party.
Second, you cannot show that the NRA wants to change the law making it "perfectly legal" to do so.
And so, either you know this and are lying, or you do not know this and you argue from ignorance.
Please do let us know which.

 

[GaryDog]

No it's not. They want it to remain perfectly legal for any felon, terrorist, or psychopath to buy a gun -- legally -- from a private party.

You're right -- it may be ignorance.
First is it not "perfectly legal" for any felon, terrorist, or psychopath to buy a gun from a private party.
Second, you cannot show that the NRA wants to change the law making it "perfectly legal" to do so.
And so, either you know this and are lying, or you do not know this and you argue from ignorance.
Please do let us know which.

They've fought VERY hard against any legislation that would require private party background checks (which is what we do with private vehicle sales when we register with DMV). That's effectively fighting for easier access for purchase by criminals and psychopaths.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It absolutely is. Transactions between private parties for gun sales are not subject to any regulation whatsoever.

This is another statement of ignorance and/or dishonesty.
Transfer between private parties, especially those across state lines, are regulated by the Gun Control Act of 1968.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No it's not. They want it to remain perfectly legal for any felon, terrorist, or psychopath to buy a gun -- legally -- from a private party.

You're right -- it may be ignorance.
First is it not "perfectly legal" for any felon, terrorist, or psychopath to buy a gun from a private party.
Second, you cannot show that the NRA wants to change the law making it "perfectly legal" to do so.
And so, either you know this and are lying, or you do not know this and you argue from ignorance.
Please do let us know which.

They've fought VERY hard against any legislation that would require private party background checks (which is what we do with private vehicle sales when we register with DMV). That's effectively fighting for easier access for purchase by criminals and psychopaths.

I'm sorry..
I proved your claim wrong; I missed the part where you decided if you argued from ignorance or dishonesty.
Which is it?

 

[GaryDog]

No it's not. They want it to remain perfectly legal for any felon, terrorist, or psychopath to buy a gun -- legally -- from a private party.

You're right -- it may be ignorance.
First is it not "perfectly legal" for any felon, terrorist, or psychopath to buy a gun from a private party.
Second, you cannot show that the NRA wants to change the law making it "perfectly legal" to do so.
And so, either you know this and are lying, or you do not know this and you argue from ignorance.
Please do let us know which.

They've fought VERY hard against any legislation that would require private party background checks (which is what we do with private vehicle sales when we register with DMV). That's effectively fighting for easier access for purchase by criminals and psychopaths.

I'm sorry..
I proved your claim wrong; I missed the part where you decided if you argued from ignorance or dishonesty.
Which is it?

LMAO, you proved nothing I said wrong.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

I can demonstrably show you posters who want to ban ALL semi automatic guns, I don't believe you could present one single poster who believes terrorists should be allowed to get guns. Please tell me you are basing that on more than people who oppose removing the 2nd amendment rights of people who are on the no fly list, b/c I oppose that, and I assure you that I would remove the 2nd Amendment rights from as many or more people than you would , just not via that list.

It's the NRA's policy to make sure laws allow EVERYONE to have all the guns they want. Hence they do not support expanding background checks.

I'm not high on the NRA myself, but no their policy is NOT to allow EVERYONE to have all the guns they want.

OF COURSE they take a hard line stance on any and all intrusions on the 2nd because it is absolutely true that if you given humans an inch, they will take a mile. No one believes that if the NRA and gun owners would just give a little on back ground checks that the anti gun crowd would be satisfied and stop asking for more gun control measures. Why, because the anti gun crowd has proven that to be a valid concern time after time after time.

It absolutely is. Transactions between private parties for gun sales are not subject to any regulation whatsoever. And the NRA has rebuffed any attempts to change that.

True they oppose that, but felons are ALREADY not allowed to own firearms and making individuals perform back ground checks would not change that at all., plus how would even hope to enforce such a law?

If anyone knows that by selling their weapon to someone without doing a background check they could face weapons charges, it would be self-enforcing.

That's how laws work. Punishment tends to deter some. It won't catch everyone, but it's a common sense law that could prevent some violence. Unfortunately, the NRA places more value on a buck than they do a life.

It wouldn't prevent shit Gary. I just looked at my local FaceBook yardsale sites and there are right now about 50 AR15s for sale by various owners within a 25 mile radius, and I live in a small town. If just one of those people is willing to sell an AR15 to someone that should not have one, then your proposed law has not prevented ANYONE from obtaining a weapon.

You want sensible background checks? Here you go.

EVERY person in the US who wants the ability to buy a gun, of ANY sort, is required to undergo the same back ground check that is currently required to be able to legally own a fully automatic weapon. To be renewed once every 10 years, with systems in place to put a hold on said right for whatever reason the government deems necessary. For example, if you have the bakground check and then the police respond to a domestic disturbance call at your house then your right to buy is temporarily suspended.

Meanwhile, IF you come in contact with police for ANY reason and are found to have so much as a .38 revolver without the proper background check you get 5 years in prison for each weapon in your possession , regardless of the reason you were confronted by police.

THAT is logical gun control. Putting the onus on sellers is stupid and unenforceable.

 

[M14 Shooter]

LMAO, you proved nothing I said wrong.

You stated:
They want it to remain perfectly legal for any felon, terrorist, or psychopath to buy a gun -- legally -- from a private party
Fact:
First is it not "perfectly legal" for any felon, terrorist, or psychopath to buy a gun from a private party.
Second, you cannot show that the NRA wants to change the law making it "perfectly legal" to do so.
Thus, you're wrong.
Now... did you argue from dishonesty or ignorance?

 

[GaryDog]

It's the NRA's policy to make sure laws allow EVERYONE to have all the guns they want. Hence they do not support expanding background checks.

I'm not high on the NRA myself, but no their policy is NOT to allow EVERYONE to have all the guns they want.

OF COURSE they take a hard line stance on any and all intrusions on the 2nd because it is absolutely true that if you given humans an inch, they will take a mile. No one believes that if the NRA and gun owners would just give a little on back ground checks that the anti gun crowd would be satisfied and stop asking for more gun control measures. Why, because the anti gun crowd has proven that to be a valid concern time after time after time.

It absolutely is. Transactions between private parties for gun sales are not subject to any regulation whatsoever. And the NRA has rebuffed any attempts to change that.

True they oppose that, but felons are ALREADY not allowed to own firearms and making individuals perform back ground checks would not change that at all., plus how would even hope to enforce such a law?

If anyone knows that by selling their weapon to someone without doing a background check they could face weapons charges, it would be self-enforcing.

That's how laws work. Punishment tends to deter some. It won't catch everyone, but it's a common sense law that could prevent some violence. Unfortunately, the NRA places more value on a buck than they do a life.

It wouldn't prevent shit Gary. I just looked at my local FaceBook yardsale sites and there are right now about 50 AR15s for sale by various owners within a 25 mile radius, and I live in a small town. If just one of those people is willing to sell an AR15 to someone that should not have one, then your proposed law has not prevented ANYONE from obtaining a weapon.

You want sensible background checks? Here you go.

EVERY person in the US who wants the ability to buy a gun, of ANY sort, is required to undergo the same back ground check that is currently required to be able to legally own a fully automatic weapon. To be renewed once every 10 years, with systems in place to put a hold on said right for whatever reason the government deems necessary. For example, if you have the bakground check and then the police respond to a domestic disturbance call at your house then your right to buy is temporarily suspended.

Meanwhile, IF you come in contact with police for ANY reason and are found to have so much as a .38 revolver without the proper background check you get 5 years in prison for each weapon in your possession , regardless of the reason you were confronted by police.

THAT is logical gun control. Putting the onus on sellers is stupid and unenforceable.

How do you come by this logic? If 49 people abide by the rules, that's potentially 49 people WITHOUT access to that AR-15. How is that not a good thing?

Why do you love death and misery so much?

 

[GaryDog]

LMAO, you proved nothing I said wrong.

You stated:
They want it to remain perfectly legal for any felon, terrorist, or psychopath to buy a gun -- legally -- from a private party
Fact:
First is it not "perfectly legal" for any felon, terrorist, or psychopath to buy a gun from a private party.
Second, you cannot show that the NRA wants to change the law making it "perfectly legal" to do so.
Thus, you're wrong.
Now... did you argue from dishonesty or ignorance?

Someone can sell to a felon without a background check, and they are within the law.

Do you understand now? Or do you need pictures, sweetheart?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Transactions between private parties for gun sales are not subject to any regulation whatsoever.
.

This is another statement of ignorance and/or dishonesty.
Transfer between private parties, especially those across state lines, are regulated by the Gun Control Act of 1968.

 

[M14 Shooter]

LMAO, you proved nothing I said wrong.

You stated:
They want it to remain perfectly legal for any felon, terrorist, or psychopath to buy a gun -- legally -- from a private party
Fact:
First is it not "perfectly legal" for any felon, terrorist, or psychopath to buy a gun from a private party.
Second, you cannot show that the NRA wants to change the law making it "perfectly legal" to do so.
Thus, you're wrong.
Now... did you argue from dishonesty or ignorance?

Someone can sell to a felon without a background check, and they are within the law.

Moving the goalposts, eh?

Someone can sell to a felon without a background check, and they are within the law.
This does not change the fact that it is NOT "perfectly legal" for any felon, terrorist, or psychopath to buy a gun from a private party.
You;re still wrong, and you know it.

As I said -- you can only argue from emotion ignorance and./or dishonesty, as you prove with each and every post.