Soft Heads In Senate Gun Control Hearing

[nodoginnafight]

I can only barely begin to describe how boring you are - espcially ironic, given that all you're doing is proving me right.

Do you have anything to offer the pro-gun side in echange for their cooperation in enacting the limits you want, or not?

IF a universal background check and sales database legislation is passed we will offer you the ability to stay out of jail if you comply.

We don't owe you anything more.

Do you have anything to offer 92% of Americans in return for NOT passing legislation that they favor?

The 92% you keep quoting are in favor of background checks, nothing more.

correct

 

[idb]

This is -obviously- not true.

I was right...another conspiracy theory.

There's no theory here, only fact: the anti-gun side isn't interested in compromise.

Who, exactly, are the anti-gun side?

 

[nodoginnafight]

The only way they will know is if the kid chokes from the bubble gum, and survives the choking in order to tell authorities that he privately bought bubble gum, assuming he's enough of a rat to out his friend.

Yes, the penalties for selling a gun illegally are to be the deterrent.
And when the victim of a crime commited by that person you illegally sold the gun to (with the gun you sold to him illegally) hauls you into court asking the judge/jury to hold you liable for your contribution to the crime - I think the deterrent is going to be pretty solid.

I am all for holding people responsible for their actions.

 

[nodoginnafight]

I was right...another conspiracy theory.

There's no theory here, only fact: the anti-gun side isn't interested in compromise.

Who, exactly, are the anti-gun side?

If you are opposed to getting shot, you are obviously "anti-gun" in the eyes of the hyper-zealots.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Yes, the penalties for selling a gun illegally are to be the deterrent.
And when the victim of a crime committed by that person you illegally sold the gun to (with the gun you sold to him illegally) hauls you into court asking the judge/jury to hold you liable for your contribution to the crime - I think the deterrent is going to be pretty solid.

I am all for holding people responsible for their actions.

Why should anyone be held accountable for another person's crime?

If someone bought my chainsaw and went to a gun free zone and did a massacre, am I now responsible for their crime? Will you respond by passing laws regulating the sale of chainsaws?

If hat sounds ridiculous, the UK is now banning Kitchen Knives, because they are most frequently used in murders.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7508404.stm

See how this shit never ends? This is why we cant' let it get started here.

 

[g5000]

Yes, the penalties for selling a gun illegally are to be the deterrent.
And when the victim of a crime committed by that person you illegally sold the gun to (with the gun you sold to him illegally) hauls you into court asking the judge/jury to hold you liable for your contribution to the crime - I think the deterrent is going to be pretty solid.

I am all for holding people responsible for their actions.

Why should anyone be held accountable for another person's crime?

If someone bought my chainsaw and went to a gun free zone and did a massacre, am I now responsible for their crime? Will you respond by passing laws regulating the sale of chainsaws?

If hat sounds ridiculous, the UK is now banning Kitchen Knives, because they are most frequently used in murders.

BBC NEWS | UK | Magazine | The point of knives

See how this shit never ends? This is why we cant' let it get started here.

The UK is not "now banning kitchen knives". That report is based on an editorial written by an emergency room professional back in 2005. Okay? One person bitched about kitchen knives.

An editorial doesn't even APPROACH a legal ban on kitchen knives. That was just one ER person complaining. No legislation was drafted, no one in elected position took up the cause.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

An editorial doesn't even APPROACH a legal ban on kitchen knives. That was just one ER person complaining. No legislation was drafted, no one in elected position took up the cause.

You did a professional job at avoiding the chainsaw issue.

 

[g5000]

An editorial doesn't even APPROACH a legal ban on kitchen knives. That was just one ER person complaining. No legislation was drafted, no one in elected position took up the cause.

You did a professional job at avoiding the chainsaw issue.

The chainsaw analogy is great.

However, you undermined it with a professional job of introducing a slippery slope logical fallacy. Here I am trying to establish the soft-headed gun controllers are using logical fallacies to support their cause and then you introduce one on the pro-Second Amendment side!

There is a lot of piss being poured by both sides. The winners will be those who use logic and facts most effectively.

 

[Bigfoot]

The Left is going to keep pushing this so that they can get what they really what... For now at least..


100% background checks and gun registration.

I am afraid that you may be correct but the House hopefully will stop them.

 

[idb]

An editorial doesn't even APPROACH a legal ban on kitchen knives. That was just one ER person complaining. No legislation was drafted, no one in elected position took up the cause.

You did a professional job at avoiding the chainsaw issue.

The chainsaw analogy is great.

However, you undermined it with a professional job of introducing a slippery slope logical fallacy. Here I am trying to establish the soft-headed gun controllers are using logical fallacies to support their cause and then you introduce one on the pro-Second Amendment side!

There is a lot of piss being poured by both sides. The winners will be those who use logic and facts most effectively.

The winners will be those who use logic and facts most effectively

Your optimism is endearing.

 

[Bigfoot]

I can only barely begin to describe how boring you are - espcially ironic, given that all you're doing is proving me right.

Do you have anything to offer the pro-gun side in echange for their cooperation in enacting the limits you want, or not?

IF a universal background check and sales database legislation is passed we will offer you the ability to stay out of jail if you comply.

We don't owe you anything more.

Do you have anything to offer 92% of Americans in return for NOT passing legislation that they favor?

The 92% you keep quoting are in favor of background checks, nothing more.

Background checks that we all ready have on an overburdened system thanks to Obama's prowess as a firearms salesman. They are also only prosecuting 1% of the people who commit a crime by filling out the background check form fraudulently. The government could do much more good by enforcing the current laws then by enacting even more laws that likely will not be enforced.

 

[Bigfoot]

Then the 'pro-gun side' will have regulation measures imposed on them without their input...

Which does not change the fact that you expect acquiescense, not compromise.

That isn't a fact.
I expect nothing.
Is this another gun-nut conspiracy theory?

Here we go with the gun-nut bullshit. And to think I was actually reading your posts there for awhile.

 

[Bigfoot]

The only way they will know is if the kid chokes from the bubble gum, and survives the choking in order to tell authorities that he privately bought bubble gum, assuming he's enough of a rat to out his friend.

Yes, the penalties for selling a gun illegally are to be the deterrent.
And when the victim of a crime commited by that person you illegally sold the gun to (with the gun you sold to him illegally) hauls you into court asking the judge/jury to hold you liable for your contribution to the crime - I think the deterrent is going to be pretty solid.

I am all for holding people responsible for their actions.

What makes you think (wishful thinking?) that they will prosecute people with new laws when they are not hardly prosecuting people now?

 

[OKTexas]

I have a serious question about these "Private sales."

How the F**K can the government enforce these laws on private sales?

Think of it this way, it a kid at school buys chewing gum from his friend for a dollar, or even free, and there was a law regulating the "private sale" of chewing gum, how the hell would the government:

1) Know that there was private sale of bubble gum?

2) Know to come and enforce those regulations DURING THE TIME the private sale is taking place? You think those kids are going to call the government and tell them they are having a private sale of bubble gum?

The only way they will know is if the kid chokes from the bubble gum, and survives the choking in order to tell authorities that he privately bought bubble gum, assuming he's enough of a rat to out his friend.

I don't want a law requiring a background check on private sales, I want NICS made available to a private seller. Not using it would not be a criminal offense, but failure to use it could open you to civil liabilities if you sell a gun to an ineligible person and that person uses it improperly. That alone should be enough inducement for a person to use NICS if it were available.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I was right...another conspiracy theory.

There's no theory here, only fact: the anti-gun side isn't interested in compromise.

Who, exactly, are the anti-gun side?

Don't waste my time with such silliness.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The only way they will know is if the kid chokes from the bubble gum, and survives the choking in order to tell authorities that he privately bought bubble gum, assuming he's enough of a rat to out his friend.

Yes, the penalties for selling a gun illegally are to be the deterrent.

Yes... because someone willing to engage in an illegal straw purchase and then commit a violent crime with a gun is worried about the penalties for buying a gun w/o abackground check.

And when the victim of a crime commited by that person you illegally sold the gun to (with the gun you sold to him illegally)....

You're funny. How do you prove that a gun was sold/bought illegally?

 

[idb]

There's no theory here, only fact: the anti-gun side isn't interested in compromise.

Who, exactly, are the anti-gun side?

Don't waste my time with such silliness.

You're right - it is silly.
So why did you bring it up in the first place?

 

[Bigfoot]

As a gun owner I would be just fine with the government enforcing the current laws rather then politically grandstanding new laws. The Democrats/left really want to help right?

 

[M14 Shooter]

As a gun owner I would be just fine with the government enforcing the current laws rather then politically grandstanding new laws. The Democrats/left really want to help right?

Yeaaaaahhhh.

The state cannot have a monopoly on force when the citizenry retains the right to arms.

 

[idb]

As a gun owner I would be just fine with the government enforcing the current laws rather then politically grandstanding new laws. The Democrats/left really want to help right?

Yeaaaaahhhh.

The state cannot have a monopoly on force when the citizenry retains the right to arms.

When did the state become other than the citizenry?
Who is this belligerent entity about to pounce on the unsuspecting people of the US?