So, you want the NRA/pro-gun side to compromise...?

[Lakhota]

It looks like sensible states are taking care of the "compromising"...

 

[Dot Com]

Someone clearly doesn't understand that there must be legislation specifying that people that have been suspended from school due to "acting crazy" be denied a firearm before they can be denied a firearm.

Until that point, it doesnt matter if the background check finds such a thing.

Then let's get that legislation.

Or a better idea. You sell someone a gun, and he goes and mows down a bunch of preschoolers.

You are held financially liable, the people who made that gun are held financially liable.

so you lend someone a knife with the expectation they are going to peel potatoes and they kill someone with the knife and you are responsible?

Logical Reasoning in Speeches - Ad Absurdum
"Ad Absurdum is the. Speakers who use this technique extend the argument to ridiculous extremes."

 

[Nosmo King]

:roll:
You want them to compromise on universal background checks, 'assault weapon' bans and 'hi-cap' magazine bans.
What do you have to offer in return for their compromise on these issues?

Nothing. All those things sound more than reasonable to me...

Then you arent really looking for them to compromise, and clearly illustrate why they should not.
Thank you.

Unless you can cite what is unreasonable to each of the points, you are merely being petulant which garners no respect, therefore no credibility to bargain, e.g. compromise in good faith.

What could possibly be unreasonable about universal back ground checks? Is putting as many guns into as many hands, even the hands of the insane and criminally bent more important than public safety?

 

[JoeB131]

Someone clearly doesn't understand that there must be legislation specifying that people that have been suspended from school due to "acting crazy" be denied a firearm before they can be denied a firearm.

Until that point, it doesnt matter if the background check finds such a thing.

Then let's get that legislation.

Or a better idea. You sell someone a gun, and he goes and mows down a bunch of preschoolers.

You are held financially liable, the people who made that gun are held financially liable.

so you lend someone a knife with the expectation they are going to peel potatoes and they kill someone with the knife and you are responsible?

A potato peeler ins't designed to kill a lot of people quickly. An assault weapon is.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Nothing. All those things sound more than reasonable to me...

Then you arent really looking for them to compromise, and clearly illustrate why they should not.
Thank you.

Whaddya mean? You're still allowed to have peashooters. That's the compromise. For too long it's all been one-way traffic.

Again - thank you for proving that the NRA/pro-gun side has no reason to give an inch.

 

[GuyPinestra]

Nothing. All those things sound more than reasonable to me...

Of course they do, you're a liberal control freak.

Thank God you don't live HERE...

What's your objection to back ground checks? If guns don't kill, so the saying goes, people kill, why not stem the tide of people killing people? Should people be checked for competency before driving? Cars kill more than guns, so the sophistry goes. But a competency test for a driver's license isn't a Liberal control freak action, is it?

Where does being a Liberal control freak end and a lawless Anarchist begin? Is that someplace close to the national headquarters of the NRA?

We already HAVE background checks. We already have laws restricting felons and nutjobs from owning guns.

Gun ownership is a RIGHT, driving a car on public roads is a PRIVILEGE.

Damn, you people just don't get it.

 

[JoeB131]

We already HAVE background checks. We already have laws restricting felons and nutjobs from owning guns.

Gun ownership is a RIGHT, driving a car on public roads is a PRIVILEGE.

Damn, you people just don't get it.

There are no "rights". There are only privilages.

Any fool who thinks we have "rights" should look up "Japanese-Americans, 1942".

You're "right" costs 30,000 lives a year with no economic benefit.

 

[GuyPinestra]

We already HAVE background checks. We already have laws restricting felons and nutjobs from owning guns.

Gun ownership is a RIGHT, driving a car on public roads is a PRIVILEGE.

Damn, you people just don't get it.

There are no "rights". There are only privilages.

Any fool who thinks we have "rights" should look up "Japanese-Americans, 1942".

You're "right" costs 30,000 lives a year with no economic benefit.

Fuck off, Joe. The first 10 Amendments to the Constitution are called "The Bill of RIGHTS". You will find yourself in a world of hurt if you keep trying to abrogate them...

 

[JoeB131]

We already HAVE background checks. We already have laws restricting felons and nutjobs from owning guns.

Gun ownership is a RIGHT, driving a car on public roads is a PRIVILEGE.

Damn, you people just don't get it.

There are no "rights". There are only privilages.

Any fool who thinks we have "rights" should look up "Japanese-Americans, 1942".

You're "right" costs 30,000 lives a year with no economic benefit.

Fuck off, Joe. The first 10 Amendments to the Constitution are called "The Bill of RIGHTS". You will find yourself in a world of hurt if you keep trying to abrogate them...

The day we come for you gun nuts, the rest of the country will be cheering.

Because honestly, you are frightening the children.

 

[Nosmo King]

Of course they do, you're a liberal control freak.

Thank God you don't live HERE...

What's your objection to back ground checks? If guns don't kill, so the saying goes, people kill, why not stem the tide of people killing people? Should people be checked for competency before driving? Cars kill more than guns, so the sophistry goes. But a competency test for a driver's license isn't a Liberal control freak action, is it?

Where does being a Liberal control freak end and a lawless Anarchist begin? Is that someplace close to the national headquarters of the NRA?

We already HAVE background checks. We already have laws restricting felons and nutjobs from owning guns.

Gun ownership is a RIGHT, driving a car on public roads is a PRIVILEGE.

Damn, you people just don't get it.

Obviously these background checks are not effective given the number of guns used by criminals and the insane.

And all rights are not absolute rights. You have the right of free speech, but libel, slander and shouting fire in a theater are restricted. Voting is a right, but you have to be at least 18 years old and a citizen of the United States. You have the right to freely associate with people, but that right is under attack by those opposed to marriage equality. So you see, there are no absolute rights. gun ownership itself is a restricted right as no one is allowed to buy a fully automatic firing system without federal licenses.

Damn, you just don't get it, do you?

 

[AmericanFirst]

Compromise necessitates that you give a little to get a little, and that you have something to offer that the other side wants.

What does the anti-gun/pro-gun control side have to offer the NRA/pro-gun rughts side?

They do, it's called they are not "gunna takkkkkkkkkke yurrrrrrrrrrrr gunnnnnzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!"

It is so easy to obtain a firearm it's pretty unreal. Private sales don't even require a background check which is outrageous.

What is outrageous is the libtards taking advantage of this tragedy to go after our gun rights, again.

 

[GuyPinestra]

There are no "rights". There are only privilages.

Any fool who thinks we have "rights" should look up "Japanese-Americans, 1942".

You're "right" costs 30,000 lives a year with no economic benefit.

Fuck off, Joe. The first 10 Amendments to the Constitution are called "The Bill of RIGHTS". You will find yourself in a world of hurt if you keep trying to abrogate them...

The day we come for you gun nuts, the rest of the country will be cheering.

Because honestly, you are frightening the children.

Like you, obviously...

 

[M14 Shooter]

Whaddya mean? You're still allowed to have peashooters. That's the compromise. For too long it's all been one-way traffic.

Again - thank you for proving that the NRA/pro-gun side has no reason to give an inch.

Yeah, but you are the ones with everything at the moment.

Except for the things that "we' have already given up, sure.

Compromise necessitates that each side gets something they want FROM the other side.
You offer nothing that the pro-gun side wants, other than what it already has, and so there can be no compromise.

You want acquiescence, you just don't have the testicular fortitude to admit it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Yeah, but you are the ones with everything at the moment.

Except for the things that "we' have already given up, sure.
Compromise necessitates that each side gets something they want FROM the other side.
You offer nothing that the pro-gun side wants, other than what it already has, and so there can be no compromise.
You want acquiescence, you just don't have the testicular fortitude to admit it.

I also asked what you wanted. Well?

For UBC, I want:

1: Rescind the ban on post-1986 machone guns
2: 50-state recognition of a CCW permit from any state
3: Amending the constitution to clarify the 2nd amendment, as previously described, with a reservation to revise and extend my remarks..

 

[Jarlaxle]

Probably very few, but since your side never produces any statistics on it, I won't bother arguing the fallacy.

Yet another of your LIES. FBI and DOJ numbers have been posted, but you, as usual, pretend they do not exist if they do not fit your preconceived notions.

YOU NEED TO STOP LYING.

They don't exist... Sorry.

Now, you guys pretend stuff like "2 million defensive use of guns" and stuff but the fact is.

only 201 bad guys were shot by good guys.

10,000 good guys were shot by bad guys (or other good guys having a bad day) and 16,000 good guys shot themselves after having a bad day.

Private gun ownership is not worth the cost. Period.

But you keep buying the lie the gun industry is selling you.

Translation: LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-I CAN'T HEAR YOU! LA-LA-LA-LA-LA! You are acting like a three-year-old being told something he doesn't want to hear. I accept your concession.

 

[Jarlaxle]

No, that is actually so untrue as to be ridiculous! Cops carried fairly weak firepower until recently.

This is very true. They didn't need to.

Unitl some evil people in the gun industry thought, "Hey, let's sell military grade weapons to crazy people!"

And then they got other stupid people in the NRA to say, "That's what the Founding Fathers wanted us to do. Right after they were done raping their slaves and getting a good bleeding, they polished their guns in case the Brits came back."

Does your tiny little mind ever wonder why the NRA opposes background checks?

Because if the Criminals didn't have awesome firepower, the cops wouldn't want it, and most home owners wouldn't want it.

It's an arms race where they are selling to all sides.

Wow...dumb as a box of rocks, as usual. Note: it used to be perfectly legal to buy military weapons. No checks, no ID, you could buy them mail-order. Until 1968, you could pick up a Sears-Roebuck catalog and buy a gun. (That's how my uncle bought his first new rifle. He still has it.) You could pick up military-surplus weapons (including but not limited to M1 rifles, M1911 pistols, Mauser 98's, Nagant rifles, and .303 Enfields) through a catalog. You could buy a Tommy Gun or a BAR that way. Heck, you could buy a Lahti or Solothurn anti-tank gun through the mail!

 

[JoeB131]

Yet another of your LIES. FBI and DOJ numbers have been posted, but you, as usual, pretend they do not exist if they do not fit your preconceived notions.

YOU NEED TO STOP LYING.

They don't exist... Sorry.

Now, you guys pretend stuff like "2 million defensive use of guns" and stuff but the fact is.

only 201 bad guys were shot by good guys.

10,000 good guys were shot by bad guys (or other good guys having a bad day) and 16,000 good guys shot themselves after having a bad day.

Private gun ownership is not worth the cost. Period.

But you keep buying the lie the gun industry is selling you.

Translation: LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-I CAN'T HEAR YOU! LA-LA-LA-LA-LA! You are acting like a three-year-old being told something he doesn't want to hear. I accept your concession.

Again, you've presented no facts in evidence.

FBI says there were only 201 cases of Justifiable Homicide in the WHOLE COUNTRY in 2010.

That's it.

Incidents so rare they are down there with lightening strikes (73 people killed last year).

 

[Jarlaxle]

1) that's a picture of Joker HOlmes, not Loughner. The fact you can't keep the "Crazy people who were able to get a gun" straight is probably a good example of how easy it was to get a gun.

2) Everyone in Holmes (and Loughner. And Lanza. And Cho's) life knew they were crazy. And they were still able to get guns.

So you don't have an answer ?

Yes, I did.... I'm sorry you didn't understand it.

Had they done a REAL background check, like job or a credit card company would do, they'd have found out that Holmes or Loughner were on suspension from their schools because their erratic behavior. That would have been a big red flag tonot sell them a gun.

So...anyone ever suspended from school should be banned from owning a gun? Are you on drugs or something?

 

[Jarlaxle]

If you got suspended from school because you were acting so crazy they had to ban you from campus (again- Cho, Loughner and Holmes all fell into this category), that should have at least held up gun owership.

Someone who is so crazy they are barred from school and no ajudication...suspension?

Therein lies the problem.

If you're that crazy.....adjudicate them as such and no NICS....no gun.

Or we just don't sell them a gun until they prove they AREN'T crazy.

In that case, I want you to prove you are not a rapist.

 

[JoeB131]

Someone who is so crazy they are barred from school and no ajudication...suspension?

Therein lies the problem.

If you're that crazy.....adjudicate them as such and no NICS....no gun.

Or we just don't sell them a gun until they prove they AREN'T crazy.

In that case, I want you to prove you are not a rapist.

Well, my lack of any criminal record would be a big sign... as has the fact no one can credibly accuse me of that.

On the other hand, Loughner was so nuts he was banned from a community college. Holmes was so nuts he was being disenrolled from his graduate program. If ANYONE had talked to their schools, their parents, their neighbors, they'd have known he was nutz.

Or we can just ban all private gun ownership. That works, too.