Here is a great reason why we need to have universal background checks.
She was denied a permit to purchase a weapon by her hometown police department in Eden Valley, south of St. Cloud, because background checks turned up a history of violating restraining orders. She went on an Internet site and arranged for the private purchase of a 9-millimeter handgun and ammunition.
The sale required no background check.
On Feb. 12, 2012, she went to the home of an ex-boyfriend, Bret Struck, in Brooklyn Center, whom she had stalked for eight years. She killed him, firing every round that came with the gun, and is now in prison for 40 years.
The law did what is was supposed to do but it wasn't enough. Who sold her this gun? More importantly, the answer from the gun rights folks is, "Oh, well. Better that than an American Hitler taking over in my fevered, paranoid fantasies." Remember Jon Stewart?
Their paranoid fear of a possible dystopic future prevents us from addressing our actual dystopic present.
37 comments:
Even Joe Biden admits that the administration's gun control actions won't stop the shootings. So why do those things? (49 days and counting)
In other words. Joe Biden admits that background checks wouldn't have stopped this woman anyway.
Since the leaders of the Democrat's effort to implement universal background checks say that "any bill without a records provision would be as toothless as an honor system", do you still assert that "[n]o one is talking about universal registration" and/or that it can be implemented without registration? (16 days and counting)
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
— Benjamin Franklin
And what's an essential liberty? This:
Given the following…
This first part of the 2nd Amendment establishes the intention to repel invasion, suppress insurrection, and locally enforce the law.
— Markadelphia
and this…
10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
… how is the militia supposed to "repel invasion, suppress insurrection" and prevent "representatives of the people [from] betray[ing] their constituents" (Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper 28) if you have taken away the weapons they need to succeed at those purposes? (50 days and counting)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_probability
A fallacious appeal to possibility:
Something can go wrong (premise).
Therefore, something will go wrong (invalid conclusion).
Makes sense, given your larger amygdala:)
Did I say that? NO!! Stop listening to the Voices In Your Head!!!!
The point of the 2nd Amendment is this: To Make Tyranny IMPOSSIBLE!!! When you take away the feature that PREVENTS the bad, You Make The Bad POSSIBLE!!
Why can't you get that through your thick skull????
Locally enforcing the law means making sure that criminals like Rochelle Inselman don't get guns. If the dealer she purchased this weapon from was required to do a background check, she would not have acquired a gun and Bret Struck would still be alive today.
You and your supporters are making it easier for criminals (and extremists, for that matter) to get guns because you're paranoid and want to win a blog argument. You offer no solution to this problem and I think that's fucking pathetic.
If the dealer she purchased this weapon from…
Dealers Are Already Required To Do Background Checks even on sales done over the internet. The gun is shipped from one FFL (dealer) to a local (FFL), who runs the actual NCIS background check.
Now read that again.
Read it again.
Do you understand it yet?
If the person she got the gun from was a "dealer", then they broke the law and should be prosecuted.
If they were not a dealer, then they were a private person. And that brings us back to the FACT that Chuck Schumer and Joe Manchin say that any [universal background check] bill without a records provision [registration] would be as toothless as an honor system.
Which, of course, brings us back around to:
Since the leaders of the Democrat's effort to implement universal background checks say that "any bill without a records provision would be as toothless as an honor system", do you still assert that "[n]o one is talking about universal registration" and/or that it can be implemented without registration? (16 days and counting)
And of course, you didn't answer this one either:
Even Joe Biden admits that the administration's gun control actions won't stop the shootings. So why do those things? (49 days and counting)
Those are the questions you are arguing against, while trying to pretend that the FACTS those questions are based on do not exist.
Stop foaming at the mouth Mark. Stop and LISTEN for one fucking moment in your life.
If the person she got the gun from was a "dealer", then they broke the law and should be prosecuted. If they were not a dealer, then they were a private person. And that brings us back to the FACT...
Well, there's an easy solution then. You have to be a licensed gun dealer to sell a gun. Then all gun sales would be subject to a background check. In fact, we could also require more frequent checks of the dealers themselves.
And, given that we already have all dealers required to perform background checks and that it hasn't led to universal registration, we're back to this again.
A fallacious appeal to possibility:
Something can go wrong (premise).
Therefore, something will go wrong (invalid conclusion)
Answering questions with questions is in no way a solution. If you don't think these ideas would work, offer a different solution than just "enforce the laws we already have" (because they don't work) or "oh well" (because people are dying).
I wonder how principled you would be if someone you knew or a member of your family was killed in a situation like this. New solutions, NMN...workable solutions, now. People are dying. Stop trying to win a blog argument.
Stop foaming at the mouth Mark. Stop and LISTEN for one fucking moment in your life
I'M foaming at the mouth? Good grief....
And, given that we already have all dealers required to perform background checks and that it hasn't led to universal registration
Spoken from a position of ignorance. All dealers are required to keep those records. The registration ends after it leaves the dealers inventory.
You really have a reading comprehension problem don't you?
I'M foaming at the mouth? Good grief....
Yes, foaming. You are so god damned sure that you are right about something you repeatedly prove your ignorance of that you are incapable of understanding or comprehending anything said to you that doesn't match you preconceived notions.
You've been told this material over and over again - yet you keep making fundamental errors in your basic assumptions.
Your foaming is getting in the way of your brain.
You are so god damned sure that you are right about something
The only thing I'm sure I'm right about is that you guys have dick for solutions. That's why all your comments are about me, not solving the problem. Personally, I'd rather see a solution come from the gun community but that's not likely to happen as long as we have the NRA brainwashing you guys into believing that the next Hitler is read to pounce if any changes are made to gun laws.
You do realize that the NRA is lobbying group for the gun industry, not 2nd amendment rights. Their job is to make sure that more guns get sold. Period. They don't give a shit what people do with them. They know full well (probably due to psychological marketing studies) exactly how to maintain their power and support.
They know you will always believe and always fall for the fallacy of appeal to probability.
You've been told this material over and over again
And through all of it, no solutions. No change. And more bodies. How many more, GD, until that pile is as significant as this pile?
http://letterstoadyingdream.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/communism_by_rapierwitt2.jpg
and Bret Struck would still be alive today.
Might still be alive. She had murderous intent. The gun may have made it easier, or she may have found another way to do it.
That's a thought that just scares the shit out of you, isn't it - that if someone wants to kill you, they probably will.
You have to be a licensed gun dealer to sell a gun.
And to sell marijuana you need to be a licensed pharmacist.
not solving the problem.
What problem are we not solving? Your irrational fear? You bet we can't solve that.
What happened at Newtown? Not one proposal yet would have had any effect on that.
So what fucking problem?
They know full well (probably due to psychological marketing studies) exactly how to maintain their power and support.
Are you off some medication of some type today? Dark forces aligned against you?
So what fucking problem?
The fact that we have people that shoot each other quite a bit in this country, more so than every other country in the western world and probably soon, the whole world. Doesn't that bother you?
If you don't think changing the gun laws will solve anything, fine. Come up with something else and let's put it into action. Throwing your hands up in the air and saying, "Oh well, better this than Stalin" isn't a fucking answer.
You have to be a licensed gun dealer to sell a gun. Then all gun sales would be subject to a background check. In fact, we could also require more frequent checks of the dealers themselves.
And, given that we already have all dealers required to perform background checks and that it hasn't led to universal registration, we're back to this again.
Again, you're demonstrating your total ignorance.
Here is a good summary of the regulations a dealer must comply with by law:
Once licensed, federal law requires dealers to:
• Initiate background checks on unlicensed firearm purchasers;
• Maintain records of the acquisition and sale of firearms;
• Report multiple sales of handguns (i.e., the sale of two or more pistols or revolvers to an unlicensed person within any five consecutive business day period)
• Report the theft or loss of a firearm to the Attorney General and to the “appropriate local authorities” within 48 hours after the theft or loss is discovered; and
• Provide a secure gun storage or safety device with every handgun purchased or sold.
…
FFLs must also submit to a maximum of one ATF inspection per year to ensure compliance with federal recordkeeping requirements. More frequent inspections are permitted if a federal magistrate has issued a search warrant or if the search is incidental to a criminal investigation. In addition, FFLs must respond to requests for information from ATF regarding the disposition of a firearm if such request is made during the course of a bona fide criminal investigation.
A FFL may not sell or deliver: 1) a handgun to a resident of another state; 2) a shotgun or rifle or ammunition for that firearm to a person the dealer knows or has reasonable cause to believe is under the age of 18; or (3) a handgun or handgun ammunition to a person the dealer knows or has reasonable cause to believe is under the age of 21.
Think about what you said, Mark. "You have to be a licensed gun dealer to sell a gun." In other words, if you own a gun, you must become a "dealer" at some point.
To implement that idea, you would then require every single gun owner to (among other things) "[m]aintain records of the acquisition and sale of firearms". That's registration. Period. Full Stop.
You would also be subjecting every single-gun owner to the BATFE tramping through their homes without a warrant, likely on a yearly basis given the BATFE's history. Note also that BATFE inspections are usually surprise inspections. Way to trample the Fifth Amendment there Mark.
Start reading and learning about the relationship between the BATFE and even the most honest, conscientious dealers. Then consider that you are calling for unleashing that on most of the population. Welcome to East Germany, comrade.
Come up with something else and let's put it into action. Throwing your hands up in the air and saying, "Oh well, better this than Stalin" isn't a fucking answer.
And doing something you know won't fix anything is a valid answer?!? ("Duh-uh, let's abuse the law abiding because we can't stop the lawless." Or is that "Do something! Anything! Even if it makes the problem worse!")
Have you forgotten the suggestions I DID make? (That comment plus the next one.) Apparently so.
Doesn't that bother you?
We actually have a lower murder rate than Brazil. No, our suicide rate does not concern me (with guns or without). I'm pretty sure you aren't all hot and bothered by the tiny number of people killed in accidental shootings.
Come up with something else and let's put it into action.
Disarm young black urban males and accord them no 4th or 5th Amdt rights either. You do care about the Hadiya Pendleton killing, right? Somehow I don't think you are going to throw your support behind such proposals though, are you?
I have to say, you are a classic case at this moment of irrational fear being played by political manipulators that slyly promise to do something that will make you feel better.
Didn't you used to argue that was a big problem on the right?
Manipulating me into what, exactly? We're back to appeal to probability again, aren't we? It always comes back to that. How I yearn for the day when we no longer have to take hysterical old ladies to the toilet...
We're back to appeal to probability again, aren't we?
Your entire anti-gun tirades are this exact thing, moron. Infringing on rights justified by probabilities that are pretty small, unless you are young and in urban poor areas. You aren't addressing a problem, you are lashing out at tool and masquerading it as the problem. Emotional ineffective drivel just for the sake of doing something.
Mark wants to change gun laws
Hitler changed gun laws
Mark is Hitler
Mark is Hitler
Teh stoopid! It bernses!
(As does the straw man.)
A fallacious appeal to possibility:
Something can go wrong (premise).
Therefore, something will go wrong (invalid conclusion).
There could be a totalitarian government in the United States
Therefore, it will happen so we need to make all of our laws in preparation for this.
A fallacious appeal to possibility
As usual, Mark didn't pay much attention to his own link.
First of all, Wikipedia includes this warning:
This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (January 2013)
There is only one source for this article, and accessing that source demonstrates that this Wikipedia entry is very poorly written. It turns out that the fallacy resides in treating an inductive argument as a deductive argument. The basic structure is there in the Wikipedia article, but they're unclear. Here are the hints:
Inductive arguments lack deductive validity and must therefore be asserted or denied in the premises.
… and …
A deductively valid argument…
So let's take a look at what the sole source for this article has to say:
---Quotation Start---
Appeal to Possibility
(also known as: appeal to probability)
Description: When a conclusion is assumed not because it is probably true, but because it is possible that it is true, no matter how improbable.
Logical Form:
X is possible.
Therefore, X is true.
Example #1:
Brittany: I haven't applied to any other schools besides Harvard.
Casey: You think that is a good idea? After all, you only have a 2.0 GPA, your SAT scores were pretty bad, and frankly, most people think you are not playing with a full deck.
Brittany: Are you telling me that it is impossible for me to get in?
Casey: Not *impossible*, but…
Brittany: Then shut your trap.
Explanation: Yes, it is possible that Harvard will accept Brittany to fill some sympathy quota, or perhaps someone at admissions will mix Brittany up with "Britney", the 16-year-old Asian with the 4.0 average who also discovered a vaccine for a rare flu in her spare time. But because Brittany is appealing to possibility, she is committing this fallacy.
Example #2:
Dave: Did you know that Jesus was gay?
Tim: And why do you say that?
Dave: You have to admit, it is possible!
Tim: So is that fact that you are a moron.
Explanation: We cannot assume Jesus was gay based on the possibility alone. This also include the argument from ignorance fallacy — concluding a possibility based on missing information (an outright statement that Jesus was a heterosexual).
Exception: When something is argued to be impossible, arguing that it is possible, no matter how improbable, is perfectly acceptable.
---Quotation End---
Wait!!! What was that exception?!? Mark keeps arguing that tyranny is IMPOSSIBLE in this country. And by looking at the source for Mark's own source, we see that arguing against this assertion is explicitly NOT this fallacy! Notice that possible vs. impossible is the central point of the question Mark keeps running away from:
Given your reasoning that any "inconvenient" check and balance can now be discarded to deal with the current crisis du jour, what makes tyranny Not Possible in this country? (32 days and counting)
But there's more. The Wikipedia page also links to an explanation of inductive vs. deductive logic because that difference is part of understanding this fallacy.
Here's what the source says:
---Quotation Start---
Deduction is a form of reasoning and argument in which the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises. Sticking with the classic example:
Premise 1: All humans are mortal.
Premise 2: Socrates is a human.
Conclusion: Socrates is mortal.
If the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true. That is what makes an argument deductive. This is also referred to as a formal argument.
Arguments where the conclusion is merely based on probability, not necessity, are considered inductive arguments. These are usually constructed through inductive reasoning, which is the process of making general conclusions from specific instances. For example:
Premise 1: The sun has risen every day so far.
Conclusion: Therefore, the sun will rise tomorrow.
Because the sun could possibly explode tonight, the conclusion is just very probable, therefore, this is an inductive, or informal argument.
---Quotation End---
Notice the difference between inductive and deductive:
Something can go wrong (premise).
Therefore, something will go wrong (invalid conclusion).
That is a deductive form of argument. "Will" indicates the "conclusion follow[ing] necessarily from the premises." But probabilities, by definition, are inductive arguments. Therefore, claiming a deductive conclusion from an inductive premise is what makes this a fallacy.
It's interesting to compare this to Mark's argument. "It is possible that tyranny won't occur in this country, therefore it will not occur in this country." It's fascinating how nicely his argument fits the form of the actual fallacy.
By contrast, our argument is actually inductive.
Premise: Every form of government in history has eventually collapsed.
Conclusion: Therefore, our form of government will eventually collapse.
Because the sun could possibly explode tonight, the conclusion is just very probable…
Likewise, on tyranny itself:
Premise 1: Tyranny is more common than not throughout human history due to human nature (lust for power).
Premise 2: Previously civilized nations have slid into tyranny.
Conclusion: It is possible—and even probable—that this county could slide into tyranny.
Again, this is an inductive not a deductive argument. That Mark insists on pretending it's a deductive argument is where he builds his straw man, turning it into a Voice In His Head.
Finally, on gun control and democide:
Premise 1: Every single instance of democide has occurred against a population which has been disarmed.
Deductive Conclusion: Therefore, keeping a population armed prevents democide.
Premise 2: There are disarmed populations which have not experienced democide.
Inductive Conclusion: Therefore, disarming a population makes democide possible, though not certain.
I'll tell you what, NMN. Here is a number which represents that likelihood of the United States being run by a communist or fascist regime.
.0001% of a chance.
So, not statistically impossible but highly unlikely. Based on this improbability, I think any minor changes we would pursue with our nation's gun laws (and the lives they would save) are worth it in comparison to this ridiculously improbable future event.
Now, what percentage of a chance do YOU think it's likely that we will have tyranny here? Put a number on it and stand behind it. It's obviously a concern more for you than me so your percentage should be higher. Also, do not answer my question or comments here with more questions. I catch any whiff of your usual psychosis and I'm done here.
.0001% of a chance.
Over what time period? The next 24 hours? The next 4 years? The next century?
Or are you operating on the statistical assumption that because it hasn't happened yet it never will?
The odds you quoted above are a bit better than any of the currently proposed gun laws chance of stopping the next Newtown, let alone Hadiya Pendleton shooting.
Now, what percentage of a chance do YOU think it's likely that we will have tyranny here?
100%, even if not in my lifetime.
100%, even if not in my lifetime.
Wow. Well, I suppose if it isn't really happening you could just pretend that it is happening. Man, I didn't think about that. I keep underestimating the bubble.
Oh, my answer is the next century. Actually, the next millennium!
Man, I didn't think about that. I keep underestimating the bubble.
Yeah that "bubble" called all of human history. Of course you would prefer your fantasies to such.
We haven't even outlived the Roman Republic yet, but you are just sure that it could never happen here. What a perfect Weimar German you would make.
What on earth could that crazy old white guy have meant when he talked about eternal vigilance? You haven't a clue because you trust your govt so much. Except you didn't not that long ago. You didn't trust Bush. So, once again, it is nothing but partisan hypocrisy and childishness and dishonesty from you, isn't it?
Manipulating me into what, exactly?
Hey! At least you aren't denying the manipulation for a change. Nor are you denying that you are being whipped into an emotional frenzy to support anything your puppetmasters propose. As long as they do something you can finally feel safe.
You just don't have clue one what Franklin was talking about with that liberty and safety stuff.
Good observation 6kings. Entirely accurate.
As long as they do something you can finally feel safe.
That's a profoundly idiotic mis-characterization and massive deflection from the simple fact that you guys don't know how to solve problems. All you have is dysentery. Of course, I'm sure this is how you perceive people who want to address the issue of gun safety in this country because it's all about feeling safe for you guys.
Oops, forgot to put the questions relevant to this thread in bold.
----------
Simple questions Mark refuses to answer:
…
Is the Constitution law? (65 days and counting)
Even Joe Biden admits that the administration's gun control actions won't stop the shootings. So why do those things? (51 days and counting)
…
Given your reasoning that any "inconvenient" check and balance can now be discarded to deal with the current crisis du jour, what makes tyranny Not Possible in this country? (33 days and counting)
…
Since the leaders of the Democrat's effort to implement universal background checks say that "any bill without a records provision would be as toothless as an honor system", do you still assert that "[n]o one is talking about universal registration" and/or that it can be implemented without registration? (18 days and counting)
As I have stated previously, the reason why I won't answer your questions (and I have actually answered some of them but you ignored what I wrote and continued with your psychosis) is because you're an asshole. You don't really want to have a serious debate on this stuff so you act like a 12 year old and frame the questions in a very childishly dishonest way. Everything is geared towards a "win" via semantics and traps. But that's what you conservatives are all about these days because you don't have anything to stand behind of your own. It's all about commentary or dissent...dysentery, if you will:)
You refuse to elaborate on your own questions and continue to answer my questions with more questions. That's why cowardly dickheads do, NMN. Usually, I don't go in for such personal and pointed statements directed at one person but it really does seem to matter to you what I think and write so now you and all the imaginary people that you think read the comments section (and are hoping to sway into the bubble) know where I am at.
Here's my issue with your questions. Take a look again at the definition of troll.
Online it originally meant the act of posting a message in a newsgroup (and later on a blog) that is obviously exaggerating something on a particular topic hoping to trick a newbie into posting a follow-up article that points out the mistake.
That's are all your questions in a nutshell. You begin with your hubris (as most right wing douches do) by assuming that all liberals are naive idiots. That's why you asked the questions the way you did. Take the Constitution question, for example. If I answer "yes," you can then proceed on to the next phase of your trollness and "show me" how all the laws that liberals have passed violate the Constitution (gun laws, health care etc). By answering "no" (and one can, given how you worded the question), you can then accuse me of being a traitor or some other bit of psychotic nonsense. Of course, what's interesting here is how someone who believes so strongly in state's rights is taking such an absolutist position on federal power. What happened? But I really don't think you've thought it through that much. Nor have you likely thought about how things like a photo ID law or laws against gay marriage (two laws you do support) are in violation of the document that is absolute law, given the nature of those laws. So, your contention that the Constitution is absolute law rings completely hollow considering your previously stated ideology. That's why answering this question leads to more madness.
It's the same thing with Joe Biden (a Fox news like characterization of his statements), the tyranny question (any answer allows you to continue your trollness), the false-truth question (again, I recently heard a 10 year old ask this question), and the ER question (I answer that we have to treat everyone, you say it's really the government's fault, then, I ask you if you would let people die, you ignore that and then spout latin or some dime store logic and the madness continues). Sadly, I have no doubt that even this engagement will perpetuate the psychosis.
M always refuses to engage when his childishness and dishonesty are so exposed.
Post a Comment