DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: sirs on January 16, 2013, 06:55:19 PM
-
Prop-a-palooza: The Use and Abuse of Kiddie Human Shields
The president of the United States will release a binder full of new gun-control executive orders on Wednesday. Instead of standing alone, bearing full responsibility for the imperial actions he is about to take, President Obama will surround himself with an audience of kids who wrote to him after the Newtown, Conn., school massacre. This is the most cynical in Beltway theatrical staging -- a feckless attempt to invoke "For the Children" immunity by hiding behind them.
What has happened to the deliberative process in this country? Public debate in Washington has deteriorated into Sesame Street sing-a-longs. We are already inundated with logical fallacies: argumentum ad populum (it's popular, therefore it's true); argumentum ad nauseam (if you repeat it often enough, it'll become truth); argumentum ad hominem (sabotage the person, sabotage the truth); and argumentum ad verecundiam (if my favorite authority says it's true, it's true).
To that list we can now add "argumentum ad filium": If politicians appeal to the children, it's unassailably good and true. The Obama White House has shamelessly employed this kiddie human shield strategy at every turn to blunt substantive criticism and dissent.
During the legislative battle that rammed the federal health care takeover through Capitol Hill and down our throats, President Obama and the Democrats piled up youth props around them like bunker sandbags. Nancy Pelosi wore babies like Wonder Woman bracelets, one on each arm, to deflect troublesome questions about costs and constitutional concerns.
Obamacare stage managers paraded 11-year-old Marcelas Owens of Washington state in front of the cameras to make the case for the half-trillion-dollar tax hike plan. The boy's "qualifications"? Owens' mother, Tiffany, had died of pulmonary hypertension at the age of 27. A single mother of three, she lost her job as a fast-food manager and lost her insurance. She received emergency care and treatment throughout her illness, but died in 2007.
As I noted at the time, Washington state already offered a plethora of existing government assistance programs to laid-off and unemployed workers like Marcelas' mom. For some reason, unexplained by the family or its zealous exploiters, she didn't bother to enroll. Moreover, she died nine months after she reportedly lost her health insurance. By the time she lost her coverage through her employer, she was apparently already in dire health straits. It's not clear that additional doctor visits in the subsequent months would have prevented her death. Nor did Obamacare do anything to address very real flaws with our employer-sponsored health care system.
Young Marcelas admitted he didn't understand health insurance reform and didn't "think it's anyone's fault" that his mom died. No matter. Big government-by-anecdote doesn't need the anecdotes to be true or the solutions to do anything effective to solve our problems.
The intellectual infantilization of politics and public policy is nothing new, of course. The Clintons engaged in one of the most notorious examples of poster child abuse involving an ailing 7-year-old girl named Jennifer Bush. Her mother, Kathleen, wrote to the White House about the agonizing decision to "choose between purchasing groceries for the week to feed your family or buying needed medications for your chronically ill child." Her gall bladder, appendix and fragments of her intestines had been removed in a desperate attempt to diagnose her mystery sickness.
Coached by her overbearing mother, Jennifer gave the Clintons a lucky silver dollar "to bring you good luck so everyone can have good insurance." She dutifully told the press: "I pray every night that I can get better -- and that everyone can have insurance." Hillary trotted the family all over Capitol Hill for photo ops and press conferences on behalf of her health insurance mandate proposals.
Two hundred hospital visits, $2 million in medical bills later and two years after Hillary propped her up, doctors discovered that the only thing wrong with little Jennifer was that her mother had been starving and exploiting her while splurging on trips, motorcycles and home remodeling. Mrs. Bush was sentenced to five years in prison on two counts of aggravated child abuse and welfare fraud.
From health care to gun control, the left has perfected this fallacious art of prop-a-palooza -- the well-being of the children and national discourse be damned. Political vultures in Washington refuse to do the one thing that might actually benefit the children they recklessly use and abuse as fodder:
Grow up. (http://townhall.com/columnists/michellemalkin/2013/01/16/michelle-malkin-n1490147)
-
The president of the United States will release a binder full of new gun-control executive orders on Wednesday.
Instead of standing alone, bearing full responsibility for the imperial actions he is about to take,
President Obama will surround himself with an audience of kids
(https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/s480x480/148920_437888636281608_211764954_n.png)
-
NRA Stand and Fight - Obama's hypocrisy about placing armed guards at school (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSvIeQImdY4#ws)
-
It is amusing to see you waste your time on nonsense
-
SIRS....was there a single directive that President Obama announced
today that would have prevented the tragedy at Sandy Hook?
-
www.youtube.com (http://www.youtube.com)
That commercial is true in all its factual content , but it is graceless and mean.
Content counts , so does presentation.
-
SIRS....was there a single directive that President Obama announced
today that would have prevented the tragedy at Sandy Hook?
Nope, not a one. You can always tell if legislation, or in this case, an executive order, is ideologically agenda driven vs actually needed, if the legislation/order in question would have done nothing to have prevented what the legislation/order was so rushed as needed in the 1st place
Heard another analogy today, which has probably been around for a while, but definately applicable. It's cotton candy....all sugary and sweet, with lots of air, but after quite a bit of it, hands get sticky, and you get sick to your stomach
-
Gov. Rick Perry released the following statement regarding President Obama's executive actions:
"The Vice President's committee was appointed in response to the tragedy at Newtown, but very few of his recommendations have anything to do with what happened there.
"Guns require a finger to pull the trigger. The sad young man who did that in Newtown was clearly haunted by demons and no gun law could have saved the children in Sandy Hook Elementary from his terror.
"There is evil prowling in the world - it shows up in our movies, video games and online fascinations, and finds its way into vulnerable hearts and minds. As a free people, let us choose what kind of people we will be. Laws, the only redoubt of secularism, will not suffice. Let us all return to our places of worship and pray for help. Above all, let us pray for our children.
"In fact, the piling on by the political left, and their cohorts in the media, to use the massacre of little children to advance a pre-existing political agenda that would not have saved those children, disgusts me, personally. The second amendment to the Constitution is a basic right of free people and cannot be nor will it be abridged by the executive power of this or any other president."
Statement by Gov. Perry on President Obama’s Executive Actions (http://governor.state.tx.us/news/press-release/18060/)
-
no gun law could have saved the children in Sandy Hook Elementary from his terror.
===============================================================
If his mother had not owned the weapons he used, he could not have used them, it is pretty obvious.
So are you going to defend her right to own those weapons? Do you favor the police returning the weapons to her, now that she is obviously in greater danger because of what her son did? Do you support her buying another snazzy assault rifle and laying in several thousand rounds of ammo, so she can practice at the local gun range?
-
no gun law could have saved the children in Sandy Hook Elementary from his terror.
===============================================================
If his mother had not owned the weapons he used, he could not have used them, it is pretty obvious.
So now, not only are you trying to claim he couldn't have stolen them elsewhere, or merely stole different weapons to use, the mother's legal ability to have purchased them in the 1st place should have been prevented??
So are you going to defend her right to own those weapons?
Absolutely. It's called the 2nd amendment to the Constitution of the United States. You should read it sometime
Do you favor the police returning the weapons to her, now that she is obviously in greater danger because of what her son did?
I believe she was the 1st person killed
Do you support her buying another snazzy assault rifle and laying in several thousand rounds of ammo, so she can practice at the local gun range?
A) it wasn't a military assault rifle, as they are already banned. Been so for decades now
B) If she were alive, I sure as hell would. As many rounds as she felt needed
-
Then you are just hopeless. That silly woman had to know that her son was nuts and still was unable from keeping him from grabbing the guns and killing all those children.
In your world, massacres are inevitable and some dingbat's right to dangerous weapons is more important than the lives of those children.
I have read the second amendment and see nothing about how either this maniac or his mother were part of any "well-regulated militia".
I do know that the second Amendment referred to single shot black powder weapons.
-
Then you are just hopeless. That silly woman had to know that her son was nuts and still was unable from keeping him from grabbing the guns and killing all those children.
The level of ignorance, you can display in such a short paragrapgh is astounding. And I don't use ignorance as some slur, I use it as its defined, illinformed/uninformed. Now it's the mothers fault, not just for having a gun, but for failing to deterime how psychotic & dangerous her son was??
In my world, there's freedom, freedom to make choices, freedom to make bad choices, freedom to be stupid & say stupid things, like all teabaggers are racist/fascist. In my world, the 2nd amendment is as clear as rainwater.....the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed. Your issue is with who shouldn't have access to firearms, which is a legitimate issue, and one I so wish you would focus on. But instead you just want to punish everyone, by infringing on their rights, in some vain effort to keep the psychotics from doing what they're going to do anyway. It's analogus to your punishing rich people with more taxes, because dammit, they're rich and don't need the money...so says you.
NOTHING that is being proposed via Obama's executive orders or the asinine psuedo-assault weapon ban, would have prevented what happened at Sandy Hook. So, let's try to work on some proposals that actually WOULD have, without infringing on a right, that SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED upon. Are you game?
-
"Guns require a finger to pull the trigger.
why the hell don't we ban fingers!
-
Then you are just hopeless. That silly woman had to know that her son was nuts and still was unable from keeping him from grabbing the guns and killing all those children.
In your world, massacres are inevitable and some dingbat's right to dangerous weapons is more important than the lives of those children.
I have read the second amendment and see nothing about how either this maniac or his mother were part of any "well-regulated militia".
I do know that the second Amendment referred to single shot black powder weapons.
In your world massacres are also inevitable.
Look at the proposed new laws , nothing there that would prevent the Newton shooting .
What the NRA proposes , you ight find distastefull , but an armed person there would have had a chance of making a positive diffrence.
The School was already a gun free zone , and making the gun free zone wider and deeper won't make it any safer .
-
If the maniac had been armed with the sort of weapon the men who wrote the Second Amendment had in mind, namely a cap-and-ball, black powder flintlock or musket, most of the children and teachers would have been able to flee.
He certainly was not a member of a "well-regulated militia", either.
-
The men who wrote the second wanted the citizens to have the same type of arms as the standing army, because they would join that standing army if needed and bring their own arms.
-
If the maniac had been armed with the sort of weapon the men who wrote the Second Amendment had in mind, namely a cap-and-ball, black powder flintlock or musket, most of the children and teachers would have been able to flee.
He certainly was not a member of a "well-regulated militia", either.
If one of the teachers had a single shot muzzle loading gun , they would have had a slim chance instead of none.
Alas, their second admendment rights were infringed so badly that they had no firearm to defend themselves at all.
The Founders lauded the fact that at the time the people had greater firepower than the US Army , a situation they intended to preserve and said as much. If they had not been such free thinkers they would have done the more conventional thing and empowered an ogliarchy rather than enfranchising the common man.
-
Washington took his Army against the moonshiners in the Whiskey Rebellion, because the government needed the revenue. Perhaps Jefferson thought constant revolutions were necessary IN THEORY, but he surely would not have wanted to be overthrown. I doubt he would have even welcomed the overthrow of Adams.
-
If the maniac had been armed with the sort of weapon the men who wrote the Second Amendment had in mind, namely a cap-and-ball, black powder flintlock or musket, most of the children and teachers would have been able to flee.
See, that's transitioning from ignorance to idiocy. I realize this perseveration on trying to make it about black powder muskets, but contrary to your illconcieved deductions, that's NOT what the founders had limited the 2nd amendment to. that's merely the arms that were present. The 2nd amendment doesn't say a right to bear black powder muskets, its a right to bear arms. That would be lever action henry rifles during the 1800's, bolt action rifles in the 1900's, and semi-automatic rifles now
He certainly was not a member of a "well-regulated militia", either.
Actually, he was, since the 2nd also references THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE. But why have you (not so surprisingly) avoided addressing the real goal of compromise here.....who shouldn't have access to firearms, which is a legitimate issue, and how best we can attempt to find some common ground. Here's a hint, trying to paintbrush all responsible gun owners as gun nuts isn't a good opening
-
All irresponsible gun owners are gun nuts and unless there is a registration required, no one will ever know the difference. Like a driver's license to drive a car, for example.
-
Registering doesn't identify responsible vs irresponsible. Worse, it provides the Federal Government a complete database of who owns what. I see you've added a new qualifier.....irresponsible gun owners. Considering they're not the primary source of these shootings, you're again paintbrushing too big a group with the idea of regsitering, anyway
So, since that's not working the problem, let's focus on where we can find common ground. So, putting aside the gun, how can we better identify the mentally damaged, pathologically inclined folks?
-
That would be lever action henry rifles during the 1800's, bolt action rifles in the 1900's, and semi-automatic rifles now
==================================================================
Only if you are foolish enough to believe that you can read the minds of dead people.
Licensing cars and drivers works pretty well. We should license guns and their owners too.
-
That would be lever action henry rifles during the 1800's, bolt action rifles in the 1900's, and semi-automatic rifles now
==================================================================
Only if you are foolish enough to believe that you can read the minds of dead people.
LOL.....YOU'RE THE ONE apparently reading their minds citing they had to mean black powder muskets only :o I don't have to read minds, just the Constitution. It says arms, NOT black powder muskets
Licensing cars and drivers works pretty well. We should license guns and their owners too.
Already explained how that doesn't work. Now, back to the problem...how can we best identify the mentally damaged, pathologically inclined folks, as to deny them, and them alone from accessing anything dangerous, be it firearms, axes, swords, hammers, power tools, cars?
-
I say it WILL work.
You are no expert on much of anything.
Since you worship the Founding Fathers so very much, I suppose you also think slavery is fine and merits 3/5ths of a vote for each slave as well.
-
I say it WILL work.
HOW? What you say vs what is, are 2 entirely different functions. HOW does it deny them, and them alone from accessing anything dangerous, be it firearms, not to mention axes, swords, hammers, power tools, cars? There's a moutain load of irresponsible drivers. How does registering them get them off the streets, and preventing them from using them in the 1st place??
You are no expert on much of anything.
Trying to change the subect? Are you that devoid of debate, already?? I'm far more informed on the 2nd amendment than you've ever demonstrated.
Since you worship the Founding Fathers so very much, I suppose you also think slavery is fine and merits 3/5ths of a vote for each slave as well.
Perhaps you missed the part how the Constitution can be amended, per our founding fathers. Again, this is beside the point, and dare I say a deflection effort. Let's try again.....how can we best identify the mentally damaged, pathologically inclined folks, as to deny them, and them alone , from accessing anything dangerous, be it firearms, axes, swords, hammers, power tools, cars?
-
Registering cars and drivers keeps a whole lot of them off the streets. I fail to see how you can't recognize this.
And you have your own silly interpretation of the 2nd Amendment,and you are simply wrong about it.
As I said, I do not recognize your expertise about this or anything else you have discussed.
-
Registering cars and drivers keeps a whole lot of them off the streets.
HOW?? What you do or don't recognize or how ridiculous your interpretations of the 2nd amendment are, has squat to dow with how supposedly registering one's weapon prevents someone from using it to harm/kill. That's YOUR claim. So how does it??
-
If the gun is registered and used in a crime, then the police can check the ballistics and trace it back to the registered owner. Even if the gun is stolen, that gives them more to go on.
You appear to be several fires short of the proverbial Happy Meal, as always.
-
If the gun is registered and used in a crime,..
Meaning the crime has been committed, ergo it fails at preventing the act to begin with, and fails to prevent the psychotic from killing the person they just killed in the crime
The idea here is to help prevent these crimes. Is that not your goal?? So now that we've dispensed with how registering does pretty much squat in determining responsible vs not, how can we best identify the mentally damaged, pathologically inclined folks, as to deny them, and them alone , from accessing anything dangerous, be it firearms, axes, swords, hammers, power tools, cars?
-
I am not comfortable allowing some third party to determine my fitness for gun ownership based on subjective and arbitrary diagnosis of mental fitness.
-
I concur with the uncomfortability. At least the infringement is on a specific sub group, and not the populace on whole, but I share the concern on some 3rd party determinant of mental stability. So, my question still needs a guide......how can we best identify the mentally damaged, pathologically inclined folks, as to deny them, and them alone , from accessing anything dangerous, be it firearms, axes, swords, hammers, power tools, cars?
-
You restrict the right after all avenues of due process has been followed. IE a judge removes that right.
You certainly don't violate HIPAA with some all purpose database.
-
That's a good starting point. What can Xo add to it?
-
What do you add or take away from that starting point?
-
I would like to teach gun maintenience , marksmanship and responsibile gun use in school.
I would even make it difficult to opt out for objectors.
I don't expect this to happen , but it is what I would like.
If most of us had basic knoledge of guns , we would be able to discuss the subject much more intelligently, and proposals for measures that woon't work would become more rare. Constantly I see things that are glareingly ignorant because so many people know the subject so poorly.
Perhaps the government should sponsor PSAs that teach basics of gun safety, responsibility and marksmanship.
-
This would be far less useful than a course in how to use and maintain power tools. I know how to shoot a gun: I read the manual for my Daisy BB Gun many times. It was written by Red Ryder himself, with the help of Little Beaver.I know exactly how to avoid putting someone's eye out.
I once lived in a tiny town so boring and dull that for excitement the band teacher and I went to the town dump and shot rats.
-
This would be far less useful than a course in how to use and maintain power tools.
It is the same thing.
If you are going to own something that has the potential to cause serious harm to yourself or others , knowing the basic safety precautions is a good idea.
I feel dismay that many highschools no longer require drivers education.
-
I think
states GA. require(s) it for learners permits. Schools may not provide it any more.
-
I think states GA. require(s) it for learners permits. Schools may not provide it any more.
It is just one of those things that is beneficial for practicly everyone to know.
I can tho recall an instance when ignorance was very beneficial.
When Squeeky Fromme tried to shoot President Ford , she didn't know enough about her wepon to operate it to deadly effect.
That once , ignorance was a very good thing, but it doesn't prove as a general principal.
-
Incompetence in doing the wrong thing is always a blessing.
Most auto insurance companies give a discount to students that have completed a Drivers Ed course. That was a useful incentive when I was in HS and I think it still is.
-
It would be nice if getaway drivers didn't know how to start their cars, but this seems to be a rare sort of beneficial ignorance.
-
What do you add or take away from that starting point?
I acknowledge a need to work, in some fashion, to better identify folks that potentially are dangerous.....dangerous to a point they may be inclined to want to hurt/kill in some way. It has to be structured with specific parameters, not just some "hunch" by some Doctor (and don't even get me started on the asinine executive order that medical doctors and psychologists need to start acting for the state, if they suspect something, as there are already provisions in existing law that allow for physicians to contact authorities if they're aware that there patient a distinct danger to himself or others)
So where can we go with that? Or more so how?
Speaking of which......couldn't help but notice the corner Xo boxed himself into, that he not-so-surprisingly, hasn't been able to extricate himself from.......
If the gun is registered and used in a crime,..
Meaning the crime has been committed, ergo it fails at preventing the act to begin with, and fails to prevent the psychotic from killing the person they just killed in the crime
The idea here is to help prevent these crimes. Is that not your goal?? So now that we've dispensed with how registering does pretty much squat in determining responsible vs not, how can we best identify the mentally damaged, pathologically inclined folks, as to deny them, and them alone , from accessing anything dangerous, be it firearms, axes, swords, hammers, power tools, cars?
The lack of an answer tends to give me the impression he has no interest in trying to prevent these tragedies, near as much as he wants to disarm his so called gun owning "gun nuts". At least until they're armed with only single shot muskets. And even those will likely need to be registered
-
What do you add or take away from that starting point?
I acknowledge a need to work, in some fashion, to better identify folks that potentially are dangerous.....
This is probly right , but anything that can be effective needs to be built with brakes.
IN the Soviet Union people who couldn't see the superiority of the Communist philosophy were diagnosed as mentally defective and locked up .
We do want to sift out dangerous people , but it would be tragic to deny them rights for being nonstandard.
-
There is no real way to arrest someone who is suicidal before he commits a crime unless it is known that he is suicidal. Not a one of the 9-11 hijackers could be brought to justice, but notice how many of their pals are still locked up in Guantanamo. Maybe we should turn them use and they could move in next to sirs, who is always packing heat and fearless. Might as well arm them as well.
-
Maybe we should turn them use and they could move in next to sirs, who is always packing heat and fearless. Might as well arm them as well.
You're doing a fine job of not debating the issue. Why not take a stab at trying what this forum is designed to do??
Why would we let criminals/terrorists out?
Why would we arm them?
How does registering a weapon identify a criminal and deny them access to a firearm?
How can we best identify the mentally damaged, pathologically inclined folks, as to deny them, and them alone , from accessing anything dangerous, be it firearms, axes, swords, hammers, power tools, cars?
-
Didn't think so
-
Didn't think so
About what?
-
Didn't think that Xo could respond to the debate questions posed.
Once he kept perseverating on the leftist talking point of registration, and shown how it does nothing in preventing or even identifying a criminal element from doing their thing, it was clear that the agenda here was not in trying to figure out how to lessen any more Sandy Hooks, but to just push the, dare I say, hard core liberal cause of more gun control
-
Perhaps he realized he wasn't convincing anyone to adopt his position and lost interest.
Hard to tell. Maybe he just didn't feel like replying and knew he wasn't required to.
I wouldn't focus on this site being all about debates anymore. There are not enjough players to field teams.
Maybe we can call it a discussion group, with people who have been coming here for years, because it is comfortable as as a Mr. Rogers Sweater.
Yeah that is what we should strive for.
-
That doesn't sound like much striving.
I have learned that real debate is difficult, I am not even sure I have done any.
-
Other nations manage to prevent massacres far better than the US, incarcerate far fewer people, and are more democratic than the US. Examples would be Canada, Switzerland, all of Western Europe, Australia, New Zealand and even Bhutan, Ecuador, Chile, and Botswana.
-
Perhaps he realized he wasn't convincing anyone to adopt his position and lost interest.
Perhaps.......perhaps it would have been prudent to actually provide some support as to why someone should adopt his position, instead of just claiming "It will work"
Hard to tell. Maybe he just didn't feel like replying and knew he wasn't required to.
Indeed, as that's been reinforced many times before....that no one is required to reply. I guess we'll never really know, and can only deduce conclusions based on how he left it....speaks volumes even
-
Indeed, as that's been reinforced many times before....that no one is required to reply.
Exactly, which is why saying didn't think so seems such a futile effort.
Meanwhile, from what i am reading gunshows and cabela's around the nation were standing room only. The gunshow in Jacksonville had a line 1/4 mile long.
Maybe they aren't seeing why they NEED to explain why they NEED large magazine clips, or super scary looking single pull single shot rifles as the bill of rights doesn't require justification for exercising natural rights.
-
Indeed, as that's been reinforced many times before....that no one is required to reply.
Exactly, which is why saying didn't think so seems such a futile effort.
Not at all, since it simply hilights the void, not some demand for a response. I would have thought you would have figured that out by now, the many times we've been over this
-
Highlighting the void is nothing more than calling them out, which is another way of demanding an answer.
You should have figured out by now that that type of behavior is frowned upon.
-
Owning guns and huge ammo clips is NOTHING required by nature. Neither guns nor ammo are "natural" in any sense of the definition of natural, i.e. "coming from nature".
Guns shows are assemblies of ignorant and weird people, at least the ones I have seen. Jacksonville and Pensacola are the centers of racism and fanaticism in this state.
-
Natural rights are rights not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal and inalienable.
-
Gun shows are objectively safer than colledge campusses.
-
Highlighting the void is nothing more than calling them out, which is another way of demanding an answer.
That would be YOUR version, not mine. Mine is simply hilighting for all to see. Whether they respond or not is completely up to them, and in no way some stealth demanding on my part. Why you keep assigning some nefarious intention on my part, is beyond me
You should have figured out by now that that type of behavior is frowned upon.
Good thing then I'm not following your version of intent. ::)
-
Gun shows are objectively safer than colledge campusses.
8)
-
Mine is simply hilighting for all to see.
why would you do that? What is the end game of such actions?
-
....for all to see. ::) Again with the knee jerk need to assign some sinister intention on my part. And you wonder why I think you single me out, when you do it over and over again
-
For all to see what? That XO ignored your
demand request for response?
After they see, then what?
Again with the knee jerk need to assign some sinister intention on my part. And you wonder why I think you single me out, when you do it over and over again
As far as i know you are the only one who points out lack of response for all to see, so it would be hard not to single you out.
-
Contrary to your ongoing misconstrued conclusions of my supposed sinisterness....for all to see means....for all to see. Nothing more, nothing less. If its some specificity you're looking for, you could reference for all to see his inability to respond, for whatever reason he chose. Which again isn't a demand, in any way, shape, or form. But I thank you for the concession of your general singling me out. At least that's progress
And why are we spending all this time on this completely irrelevant tangent??
-
So the aim is to point out his choice not to respond. Not really sure what that accomplishes. And yes I know you characterize the lack of a response as an inability to do so, but i don't know if that is the case. I think choice is a more accurate description. The difference being the absence of a positive or negative value.
And i don't see where i conceded singling you out other than pointing out that to the best of my knowledge you are the only one that uses that tactic. So it would not make sense to include CU or Plane in this discussion. Perhaps focusing on the transgressor is the better descriptor.
-
So the aim is to point out his choice not to respond. Not really sure what that accomplishes.
Not sure it needed to accomplish anything, outside of....drum roll....hilighting for all to see. And no one transgressed anything. You merely tend to single me out, for whatever reason, despite my conscious effort to avoid initiating any personal insults, mud slinging, and other low class tactics used by others, but nary gets any "singling out" by yourself. ::)
-
Having the last word....
...not always satisfying.
-
EVERY discussion with sirs always ends the same way, with sirs asking some dumb question and then complaining that he does not like any response to said stupid question other than his and his alone. Finally, everyone gives up.
sirs has yet to convince anyone of anything.
-
See what I mean....serious questions posed to facilitate debate, xo avoids like the flu. Irrelevant personal pot shots, that get not a wink of protestation from the powers that be?, too many to keep track of
And what am I supposedly trying to convince anyone of? Oh wait, that's an actual question again, that must be avoided in answering, at all costs, for fear of actual substantive dialog. And we sure as hell can't be having that around here, in this, a debate forum :o
-
Irrelevant personal pot shots, that get not a wink of protestation from the powers that be?, too many to keep track of
======================================================
What powers that be should come to your defense, sirs?
Owning weapons is not a natural right according to any religion I have ever heard of.
When sirs claims that is is, he just looks silly.
-
Oh boy....what to make of this. More personal pot shots with a tease of debate, only to pull it away and launch into another insult barrage perhaps? Hmmmm. Well, Bt, let's see what Xo has to offer, and then watch the results....for all to see
Irrelevant personal pot shots, that get not a wink of protestation from the powers that be?, too many to keep track of
======================================================
What powers that be should come to your defense, sirs?
That'd be Bt singling me out for criticism on tactics that he erroneously assigned to me, while your vast array of 3rd grade personal insults gets nary a whiff of bother. Not that I'm looking for defense, because "life isn't fair", so sirs just deals with it, which Plane actually helped clarify that a tad more, which I was appreciative of
Owning weapons is not a natural right according to any religion I have ever heard of.
This, on the surface, appears to be a deflection effort, as now we've been added a qualifier of "natural right" & religion, when it was never really mentioned before. What was mentioned before was the written right, layed clearly out in the Constitution, ...the right of the people to keep & bear arms shall not be infringed.
Do we want to take this discussion into the Founders' mindset as to the basis of the Constitution & the Bill of Rights? Rights endowed by our Creator? I mean we can, but there's no "right to a free press" or "free speech" or "illegal search & seizure" in any religion I've ever heard of either. Which begs the follow-up question, why inject the qualifiers in the 1st place?
When sirs claims that is is, he just looks silly.
Naaaa, the silly part is when the Professor takes a sabbatical when students are asking him serious questions. For instance, being unable to support how registering weapons prevents killers from obtaining firearms, how can we best identify the mentally damaged, pathologically inclined folks, as to deny them, and them alone, from accessing anything dangerous, be it firearms, axes, swords, hammers, power tools, cars, etc.?
-
That'd be Bt singling me out for criticism on tactics that he erroneously assigned to me
How did i erroneously assign a tactic to you that you freely admit to using. We are simply trying to get to the real bottom of why you do it.
So in that quest we have pretty much determined that:
You are the only one who apparently uses it, thus focusing on you is not unfairly focusing on you.
You claim to do so so that all can see that XO has failed to respond or is has the inability to respond.
I am simply asking why. I really am not interested in your opinion concerning my motives, that is a deflection, why not explain your motivation so we can moveon once and for all.
-
So far as I know, we are not even TRYING to determine why men go berserk, grab several guns and go on a mass murdering spree. Clearly, they are insane. Of course, the legal system does not really recognize insanity as a motive, since the only people who get to use insanity as a defense are people who are both wealthy AND crazy.
That does not mean that it cannot be done.
A person should have to prove his sanity before allowed to own anything more deadly than a one shot musket. If he chooses to hunt, he could use a crossbow or longbow or his musket or flintlock if he cannot prove his sanity. The test could be funded by fees on those who apply to own these weapons.
So there you have is sirs, that is my answer.
Now show us what a dick you are by rejecting it.
-
A person should have to prove his sanity before allowed to own anything more deadly than a one shot musket.
How does one do that?
-
That'd be Bt singling me out for criticism on tactics that he erroneously assigned to me
How did i erroneously assign a tactic to you that you freely admit to using. We are simply trying to get to the real bottom of why you do it.
The "why" is your error, as I had already answered your why, in which you've apparently concluded otherwise in your version of why. That's all that's been pretty much determined, as there was no nefarious intent or stealth demand. Now back to our regularly scheduled programming
-
So far as I know, we are not even TRYING to determine why men go berserk, grab several guns and go on a mass murdering spree.
Or drive a car into a crowd of people, or take a knife to try and cut folks up. You keep focusing on the gun, and skipping the person, committing the crimes. Focus
Clearly, they are insane. Of course, the legal system does not really recognize insanity as a motive, since the only people who get to use insanity as a defense are people who are both wealthy AND crazy.
That does not mean that it cannot be done.
Which brings us back to square 1, which remains strangely not touched.... how can we best identify the mentally damaged, pathologically inclined folks, as to deny them, and them alone, from accessing anything dangerous, be it firearms, axes, swords, hammers, power tools, cars, etc.?
A person should have to prove his sanity before allowed to own anything more deadly than a one shot musket.
And how is that done, without infringing on their rights? The people have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms.....and no, not 1 shot muskets. So, are you saying that instead of focusing on how best to identify pathologically insane folks, everyone must pass some......sanity test? Set up by whom, and administered by whom?
Does that mean for other Constitutional rights, you have to pass specific tests to......protest against the government? Operate a newspaper? It's only fiar, if we're going to be infringing on 1 Constitutional right, best infringe on all of them
Now show us what a dick you are by rejecting it.
Just couldn't help put throw in the immature garbage, couldn't you Professor? Sad :o
-
So assigning the tactic to you wasn't erroneous, your perception of my analysis of why you do it is supposedly erroneous.
-
Assigning the nefarious intent, as in demanding some response, which is what this has been all about, was. No perceptions necessary....your words were clear enough
Can we be done with this now??
-
. So, are you saying that instead of focusing on how best to identify pathologically insane folks, everyone must pass some......sanity test? Set up by whom, and administered by whom?
=================================
See, I told you. sirs has this compulsion to be annoying. That is why I don't answer his stupid questions. He does not want an answer, he just wants to prove to himself that he is superior, though he is clearly not.
I say no one has any right to own more than what was in use in 1780. I say that this is not any inalienable right.
I would say that the government would set up the test and it would be administered by experts.
Other nations have far less of these problems, so we should see what they do to prevent mass murdering sprees.
Mowing down large groups of people with cars does not seem to be an issue. I would focus on the gun nuts, because that is where the problem is.
-
Does that mean for other Constitutional rights, you have to pass specific tests to......protest against the government? Operate a newspaper? It's only fiar, if we're going to be infringing on 1 Constitutional right, best infringe on all of them
==============================================
No one kills dozens of little children with a newspaper, so no, of course not.
-
Assigning the nefarious intent, as in demanding some response, which is what this has been all about, was. No perceptions necessary....your words were clear enough
The nefarious intent being laying it out there for all to see. Because it highlights XO's inability to answer your questions.
Yeah that isn't calling anyone out.
Can we be done with this now??
Anytime you wish to stop responding is when your part in this discussion is done.
-
This is the way a sir's screed ends,
This is the way a sir's screed ends.
Not with a bang,
But a simper.
-
. So, are you saying that instead of focusing on how best to identify pathologically insane folks, everyone must pass some......sanity test? Set up by whom, and administered by whom?
=================================
See, I told you. sirs has this compulsion to be annoying. That is why I don't answer his stupid questions. He does not want an answer, he just wants to prove to himself that he is superior, though he is clearly not.
Are you done with that rant? The question was serious. You say people need to prove their sanity...did you not?? So, how is that done?? Seriously, how is that done on planet xo?
I say no one has any right to own more than what was in use in 1780. I say that this is not any inalienable right.
What you say, and what the Supreme Court has ruled, not to mention common sense, says otherwise
I would say that the government would set up the test and it would be administered by experts.
So, the Government gets to dictate who is granted their 2nd amendment right. Well, then let's not stop there, there's a whole slew of other rights we need the Government to test us on, by "experts" of course :o
(no hard core liberal here. move along)
-
Assigning the nefarious intent, as in demanding some response, which is what this has been all about, was. No perceptions necessary....your words were clear enough
The nefarious intent being laying it out there for all to see. Because it highlights XO's inability to answer your questions.
Yeah that isn't calling anyone out.
LOL....but nooooo, Bt was assigning any nefarious intent....it was all just my "perception". Yea, I think we're done here. By all means, the last erroneous word is yours 8)
-
This is the way a sir's screed ends,
This is the way a sir's screed ends.
Not with a bang,
But a simper.
What's a simper? Some Diet Cola? New model Kia?
-
my last post went right over your head, didn't it.
-
simper, in this case, is the noun form of a verb.
One of your characteristic activities seems to be simpering. I think you will find it in any English language dictionary.
None of your posts goes over my head. Really.
I find Plane's discussion of snail love darts to be far more entertaining.
-
I see, back with the personal pot shots, screw actual debate/discussion. SOP Sad
-
We are nit playing a zero sum game .
Sirs , do you know what I mean?
-
Yep. Started around reply #54 unfortunately
-
By dint of fat fingering a vowel I have stated the wrong truth.
I ment to say NOT but "nit " also seems appropriate.
In a zero sum game , like chess , checkers , or Monopoly(TM) a player can win by making other players loose.
What we are playing at is complex enough to make it possible for win -win or loose -loose scenarios to be possible.
Like a game of bomb throwing , where all participants can get injured , or a game of teach-learn where knoledge can increase for all players.
-
It's ok, I'm neither a spelling nor grammar nazi. I knew what you were trying to say. And I think others, yourself included, knew what I'd been trying to say. Thanks 8)
-
It's ok, I'm neither a spelling nor grammar nazi. I knew what you were trying to say. And I think others, yourself included, knew what I'd been trying to say. Thanks 8)
Can you evaluate this criticism?
I do not think it possible to make another debator loose.
Could I be wrong?
-
I guess I don't see things as "winning vs losing", outside of elections & sporting events. Maybe that's my problem,
-
I guess I don't see things as "winning vs losing", outside of elections & sporting events. Maybe that's my problem,
You don't?
Man, am I on the wrong track, I was planning to advise you not to think in terms of winning and looseing .
Surprised to find you already there.
-
Glad I didn't disappoint 8)
-
Obama Inauguration Pic:
(https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/s480x480/537187_460704823976957_1168231543_n.jpg)
-
(https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/s480x480/318061_464715516921528_1269592912_n.jpg)
-
Good pics on our Community Organizer & Chief's piss poor & feckless leadership 8)
-
It is a totally inaccurate and utterly stupid piece of propagandistic crap.
Just the sort of thing to elate 'baggers without a single feck.
-
I wouldn't talk Mr. Registration will work, because, I just know it will. Just gotta keep up that 99% wrong rep, doncha 8)
-
Since it won't work, why not end licensing cars and drivers?
Isn't that just another statist intrusion?
-
Since it won't work, why not end licensing cars and drivers?
Isn't that just another statist intrusion?
It is a statist intrusion.
But it seems beneficial in total.
I don't want statist intrusion where it is not needed , or where the benefit is smaller than the annoyance.
Should all blood types be regstered?
Should all dogs be licensed?
-
Certainly everyone should know their own blood type. It could easily save their life. I have no objection to it being on my medical records or drivers license.
Most dog tags seem to be just an excuse to collect taxes. On the other hand, the city and county has an obligation to have some control over dogs whose owners have abandoned them. My poor cat was killed by a pack of strays in my neighborhood. Since then, they have killed two more cats in my yard, and no, I was not feeding those cats.
I called the animal control people, but they have not been able to catch the dogs in question.
-
Since it won't work, why not end licensing cars and drivers?
Isn't that just another statist intrusion?
No, since driving's not a right. Next
-
Shooting guns is not a right, either.
-
Since it won't work, why not end licensing cars and drivers?
Isn't that just another statist intrusion?
No, since driving's not a right. Next
What?
Why isn't driving a right?
Is traveling or migrating not a right?
Where driving is the only way to get around , a restriction of drivers rights is practicly a restriction on making a living.
-
Shooting guns is not a right, either.
No one claimed it was. Merely a right to keep and bear guns. The shooting is merely an act
-
Since it won't work, why not end licensing cars and drivers?
Isn't that just another statist intrusion?
No, since driving's not a right. Next
What?
Why isn't driving a right?
Is traveling or migrating not a right?
Sure...just not by car, or train, or boat, or jetski, or tricyle. The car just makes things easier. There was no right to a horse, back in the Founders days. Nor a wagon. Just made traveling easier
Where driving is the only way to get around , a restriction of drivers rights is practicly a restriction on making a living.
Definately would make things harder. But its still not a right, and as such can be regulated up the wazoo
-
Automobiles are necessary. Guns are not necessary. Of course, in 1780, there was very little if any regulation of carriages, horses, mules and wagons.
In 1780, guns were a necessity and horses were a given and it was never thought that any government would regulate them, since in England there were gun regulations but no horse regulations.
I think you were obliged to remove or pay to remove your dead horse from the street, but that was about it. They did not give tickets for double parking your mule. At most, someone would simply move it out of the way.
-
Automobiles are necessary. Guns are not necessary.
The Constitution says otherwise. As Steven Wright accurately referenced, every place is walking distance,........ if you have the time 8)
Of course, in 1780, there was very little if any regulation of carriages, horses, mules and wagons.
Nor was there a right to keep & bear any
-
....and before Xo even tries to go with the deflection tangent, no, sirs is not advocating we can do away with cars, merely that there is no right to a car or any mode of transportation, for that matter.
-
merely that there is no right to a car or any mode of transportation, for that matter.
============================================
That is a bloody lie.
There is no constitutional ban on automobiles. No state bans automobiles. Since no one bans cars, horses, surreys, mules or buckboards, there is every right to own and operate them.
The Constitution says only what cannot be made illegal at most. Things that can be made illegal are not by definition illegal.
The Constitution does not ban nudity, and it does not ban clothing, either. It leaves this up to the states and localities, but I hardly think that any state could get away with banning clothing or nudity or automobiles or carriages.
If what you claim were true (which is is NOT), then each state could legally ban pants, or ban not wearing pants.
-
merely that there is no right to a car or any mode of transportation, for that matter.
============================================
That is a bloody lie.
Then by all means, show me where in the Consitution we have a right to ... any mode of transportation. Here's a hint, lack of a ban doesn't equate to a right. There's no ban on owning a home, but that's not a right that you have one. There's no ban on tacos, but that's not a right to a taco.
So, which amendment does the right to *insert mode of transportation here* exist?
Try extricating yourself out of that hole now
-
You have no right to pants.
-
You're right, I don't. Now, where in the constitution is there a right to a car, or horse, or wagon, or unicycle, or highspeed train?
The hole is getting deeper
-
You have no right to pants, and you also have no right to jabber on and on about holes, either.
-
So, no where in the Constitution, as in no right to a car, or any other mode of transportation. Glad we got that cleared up. And actually I do have a right to jabber on and on about holes. That'd be outlined in the 1st amendment to the Constitution of the U.S.
-
But you look silly jabbering on and on with no pants.
-
Not that it matters in the least, as it relates to debating what the Constitution says and doesn't say, but now besides the obsession you have about strutting, now you have one about my pants?.....or supposed lack there of? :o Seriously scary
-
Don't we have all the rights that are not on the forbidden list?
Or do we have only the rights that are on the permitted list?
-
We have rights and we have privileges. Which would you wish to discuss?
-
So, you consider wearing pants to be a privilege, while carrying your gun around is a right?
-
The constitution does not explicitly say that I have a right to buy false teeth.
But since it forbids them not , may I assume that I do have the right?
-
Apparently, having any sort of teeth is a privilege. Like wearing pants.
-
So, you consider wearing pants to be a privilege, while carrying your gun around is a right?
You still perseverating about my pants?? Good gravy. But to answer your perversion, neither to the former, and no to the latter. Keeping and bearing my gun is a right. Carrying it on me with a permit is a privilege. Grasp the difference yet?
-
In some matters local laws are most pertanent.
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) _ Public nudity activists prompted a hearing scheduled for Thursday in San Francisco in which a federal judge will consider blocking a new city law requiring people to wear clothing.
U.S. District Judge Edward Chen has been asked to block the law from going into effect on Feb. 1 while he considers their lawsuit seeking to invalidate the ordinance.
The activists argue that the ban on public nudity violates their First Amendment freedom of speech rights because their nudity is a political statement.
Read more: http://www.kfiam640.com/pages/billhandel.html?article=10708105#ixzz2ImRxWLGr (http://www.kfiam640.com/pages/billhandel.html?article=10708105#ixzz2ImRxWLGr)
How did this become a Federal case?
The first admendment right to public nudity!
I spent the month of May in San Fransisco in 78,, I needed a jacket.
-
I can see how nudity COULD be a political statement. I disagree that all naked people are making political statements, though.
Could carrying a loaded AK-47 around with one also be a political statements as well?
-
Trying to blurr the 1st & 2nd amendments? And FYI, it's illegal to carry any military grade AK-47 around. Except in Hollywood of course
-
it's illegal to carry any military grade AK-47 around.
speaking of the AK....yesterday I got my four new...30 round clips... for my MAK-90 Sporter.
(http://app.onlinephotofiler.com/Images/A_3/6/0/1/11063/1/31e4f0fcb50f45079e32c3707f92179a.Large.jpg?u=6298b42f-cd69-4432-8af5-47cec1b865c9)
eat your heart-out Madam Feinstein!
(http://www.imfdb.org/images/thumb/4/49/MAK90.jpg/378px-MAK90.jpg)
http://www.ak47world.com/ (http://www.ak47world.com/)
-
Sucker!
Whose army are you planning to use those on?
-
A) why is he supposedly a sucker?
B) anyone(s) that dares try to invade his home
C) It's still illegal to carry a military grade AK-47 around. Been that way for decades now
-
He is a sucker because (a) he has no earthly need for these things, (b) Feinstein will be completely uneffected by his owning these things, (c) he paid a bunch of money to buy crap for no reason other than a dimwitted emotional urge. It is pretty much like Imelda Marcos buying her 900th pair of shoes.
-
And who the hell said he bought them because he "needed" them?? I sure didn't get that out of what he said. How did you?? Nor does that come anywhere close to explaining how he's supposedly some sucker. Could he have purchased them alot cheaper and legally somewhere else??
And what does Feinsten have to do with ANY of this?? *deflection alert....deflection alert*, much less (B)
And you know WHY Cu4 bought what he did?? You were able to read his intentions, or are you stalking him now as well?? Is that 400rolls of toilet paper I saw in your garage? All that emotional stress related to strutting pants, perhaps? :o
-
He is a sucker because (a) he has no earthly need for these things,
Who the hell are you to tell me what I do and dont need?
Run your own damn life and leave mine alone!
(b) Feinstein will be completely uneffected by his owning these things,
If Feinstein is really "uneffected" by my owning them, them why is she trying to stop me?
You cant have it both ways!
Next?...since that statement was so dumb.
he paid a bunch of money to buy crap for no reason other than a dimwitted emotional urge.
"a bunch of money" ...lol yeah sure...
plus it's a better investment than most you make
whats actually dumb is giving people that want to free people that wanted to blow up the WTC
free American F-16's......that's the outrage!
"dimwitted emotional urge"
another dumb and incorrect statement by the resident dimwit control freak
you have no idea what you are talking about
quit vomiting the leftist David Gregory talking points!
(http://cdn.breitbart.com/mediaserver/Breitbart/Big-Journalism/2012/12/23/DavidGregory.png)
-
He is a sucker because (a) he has no earthly need for these things,
Who the hell are you to tell me what I do and dont need?
Run your own damn life and leave mine alone!
You know, that's the part I should have picked up on more myself. My bad. Good rebuttal C
-
You do not need these anymore than you need a dozen size XXL pink gauze tutus, and you know it.
Buying them simply identifies you as an easily duped sucker. It makes me wonder if you have a closet filled with Thighmasters, Gazelles and vintage Veg-O-Matics and a garage filled with Herbalife and Amway.
You have every right to be an easily deceived sucker, just as you have a right to prance about in a size XXL pink gauze tutu.
-
The idea that someome completely unrelated or unconnected to another person in any way, can proclaim what they need or don't need is truely reprehensible
Not to mention the complete nonsense of how this still makes someone a sucker. A "sucker" is someone who purchases something under false pretenses, duped as it were. So, unless you're going on record as how Cu4 could have purchased what he did so much cheaper somewhere else, the labels of sucker ring 100% hollow.....as in wrong......as in you know all about the business of being wrong
-
You do not need these anymore than you need a dozen size XXL pink gauze tutus, and you know it.
Buying them simply identifies you as an easily duped sucker. It makes me wonder if you have a closet filled with Thighmasters, Gazelles and vintage Veg-O-Matics and a garage filled with Herbalife and Amway.
You have every right to be an easily deceived sucker, just as you have a right to prance about in a size XXL pink gauze tutu.
What is your point?
-
http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=326879470 (http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=326879470)
(http://pics.gunbroker.com/GB/326879000/326879470/pix799091445.jpg)
Started at
$1,350.00
If I had known , I could have bought a truckload of these just a few months ago and selling them now during the fad, I could pay off a retirement.
And I could have known , someone is going to do something bad with a gun every year or two , they always have and always will.
The reaction is reliably innapropriate.
-
Then we are better off that you did not do this.
I suggest no-load mutual funds and ETFs as a better way of making money.
Buying large quantities of multiple bullet clips just to annoy a senator who will probably never know that you have bought them is a clearly irrational act. Even if she does know, it makes little sense.
-
Who do you mean when you say "we"?
Why are we better off that I didn't for see the present fad?
-
That many fewer guns in circulation means we will all be safer.
-
Emotionally perhaps, but not statistically
-
That many fewer guns in circulation means we will all be safer.
That is an unprovable premise.
Here is a thought experiment .
There would be hundreds of thousands of fewer guns immediately if police were ordered to destroy their wepons.
This huge number of guns fewer would make us much safer right?
Very much the same , a law that removed all the guns from responsible gun owners , no matter how many or few would have a negative impact on safety.
Laws that forbid guns to criminals are silly laws , I imagine that very strict guns laws cause much amusement to criminals as they break them.
Now lets make an experiment in the real world , lets doubble the number of guns in circulation over the course of two decades, and if crime rates (involving guns) fall then increased gun numbers are proven a negligable factor in public safety.
Oh hey , we have already performed this experiment in the real world!
-
No one advocates that the police should not be armed.
Your thought experiment is singularly stupid.
The more guns there are, the more guns will be fired and the more gun crimes there will be.
This is true across the planet.
-
The more guns there are, the more guns will be fired and the more gun crimes there will be.
Emotionally perhaps, but in the U.S., not statistically. Not to mention as much as 10x more lives saved in the U.S., using a gun, vs those taken
Now lets make an experiment in the real world , lets doubble the number of guns in circulation over the course of two decades, and if crime rates (involving guns) fall then increased gun numbers are proven a negligable factor in public safety.
Oh hey , we have already performed this experiment in the real world!
Indeed 8)
-
No one advocates that the police should not be armed.
Your thought experiment is singularly stupid.
The more guns there are, the more guns will be fired and the more gun crimes there will be.
This is true across the planet.
Truely we agree that disarming the police would be stupid , quite stupid.
So why do we disagree that disarming all the responsible people in the USA is the same sort of stu[pid?
-
We have no idea who is "responsible" and the so-called "responsible people" you allude to do not want to have themselves, or even their weapons, listed in a database, nor do they wish to have to prove that they are responsible in any way.
When we hire policemen, they have to prove that they are responsible and worthy of defending the public. We allow any dolt to buy a gun at a gun show.
-
We have no idea who is "responsible" and the so-called "responsible people" you allude to do not want to have themselves, or even their weapons, listed in a database, nor do they wish to have to prove that they are responsible in any way.
When we hire policemen, they have to prove that they are responsible and worthy of defending the public. We allow any dolt to buy a gun at a gun show.
No we allow all of the dolts to buy guns on the black market , where they are significantly cheaper.
Any law that makes it hard to get a gun will only be effective to prevent law respecting people from getting a gun , and I can't find this principal refuted ..
So...
What you favor ,effectively , is the disarmament strictly and only, of responsible people.
Which strikes me as close cousin to the disarmament of police.
-
Your logic is absurd. No one wants to disarm the police.
The "black market" for guns consists of the gun show types. They do not have to pay the rent on a storefront, and they are responsible for something like 40% of all sales.
Whether or not someone buys a gun from a gun show or from an actual dealer has little to do with their degree of responsibility so long as they do not have a record.
The fact remains that the more guns are in circulation, the greater the chances are that one of them will kill someone who was not even breaking the law.
-
Your logic is absurd. No one wants to disarm the police.
The "black market" for guns consists of the gun show types.
WRONG......you name one, just ONE modern day massacre that occurred when the weapon was purchased at a gun show. Just one. Good luck with that
There was an interview of a former gang-banger on the radio, and he was asked about how the gangs arm themselves. He made it painfully clear they could get WHATEVER they wanted, whenever they wanted, on the black market. Even automatic weapons. The weapon of choice though was nearly always a semiautomatic pistol. Easy to conceal, easy to reload.
Not once, was a gun show ever mentioned, as a means of some nefarious purchase of firearms. In fact, the only real nefarious selling of firearms in mass was the Government's Fast & Furious debacle.
-
You are full of crap.
You know you are full of crap, and yet you persist.
-
So in other words, you have nothing, squat, zip, as it relates to guns used in massacres that came from gun shows. Not one. Thank you for that bit of validation 8)
-
There is no way of knowing where the guns came from much of the time.
You cannot prove that no guns or ammo used in massacres did not come from gun shows.
-
Ahhhh, the ever famous attempt that I prove a negative? Though the notion of trying to add ammo to the tactic is indeed revealing, as if every bullet ever made is to have some serial number attached to it. Good gravy. Most of the time they know exactly where the guns came from, & most of the time stolen or aquired ILLEGALLY
Sorry ball in your court. Your claim, your obligation to back up that guns from gun shows were used in any modern day massacre, much less some pseudo black market arrangement. As of this moment, you have squat, & again I thank for the re-validation
-
Your logic is absurd. No one wants to disarm the police.
The "black market" for guns consists of the gun show types. They do not have to pay the rent on a storefront, and they are responsible for something like 40% of all sales.
Whether or not someone buys a gun from a gun show or from an actual dealer has little to do with their degree of responsibility so long as they do not have a record.
The fact remains that the more guns are in circulation, the greater the chances are that one of them will kill someone who was not even breaking the law.
It is not absurd , it is merely hard for you to understand.
If you had proposed (indeed you did not) disarming all police , I would call your position absurd.
If you had proposed (indeed you do) disarming all responsible and lawabiding citizens ,I am prone to call your position absurd.
You really can't see how much the one is alike to the other, and this is a wonderfull thing.
I cannot observe my own illusions as easily as I can observe your illusions, such a clear illistration is terriffic.
If reduction in Guns percapata really did reduce harm in some absolute way , then reducing the guns the police carry would work.
I don't think it would work out too well to reduce the ablity of the police to shoot, and I do not think it would work out well to reduce the ability of the common man to shoot for exactly the same reasons.
-
If reduction in Guns percapata really did reduce harm in some absolute way , then reducing the guns the police carry would work.
And factually speaking, with our gun ownership continually going up, you'd think our country's violent crime rate would be completely out of control, when in fact, its been going down across the country,..... except for a few highly urbanized areas, which ironically have some of the strictest gun control laws. Doesn't take a nuclear scientist to figure that one out
-
Ahhhh, the ever famous attempt that I prove a negative? Though the notion of trying to add ammo to the tactic is indeed revealing, as if every bullet ever made is to have some serial number attached to it. Good gravy. Most of the time they know exactly where the guns came from, & most of the time stolen or aquired ILLEGALLY
Sorry ball in your court. Your claim, your obligation to back up that guns from gun shows were used in any modern day massacre, much less some pseudo black market arrangement. As of this moment, you have squat, & again I thank for the re-validation
Didn't think so.......so, let's check out what else couldn't be backed up, outside of your "obvious" 99% wrong opinionated say so