blatantly stupid... got to love the NY Times choice for op ed writers

Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
Nobody has "grabbed" any gun in the US via federal law in the last 50 years....even the DC law was overturned. So stop braying that bullshit.

And guns are designed to KILL...whether it be for food, defense or offense. "Target" shooting is to hone those skills. CHOICE determines how the gun is used.

People kill people....and they can do it more efficiently with guns.

Read the bolded... that is precisely the point. It is the choice of the individual how to use the gun. Thus it is the individual that is responsible.

Once again you demonstrate the idiot mentality of the teabagger/libertarian/oather/threeper/neocon.....taking things out of context. Leaving out the rest of the sentence was convenient for your small mind, but in a printed forum it can't be ignored

And guns are designed to KILL...whether it be for food, defense or offense. "Target" shooting is to hone those skills. Choice determines how the gun is used.

Don't waste everyone time by braying some bullshit that the vast majority of weapons are purchased for target practice...because that would severely limit the models. Home defense is the main reason, hunting is the second...and all those jokers vying for CWP across the fifty states sure as hell are not doing it for clay pigeons. That being said, a simple background check won't kill you if all you want is an AR-15 to shoot clay pigeons, right toodles? And hunting doesn't require a semi-automatic, now does it? And wouldn't it be nice to limit the ability for a lot of criminals to get guns as much as possible?

Think it through, you SuperFreaking fool!
 
Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
Nobody has "grabbed" any gun in the US via federal law in the last 50 years....even the DC law was overturned. So stop braying that bullshit.

And guns are designed to KILL...whether it be for food, defense or offense. "Target" shooting is to hone those skills. CHOICE determines how the gun is used.

People kill people....and they can do it more efficiently with guns.
Also, there are more than 300mm guns owned in the US and about 250mm cars.

And yet they are not registered like cars...if one is to believe your stats. Small wonder why criminals can get them.
 
Gunners are against a simple background check, yet they are for the Patriot Act allowing the NSA to tap into your mail, e-mails, run a background check on you, etc. WITHOUT any reason or gov't oversight.

Can you say, "stupid MF's, boys and girls?"
 
Gunners are against a simple background check, yet they are for the Patriot Act allowing the NSA to tap into your mail, e-mails, run a background check on you, etc. WITHOUT any reason or gov't oversight.

Can you say, "stupid MF's, boys and girls?"

[Citation Needed]
 
Gunners are against a simple background check, yet they are for the Patriot Act allowing the NSA to tap into your mail, e-mails, run a background check on you, etc. WITHOUT any reason or gov't oversight.

Can you say, "stupid MF's, boys and girls?"
yes, you are a stupid MFer. The three major gunners on here are AGAINST the patriot act. you are such a damned fool.
 
in other words, lets reduce the right to bear arms to such a miniscule ability so as not to be able to be used or exercised because the founding fathers were just plain wrong about government being tyrannical when it's absolutely benevolent and has nothing but the peoples best interests at heart.

you really should read all the documents and essays of the founders. they really were brilliant people who knew what they were talking about.

How on God's green Earth is a simple background check reducing your right to bear arms? Are you a criminal?
 
Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
Get off your lazy ass and cite the specific law, genius.....because your "version" of things leaves a LOT to be desired.

look up the lautenberg amendment or shut up. you've embarrassed yourself enough for one lifetime.

No, YOU made the statement so the burden of proof is on YOU, you braying jackass. Show us all this amendment, and point to exactly how it proves your previous contention. Like I said, I'm damned tired of doing your homework for you. Put up or STFU!
 
Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
How on God's green Earth is a simple background check reducing your right to bear arms? Are you a criminal?

did you stop beating your wife?

I never married, stupid. Nor do I strike women, Nor do I have a criminal record....unlike a CONVICTED WIFE BEATER. And you STILL have to explain how having a felony record for spousal abuse should NOT prohibit purchasing of a gun?

What's the matter, STY....got a little handy with the wife/girlfriend and the cops won't let you have a gun? Feeling a little emasculated? Figures.
 
Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
I never married, stupid. Nor do I strike women, Nor do I have a criminal record....unlike a CONVICTED WIFE BEATER. And you STILL have to explain how having a felony record for spousal abuse should NOT prohibit purchasing of a gun?

What's the matter, STY....got a little handy with the wife/girlfriend and the cops won't let you have a gun? Feeling a little emasculated? Figures.

http://www.threefeloniesaday.com/Youtoo/tabid/86/Default.aspx

I notice how your site NEVER has a link to the actual cases it discusses....thus giving it the freedom to pass supposition and conjecture off as FACT.

But I digress....where is the information that PROVES that a CONVICTED WIFE BEATER is being WRONGLY DENIED purchase of a gun? See, IGNORANCE IS NO DEFENSE WHEN BREAKING THE LAW (although a judge can take that into account). Bottom line: you got a criminal record for wife beating, you don't get a gun.

So again, what are you jokers so afraid of? According to you, the Patriot Act was alright because if you haven't done anything wrong, a phone tap or background check shouldn't worry you. So what's the problem now, bunky?
 
I notice how your site NEVER has a link to the actual cases it discusses....thus giving it the freedom to pass supposition and conjecture off as FACT.
Well, in fairness the site is a promotional for a book on the subject. But I can't post the book, which discusses everything in detail.

So again, what are you jokers so afraid of? According to you, the Patriot Act was alright because if you haven't done anything wrong, a phone tap or background check shouldn't worry you. So what's the problem now, bunky?

I will give you $10,000 if you can find a single post by myself or STY that supports the Patriot Act. Or hell, a single sentence. C'mon man, you sound so sure, you should be able to make easy money. So is it a bet?
 
Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
I notice how your site NEVER has a link to the actual cases it discusses....thus giving it the freedom to pass supposition and conjecture off as FACT.

Well, in fairness the site is a promotional for a book on the subject. But I can't post the book, which discusses everything in detail.

And that is another discussion for another day....which essentially detours from STY's absurd assertions regarding the "unfairness" of a background check that brings to light a domestic abuse record that would prevent purchasing a gun as "unfair".


So again, what are you jokers so afraid of? According to you, the Patriot Act was alright because if you haven't done anything wrong, a phone tap or background check shouldn't worry you. So what's the problem now, bunky?


I will give you $10,000 if you can find a single post by myself or STY that supports the Patriot Act. Or hell, a single sentence. C'mon man, you sound so sure, you should be able to make easy money. So is it a bet?

First off, I don't know who the hell you are....so unless you're using multiple screen names, I don't recall debating you previously. That being said, STY and I have a history where he consistently denies any affiliation or like minded attitude with ANY recognized political party, yet calls himself a "true libertarian". To date, his definition seems to morph into whatever he needs it to be, but I only recall we agreeing once or twice on any topic regarding the shennanigans of the new conservative/tea party folk that have taken over the GOP. Case in point here, he's right in line with every right wingnut out there when it comes to the "logic" he uses regarding gun control laws and regulations.

As for libertarians, I find them to be a joke....a bunch of "anti-gov't" types who want to reinvent the wheel using corporate confederation as a replacement for our current system of gov't....but the second one points out the contradictive/hypocritical nature of that philosophy, the wheels come of their mantra wagon and they spew all types of circular logic and just plain nonsense. After awhile, one just stops debating with a libertarian because it's like banging your head against a wall....it feels so good when you stop.

So again, why the hell are YOU so afraid of a background check?
 
No, it's not, but you'll never be convinced of that.

Do you have a lot of cannons in your neighborhood? You're not allowed to own grenades. As far as swords and spears, hard to kill 25 people in 5 minutes with those.

And back to topic - by all means, the makers of swords, spears, cannons, etc should not be protected from lawsuits.


How about poison ?.....anyway, the efficiency of a weapon is irrelevant.
 
First off, I don't know who the hell you are....
Yes, we know you have an uncanny ability to not discern simple facts about posters here, nothing new.
so unless you're using multiple screen names, I don't recall debating you previously.
See above.
That being said, STY and I have a history where he consistently denies any affiliation or like minded attitude with ANY recognized political party, yet calls himself a "true libertarian".
So I take it you can't back up your claim. Shame man, I thought you wanted some easy money.
To date, his definition seems to morph into whatever he needs it to be, but I only recall we agreeing once or twice on any topic regarding the shennanigans of the new conservative/tea party folk that have taken over the GOP. Case in point here, he's right in line with every right wingnut out there when it comes to the "logic" he uses regarding gun control laws and regulations.
Uh huh, ok. Listen if you can't provide evidence of something you're so sure of, I don't want to hear it.

As for libertarians, I find them to be a joke....a bunch of "anti-gov't" types who want to reinvent the wheel using corporate confederation as a replacement for our current system of gov't....but the second one points out the contradictive/hypocritical nature of that philosophy, the wheels come of their mantra wagon and they spew all types of circular logic and just plain nonsense. After awhile, one just stops debating with a libertarian because it's like banging your head against a wall....it feels so good when you stop.
Yes, in addition to your utter inability to recognize long standing posters, you also have an utter inability to understand Libertarianism. I'm almost positive you're the Left's version of Dixie.

So again, why the hell are YOU so afraid of a background check?
Other than the elimination of the sale of legal private property between two legal individuals for no gain when a much better solution exists? Nothing. I'm an FFL, I don't have to worry about shit.
 
And yet they do in far higher numbers, therefore it's clearly a safety defect with the product.

Could it be because 90% of citizens own automobiles, while 33% own guns? I don't know what it works out to be mathematically, but in ten states, guns now kill more people than automobiles.

Automobiles are also highly regulated.

PS: still don't want to take your guns, just don't want idiots having them or people who are prone to violence for whatever reason.
 
Last edited:
Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
First off, I don't know who the hell you are....

Yes, we know you have an uncanny ability to not discern simple facts about posters here, nothing new.

Who the hell is "we" bunky? Unless you identify yourself by some previous screen name, I don't know who the hell you are nor do I recall debating you other than on recently on this thread. So either identify yourself or stop wasting time and space playing games, because I won't respond to your BS stalling tactics and just watch you blow smoke.
so unless you're using multiple screen names, I don't recall debating you previously.

See above.

Likewise
That being said, STY and I have a history where he consistently denies any affiliation or like minded attitude with ANY recognized political party, yet calls himself a "true libertarian".

So I take it you can't back up your claim. Shame man, I thought you wanted some easy money.

You're babbling, son. All one has to do is just read STY's posts regarding his stance on current "libertarian" political figures, what they state, how they vote on current events....and then read STY's responses/assessments/assertions. Better yet, just follow any exchange he has with me regarding political affiliations, etc (example being this thread here). Hopefully, you're not too dense and will get the point.


To date, his definition seems to morph into whatever he needs it to be, but I only recall we agreeing once or twice on any topic regarding the shennanigans of the new conservative/tea party folk that have taken over the GOP. Case in point here, he's right in line with every right wingnut out there when it comes to the "logic" he uses regarding gun control laws and regulations.


Uh huh, ok. Listen if you can't provide evidence of something you're so sure of, I don't want to hear it.

See above response



As for libertarians, I find them to be a joke....a bunch of "anti-gov't" types who want to reinvent the wheel using corporate confederation as a replacement for our current system of gov't....but the second one points out the contradictive/hypocritical nature of that philosophy, the wheels come of their mantra wagon and they spew all types of circular logic and just plain nonsense. After awhile, one just stops debating with a libertarian because it's like banging your head against a wall....it feels so good when you stop.

Yes, in addition to your utter inability to recognize long standing posters, you also have an utter inability to understand Libertarianism. I'm almost positive you're the Left's version of Dixie.


You're babbling again son....and note that you're not really important enough for me to give a damn as to what name you previously posted under. As for your accusation regarding libertarianism, let's see if you have the intellectual honesty to answer the question I put forth here as a "libertarian" (if that is indeed what you are calling yourself). I'll wait.

So again, why the hell are YOU so afraid of a background check?



Other than the elimination of the sale of legal private property between two legal individuals for no gain when a much better solution exists? Nothing. I'm an FFL, I don't have to worry about shit.

You need to stop and think before your fingers hit the keys, bunky. If there is a "sale" between two people, then there is a "gain"...also known as "profit"....otherwise, you would just have a "trade" or a gift from one person to another.

Got that bunky? If so, then you'll understand that a background check is done by REGISTERED gun salesmen. What you are describing is what goes on between individuals...of which there is no federal law against. Which is one of the contributing factors to guns ending up on the black market being picked up and used by criminals. Which is why there was a push to have those "trade shows" be put in the same category as your local weapons shop.....to at least slow the tide of criminals getting their hands on guns. Another aspect would be to have all legal gun purchasers register and license their guns like they do their cars...that way, when you sell it to someone else under any circumstance, that gun can be traced more efficiently in the event it falls into criminal hands and is used in a crime.

So a background check would not interfere in your little scenario...unless either you or the seller/buyer have a criminal record and that gun ends up being used in a crime. I hope you understand this, because I can't dumb it down any further. Carry on.
 
You need to stop and think before your fingers hit the keys, bunky. If there is a "sale" between two people, then there is a "gain"...also known as "profit"....otherwise, you would just have a "trade" or a gift from one person to another.
I meant that the proposed law would have no gain to anyone.
Got that bunky? If so, then you'll understand that a background check is done by REGISTERED gun salesmen.
You don't say? Damn, and here I thought my FFL was just so I could throw money away. Thanks for the lovely education on the matter.
What you are describing is what goes on between individuals...of which there is no federal law against.
And the proposed bill was going to eliminate that, buy calling private sales which were specifically exempted from being allowed an NICS check, a loop hole.
Which is one of the contributing factors to guns ending up on the black market being picked up and used by criminals.
[Citation Needed]
Which is why there was a push to have those "trade shows" be put in the same category as your local weapons shop
They already are. If an FFL sells a gun, they have to do a background check. Doesn't matter where it's sold.
Another aspect would be to have all legal gun purchasers register and license their guns like they do their cars...that way, when you sell it to someone else under any circumstance, that gun can be traced more efficiently in the event it falls into criminal hands and is used in a crime.
Except registries don't do that. At all. Ever. Anywhere. They're wastes of money with immense potential for abuse and absolutely no gain (when it comes to fighting crime).

So a background check would not interfere in your little scenario...unless either you or the seller/buyer have a criminal record and that gun ends up being used in a crime. I hope you understand this, because I can't dumb it down any further. Carry on.
Uhhh yes it would. It would mean I, a legal gun owner, could not sell my own legal private property to another legal individual. I'd have to have a FFL do it for me (yes, I am an FFL in this case, but that's irrelevant). And if I, as a private citizen, try to call the NICS number to perform a background check, it's a felony.
 
Back
Top