Giffords is trying to steal our rights

Seems to me that rather than trying to raise awareness of the brutually obvious capabilities of a firearm, you should seek raise awareness of the dangers of living the morally depraved "inner city lifestyle" itself.

But the culture of violence mixed with the culture of guns is obviously a deadly combanation. The morally depraved inner city lifestyle is not a choice for many kids currently living in it. I just think that that culture glorifies the use of guns and the laws that are out there make it extremely easy to get their hands on one.

Which is a good reason for background checks. I mean, when the U.S. Government asked me to write about the past 5 years of my life, citing where I'd lived, who I'd known, and what I'd done (I was applying for a Top Secret clearance), I willingly gave all the information to them, because I already knew I'd lived a life that would pass quite easily.

I feel the same thing about someone running a background check on me now if I wanted to buy a gun. I have no arrests for violent behavior, nor am I a felon, and I know I'd pass the test quite easily.

Which...............is why I support background checks for ALL gun purchases. If the law abiding citizens want to buy a gun, if they are truly law abiding, they won't mind the check, because they know they'll pass it. If a person ISN'T a law abiding citizen, right now, all they have to do to avoid the background check is to go to a gun show and either (a) buy the gun themselves, or (b) have someone else (a straw purchaser) go in and get it for them.

If background checks were required at gun shows as well? Criminals and straw purchasers wouldn't go there to get their guns anymore, they'd have to go to the black market, where the purchase price is significantly higher than if they'd bought it in a store.

Pretty good post all the way down to the last paragraph. background checks do not effect straw purchasers, by definition a straw purchaser is one who purchases a gun with a background check for or to sell it to a person who can't pass a check. The only real way to catch them is through gun traces.
 
my concern about background checks for all is how is it to be conducted

by who and what information gathered

between private sales how about a valid cc permit serving as the background check
 
my concern about background checks for all is how is it to be conducted

by who and what information gathered

between private sales how about a valid cc permit serving as the background check

I think a valid CHL should be OK to use for a check, I know dealers in TX do.

Other wise the best way to do it is have an individual who wants to purchase go to someone with an FFL to do the check for a small fee, $5-$10.00. Give that individual the paperwork with the authorization number on it and they can use it for any purchases within a set period, say 6 months to a year. The only thing the feds would know is a check was done, they would have no knowledge as to what may have been purchased.
 
We had a preset date and place too debate you failed to show up

You had a preset date that I declined.

The fact is: you get paid for doing this, and you would have got paid even more doing it in the Bull Ring. So when I kicked your ass (inevitable) you still would have got paid more.

Do it here with Board as judge, bigreb, and I will kick your ass. I always have. :lol:

Little Retarded Rebecca is PAID to post on these boards, with more money being afforded in certain forums? Really?

No wonder he sounds like Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly. They get paid to bloviate bullshit as well, and well.....................you're gonna get more of an audience if you behave like a lunatic partisan hack who attacks anything that even comes close to disagreeing with you, than you would if you sat and had a reasoned debate, posting links and facts from actual news sites and not blogs.

Most of what Little Retarded Rebecca posts as links to their "proof" is nothing more than far right wing partisan hack sites.

You're right.................you WOULD kick his ass. And kudos for refusing to be used as a tool for the idiot plumber to get more cash with.

How is he going too kick my ass in a debate when he is running away?
Would you care too step too the plate and take the challenege too debate me that jake ran away like a coward?
 
No weakness at all, that is exactly my premise. People are inherently stupid, I have no problem with that assesment.
Seems to me that rather than trying to raise awareness of the brutually obvious capabilities of a firearm, you should seek raise awareness of the dangers of living the morally depraved "inner city lifestyle" itself.
But the culture of violence mixed with the culture of guns is obviously a deadly combanation.
Get rid of the moral depravity, and you get rid of your gun problem.
:dunno:
 
Seems to me that rather than trying to raise awareness of the brutually obvious capabilities of a firearm, you should seek raise awareness of the dangers of living the morally depraved "inner city lifestyle" itself.
Which...............is why I support background checks for ALL gun purchases. If the law abiding citizens want to buy a gun, if they are truly law abiding, they won't mind the check, because they know they'll pass it.
Since you have nothing to worry about, you also have no issue with warrantless searhces, siezures and waretaps - right?
 
You had a preset date that I declined.

The fact is: you get paid for doing this, and you would have got paid even more doing it in the Bull Ring. So when I kicked your ass (inevitable) you still would have got paid more.

Do it here with Board as judge, bigreb, and I will kick your ass. I always have. :lol:

Little Retarded Rebecca is PAID to post on these boards, with more money being afforded in certain forums? Really?

No wonder he sounds like Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly. They get paid to bloviate bullshit as well, and well.....................you're gonna get more of an audience if you behave like a lunatic partisan hack who attacks anything that even comes close to disagreeing with you, than you would if you sat and had a reasoned debate, posting links and facts from actual news sites and not blogs.

Most of what Little Retarded Rebecca posts as links to their "proof" is nothing more than far right wing partisan hack sites.

You're right.................you WOULD kick his ass. And kudos for refusing to be used as a tool for the idiot plumber to get more cash with.

How is he going too kick my ass in a debate when he is running away?
Would you care too step too the plate and take the challenege too debate me that jake ran away like a coward?

Maybe you're better than every one else.

Especially when you get Intense help to supplement your debates...........................
 
Little Retarded Rebecca is PAID to post on these boards, with more money being afforded in certain forums? Really?

No wonder he sounds like Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly. They get paid to bloviate bullshit as well, and well.....................you're gonna get more of an audience if you behave like a lunatic partisan hack who attacks anything that even comes close to disagreeing with you, than you would if you sat and had a reasoned debate, posting links and facts from actual news sites and not blogs.

Most of what Little Retarded Rebecca posts as links to their "proof" is nothing more than far right wing partisan hack sites.

You're right.................you WOULD kick his ass. And kudos for refusing to be used as a tool for the idiot plumber to get more cash with.

How is he going too kick my ass in a debate when he is running away?
Would you care too step too the plate and take the challenege too debate me that jake ran away like a coward?

Maybe you're better than every one else.

Especially when you get Intense help to supplement your debates...........................

I asked Intense too be a judge that is all. How about Jillian is she also supposed to supplement my debate? how about cereal killer? Look dummy I tried to get right left and some where in the middle Those three would have been fair.

So do me a favor stop whinning and crying like a little bitch.
 
Like I said..................when you start to lose, and don't know where to go..................

You get Intense............................

No wonder you win most debates.......................................
 
Like I said..................when you start to lose, and don't know where to go..................

You get Intense............................

No wonder you win most debates.......................................

I think you better ask Intense on that. I mean that 3 point infract the he gave me a week ago for a comment I made was warranted but what the fuck dude are you Jrunk?
To my knowneldge intense has nothing too do with how I debate.
 
The problem with liberals is they refuse to listen to the majority. Gabrielle Giffords is still trying to push for gun control that goes against our Second amendment rights to bear arms. The majority of the American people are gun owners and are against this liberal anti Constitution movement. If the liberals get their way criminals will be free to walk into our homes and take what they want and then kill us. Why are the liberals to stupid to understand this?



Giffords visits rampage site, urges gun control - Yahoo! News

Gabrielle Giffords and her husband are gun owners. All they are pushing for is more stringent background checks. There's nothing wrong with that! If you're against that then you must have something to worry about! I'm a conservative, my husband owns several guns.....the Giffords aren't trying to take guns away from anyone, they aren't trying to stop honest people from having guns. They are hoping that the crazy's will be stopped!

It's bs. WE ALREADY HAVE stingent background checks in place number one. Number two, the vast, vast, vast majority of gun murders are committed by people who have gotten, and will continue to get, their guns illegally with NO BACKGROUND CHECK at all. Meaning the ONLY ones effected by any new gun control laws will be law abiding citizens. People who RARELY use firearms to commit crimes in the first place. She's full of crap and is usuing her tragedy to garner sympathy for the left's anti-gun policies. New laws will not stop crazy, and here's a hint, dishonest people DON'T OBEY THE LAW. The laws we already have are not even being enforced to the fullest extent possible and like I said, most gun crimes are committed by people who illegally obtain their firearm and any new laws placed upon honest citizens won't change that. Hell, obama just gave a presidential pardon to a man who was in possession of an illegal firearm with the serial numbers on the gun removed, so please exaplin to me how he really gives a crap about criminals having guns taken away from them. The left wishes, as it's ultimate goal, to disarm ALL Americans and if you, a self decribed Conservative, can't see that, then you may wish to change your political affiliation.
 
in as much as James Brady was turned into a tool

the same fate now awaits Giffords

sad to see really
 
For some reason

Getting shot in the head will do that

Giffords was elected as a pro-gun rights advocate. While she has the sympathy vote, taking an anti-liberty stand in Arizona is doomed to failure.

I know that you of the anti-liberty left are salivating at the idea of using Giffords as focal point to crush civil rights, but it may not work out like you plan.
 
For some reason

Getting shot in the head will do that

Giffords was elected as a pro-gun rights advocate. While she has the sympathy vote, taking an anti-liberty stand in Arizona is doomed to failure.

I know that you of the anti-liberty left are salivating at the idea of using Giffords as focal point to crush civil rights, but it may not work out like you plan.

We shall see how well the NRA trashing Giffords works out
 
in as much as James Brady was turned into a tool

the same fate now awaits Giffords

sad to see really

Ron Reagan turned into a tool also after he got shot

http://www.politifact.com/georgia/s...obama/did-reagan-support-assault-weapons-ban/

Obama’s push for an assault-weapon’s ban hearkens to the original ban passed in 1994 that expired in 2004. At the time of that ban’s passage, Reagan -- who took office in 1981-- supported it. In a joint letter to The Boston Globe with Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford, the former presidents wrote, "While we recognize that assault weapon legislation will not stop all assault weapon crime, statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals."

Eight years before this letter in the newspaper supporting the assault-weapons ban, Reagan, who was then president, signed into law the Firearm Owners Protection Act, which was supported by gun rights advocates. In addition to providing protections for gun owners, the act also banned ownership of any fully automatic rifles that were not already registered on the day the law was signed.
 
Last edited:
We shall see how well the NRA trashing Giffords works out

We'll see if you demagogues can convince the public that the NRA IS trashing Giffords. Will the usual slander outlets of the NY Times, CBS and MSNBC fabricate convincing stories?

The ONLY thing LaPierre said is that Loughner passed a background check, which is a fact - Loughner had no criminal convictions and no mental health flags.
 
We shall see how well the NRA trashing Giffords works out

We'll see if you demagogues can convince the public that the NRA IS trashing Giffords. Will the usual slander outlets of the NY Times, CBS and MSNBC fabricate convincing stories?

The ONLY thing LaPierre said is that Loughner passed a background check, which is a fact - Loughner had no criminal convictions and no mental health flags.
-------------------------

he had plenty of symptoms that should have been reported

and went unchecked
 

Forum List

Back
Top