Pat Toomey: Background Checks Died Because GOP Didn't Want To Help Obama

Bfgrn said:
Let's try using your brains instead of your anal sphincter here. OK? Here is STY's scenario. The husband is abusive, but not just abusive, terrorizing abusive. He is also a COP.

NOW, let's say this wife buys a gun and introduces it into a domestic struggle...

WTF do you surmise will be the outcome here?

THINK man...
Click to expand...
don't bother when you can't even get my scenario right.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
don't bother when you can't even get my scenario right.
Click to expand...

If the wife in your scenario plans to buy a gun to protect her from an abusive husband, she better shoot him when he walks in the door, or is sound asleep. Otherwise, she will no longer be a victim of wife beating, she will be a victim of homicide.
 
Bfgrn said:
If the wife in your scenario plans to buy a gun to protect her from an abusive husband, she better shoot him when he walks in the door, or is sound asleep. Otherwise, she will no longer be a victim of wife beating, she will be a victim of homicide.
Click to expand...
this is something I tell every woman I offer to teach. Don't buy the gun unless you plan on being able to use it. but again, that is not my scenario. try reading my scenario AGAIN and come back to me.
 
Steelplate said:
Yes...your scenario included the notion that because the abusive husband is a cop....she won't be able to get the gun if she had to submit to a Federal Background check.
Click to expand...
no, that was not my scenario either. please, read it again. specifically the part about a permit to purchase, which some states and locales require.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
this is something I tell every woman I offer to teach. Don't buy the gun unless you plan on being able to use it. but again, that is not my scenario. try reading my scenario AGAIN and come back to me.
Click to expand...

You better teach them premeditated murder, otherwise they will be marked 'absent' from your next class. Just like 20 children are marked 'absent' every day at Sandy Hook.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
so lets say that an abused wife is trying to leave her abusive cop husband, but in her terror she wants to buy a gun for her safety but has to fill out her background check paperwork at the department her abusive husband works for?
Click to expand...

Here's exactly what you wrote. You specifically mentioned background checks...you did not mention permit to purchase....which I personally know nothing about as I live in a rural Pennsylvania setting and we have nothing like that....the only permits we need is for open and concealed carry.

So...don't assume everyone knows what you're talking about when you don't explain the point you're trying to make sufficiently.
 
Steelplate said:
Here's exactly what you wrote. You specifically mentioned background checks...you did not mention permit to purchase....which I personally know nothing about as I live in a rural Pennsylvania setting and we have nothing like that....the only permits we need is for open and concealed carry.

So...don't assume everyone knows what you're talking about when you don't explain the point you're trying to make sufficiently.
Click to expand...
did you copy from my post? my bad. I did say background check and not purchase permit, but the same issue still resides. what happens when her estranged cop husband is informed she's trying to buy a gun?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
did you copy from my post? my bad. I did say background check and not purchase permit, but the same issue still resides. what happens when her estranged cop husband is informed she's trying to buy a gun?
Click to expand...

No....I quoted it..just like I did now.

EDIT: why would he be informed? It's a Federal check....what if the shop owner informed him, not knowing he was abusive? I mean, we can sit here all day and knock holes in these things as long as our imagination and creativity can hold up.
 
Steelplate said:
Yeah...whatever. So...you doubt my sincerity? Well, why should you be any different than ILA, 911, or any of the others? I get the same thing from them.
Click to expand...

If you support background checks I have no idea why you felt my post was directed at you or took it upon yourself to go sideways over it. If it's not about you, it's not about you. Your drama queen breakdown is not my responsibility, nor is it my responsibility to respond to it. Save the drama for your mama.
 
Darla said:
If you support background checks I have no idea why you felt my post was directed at you or took it upon yourself to go sideways over it. If it's not about you, it's not about you. Your drama queen breakdown is not my responsibility, nor is it my responsibility to respond to it. Save the drama for your mama.
Click to expand...

Ummm...it was a reply with my post quoted, IIRC... but I may be mistaken....let me double check before I go on....
 
Steelplate said:
Ummm...it was a reply with my post quoted, IIRC... but I may be mistaken....let me double check before I go on....
Click to expand...

I could give a flying shit. If you support the background checks this was about, then you shouldn't have responded to my first post. Sounds to me like you are in it for the drama. Please save it. I. Don't. Care.
 
Darla said:
I could give a flying shit. If you support the background checks this was about, then you shouldn't have responded to my first post. Sounds to me like you are in it for the drama. Please save it. I. Don't. Care.
Click to expand...

Good God...you're a little brat, aren't you? I can just see you all puffed out with your arms crossed like a little third grader....holding your breath or something.

OK...since REASONABILITY is not possible between you and I on this subject...I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.... even though I agree with background checks in the first place.

Now breathe.
 
maineman said:
loopholes are legal... there is nothing illegal about using a loophole, but it certainly does allow some to circumvent the spirit of background checks, wouldn't you agree?
Click to expand...
there is no possible way it can be a loophole if 'private sales' were purposefully exempted from having to do background checks. It was discussed and debated before the law was signed and YOUR congress concluded that to reduce the number of FFL's out there, thus reducing the number of people having access to NICS, that PRIVATE sales would not be required to do background checks. That is NOT a loophole.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
there is no possible way it can be a loophole if 'private sales' were purposefully exempted from having to do background checks. It was discussed and debated before the law was signed and YOUR congress concluded that to reduce the number of FFL's out there, thus reducing the number of people having access to NICS, that PRIVATE sales would not be required to do background checks. That is NOT a loophole.
Click to expand...

It may have not started out that way....but it certainly became one. Along the same vein as the repeal of Glass/Steagall was intended to cut through red tape, but turned into a free for all which helped to damn near collapse the global economy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top