|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On May 21 2018 04:40 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2018 04:32 Wegandi wrote:On May 21 2018 04:24 Nebuchad wrote:On May 21 2018 04:19 superstartran wrote:On May 21 2018 04:16 Nebuchad wrote:On May 21 2018 04:10 superstartran wrote:On May 21 2018 03:39 Nebuchad wrote:
The most annoying thing after every shooting is people wasting their time trying to convince people like superstartran.
The reason why you don't have better gun control in the US isn't because you can't convince him. He represents an excessively small amount of people. The reason why you don't have better gun control is because your democracy has been hijacked. All this energy that you spend on him should be spent on changing the system that causes his voice to have so much more power than yours. 'Excessively small' A quarter of Americans own a firearm of some sort. That's not excessively small, that's bigger than pretty much any minority (as in minority interest group) group in America. On several issues we have most of that quarter on our side on top of the other three quarters. And those issues still don't get resolved. No; the reason why nothing gets done is because most of the legislation that is trying to be passed is bullshit. Gun owners are not dumb. They understand that stupid things like assault weapon bans will not work. Just because they publicly support certain things does not mean they are going to accept idiotic legislation that will never work in a million years. First we're going to acknowledge that you answered a demonstrably true statement of fact with "no" and followed it up with a development that doesn't justify the no. Then we're going to play a 2018 game: who do you think wins, the united corporations of gun manufacturers pouring money into politics so that they can keep selling as many guns to as many people as possible, or one leftist boi who can write the legislation that you like? Lol this fantasy. You talk about facts, but where are your numbers? I'll give you some. The NRA donated 834,000$ in the 2016 election cycle to politicians. (http://www.businessinsider.com/nra-political-contributions-congressional-candidates-house-senate-2018-2) Holy shit, if all it takes is donating less than a million dollars to get what you want, let's start a GoFundMe. The fact is, that it's not corporations and lobbyists, it's that many Americans have vastly different values and attitudes towards this topic than you want to admit. It's easy to blame the nebulous "corporation and lobbying!" as the "left" is wont to do, but it's just a fantasy. You can't admit to the reality that you could be wrong, or that a majority of the population are evil in your eyes. That would make you the outlier and we really can't be having that can we. After-all, how do you square democracy uber alles and your calls to ignore what the majority wants. You refuse to acknowledge that reality so the boogeyman corporation at the heart of every action against your set of values is easy to trout out. 90% of Americans support universal background checks for gun purchases. For example here: http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2017/oct/03/chris-abele/do-90-americans-support-background-checks-all-gun-/Notice in that Politifact: In 2015, we rated as True a claim that polling showed nearly 74 percent of National Rifle Association members support requiring background checks for all gun sales. I have a hard time reconciling such large majorities with the notion that I'm misreading the american people and that they do, in fact, love complete inaction that favors gun manufacturers when it comes to gun control. But I'm sure you have the reality check that I require.
You're mistaking the support for the ends without the support for the means. People don't want a national gun registry and they don't want the government tracking every gun purchase.
This is further worse when you consider what a "background check" would actually mean as a mental health disqualify would run the gambit of peoples medical privacy to clerks deciding who gets and who doesn't get their constitutional rights in the case of the no fly list.
Meat would taste better if we made a small incision in their throat and let the blood slowly leach out of their body instead of killing them first. Good luck getting that supported by people.
|
On May 21 2018 05:08 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2018 04:40 Nebuchad wrote:On May 21 2018 04:32 Wegandi wrote:On May 21 2018 04:24 Nebuchad wrote:On May 21 2018 04:19 superstartran wrote:On May 21 2018 04:16 Nebuchad wrote:On May 21 2018 04:10 superstartran wrote:On May 21 2018 03:39 Nebuchad wrote:
The most annoying thing after every shooting is people wasting their time trying to convince people like superstartran.
The reason why you don't have better gun control in the US isn't because you can't convince him. He represents an excessively small amount of people. The reason why you don't have better gun control is because your democracy has been hijacked. All this energy that you spend on him should be spent on changing the system that causes his voice to have so much more power than yours. 'Excessively small' A quarter of Americans own a firearm of some sort. That's not excessively small, that's bigger than pretty much any minority (as in minority interest group) group in America. On several issues we have most of that quarter on our side on top of the other three quarters. And those issues still don't get resolved. No; the reason why nothing gets done is because most of the legislation that is trying to be passed is bullshit. Gun owners are not dumb. They understand that stupid things like assault weapon bans will not work. Just because they publicly support certain things does not mean they are going to accept idiotic legislation that will never work in a million years. First we're going to acknowledge that you answered a demonstrably true statement of fact with "no" and followed it up with a development that doesn't justify the no. Then we're going to play a 2018 game: who do you think wins, the united corporations of gun manufacturers pouring money into politics so that they can keep selling as many guns to as many people as possible, or one leftist boi who can write the legislation that you like? Lol this fantasy. You talk about facts, but where are your numbers? I'll give you some. The NRA donated 834,000$ in the 2016 election cycle to politicians. (http://www.businessinsider.com/nra-political-contributions-congressional-candidates-house-senate-2018-2) Holy shit, if all it takes is donating less than a million dollars to get what you want, let's start a GoFundMe. The fact is, that it's not corporations and lobbyists, it's that many Americans have vastly different values and attitudes towards this topic than you want to admit. It's easy to blame the nebulous "corporation and lobbying!" as the "left" is wont to do, but it's just a fantasy. You can't admit to the reality that you could be wrong, or that a majority of the population are evil in your eyes. That would make you the outlier and we really can't be having that can we. After-all, how do you square democracy uber alles and your calls to ignore what the majority wants. You refuse to acknowledge that reality so the boogeyman corporation at the heart of every action against your set of values is easy to trout out. 90% of Americans support universal background checks for gun purchases. For example here: http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2017/oct/03/chris-abele/do-90-americans-support-background-checks-all-gun-/Notice in that Politifact: In 2015, we rated as True a claim that polling showed nearly 74 percent of National Rifle Association members support requiring background checks for all gun sales. I have a hard time reconciling such large majorities with the notion that I'm misreading the american people and that they do, in fact, love complete inaction that favors gun manufacturers when it comes to gun control. But I'm sure you have the reality check that I require. You're mistaking the support for the ends without the support for the means. People don't want a national gun registry and they don't want the government tracking every gun purchase. This is further worse when you consider what a "background check" would actually mean as a mental health disqualify would run the gambit of peoples medical privacy to clerks deciding who gets and who doesn't get their constitutional rights in the case of the no fly list. Meat would taste better if we made a small incision in their throat and let the blood slowly leach out of their body instead of killing them first. Good luck getting that supported by people.
Is there a way to do universal background checks without the government tracking every gun purchase? I don't really see it, and if there isn't, I don't see how you can answer yes in that poll and still be against that happening.
|
On May 21 2018 05:20 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2018 05:08 Sermokala wrote:On May 21 2018 04:40 Nebuchad wrote:On May 21 2018 04:32 Wegandi wrote:On May 21 2018 04:24 Nebuchad wrote:On May 21 2018 04:19 superstartran wrote:On May 21 2018 04:16 Nebuchad wrote:On May 21 2018 04:10 superstartran wrote:On May 21 2018 03:39 Nebuchad wrote:
The most annoying thing after every shooting is people wasting their time trying to convince people like superstartran.
The reason why you don't have better gun control in the US isn't because you can't convince him. He represents an excessively small amount of people. The reason why you don't have better gun control is because your democracy has been hijacked. All this energy that you spend on him should be spent on changing the system that causes his voice to have so much more power than yours. 'Excessively small' A quarter of Americans own a firearm of some sort. That's not excessively small, that's bigger than pretty much any minority (as in minority interest group) group in America. On several issues we have most of that quarter on our side on top of the other three quarters. And those issues still don't get resolved. No; the reason why nothing gets done is because most of the legislation that is trying to be passed is bullshit. Gun owners are not dumb. They understand that stupid things like assault weapon bans will not work. Just because they publicly support certain things does not mean they are going to accept idiotic legislation that will never work in a million years. First we're going to acknowledge that you answered a demonstrably true statement of fact with "no" and followed it up with a development that doesn't justify the no. Then we're going to play a 2018 game: who do you think wins, the united corporations of gun manufacturers pouring money into politics so that they can keep selling as many guns to as many people as possible, or one leftist boi who can write the legislation that you like? Lol this fantasy. You talk about facts, but where are your numbers? I'll give you some. The NRA donated 834,000$ in the 2016 election cycle to politicians. (http://www.businessinsider.com/nra-political-contributions-congressional-candidates-house-senate-2018-2) Holy shit, if all it takes is donating less than a million dollars to get what you want, let's start a GoFundMe. The fact is, that it's not corporations and lobbyists, it's that many Americans have vastly different values and attitudes towards this topic than you want to admit. It's easy to blame the nebulous "corporation and lobbying!" as the "left" is wont to do, but it's just a fantasy. You can't admit to the reality that you could be wrong, or that a majority of the population are evil in your eyes. That would make you the outlier and we really can't be having that can we. After-all, how do you square democracy uber alles and your calls to ignore what the majority wants. You refuse to acknowledge that reality so the boogeyman corporation at the heart of every action against your set of values is easy to trout out. 90% of Americans support universal background checks for gun purchases. For example here: http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2017/oct/03/chris-abele/do-90-americans-support-background-checks-all-gun-/Notice in that Politifact: In 2015, we rated as True a claim that polling showed nearly 74 percent of National Rifle Association members support requiring background checks for all gun sales. I have a hard time reconciling such large majorities with the notion that I'm misreading the american people and that they do, in fact, love complete inaction that favors gun manufacturers when it comes to gun control. But I'm sure you have the reality check that I require. You're mistaking the support for the ends without the support for the means. People don't want a national gun registry and they don't want the government tracking every gun purchase. This is further worse when you consider what a "background check" would actually mean as a mental health disqualify would run the gambit of peoples medical privacy to clerks deciding who gets and who doesn't get their constitutional rights in the case of the no fly list. Meat would taste better if we made a small incision in their throat and let the blood slowly leach out of their body instead of killing them first. Good luck getting that supported by people. Is there a way to do universal background checks without the government tracking every gun purchase? I don't really see it, and if there isn't, I don't see how you can answer yes in that poll and still be against that happening.
You can support certain forms of checks while being in disagreement with how it's done.
|
On May 21 2018 05:08 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2018 04:40 Nebuchad wrote:On May 21 2018 04:32 Wegandi wrote:On May 21 2018 04:24 Nebuchad wrote:On May 21 2018 04:19 superstartran wrote:On May 21 2018 04:16 Nebuchad wrote:On May 21 2018 04:10 superstartran wrote:On May 21 2018 03:39 Nebuchad wrote:
The most annoying thing after every shooting is people wasting their time trying to convince people like superstartran.
The reason why you don't have better gun control in the US isn't because you can't convince him. He represents an excessively small amount of people. The reason why you don't have better gun control is because your democracy has been hijacked. All this energy that you spend on him should be spent on changing the system that causes his voice to have so much more power than yours. 'Excessively small' A quarter of Americans own a firearm of some sort. That's not excessively small, that's bigger than pretty much any minority (as in minority interest group) group in America. On several issues we have most of that quarter on our side on top of the other three quarters. And those issues still don't get resolved. No; the reason why nothing gets done is because most of the legislation that is trying to be passed is bullshit. Gun owners are not dumb. They understand that stupid things like assault weapon bans will not work. Just because they publicly support certain things does not mean they are going to accept idiotic legislation that will never work in a million years. First we're going to acknowledge that you answered a demonstrably true statement of fact with "no" and followed it up with a development that doesn't justify the no. Then we're going to play a 2018 game: who do you think wins, the united corporations of gun manufacturers pouring money into politics so that they can keep selling as many guns to as many people as possible, or one leftist boi who can write the legislation that you like? Lol this fantasy. You talk about facts, but where are your numbers? I'll give you some. The NRA donated 834,000$ in the 2016 election cycle to politicians. (http://www.businessinsider.com/nra-political-contributions-congressional-candidates-house-senate-2018-2) Holy shit, if all it takes is donating less than a million dollars to get what you want, let's start a GoFundMe. The fact is, that it's not corporations and lobbyists, it's that many Americans have vastly different values and attitudes towards this topic than you want to admit. It's easy to blame the nebulous "corporation and lobbying!" as the "left" is wont to do, but it's just a fantasy. You can't admit to the reality that you could be wrong, or that a majority of the population are evil in your eyes. That would make you the outlier and we really can't be having that can we. After-all, how do you square democracy uber alles and your calls to ignore what the majority wants. You refuse to acknowledge that reality so the boogeyman corporation at the heart of every action against your set of values is easy to trout out. 90% of Americans support universal background checks for gun purchases. For example here: http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2017/oct/03/chris-abele/do-90-americans-support-background-checks-all-gun-/Notice in that Politifact: In 2015, we rated as True a claim that polling showed nearly 74 percent of National Rifle Association members support requiring background checks for all gun sales. I have a hard time reconciling such large majorities with the notion that I'm misreading the american people and that they do, in fact, love complete inaction that favors gun manufacturers when it comes to gun control. But I'm sure you have the reality check that I require. You're mistaking the support for the ends without the support for the means. People don't want a national gun registry and they don't want the government tracking every gun purchase. This is further worse when you consider what a "background check" would actually mean as a mental health disqualify would run the gambit of peoples medical privacy to clerks deciding who gets and who doesn't get their constitutional rights in the case of the no fly list. Meat would taste better if we made a small incision in their throat and let the blood slowly leach out of their body instead of killing them first. Good luck getting that supported by people.
Why not? What's the argument against having a national gun registry?
|
On May 21 2018 05:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2018 05:08 Sermokala wrote:On May 21 2018 04:40 Nebuchad wrote:On May 21 2018 04:32 Wegandi wrote:On May 21 2018 04:24 Nebuchad wrote:On May 21 2018 04:19 superstartran wrote:On May 21 2018 04:16 Nebuchad wrote:On May 21 2018 04:10 superstartran wrote:On May 21 2018 03:39 Nebuchad wrote:
The most annoying thing after every shooting is people wasting their time trying to convince people like superstartran.
The reason why you don't have better gun control in the US isn't because you can't convince him. He represents an excessively small amount of people. The reason why you don't have better gun control is because your democracy has been hijacked. All this energy that you spend on him should be spent on changing the system that causes his voice to have so much more power than yours. 'Excessively small' A quarter of Americans own a firearm of some sort. That's not excessively small, that's bigger than pretty much any minority (as in minority interest group) group in America. On several issues we have most of that quarter on our side on top of the other three quarters. And those issues still don't get resolved. No; the reason why nothing gets done is because most of the legislation that is trying to be passed is bullshit. Gun owners are not dumb. They understand that stupid things like assault weapon bans will not work. Just because they publicly support certain things does not mean they are going to accept idiotic legislation that will never work in a million years. First we're going to acknowledge that you answered a demonstrably true statement of fact with "no" and followed it up with a development that doesn't justify the no. Then we're going to play a 2018 game: who do you think wins, the united corporations of gun manufacturers pouring money into politics so that they can keep selling as many guns to as many people as possible, or one leftist boi who can write the legislation that you like? Lol this fantasy. You talk about facts, but where are your numbers? I'll give you some. The NRA donated 834,000$ in the 2016 election cycle to politicians. (http://www.businessinsider.com/nra-political-contributions-congressional-candidates-house-senate-2018-2) Holy shit, if all it takes is donating less than a million dollars to get what you want, let's start a GoFundMe. The fact is, that it's not corporations and lobbyists, it's that many Americans have vastly different values and attitudes towards this topic than you want to admit. It's easy to blame the nebulous "corporation and lobbying!" as the "left" is wont to do, but it's just a fantasy. You can't admit to the reality that you could be wrong, or that a majority of the population are evil in your eyes. That would make you the outlier and we really can't be having that can we. After-all, how do you square democracy uber alles and your calls to ignore what the majority wants. You refuse to acknowledge that reality so the boogeyman corporation at the heart of every action against your set of values is easy to trout out. 90% of Americans support universal background checks for gun purchases. For example here: http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2017/oct/03/chris-abele/do-90-americans-support-background-checks-all-gun-/Notice in that Politifact: In 2015, we rated as True a claim that polling showed nearly 74 percent of National Rifle Association members support requiring background checks for all gun sales. I have a hard time reconciling such large majorities with the notion that I'm misreading the american people and that they do, in fact, love complete inaction that favors gun manufacturers when it comes to gun control. But I'm sure you have the reality check that I require. You're mistaking the support for the ends without the support for the means. People don't want a national gun registry and they don't want the government tracking every gun purchase. This is further worse when you consider what a "background check" would actually mean as a mental health disqualify would run the gambit of peoples medical privacy to clerks deciding who gets and who doesn't get their constitutional rights in the case of the no fly list. Meat would taste better if we made a small incision in their throat and let the blood slowly leach out of their body instead of killing them first. Good luck getting that supported by people. Why not? What's the argument against having a national gun registry?
That it would be horribly implemented and would just cause more issues than it would solve. As an educator you would know that things like charter schools and school vouchers are actually really terrible fucking ideas because half the time they are implemented in hap hazard ways that overall just hurt public schools in general, even though in theory it sounds like a good plan.
Just like a national gun registry sounds like a good plan, but all plans put forth would hyper inflate costs of firearms and ammunition, cost all sorts of issues like extremely long wait times, inefficient tracking, problems with who will enforce, etc. Trust me, it's not like I don't think it couldn't work, but considering how ignorant democratic law makers and gun control advocates are about guns in general, my fear would be that it would be a terrible plan that really just ends up hurting more than it does help.
Let me give you one example of gun control advocates not knowing what they are talking about.
Why are people on the terror watch list able to buy guns? Because it would be a massive big red fucking flag to them that they are under surveillance if you denied them the ability to buy firearms. Being on a watch list does not disqualify you from buying a firearm. The FBI actually increases (or is suppose to) surveillance on someone who is on the watch list that does buy a firearm. Automatic denial is a big no no, it just creates lots of potential issues (not even mentioning the legal issues posed; you can be denied your constitutional right just for being suspected of doing something).
John Cornyn (Republican Senator) actually tried to pass a bill that would delay the purchase of a weapon to a terrorist watch list person, and with a court order, cancel the sale of a weapon of a firearm if needed. But guess what, Democrats fucking shat on the bill. Need I remind everyone that the NRA actually supported this bill and wanted it to get passed, but you know, the NRA are the bad guys remember?
|
On May 21 2018 05:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2018 05:08 Sermokala wrote:On May 21 2018 04:40 Nebuchad wrote:On May 21 2018 04:32 Wegandi wrote:On May 21 2018 04:24 Nebuchad wrote:On May 21 2018 04:19 superstartran wrote:On May 21 2018 04:16 Nebuchad wrote:On May 21 2018 04:10 superstartran wrote:On May 21 2018 03:39 Nebuchad wrote:
The most annoying thing after every shooting is people wasting their time trying to convince people like superstartran.
The reason why you don't have better gun control in the US isn't because you can't convince him. He represents an excessively small amount of people. The reason why you don't have better gun control is because your democracy has been hijacked. All this energy that you spend on him should be spent on changing the system that causes his voice to have so much more power than yours. 'Excessively small' A quarter of Americans own a firearm of some sort. That's not excessively small, that's bigger than pretty much any minority (as in minority interest group) group in America. On several issues we have most of that quarter on our side on top of the other three quarters. And those issues still don't get resolved. No; the reason why nothing gets done is because most of the legislation that is trying to be passed is bullshit. Gun owners are not dumb. They understand that stupid things like assault weapon bans will not work. Just because they publicly support certain things does not mean they are going to accept idiotic legislation that will never work in a million years. First we're going to acknowledge that you answered a demonstrably true statement of fact with "no" and followed it up with a development that doesn't justify the no. Then we're going to play a 2018 game: who do you think wins, the united corporations of gun manufacturers pouring money into politics so that they can keep selling as many guns to as many people as possible, or one leftist boi who can write the legislation that you like? Lol this fantasy. You talk about facts, but where are your numbers? I'll give you some. The NRA donated 834,000$ in the 2016 election cycle to politicians. (http://www.businessinsider.com/nra-political-contributions-congressional-candidates-house-senate-2018-2) Holy shit, if all it takes is donating less than a million dollars to get what you want, let's start a GoFundMe. The fact is, that it's not corporations and lobbyists, it's that many Americans have vastly different values and attitudes towards this topic than you want to admit. It's easy to blame the nebulous "corporation and lobbying!" as the "left" is wont to do, but it's just a fantasy. You can't admit to the reality that you could be wrong, or that a majority of the population are evil in your eyes. That would make you the outlier and we really can't be having that can we. After-all, how do you square democracy uber alles and your calls to ignore what the majority wants. You refuse to acknowledge that reality so the boogeyman corporation at the heart of every action against your set of values is easy to trout out. 90% of Americans support universal background checks for gun purchases. For example here: http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2017/oct/03/chris-abele/do-90-americans-support-background-checks-all-gun-/Notice in that Politifact: In 2015, we rated as True a claim that polling showed nearly 74 percent of National Rifle Association members support requiring background checks for all gun sales. I have a hard time reconciling such large majorities with the notion that I'm misreading the american people and that they do, in fact, love complete inaction that favors gun manufacturers when it comes to gun control. But I'm sure you have the reality check that I require. You're mistaking the support for the ends without the support for the means. People don't want a national gun registry and they don't want the government tracking every gun purchase. This is further worse when you consider what a "background check" would actually mean as a mental health disqualify would run the gambit of peoples medical privacy to clerks deciding who gets and who doesn't get their constitutional rights in the case of the no fly list. Meat would taste better if we made a small incision in their throat and let the blood slowly leach out of their body instead of killing them first. Good luck getting that supported by people. Why not? What's the argument against having a national gun registry?
Really? Whats the argument against the government knowing who has guns and what guns they have? I don't know what would be worse if you're either too ignorant to know the obvious argument against it or you honestly want someone to argue that the government is going to take your guns away so you can make yourself feel better.
|
On May 21 2018 05:34 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2018 05:20 Nebuchad wrote:On May 21 2018 05:08 Sermokala wrote:On May 21 2018 04:40 Nebuchad wrote:On May 21 2018 04:32 Wegandi wrote:On May 21 2018 04:24 Nebuchad wrote:On May 21 2018 04:19 superstartran wrote:On May 21 2018 04:16 Nebuchad wrote:On May 21 2018 04:10 superstartran wrote:On May 21 2018 03:39 Nebuchad wrote:
The most annoying thing after every shooting is people wasting their time trying to convince people like superstartran.
The reason why you don't have better gun control in the US isn't because you can't convince him. He represents an excessively small amount of people. The reason why you don't have better gun control is because your democracy has been hijacked. All this energy that you spend on him should be spent on changing the system that causes his voice to have so much more power than yours. 'Excessively small' A quarter of Americans own a firearm of some sort. That's not excessively small, that's bigger than pretty much any minority (as in minority interest group) group in America. On several issues we have most of that quarter on our side on top of the other three quarters. And those issues still don't get resolved. No; the reason why nothing gets done is because most of the legislation that is trying to be passed is bullshit. Gun owners are not dumb. They understand that stupid things like assault weapon bans will not work. Just because they publicly support certain things does not mean they are going to accept idiotic legislation that will never work in a million years. First we're going to acknowledge that you answered a demonstrably true statement of fact with "no" and followed it up with a development that doesn't justify the no. Then we're going to play a 2018 game: who do you think wins, the united corporations of gun manufacturers pouring money into politics so that they can keep selling as many guns to as many people as possible, or one leftist boi who can write the legislation that you like? Lol this fantasy. You talk about facts, but where are your numbers? I'll give you some. The NRA donated 834,000$ in the 2016 election cycle to politicians. (http://www.businessinsider.com/nra-political-contributions-congressional-candidates-house-senate-2018-2) Holy shit, if all it takes is donating less than a million dollars to get what you want, let's start a GoFundMe. The fact is, that it's not corporations and lobbyists, it's that many Americans have vastly different values and attitudes towards this topic than you want to admit. It's easy to blame the nebulous "corporation and lobbying!" as the "left" is wont to do, but it's just a fantasy. You can't admit to the reality that you could be wrong, or that a majority of the population are evil in your eyes. That would make you the outlier and we really can't be having that can we. After-all, how do you square democracy uber alles and your calls to ignore what the majority wants. You refuse to acknowledge that reality so the boogeyman corporation at the heart of every action against your set of values is easy to trout out. 90% of Americans support universal background checks for gun purchases. For example here: http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2017/oct/03/chris-abele/do-90-americans-support-background-checks-all-gun-/Notice in that Politifact: In 2015, we rated as True a claim that polling showed nearly 74 percent of National Rifle Association members support requiring background checks for all gun sales. I have a hard time reconciling such large majorities with the notion that I'm misreading the american people and that they do, in fact, love complete inaction that favors gun manufacturers when it comes to gun control. But I'm sure you have the reality check that I require. You're mistaking the support for the ends without the support for the means. People don't want a national gun registry and they don't want the government tracking every gun purchase. This is further worse when you consider what a "background check" would actually mean as a mental health disqualify would run the gambit of peoples medical privacy to clerks deciding who gets and who doesn't get their constitutional rights in the case of the no fly list. Meat would taste better if we made a small incision in their throat and let the blood slowly leach out of their body instead of killing them first. Good luck getting that supported by people. Is there a way to do universal background checks without the government tracking every gun purchase? I don't really see it, and if there isn't, I don't see how you can answer yes in that poll and still be against that happening. You can support certain forms of checks while being in disagreement with how it's done.
If there's a very big difference between the end and the means, sure. Here we're talking about being in favor of the government doing checks every time there's a gun purchase, while not in favor of the government being aware of every gun purchase. That doesn't really make sense to me.
|
On May 21 2018 05:51 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2018 05:34 superstartran wrote:On May 21 2018 05:20 Nebuchad wrote:On May 21 2018 05:08 Sermokala wrote:On May 21 2018 04:40 Nebuchad wrote:On May 21 2018 04:32 Wegandi wrote:On May 21 2018 04:24 Nebuchad wrote:On May 21 2018 04:19 superstartran wrote:On May 21 2018 04:16 Nebuchad wrote:On May 21 2018 04:10 superstartran wrote:
[quote]
'Excessively small'
A quarter of Americans own a firearm of some sort. That's not excessively small, that's bigger than pretty much any minority (as in minority interest group) group in America.
On several issues we have most of that quarter on our side on top of the other three quarters. And those issues still don't get resolved. No; the reason why nothing gets done is because most of the legislation that is trying to be passed is bullshit. Gun owners are not dumb. They understand that stupid things like assault weapon bans will not work. Just because they publicly support certain things does not mean they are going to accept idiotic legislation that will never work in a million years. First we're going to acknowledge that you answered a demonstrably true statement of fact with "no" and followed it up with a development that doesn't justify the no. Then we're going to play a 2018 game: who do you think wins, the united corporations of gun manufacturers pouring money into politics so that they can keep selling as many guns to as many people as possible, or one leftist boi who can write the legislation that you like? Lol this fantasy. You talk about facts, but where are your numbers? I'll give you some. The NRA donated 834,000$ in the 2016 election cycle to politicians. (http://www.businessinsider.com/nra-political-contributions-congressional-candidates-house-senate-2018-2) Holy shit, if all it takes is donating less than a million dollars to get what you want, let's start a GoFundMe. The fact is, that it's not corporations and lobbyists, it's that many Americans have vastly different values and attitudes towards this topic than you want to admit. It's easy to blame the nebulous "corporation and lobbying!" as the "left" is wont to do, but it's just a fantasy. You can't admit to the reality that you could be wrong, or that a majority of the population are evil in your eyes. That would make you the outlier and we really can't be having that can we. After-all, how do you square democracy uber alles and your calls to ignore what the majority wants. You refuse to acknowledge that reality so the boogeyman corporation at the heart of every action against your set of values is easy to trout out. 90% of Americans support universal background checks for gun purchases. For example here: http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2017/oct/03/chris-abele/do-90-americans-support-background-checks-all-gun-/Notice in that Politifact: In 2015, we rated as True a claim that polling showed nearly 74 percent of National Rifle Association members support requiring background checks for all gun sales. I have a hard time reconciling such large majorities with the notion that I'm misreading the american people and that they do, in fact, love complete inaction that favors gun manufacturers when it comes to gun control. But I'm sure you have the reality check that I require. You're mistaking the support for the ends without the support for the means. People don't want a national gun registry and they don't want the government tracking every gun purchase. This is further worse when you consider what a "background check" would actually mean as a mental health disqualify would run the gambit of peoples medical privacy to clerks deciding who gets and who doesn't get their constitutional rights in the case of the no fly list. Meat would taste better if we made a small incision in their throat and let the blood slowly leach out of their body instead of killing them first. Good luck getting that supported by people. Is there a way to do universal background checks without the government tracking every gun purchase? I don't really see it, and if there isn't, I don't see how you can answer yes in that poll and still be against that happening. You can support certain forms of checks while being in disagreement with how it's done. If there's a very big difference between the end and the means, sure. Here we're talking about being in favor of the government doing checks every time there's a gun purchase, while not in favor of the government being aware of every gun purchase. That doesn't really make sense to me.
Example : How would you expect for the government to keep track of things like gunshow sales and private sales? It's alot more complicated then you think. You could in theory force everyone to register guns, but then you run into a whole process where you'd need to create an entire new agency (or move this responsibility to say the highly understaffed police that the democrats love to shit on all the time) to take responsibility for registering and enforcement.
|
On May 21 2018 05:53 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2018 05:51 Nebuchad wrote:On May 21 2018 05:34 superstartran wrote:On May 21 2018 05:20 Nebuchad wrote:On May 21 2018 05:08 Sermokala wrote:On May 21 2018 04:40 Nebuchad wrote:On May 21 2018 04:32 Wegandi wrote:On May 21 2018 04:24 Nebuchad wrote:On May 21 2018 04:19 superstartran wrote:On May 21 2018 04:16 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
On several issues we have most of that quarter on our side on top of the other three quarters. And those issues still don't get resolved. No; the reason why nothing gets done is because most of the legislation that is trying to be passed is bullshit. Gun owners are not dumb. They understand that stupid things like assault weapon bans will not work. Just because they publicly support certain things does not mean they are going to accept idiotic legislation that will never work in a million years. First we're going to acknowledge that you answered a demonstrably true statement of fact with "no" and followed it up with a development that doesn't justify the no. Then we're going to play a 2018 game: who do you think wins, the united corporations of gun manufacturers pouring money into politics so that they can keep selling as many guns to as many people as possible, or one leftist boi who can write the legislation that you like? Lol this fantasy. You talk about facts, but where are your numbers? I'll give you some. The NRA donated 834,000$ in the 2016 election cycle to politicians. (http://www.businessinsider.com/nra-political-contributions-congressional-candidates-house-senate-2018-2) Holy shit, if all it takes is donating less than a million dollars to get what you want, let's start a GoFundMe. The fact is, that it's not corporations and lobbyists, it's that many Americans have vastly different values and attitudes towards this topic than you want to admit. It's easy to blame the nebulous "corporation and lobbying!" as the "left" is wont to do, but it's just a fantasy. You can't admit to the reality that you could be wrong, or that a majority of the population are evil in your eyes. That would make you the outlier and we really can't be having that can we. After-all, how do you square democracy uber alles and your calls to ignore what the majority wants. You refuse to acknowledge that reality so the boogeyman corporation at the heart of every action against your set of values is easy to trout out. 90% of Americans support universal background checks for gun purchases. For example here: http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2017/oct/03/chris-abele/do-90-americans-support-background-checks-all-gun-/Notice in that Politifact: In 2015, we rated as True a claim that polling showed nearly 74 percent of National Rifle Association members support requiring background checks for all gun sales. I have a hard time reconciling such large majorities with the notion that I'm misreading the american people and that they do, in fact, love complete inaction that favors gun manufacturers when it comes to gun control. But I'm sure you have the reality check that I require. You're mistaking the support for the ends without the support for the means. People don't want a national gun registry and they don't want the government tracking every gun purchase. This is further worse when you consider what a "background check" would actually mean as a mental health disqualify would run the gambit of peoples medical privacy to clerks deciding who gets and who doesn't get their constitutional rights in the case of the no fly list. Meat would taste better if we made a small incision in their throat and let the blood slowly leach out of their body instead of killing them first. Good luck getting that supported by people. Is there a way to do universal background checks without the government tracking every gun purchase? I don't really see it, and if there isn't, I don't see how you can answer yes in that poll and still be against that happening. You can support certain forms of checks while being in disagreement with how it's done. If there's a very big difference between the end and the means, sure. Here we're talking about being in favor of the government doing checks every time there's a gun purchase, while not in favor of the government being aware of every gun purchase. That doesn't really make sense to me. Example : How would you expect for the government to keep track of things like gunshow sales and private sales? It's alot more complicated then you think. You could in theory force everyone to register guns, but then you run into a whole process where you'd need to create an entire new agency (or move this responsibility to say the highly understaffed police that the democrats love to shit on all the time) to take responsibility for registering and enforcement.
Sure and that's fine. But if that's the problem that this person has with the means of implementing universal background checks, then surely they don't have a problem with the concept of the government tracking every gun purchase, which is what Sermo was talking about.
|
On May 21 2018 05:53 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2018 05:51 Nebuchad wrote:On May 21 2018 05:34 superstartran wrote:On May 21 2018 05:20 Nebuchad wrote:On May 21 2018 05:08 Sermokala wrote:On May 21 2018 04:40 Nebuchad wrote:On May 21 2018 04:32 Wegandi wrote:On May 21 2018 04:24 Nebuchad wrote:On May 21 2018 04:19 superstartran wrote:On May 21 2018 04:16 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
On several issues we have most of that quarter on our side on top of the other three quarters. And those issues still don't get resolved. No; the reason why nothing gets done is because most of the legislation that is trying to be passed is bullshit. Gun owners are not dumb. They understand that stupid things like assault weapon bans will not work. Just because they publicly support certain things does not mean they are going to accept idiotic legislation that will never work in a million years. First we're going to acknowledge that you answered a demonstrably true statement of fact with "no" and followed it up with a development that doesn't justify the no. Then we're going to play a 2018 game: who do you think wins, the united corporations of gun manufacturers pouring money into politics so that they can keep selling as many guns to as many people as possible, or one leftist boi who can write the legislation that you like? Lol this fantasy. You talk about facts, but where are your numbers? I'll give you some. The NRA donated 834,000$ in the 2016 election cycle to politicians. (http://www.businessinsider.com/nra-political-contributions-congressional-candidates-house-senate-2018-2) Holy shit, if all it takes is donating less than a million dollars to get what you want, let's start a GoFundMe. The fact is, that it's not corporations and lobbyists, it's that many Americans have vastly different values and attitudes towards this topic than you want to admit. It's easy to blame the nebulous "corporation and lobbying!" as the "left" is wont to do, but it's just a fantasy. You can't admit to the reality that you could be wrong, or that a majority of the population are evil in your eyes. That would make you the outlier and we really can't be having that can we. After-all, how do you square democracy uber alles and your calls to ignore what the majority wants. You refuse to acknowledge that reality so the boogeyman corporation at the heart of every action against your set of values is easy to trout out. 90% of Americans support universal background checks for gun purchases. For example here: http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2017/oct/03/chris-abele/do-90-americans-support-background-checks-all-gun-/Notice in that Politifact: In 2015, we rated as True a claim that polling showed nearly 74 percent of National Rifle Association members support requiring background checks for all gun sales. I have a hard time reconciling such large majorities with the notion that I'm misreading the american people and that they do, in fact, love complete inaction that favors gun manufacturers when it comes to gun control. But I'm sure you have the reality check that I require. You're mistaking the support for the ends without the support for the means. People don't want a national gun registry and they don't want the government tracking every gun purchase. This is further worse when you consider what a "background check" would actually mean as a mental health disqualify would run the gambit of peoples medical privacy to clerks deciding who gets and who doesn't get their constitutional rights in the case of the no fly list. Meat would taste better if we made a small incision in their throat and let the blood slowly leach out of their body instead of killing them first. Good luck getting that supported by people. Is there a way to do universal background checks without the government tracking every gun purchase? I don't really see it, and if there isn't, I don't see how you can answer yes in that poll and still be against that happening. You can support certain forms of checks while being in disagreement with how it's done. If there's a very big difference between the end and the means, sure. Here we're talking about being in favor of the government doing checks every time there's a gun purchase, while not in favor of the government being aware of every gun purchase. That doesn't really make sense to me. Example : How would you expect for the government to keep track of things like gunshow sales and private sales? It's alot more complicated then you think. You could in theory force everyone to register guns, but then you run into a whole process where you'd need to create an entire new agency (or move this responsibility to say the highly understaffed police that the democrats love to shit on all the time) to take responsibility for registering and enforcement.
Gun registry works in almost every country in the world.
Your arguments ultimately only amount to 'it would be a real inconvenience to me...'
That's crap. You guys have start limiting as well as tracking gunsales. Especially those gunshow and private sales you mention are just so dangerous.
It always irks me so much to hear Americans talk about their 'constitutional right... after some nutter killed a bunch of kids.
|
On May 21 2018 06:03 sCuMBaG wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2018 05:53 superstartran wrote:On May 21 2018 05:51 Nebuchad wrote:On May 21 2018 05:34 superstartran wrote:On May 21 2018 05:20 Nebuchad wrote:On May 21 2018 05:08 Sermokala wrote:On May 21 2018 04:40 Nebuchad wrote:On May 21 2018 04:32 Wegandi wrote:On May 21 2018 04:24 Nebuchad wrote:On May 21 2018 04:19 superstartran wrote:
[quote]
No; the reason why nothing gets done is because most of the legislation that is trying to be passed is bullshit. Gun owners are not dumb. They understand that stupid things like assault weapon bans will not work. Just because they publicly support certain things does not mean they are going to accept idiotic legislation that will never work in a million years. First we're going to acknowledge that you answered a demonstrably true statement of fact with "no" and followed it up with a development that doesn't justify the no. Then we're going to play a 2018 game: who do you think wins, the united corporations of gun manufacturers pouring money into politics so that they can keep selling as many guns to as many people as possible, or one leftist boi who can write the legislation that you like? Lol this fantasy. You talk about facts, but where are your numbers? I'll give you some. The NRA donated 834,000$ in the 2016 election cycle to politicians. (http://www.businessinsider.com/nra-political-contributions-congressional-candidates-house-senate-2018-2) Holy shit, if all it takes is donating less than a million dollars to get what you want, let's start a GoFundMe. The fact is, that it's not corporations and lobbyists, it's that many Americans have vastly different values and attitudes towards this topic than you want to admit. It's easy to blame the nebulous "corporation and lobbying!" as the "left" is wont to do, but it's just a fantasy. You can't admit to the reality that you could be wrong, or that a majority of the population are evil in your eyes. That would make you the outlier and we really can't be having that can we. After-all, how do you square democracy uber alles and your calls to ignore what the majority wants. You refuse to acknowledge that reality so the boogeyman corporation at the heart of every action against your set of values is easy to trout out. 90% of Americans support universal background checks for gun purchases. For example here: http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2017/oct/03/chris-abele/do-90-americans-support-background-checks-all-gun-/Notice in that Politifact: In 2015, we rated as True a claim that polling showed nearly 74 percent of National Rifle Association members support requiring background checks for all gun sales. I have a hard time reconciling such large majorities with the notion that I'm misreading the american people and that they do, in fact, love complete inaction that favors gun manufacturers when it comes to gun control. But I'm sure you have the reality check that I require. You're mistaking the support for the ends without the support for the means. People don't want a national gun registry and they don't want the government tracking every gun purchase. This is further worse when you consider what a "background check" would actually mean as a mental health disqualify would run the gambit of peoples medical privacy to clerks deciding who gets and who doesn't get their constitutional rights in the case of the no fly list. Meat would taste better if we made a small incision in their throat and let the blood slowly leach out of their body instead of killing them first. Good luck getting that supported by people. Is there a way to do universal background checks without the government tracking every gun purchase? I don't really see it, and if there isn't, I don't see how you can answer yes in that poll and still be against that happening. You can support certain forms of checks while being in disagreement with how it's done. If there's a very big difference between the end and the means, sure. Here we're talking about being in favor of the government doing checks every time there's a gun purchase, while not in favor of the government being aware of every gun purchase. That doesn't really make sense to me. Example : How would you expect for the government to keep track of things like gunshow sales and private sales? It's alot more complicated then you think. You could in theory force everyone to register guns, but then you run into a whole process where you'd need to create an entire new agency (or move this responsibility to say the highly understaffed police that the democrats love to shit on all the time) to take responsibility for registering and enforcement. Gun registry works in almost every country in the world. Your arguments ultimately only amount to 'it would be a real inconvenience to me...' That's crap. You guys have start limiting as well as tracking gunsales. Especially those gunshow and private sales you mention are just so dangerous. It always irks me so much to hear Americans talk about their 'constitutional right... after some nutter killed a bunch of kids.
So how would you propose all the guns suddenly become registered? You realize that the VAST majority of firearm violent crimes are committed with illegal weapons that aren't registered in their respective country right? Just look at Canada. They attempted something not too long ago, and it cost them $2 billion dollars for absolutely no gains. Not only was it an inconvenience to firearm owners, but it cost the government and tax payers money for no reason at all.
Not to mention, that historically a national gun registry has gone hand in hand with an outright gun ban followed within the next decade or so. This is a historical fact. So excuse me when most gun owners get abit antsy when someone suggests a national gun registry.
So before coming up with some bullshit statements like 'gun registries work everywhere in the world' why don't you actually do some fucking research before talking next time. Because stupid statements like that really piss me off.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Firearms_Registry
|
I don't think we should have a national gun registry. I think we should have a national bullet registry. What it would do is track each bullet that is manufactured, and also, we'd start putting GPS tracking chips in each bullet.
|
On May 21 2018 05:47 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2018 05:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 21 2018 05:08 Sermokala wrote:On May 21 2018 04:40 Nebuchad wrote:On May 21 2018 04:32 Wegandi wrote:On May 21 2018 04:24 Nebuchad wrote:On May 21 2018 04:19 superstartran wrote:On May 21 2018 04:16 Nebuchad wrote:On May 21 2018 04:10 superstartran wrote:On May 21 2018 03:39 Nebuchad wrote:
The most annoying thing after every shooting is people wasting their time trying to convince people like superstartran.
The reason why you don't have better gun control in the US isn't because you can't convince him. He represents an excessively small amount of people. The reason why you don't have better gun control is because your democracy has been hijacked. All this energy that you spend on him should be spent on changing the system that causes his voice to have so much more power than yours. 'Excessively small' A quarter of Americans own a firearm of some sort. That's not excessively small, that's bigger than pretty much any minority (as in minority interest group) group in America. On several issues we have most of that quarter on our side on top of the other three quarters. And those issues still don't get resolved. No; the reason why nothing gets done is because most of the legislation that is trying to be passed is bullshit. Gun owners are not dumb. They understand that stupid things like assault weapon bans will not work. Just because they publicly support certain things does not mean they are going to accept idiotic legislation that will never work in a million years. First we're going to acknowledge that you answered a demonstrably true statement of fact with "no" and followed it up with a development that doesn't justify the no. Then we're going to play a 2018 game: who do you think wins, the united corporations of gun manufacturers pouring money into politics so that they can keep selling as many guns to as many people as possible, or one leftist boi who can write the legislation that you like? Lol this fantasy. You talk about facts, but where are your numbers? I'll give you some. The NRA donated 834,000$ in the 2016 election cycle to politicians. (http://www.businessinsider.com/nra-political-contributions-congressional-candidates-house-senate-2018-2) Holy shit, if all it takes is donating less than a million dollars to get what you want, let's start a GoFundMe. The fact is, that it's not corporations and lobbyists, it's that many Americans have vastly different values and attitudes towards this topic than you want to admit. It's easy to blame the nebulous "corporation and lobbying!" as the "left" is wont to do, but it's just a fantasy. You can't admit to the reality that you could be wrong, or that a majority of the population are evil in your eyes. That would make you the outlier and we really can't be having that can we. After-all, how do you square democracy uber alles and your calls to ignore what the majority wants. You refuse to acknowledge that reality so the boogeyman corporation at the heart of every action against your set of values is easy to trout out. 90% of Americans support universal background checks for gun purchases. For example here: http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2017/oct/03/chris-abele/do-90-americans-support-background-checks-all-gun-/Notice in that Politifact: In 2015, we rated as True a claim that polling showed nearly 74 percent of National Rifle Association members support requiring background checks for all gun sales. I have a hard time reconciling such large majorities with the notion that I'm misreading the american people and that they do, in fact, love complete inaction that favors gun manufacturers when it comes to gun control. But I'm sure you have the reality check that I require. You're mistaking the support for the ends without the support for the means. People don't want a national gun registry and they don't want the government tracking every gun purchase. This is further worse when you consider what a "background check" would actually mean as a mental health disqualify would run the gambit of peoples medical privacy to clerks deciding who gets and who doesn't get their constitutional rights in the case of the no fly list. Meat would taste better if we made a small incision in their throat and let the blood slowly leach out of their body instead of killing them first. Good luck getting that supported by people. Why not? What's the argument against having a national gun registry? Really? Whats the argument against the government knowing who has guns and what guns they have? I don't know what would be worse if you're either too ignorant to know the obvious argument against it or you honestly want someone to argue that the government is going to take your guns away so you can make yourself feel better.
Correct; it wasn't rhetorical and I was asking in good faith because I was curious. No need to be hostile.
Fortunately, SST also responded to my post in depth, and I think his example of the red flag if someone on a watch list can't buy a gun is a really good example of how the registry may not work exceptionally in practice. Thank you SST.
|
United States43611 Posts
I mean it's not a great example. Why would you want to sell a gun to someone who is on a list of dangerous people who shouldn't own guns, just to avoid letting them know they're on the list. Surely them finding out they're on the list is less bad than them having the gun. If you don't have the list then yeah, they won't find out they're being watched, but they will be able to shoot people.
Hell, we might as well do away with the no fly list too. Better to let them fly than let them find out they're on the no fly list.
|
On May 21 2018 10:00 KwarK wrote:
I mean it's not a great example. Why would you want to sell a gun to someone who is on a list of dangerous people who shouldn't own guns, just to avoid letting them know they're on the list. Surely them finding out they're on the list is less bad than them having the gun. If you don't have the list then yeah, they won't find out they're being watched, but they will be able to shoot people.
Hell, we might as well do away with the no fly list too. Better to let them fly than let them find out they're on the no fly list.
Because denying a constitutional right based on suspicion is completely different from a no fly list. Flying is not a constitutional right; owning a firearm is. If you start denying a constitutional right based on suspicion, you open up a whole new can of worms that you don't want to happen.
|
United States43611 Posts
On May 21 2018 10:17 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2018 10:00 KwarK wrote:
I mean it's not a great example. Why would you want to sell a gun to someone who is on a list of dangerous people who shouldn't own guns, just to avoid letting them know they're on the list. Surely them finding out they're on the list is less bad than them having the gun. If you don't have the list then yeah, they won't find out they're being watched, but they will be able to shoot people.
Hell, we might as well do away with the no fly list too. Better to let them fly than let them find out they're on the no fly list. Because denying a constitutional right based on suspicion is completely different from a no fly list. Flying is not a constitutional right; owning a firearm is. If you start denying a constitutional right based on suspicion, you open up a whole new can of worms that you don't want to happen.
I agree entirely with that argument about constitutional rights and unaccountable lists, but it's not the argument that was made. The argument that was made was that tipping someone off that they're under scrutiny by not giving them a gun is worse than giving them a gun. You'll need to defend that argument, not switch it out for another one and pretend that I was attacking the other one (which I actually already made myself earlier).
|
On May 21 2018 10:40 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2018 10:17 superstartran wrote:On May 21 2018 10:00 KwarK wrote:
I mean it's not a great example. Why would you want to sell a gun to someone who is on a list of dangerous people who shouldn't own guns, just to avoid letting them know they're on the list. Surely them finding out they're on the list is less bad than them having the gun. If you don't have the list then yeah, they won't find out they're being watched, but they will be able to shoot people.
Hell, we might as well do away with the no fly list too. Better to let them fly than let them find out they're on the no fly list. Because denying a constitutional right based on suspicion is completely different from a no fly list. Flying is not a constitutional right; owning a firearm is. If you start denying a constitutional right based on suspicion, you open up a whole new can of worms that you don't want to happen. I agree entirely with that argument about constitutional rights and unaccountable lists, but it's not the argument that was made. The argument that was made was that tipping someone off that they're under scrutiny by not giving them a gun is worse than giving them a gun. You'll need to defend that argument, not switch it out for another one and pretend that I was attacking the other one (which I actually already made myself earlier).
Tipping them off that they are under surveillance is a problem; if someone can figure they are out on the terror list by shopping for guns, it makes it that much easier to figure out that they are under watch. Not to mention, as stated, it's a constitutional issue considering the terror watch list is both bloated and inaccurate according to even the FBI itself.
|
United States43611 Posts
On May 21 2018 11:59 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2018 10:40 KwarK wrote:On May 21 2018 10:17 superstartran wrote:On May 21 2018 10:00 KwarK wrote:
I mean it's not a great example. Why would you want to sell a gun to someone who is on a list of dangerous people who shouldn't own guns, just to avoid letting them know they're on the list. Surely them finding out they're on the list is less bad than them having the gun. If you don't have the list then yeah, they won't find out they're being watched, but they will be able to shoot people.
Hell, we might as well do away with the no fly list too. Better to let them fly than let them find out they're on the no fly list. Because denying a constitutional right based on suspicion is completely different from a no fly list. Flying is not a constitutional right; owning a firearm is. If you start denying a constitutional right based on suspicion, you open up a whole new can of worms that you don't want to happen. I agree entirely with that argument about constitutional rights and unaccountable lists, but it's not the argument that was made. The argument that was made was that tipping someone off that they're under scrutiny by not giving them a gun is worse than giving them a gun. You'll need to defend that argument, not switch it out for another one and pretend that I was attacking the other one (which I actually already made myself earlier). Tipping them off that they are under surveillance is a problem; if someone can figure they are out on the terror list by shopping for guns, it makes it that much easier to figure out that they are under watch. Not to mention, as stated, it's a constitutional issue considering the terror watch list is both bloated and inaccurate according to even the FBI itself.
Tipping them off that they are under surveillance by not selling them a gun is very much not a problem, given that the alternative is selling them a gun. You don't give them a gun so they don't find out you don't want them to have a gun.
|
On May 21 2018 12:03 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2018 11:59 superstartran wrote:On May 21 2018 10:40 KwarK wrote:On May 21 2018 10:17 superstartran wrote:On May 21 2018 10:00 KwarK wrote:
I mean it's not a great example. Why would you want to sell a gun to someone who is on a list of dangerous people who shouldn't own guns, just to avoid letting them know they're on the list. Surely them finding out they're on the list is less bad than them having the gun. If you don't have the list then yeah, they won't find out they're being watched, but they will be able to shoot people.
Hell, we might as well do away with the no fly list too. Better to let them fly than let them find out they're on the no fly list. Because denying a constitutional right based on suspicion is completely different from a no fly list. Flying is not a constitutional right; owning a firearm is. If you start denying a constitutional right based on suspicion, you open up a whole new can of worms that you don't want to happen. I agree entirely with that argument about constitutional rights and unaccountable lists, but it's not the argument that was made. The argument that was made was that tipping someone off that they're under scrutiny by not giving them a gun is worse than giving them a gun. You'll need to defend that argument, not switch it out for another one and pretend that I was attacking the other one (which I actually already made myself earlier). Tipping them off that they are under surveillance is a problem; if someone can figure they are out on the terror list by shopping for guns, it makes it that much easier to figure out that they are under watch. Not to mention, as stated, it's a constitutional issue considering the terror watch list is both bloated and inaccurate according to even the FBI itself. Tipping them off that they are under surveillance by not selling them a gun is very much not a problem, given that the alternative is selling them a gun. You don't give them a gun so they don't find out you don't want them to have a gun.
A. The FBI can at any point already delay a sale legally to anyone depending on the reasons
B. I can't tell if you're serious or not, if you automatically deny someone that is on the terror watchlist (and people find out about this) then it makes it that much harder to gather intelligence and surveillance on someone.
C. FBI already increases surveillance on someone that already does purchase a gun and is on the list.
D. We've already been over this, but comparing the no fly to this is not the same. You cannot legally deny someone their constitutional right over suspicions.
E. The Terror watch list isn't even that accurate by the FBI's own admission.
Like I said, just because you are deemed suspicious doesn't mean they can deny you your legal right. What's next? Can't go to public school because you are on the terror watch list?
|
On May 21 2018 06:03 sCuMBaG wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2018 05:53 superstartran wrote:On May 21 2018 05:51 Nebuchad wrote:On May 21 2018 05:34 superstartran wrote:On May 21 2018 05:20 Nebuchad wrote:On May 21 2018 05:08 Sermokala wrote:On May 21 2018 04:40 Nebuchad wrote:On May 21 2018 04:32 Wegandi wrote:On May 21 2018 04:24 Nebuchad wrote:On May 21 2018 04:19 superstartran wrote:
[quote]
No; the reason why nothing gets done is because most of the legislation that is trying to be passed is bullshit. Gun owners are not dumb. They understand that stupid things like assault weapon bans will not work. Just because they publicly support certain things does not mean they are going to accept idiotic legislation that will never work in a million years. First we're going to acknowledge that you answered a demonstrably true statement of fact with "no" and followed it up with a development that doesn't justify the no. Then we're going to play a 2018 game: who do you think wins, the united corporations of gun manufacturers pouring money into politics so that they can keep selling as many guns to as many people as possible, or one leftist boi who can write the legislation that you like? Lol this fantasy. You talk about facts, but where are your numbers? I'll give you some. The NRA donated 834,000$ in the 2016 election cycle to politicians. (http://www.businessinsider.com/nra-political-contributions-congressional-candidates-house-senate-2018-2) Holy shit, if all it takes is donating less than a million dollars to get what you want, let's start a GoFundMe. The fact is, that it's not corporations and lobbyists, it's that many Americans have vastly different values and attitudes towards this topic than you want to admit. It's easy to blame the nebulous "corporation and lobbying!" as the "left" is wont to do, but it's just a fantasy. You can't admit to the reality that you could be wrong, or that a majority of the population are evil in your eyes. That would make you the outlier and we really can't be having that can we. After-all, how do you square democracy uber alles and your calls to ignore what the majority wants. You refuse to acknowledge that reality so the boogeyman corporation at the heart of every action against your set of values is easy to trout out. 90% of Americans support universal background checks for gun purchases. For example here: http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2017/oct/03/chris-abele/do-90-americans-support-background-checks-all-gun-/Notice in that Politifact: In 2015, we rated as True a claim that polling showed nearly 74 percent of National Rifle Association members support requiring background checks for all gun sales. I have a hard time reconciling such large majorities with the notion that I'm misreading the american people and that they do, in fact, love complete inaction that favors gun manufacturers when it comes to gun control. But I'm sure you have the reality check that I require. You're mistaking the support for the ends without the support for the means. People don't want a national gun registry and they don't want the government tracking every gun purchase. This is further worse when you consider what a "background check" would actually mean as a mental health disqualify would run the gambit of peoples medical privacy to clerks deciding who gets and who doesn't get their constitutional rights in the case of the no fly list. Meat would taste better if we made a small incision in their throat and let the blood slowly leach out of their body instead of killing them first. Good luck getting that supported by people. Is there a way to do universal background checks without the government tracking every gun purchase? I don't really see it, and if there isn't, I don't see how you can answer yes in that poll and still be against that happening. You can support certain forms of checks while being in disagreement with how it's done. If there's a very big difference between the end and the means, sure. Here we're talking about being in favor of the government doing checks every time there's a gun purchase, while not in favor of the government being aware of every gun purchase. That doesn't really make sense to me. Example : How would you expect for the government to keep track of things like gunshow sales and private sales? It's alot more complicated then you think. You could in theory force everyone to register guns, but then you run into a whole process where you'd need to create an entire new agency (or move this responsibility to say the highly understaffed police that the democrats love to shit on all the time) to take responsibility for registering and enforcement. Gun registry works in almost every country in the world. Your arguments ultimately only amount to 'it would be a real inconvenience to me...' That's crap. You guys have start limiting as well as tracking gunsales. Especially those gunshow and private sales you mention are just so dangerous. It always irks me so much to hear Americans talk about their 'constitutional right... after some nutter killed a bunch of kids.
Nah. What's truly bewildering is that whenever a shooting happens, the gun control says how about we do something, and offers up some opinions.
Gun ownership says no ooooo ALL THOSE OPTIONS ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL OR INCONVENIENT, but of course offer very little of their own solutions to a problem they are creating.
Nothing happens.
A few months down the road another shooting occurs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
