Sanders shifts on gun control

[M14 Shooter]

All gun sales need to be recorded (from to whom). The manufacturer sells to the Licensed Dealer and the Licensed Dealer to the retail customer ( who should be licensed). Any other sale or transfer of any kind to another should be a crime, and thus punishable by fine and /or imprisonment and lose of the 2nd A. Rights.

So how would a poor person give his son his guns when he gets old?

A transfer from a licensed gun holder to another licensed gun holder seems reasonable.

We both know you cannot present a sound argument for the necessity of such a thing.

 

[M14 Shooter]

At best your response is a non sequitur, at worst it's dishonest and one of the most piss poor straw man fallacies to date.

Irony - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[TNHarley]

Lefties hate the poor

 

[The Rabbi]

Lefties hate the poor

I disagree. They love the poor so much they want to create more of them.

 

[Rustic]

 

[Wry Catcher]

Ad Hominem:
(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.


Non Sequitur:
a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement.

If any of those with a gun fetish

Fetish:
an inanimate object worshiped for its supposed magical powers or because it is considered to be inhabited by a spirit.

[FONT=arial, sans-serif-light, sans-serif]such as those who posted directly above believe their responses are thought provoking or substantive they could, if not willfully ignorant, be enlightened by the above definitions.

[/FONT]

 

[Rustic]

 

[Uncensored2008]

I'm white (of French, German, Italian & Romanian descent; Catholic -confirmed but not practicing - a Navy Vet, a CAL Graduate, a retired member of the LE Community and retired with a very comfortable income).

You must be so ashamed at party rallies.

Do you apologize to all in attendance?

The evidence for the poor is in my many posts, as well as my concern for the aged, infirm and youth of our nation. Calling me a Communist is nothing more than an example of a poorly educated person incapable of writing a rebuttal.

I read your posts regularly. You have bitter contempt for those who are a bit older and join with Puddley Pillowbite in hoping that "old white people" will die so that leftism will reign supreme.

Oh, and what would someone with a Masters or Doctorate term the economic proclivities of one such as you, who promotes a command economy under an authoritarian system?

Oh, and you never answered, were you IRS? Maybe BATF? What "law enforcement" were you involved in?

 

[The Rabbi]

I'm white (of French, German, Italian & Romanian descent; Catholic -confirmed but not practicing - a Navy Vet, a CAL Graduate, a retired member of the LE Community and retired with a very comfortable income).

You must be so ashamed at party rallies
Do you apologize to all in attendance?

The evidence for the poor is in my many posts, as well as my concern for the aged, infirm and youth of our nation. Calling me a Communist is nothing more than an example of a poorly educated person incapable of writing a rebuttal.

I read your posts regularly. You have bitter contempt for those who are a bit older and join with Puddley Pillowbite in hoping that "old white people" will die so that leftism will reign supreme.

Oh, and what would someone with a Masters or Doctorate term the economic proclivities of one such as you, who promotes a command economy under an authoritarian system?

Oh, and you never answered, were you IRS? Maybe BATF? What "law enforcement" were you involved in?

He was the official cocksucker at Chino Prison for Men.
He is impossible to engage because any counterpoint is greeted with derision, insults, or deflection. So skip it and go for the jugular right away.

 

[Uncensored2008]

DUH! If you and others could comprehend what I've written you wouldn't have made such an ignorant statement.

What I've proposed - maybe a dozen times or more - is that I would like to see each state implement gun control, or not. Let Texans parade around with a gun on their hip, but allow other states to decide if that is wise, or it guns need to be better regulated.

The problem in all of the threads on guns and gun control is you and other gun enthusiasts make shit up and cannot be honest.

The problem is that these civil rights that you detest are mandated in the FEDERAL Constitution. The war that your filthy party wages to end civil rights by necessity violates the United States Constitution. To get your dream where certain states may deny rights, you must repeal the 14th. Of course this would mean that some states could deny the right to vote to illegal aliens and other core democratic - socialist voters.

 

[Pogo]

OK but .... what's it got to do with "gun control"?

Presumably, if you can shut down gun makers you stop the legal supply. Libs use courts to do what they can't do with votes.

That's a specious speculation. Even your adverb is "presumably".

The point remains, the issue as stated isn't even about guns; it's about the legal process. "Gun control" would be something directly affecting the supply of --- guns. That's why I'm making the point that the title of this thread is misleadingly erroneous.

Sounds like this is roughly equivalent to holding a bartender responsible for continuing to serve a drunk that goes out and crashes into somebody. That exists now but it hasn't affected the lure of alcohol.

Gun manufacturer legislation wont affect guns?
Prior probability fallacy

Read my last paragraph -- did litigation against bars squash the practice of drinking?

OK then. Specious speculation. Or for short, "speeshulation". Your issue as presented doesn't affect guns, it affects the legal process. "Gun control" would be something that makes some kind of gun unavailable to some kind of buyer. This doesn't.

Bars have a liability for their conduct, not their customers and the liquor manufacturers are not liable for the conduct of the bar. So your comparison is pure BS.

I agree with the first sentence but it's irrelevant. You completely misrepresent the point introducing a strawman. The analogy is that litigation against the hypothetical bartender does not amount to "liquor control". Get it?

The characterization "gun control" was made about the issue, yet it is not a "gun control" issue; it's a legal issue. That IS the point, and there ain't a damn thing you can do about it.

 

[OKTexas]

Presumably, if you can shut down gun makers you stop the legal supply. Libs use courts to do what they can't do with votes.

That's a specious speculation. Even your adverb is "presumably".

The point remains, the issue as stated isn't even about guns; it's about the legal process. "Gun control" would be something directly affecting the supply of --- guns. That's why I'm making the point that the title of this thread is misleadingly erroneous.

Sounds like this is roughly equivalent to holding a bartender responsible for continuing to serve a drunk that goes out and crashes into somebody. That exists now but it hasn't affected the lure of alcohol.

Gun manufacturer legislation wont affect guns?
Prior probability fallacy

Read my last paragraph -- did litigation against bars squash the practice of drinking?

OK then. Specious speculation. Or for short, "speeshulation". Your issue as presented doesn't affect guns, it affects the legal process. "Gun control" would be something that makes some kind of gun unavailable to some kind of buyer. This doesn't.

Bars have a liability for their conduct, not their customers and the liquor manufacturers are not liable for the conduct of the bar. So your comparison is pure BS.

I agree with the first sentence but it's irrelevant. You completely misrepresent the point introducing a strawman. The analogy is that litigation against the hypothetical bartender does not amount to "liquor control". Get it?

The characterization "gun control" was made about the issue, yet it is not a "gun control" issue; it's a legal issue. That IS the point, and there ain't a damn thing you can do about it.

Your right, it is a legal issue, and a person shot by a gun has no more a claim against the gun manufacturer than a person who is killed by a drunk does against the brewery or the distillery. This crap is nothing but a ploy to drive manufacturers out of business, typical regressive unreasonableness. Can't take the guns because of constitutional protections, you try to dry up the supply of guns and ammo. It's back door gun control.

 

[Pogo]

That's a specious speculation. Even your adverb is "presumably".

The point remains, the issue as stated isn't even about guns; it's about the legal process. "Gun control" would be something directly affecting the supply of --- guns. That's why I'm making the point that the title of this thread is misleadingly erroneous.

Sounds like this is roughly equivalent to holding a bartender responsible for continuing to serve a drunk that goes out and crashes into somebody. That exists now but it hasn't affected the lure of alcohol.

Gun manufacturer legislation wont affect guns?
Prior probability fallacy

Read my last paragraph -- did litigation against bars squash the practice of drinking?

OK then. Specious speculation. Or for short, "speeshulation". Your issue as presented doesn't affect guns, it affects the legal process. "Gun control" would be something that makes some kind of gun unavailable to some kind of buyer. This doesn't.

Bars have a liability for their conduct, not their customers and the liquor manufacturers are not liable for the conduct of the bar. So your comparison is pure BS.

I agree with the first sentence but it's irrelevant. You completely misrepresent the point introducing a strawman. The analogy is that litigation against the hypothetical bartender does not amount to "liquor control". Get it?

The characterization "gun control" was made about the issue, yet it is not a "gun control" issue; it's a legal issue. That IS the point, and there ain't a damn thing you can do about it.

Your right, it is a legal issue, and a person shot by a gun has no more a claim against the gun manufacturer than a person who is killed by a drunk does against the brewery or the distillery. This crap is nothing but a ploy to drive manufacturers out of business, typical regressive unreasonableness. Can't take the guns because of constitutional protections, you try to dry up the supply of guns and ammo. It's back door gun control.

Again, the dot you're connecting is a non sequitur. What happens as a result of some legal procedure is an entirely different question. You can speculate on what that would be and then on the reasoning behind setting it up, but that's all it is --- speculation.

 

[Rustic]

 

[Rustic]

 

[OKTexas]

Gun manufacturer legislation wont affect guns?
Prior probability fallacy

Read my last paragraph -- did litigation against bars squash the practice of drinking?

OK then. Specious speculation. Or for short, "speeshulation". Your issue as presented doesn't affect guns, it affects the legal process. "Gun control" would be something that makes some kind of gun unavailable to some kind of buyer. This doesn't.

Bars have a liability for their conduct, not their customers and the liquor manufacturers are not liable for the conduct of the bar. So your comparison is pure BS.

I agree with the first sentence but it's irrelevant. You completely misrepresent the point introducing a strawman. The analogy is that litigation against the hypothetical bartender does not amount to "liquor control". Get it?

The characterization "gun control" was made about the issue, yet it is not a "gun control" issue; it's a legal issue. That IS the point, and there ain't a damn thing you can do about it.

Your right, it is a legal issue, and a person shot by a gun has no more a claim against the gun manufacturer than a person who is killed by a drunk does against the brewery or the distillery. This crap is nothing but a ploy to drive manufacturers out of business, typical regressive unreasonableness. Can't take the guns because of constitutional protections, you try to dry up the supply of guns and ammo. It's back door gun control.

Again, the dot you're connecting is a non sequitur. What happens as a result of some legal procedure is an entirely different question. You can speculate on what that would be and then on the reasoning behind setting it up, but that's all it is --- speculation.

Then tell the rest of the class the reason you regressives are pushing this crap. Come on justify it.

 

[Rustic]

 

[Rustic]

 

[Pogo]

Read my last paragraph -- did litigation against bars squash the practice of drinking?

OK then. Specious speculation. Or for short, "speeshulation". Your issue as presented doesn't affect guns, it affects the legal process. "Gun control" would be something that makes some kind of gun unavailable to some kind of buyer. This doesn't.

Bars have a liability for their conduct, not their customers and the liquor manufacturers are not liable for the conduct of the bar. So your comparison is pure BS.

I agree with the first sentence but it's irrelevant. You completely misrepresent the point introducing a strawman. The analogy is that litigation against the hypothetical bartender does not amount to "liquor control". Get it?

The characterization "gun control" was made about the issue, yet it is not a "gun control" issue; it's a legal issue. That IS the point, and there ain't a damn thing you can do about it.

Your right, it is a legal issue, and a person shot by a gun has no more a claim against the gun manufacturer than a person who is killed by a drunk does against the brewery or the distillery. This crap is nothing but a ploy to drive manufacturers out of business, typical regressive unreasonableness. Can't take the guns because of constitutional protections, you try to dry up the supply of guns and ammo. It's back door gun control.

Again, the dot you're connecting is a non sequitur. What happens as a result of some legal procedure is an entirely different question. You can speculate on what that would be and then on the reasoning behind setting it up, but that's all it is --- speculation.

Then tell the rest of the class the reason you regressives are pushing this crap. Come on justify it.

Link to this "pushing"?



Didn't think so.

 

[Rustic]