Ah, so it's one handgun a month, not one gun a month.
Well, I was hoping if I demonstrated that I don't like some of the things the left presents on gun control that you would respond in kind with some the things you would change about the gun rights community. I actually think gun bans are a bad idea.
What's not a bad idea, however, is everyone getting a fucking background check who buys a gun. It's completely ridiculous that you don't support this. Further, you guys should be doing everything in your power to make sure that criminals and the mentally ill don't get guns if you don't want any government doing it.
Because, as I have explained, any universal background check program that does not include registration is a hollow shell of nothingness. It is ineffective on it's face.
And since I am adamantly opposed, for lots of reasons, to registration I have to oppose the short sighted background check proposals.
And I reject your explanation and consider it to be complete partisan bullshit as well as NRA propaganda. So, the next time you or juris accuse me of being a partisan hack, remember this conversation and who is the one being obstinate.
The gun community's mea culpa moment is coming, GD, and when it happens, it's going to hurt...bad. Most of you will wonder just what the fuck you were all thinking...
He's successfully evaded answering that question for going on 8 months now. Explaining how a law is supposed to accomplish what it claims it will accomplish is so 20th Century. Just pass it and then we'll see how it works! {/sarc} Uh huh.
No, I haven't. The only failure has been for you guys to be able to explain how Manchin-Toomey, which specifically outlawed any sort of registration (punishable by 15 years in prison), would somehow magically result in it anyway...just "cuz." And that's with gun sellers keeping the necessary records, not the government.
There are background checks now on most gun purchases. Is there registration?
There are background checks now on all job applications and things like apartment renting. Is there a registration for renters?
You go into a store or somewhere else and buy a gun. The seller asks for your ID. They run your name through a computer to see if you have a criminal record or a record of severe mentall illness. f you do, you don't get a gun. If you don't, you get a gun. The end. It doesn't have to be more complicated than that.
Further, none of you have adequately explained (aside from paranoid mouth foaming) how registration leads to confiscation even if it somehow had to happen. My car has not been confiscated. Neither has my dog or my fishing pole.
There are background checks now on most gun purchases.
I really have to assume you know that isn't true. You've certainly been told it isn't true. I further assume that you don't care about truth - only winning the argument.
There is obviously a complete failure here to understand that the pressure is on you guys, not me. Obviously this is the case, hence the usual redirect. The gun community needs to explain how they are going to do a better job of keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill. Period. There is no other discussion to be had.
I've already rejected your explanation as to why it would be ineffective so it's up to you to come up with a better solution for keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill. Saying the law is fine the way it is is not an option because it clearly isn't.
Sorry, GD, but we're not focusing on me and avoiding the problem. What is your solution to deal more effectively with the problem of guns getting into the hands of criminals and the mentally ill? If you don't want universal background checks, what is the alternative?
See, what I don't get here is why you think it's OK for there to be some avenues that criminals get guns without a background check. You have done a very poor job of explaining how this should be allowed.
So let me get this straight. I make several long posts explaining to you in great detail why your preferred position is unworkable and your entire reaction is to say that you unilaterally reject my argument but will not provide any reason or explanation for doing so. Then you demand from me that I provide you with an explanation of my preferred position?
Why? So you can reject it out of hand without reason or explanation as well?
Does that work both ways then? Can I reject your rejection without stating a case? Heck, I reject your rejection of my rejection.
If that's as honest and serious as you are going to be with this conversation then here: My solution to effectively deal with guns is flying purple space monkeys. I refuse to explain that further and will not respond to your objection of it.
The ball has never been in my court, GD. You don't want a gun ban? Fine, neither do I. You don't want universal background checks? Fine. I don't agree with your paranoid leap nor does the evidence you presented prove anything but I'm willing to listen to alternatives.
33 Americans a day, GD. What you are going to do to change that?
Sorry, GD, but we're not playing that game (staying on the territory where you can "win" and distract from real solutions).
No gun ban, no universal background checks...then what? 33 Americans die every day from gun violence. What is your solution to solving that problem? What is your solution to keep guns out the hands of criminals and the mentally ill?
Sorry Mark, as long as you are being childish and insisting that you can simply 'reject' anything I say then you have given me no reason to offer you any thoughtful proposals.
You want a discussion, you must participate. Making an imperial declaration that you 'reject' an argument without explanation does not a discussion make.
M plays the trusty "I'm a deliberate fuckwit" card in the vain attempt to escape being pathetic, childish and dishonest. Maybe someone who really loves him will explain to him why that isn't such a clever move.
Actually, GD, I'm being conciliatory and my opinion doesn't really matter regarding universal background checks. You don't like them? Fine. They're not going to happen. What is the alternative?
The avoidance you are doing here reveals quite a bit. You guys like to bitch but have no real solutions of your own. 33 Americans every day, GD...
Has it ever occurred to the deliberate fuckwit that might not be any better solution than what we have now? A solution in which firearms murder have declined by half or more in the last generation?
We keep telling the deliberate fuckwit that without universal registration (which was a miserably expensive failure even with long guns in Canada) that universal background checks are simply unenforceable (i.e., how can .gov prove beyond a reasonable doubt that any gun manufactured before 2014 (or whatever) was transferred without a background check?). We've been waiting (and waiting, and waiting ) for any kind of answer beyond, "We have to do something! This is something! Therefor we need to do this!" Everyone except the deliberate fuckwit can see that requiring universal background checks without universal registration will be even less successful and enforceable as Canada's long-gun registry or our banning marijuana (i.e., an extremely small percentage will be deterred or caught by stings, but the vast majority will continue as before).
I'm sorry, deliberate fuckwit, but if you say we need to do something, the onus is upon YOU to show how it "something" will be effective given its unenforceable nature. To any thinking person, it's only natural to suspect that you and others already know it will be ineffective, but are counting on follow-up laws that will "close loopholes".
So go stuff your straw-man argument that we (or at least most of us) think universal registration automatically leads to confiscation up your man-womb (rectum) and go give birth to it elsewhere. We simply recognize that registration is a necessary precondition to confiscation (and only applies to the law-abiding) and we don't want, nor is there any need, to go any further in that direction than we already have. Firearms crimes ave been declining for a generation, fuckwit. It's not a fucking emergency!
Has it ever occurred to the deliberate fuckwit that might not be any better solution than what we have now?
If you call 33 dead Americans every day acceptable, Larry, well, I guess that makes you a pretty heartless bastard. I wonder if you would feel differently if 33 Americans died every day from Islamic extremism.
Actually, GD, I'm being conciliatory and my opinion doesn't really matter regarding universal background checks
Does that mean you won't be posting any more smarmy facebook grabs advocating for them in the future? Does that mean we won't find ourselves next month arguing THE SAME FUCKING point again while you act like this conversation never happened?
If you really thought your opinion didn't matter then you wouldn't have made this post.
The avoidance you are doing here reveals quite a bit
Avoidance? FUCK YOU, you are the one doing the avoiding asshole.
Fine. You don't want to explain why you 'reject' my argument about universal background checks? I will take that to mean you cannot do so. If you cannot do so then you have no defense for your position. If your position is indefensible it is void.
The 'background check' position says that criminals and mentally defective people are too dangerous to be allowed to have guns. Fine. But if they are so dangerous why are they allowed to walk the street next to my children?
If you can't trust a person with a gun, you can't trust them in public at all.
Yet another logical fallacy (slippery slope) offered as "evidence"
I've given you every opportunity to come up with a solution to the problem of 33 Americans dying every day from gun violence, GD, and you have offered nothing but the usual BS. As I suspected you have nothing or worse, you don't see this as a problem.
What solution? All you are is anti-universal background checks. I was thinking of something along be lines of maybe gun dealers doing a better job of keeping databases on criminals and refusing to sell guns to the mentally ill. Or they could be more proactive in the community when it comes to gun safety.
See? I'm doing your work for you. What a nice guy I am:)
No I am not. If you listened to what I said you'd understand. I am anti ineffective law. I am also anti registration.
gun dealers doing a better job of keeping databases on criminals
Are you a moron? That makes no sense.
refusing to sell guns to the mentally ill
That also makes no fucking sense. Who is mentally ill? Is there a database? Oh wait - certain mentally ill people already can't own guns - AND DEALERS ALREADY CAN'T SELL GUNS TO THEM.
I'd say that you don't understand the laws, but you don't like being told obvious factoid - so I'll just content myself with the other obvious - you really are a moron.
they could be more proactive in the community when it comes to gun safety.
Like the first class NRA Eddie Eagle program that idiots of your political stripe do their best to keep from being presented to children - because "!Yuck! guns!!!!"
If someone is too fucking dangerous to have a gun then they are too fucking dangerous to be walking the street next to my kids.
That is the statement.
No more games Mark. You refused to explain why you rejected my earlier contention. Now you are refusing to do the same here. Quit with the avoidance.
Uh...huh? If you are not anti-UBC, then how would you implement them?
it's amazing how things said to you can go in one ear and out the other with nary a pause for you to actually listen.....
If you'd bothered to pay attention, the answer to that question would be obvious and obviously unnecessary as it is contained in my own words here in this thread.
Using my own words here I will show you.
universal background checks without registration would be ineffective
I am anti ineffective law. I am also anti registration.
If UBC's are ineffective absent registration - then as an ineffective law I would be opposed.
If in order to be effective, UBC's would require registration - then as I am opposed to registration I would also have to be opposed to that particular solution.
Now, as asked many times earlier, if you have a way to make UBC's effective absent registration I would be all ears. But I can't think of one.
What would suggest?
I did suggest. You are again avoiding explaining your rejection. You call it a slippery slope? Where? What specifically about what I said is a slippery slope? I don't see it, and you are treating it as soooooo obvious that it should be a simple thing to explain exactly and precisely what I said is a slippery slope and how exactly it meets the criteria for being so.
As of today, you have failed to explain why universal background checks without a national registry would be ineffective. If someone had a criminal record, that would be part of public record which could be easily assessed with a background check. If they were an offender, they don't get a gun. If they aren't they do. It doesn't have to be more complicated than that.
And, no, you really haven't suggested anything substantive. No new laws is not an answer given the 33 Americans that day every day from gun violence.
As of today, you have failed to explain why universal background checks without a national registry would be ineffective.
Sigh.....
Go back to the top of the page. Read. Stated: I have previously explained in detail why universal background checks would be ineffective absent registration.
Your reply was that you rejected my argument without explaining why you did so.
Now you are claiming that I have not explained why.
So which is it?
Have I failed to explain why UBC's would be ineffective absent registration.
OR
Have you rejected the explanation that I had to have already given in order for you to reject it?
Manchin-Toomey which clearly stated no registration.
Which would be ineffective without registration, as explained previously.
And, no, you really haven't suggested anything substantive. No new laws.....
Then you aren't paying attention. Use your brain for once. What do you think it could possibly mean when someone says that a person who is too dangerous to have a gun is then also too dangerous to be allowed in public? Is that really so hard a concept that you can't figure it out?
I've always been amused by the faux withering...:)
So which is it?
I think you guys have finally reached the point of full collective:)
Go back to the top of the page. Read. Stated: I have previously explained in detail why universal background checks would be ineffective absent registration.
Where? Which link? It shouldn't be too difficult to cut and paste.
Oh, and that's the last time I explain SHIT to you if you don't start explaining yourself as well.
Considering that you haven't explained anything to me, that's not going to be much of a loss. All you have done is keep the focus on me and away from you because you have, in fact, shit.
I've offered several options in this post including how ubc would work without registration. You have yet to rebut that. Here it is again.
. If someone had a criminal record, that would be part of public record which could be easily assessed with a background check. If they were an offender, they don't get a gun. If they aren't they do. It doesn't have to be more complicated than that.
Now, respond without asking me any questions or redirect back to me.
If someone had a criminal record, that would be part of public record which could be easily assessed with a background check. If they were an offender, they don't get a gun. If they aren't they do. It doesn't have to be more complicated than that.
Now how can that actually be enforced? I know you hate questions, but it's really rather pointless to pass an unenforceable law. All you need to do is explain to us how any police agency can prove in a court of law that any particular gun was sold without such a background check, and how they can identify and prosecute the person who sold it. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt. For example, local gang representative who actively suppressed drug trade competition says he's owned the pistol since before the law was passed. Prove he didn't (assuming the gun is older than the law, which will be 99% of them). Original purchaser traced by ATF says he sold it before the law was passed, but has no record of the cash transaction. Now what? Or the gun was reported stolen. Now what? You'll be able to catch and convict some people, but it would be every bit as effective as the War on (Some) Drugs. If you can show why that's wrong, we're eagerly awaiting. Simply doing the pseudo-intellectual version of the snotty child saying, "Nuh-uhhh!!" doesn't really cut it.
Where? Which link? It shouldn't be too difficult to cut and paste.
So you are being an ignoramus.
GD:"Because, as I have explained, any universal background check program that does not include registration is a hollow shell of nothingness. It is ineffective on it's face."
Followed immediately by:
Markadoofus:"And I reject your explanation and consider it to be complete partisan bullshit as well as NRA propaganda."
So are you now telling me that you rejected an explanation that you actually have no fucking idea what it is, where it is or what is contained in it???? That's about par for you isn't it?
So, having done Your work for you, to refresh from February of this year:
Considering that you haven't explained anything to me,
What part of "If someone is too fucking dangerous to have a gun then they are too fucking dangerous to be walking the street next to my kids." are you having a problem with? It's a pretty god-damned simple statement that even a moron like yourself should be able to understand. You've acted like you understand it as you applied a 'rejection' to it. Still waiting for you to explain that rejection though.....
Perhaps if you explained your 'rejection' then we could progress to fixing whatever it is that you can't grasp....
Kinda just like if you had fucking explained your rejection at the top of the page we all could have figured out that you had no fucking idea what you were even rejecting....
Let me summarize for M again: I DON'T CARE WHAT I SAID, IT ISN'T WHAT I THINK NOW, OR THEN EITHER FOR THAT MATTER BECAUSE I JUST HATE YOU POOPYHEADS AND YOU'RE WRONG, DO YOU HEAR ME, W R O N G !!!!.
While I appreciate the refresher on the things you said in the past, it reminded me of why it is so difficult to have a reasonable discussion with you guys.
Now if G-man watches Ug hand the rock to Og
You expected to be taken seriously after something like this? And with the ad hom and personal insults?
Let's see if you can do two things:
1. Behaving like someone not 12 years old and more like an adult, explain why it's ineffective to run a background check on every gun purchase. A simple check at every purchase, beyond just the licensed dealers.
2. Explain, again using adult language, what sort of system you would like to see in place to solve the problem of 33 Americans dying every single day from gun violence.
No personal insults or obsessiveness with me either. That goes for you as well, juris.
Like I said, a few would be caught, but it would be largely ineffective because you know as well as I do that police simply can't observe any but a handful of transactions. So how do they enforce this law? Answer: they won't be able to in the vast majority of cases. And so it will make 'illegal' guns as hard for felons to obtain as crystal meth, crack cocaine, and marijuana are today.
I don't think much of your constant refrain of, "If you can't think of anything I believe is better to do, then we simply must do this stupid and ineffective thing instead. Because it shows we care and intentions are all that really matter, not results, and certainly not 2nd-order effects."
Better enforcement of laws we already have on the books and not meaningless gestures is what I suggest.
Dude, you just spent 2 days obstinately insisting that you had 'rejected' an argument that it turned out you didn't have any idea what the argument was.
You were provided with multiple links to that argument. Links that phrased the argument in multiple ways. But instead of reading them you focus on one that is written like a fable. You know, using metaphorical imagery. If that really is such a hardship for you to read - ignore it and read the other links that phrase it differently. Otherwise you could do like any school child and understand that 'Og' and 'Gog" could be named 'Bob' and 'Bill' and that instead of rocks they wrre exchanging a gun. But I used rocks on purpose. It was to illustrate the futility of attempting to 'track' the exchange of items without having some sort of baseline of who has what items at what point in time. So yeah, if we traded 'rocks' without a background check how would anybody except us know that occurred without somebody being able to state that a particular rock was in my possession yesterday and is in your possession today.
So to answer question #1 for the umpteenth time: It's ineffective to run a background check on every firearms transfer because there is no way to know that private firearms are even being transfered.
To answer question #2 for the umpteenth time: If somebody is too dangerous to have a gun, they are too dangerous to be in public. I still don't know why this is so difficult for you to grasp. Anybody that 'you' deem too dangerous to have a gun is too dangerous to be let loose with all the other dangerous things and amongst innocent people.
Oh and BTW. I care about people dying from all types of violence - not just gun violence. But of course, since you said it's about the people and not the guns you would never be just focusing on gun violence. Like repeating ad nauseum how many people die per day from gun violence and ignore all other deaths. No, you wouldn't do that. Such an appeal to emotion is beneath you....
Suppose I am a criminal and want to buy a gun without getting caught in a background check. I can't go to a licensed dealer because they run them. It's also my understanding that I can't go to a gun show because anyone who goes has to have a background check-dealer or buyer. Is this true? So, other than the street, what other avenues are available to me to buy a gun?
A neighbor, friend, coworker or somebody from the internet.
Let's say you are a criminal and I sell you a gun. We are supposed to do a background check but we ignore the law.
How do we get caught ignoring the law?
The gun I sell you is not registered to me, so nobody knows I have it now and nobody can prove I ever had it - so I can't get in trouble for selling it to you without a background check. All I have to say is I never had that gun.
You, as a criminal would already get in trouble if you are found with any gun - that is already the law.
If you weren't a criminal and we did this same exchange and since the gun isn't registered and it can't be proven to have ever been in my possession it also can't be proven when it came into your possession. All you have to say is that you had the gun prior to the background check law coming into effect.
Without the gun being registered to a person there is no way to know who has what gun now or who has what gun tomorrow. Without knowing that, it can't be known when a transfer takes place.
If it can't be known when a transfer takes place then the law is essentially unenforceable and an unenforceable law is ineffective.
A neighbor, friend, coworker or somebody from the internet.
It's my understanding that internet sales are pretty slim. Is that true? I know ebay doesn't sell guns. How many guns are sold each year on the internet? If it were a lot, it shouldn't be too difficult to run a quick background check using public records readily available on the internet. The same could be done for person to person sales, non-familial. By making it a law to run a background check, there would be some guns that would not make it into the hands of criminals because, while some people would exercise good judgement anyway and run a quick check, others would not. Some would if it were a law.
As to the rest of your comment, there is no way to check if people are following any of the other multitude of laws out there. Does that mean we shouldn't have any laws?
All you have to say is that you had the gun prior to the background check law coming into effect.
So what? Again, does that mean we just shouldn't have any laws? Further, all transactions that take place after the law takes effect should require a simple background check. There is no registration needed for this. I can type your name into a computer right now and find out if you have a criminal record or not. This is how people check up on people applying for jobs. It doesn't have to be that complicated but you are making it that way because you don't trust the government.
If they really wanted to take away your guns, GD, you'd be a shit stain right now.
But once it's law and the camel's nose is into the private owners' tent, it does provide a great opening for additional legislation to eventually "close the loopholes" of the ineffective and useless law and ease more of the camel inside. Of course, the first "loophole closings" won't be terribly effective, so in a few years or a decade or more, Markadelphia, Nikto, and their ilk will be demanding the "obvious" solution of universal registration. Which will be defied by all criminals and also many honest citizens, so then more and more draconian penalties will be imposed until the majority of honest citizen's gun are registered (or they've been turned into criminals by fiat), but mirabile dictu!, for some reason the drug gangs and others simply won't. So then harsher measures will be proposed. There's no reason why it would have to proceed exactly like that (Canada learned the uselessness of their hugely expensive and widely defied long-gun registry), but the gun-banning organizations make no secret of their long-term Fabian strategy, and we've seen it actually done in Australia and Britain. It's better for gun-rights people to fight it at the outset where we have a good chance of victory than rolling over again and again, giving up liberties in the name of (promised) safety, only to try to stop it during the end game with a generation who's grown up accepting existing massive restrictions. That's a recipe for losing. No thanks, we prefer to bash the camel's nose right back out of the tent door at the beginning, back out to where it belongs.
"We've got to stop them from banning pornography. Once they start banning one form of literature, they will never stop. Next thing you know, they will be burning all the books!"
It takes from real chutzpah to piss and moan at someone else's possible logical faux pas when you just laid down a big stinking reductio ad absurdum yourself.
I'm not sure M, is that more childish or more dishonest?
Right, Mark, when I said, "There's no reason why it would have to proceed exactly like that," I was making a slippery slope argument. Your reading comprehension is running at it's usually low level. But when gun-control groups make no secret of how they long ago gave up trying for the whole salami at once and have instead settled on slicing it bit-by-bit, I guess you think we shouldn't take them at their word. Like I said, it's no secret. Even you could discover that with a little Googling. That is, unless you already know it, and are denying it because acknowledging it is unhelpful.
I said it doesn't have to go that way, but the gun-controllers say that the only way they will ever get to British-style gun bans. I think your grasp of logical fallacies is as tenuous as your grasp on many common English words, such as "primary source", "verbatim", and "infer".
some people would exercise good judgement anyway and run a quick check, others would not. Some would if it were a law.
So you would get some guns transferred with a background check. But you would also get some that were not.
So you agree with me that the law would be ineffective. I'm not saying it would be ineffective as measured by me either, this thing would be ineffective in it's stated goals, in your own mind and by your own standards. And you would not be happy with it.
Would you be content with just 'some' transfers getting a background check? No, you would not. How do I know this? Because the situation right now is that 'some' transfers do get a background check and that apparently is not enough. You want 'more' than 'some' so you support a law that would get 'all'. If you were content with just 'some' you would content right now.
But as I have pointed out, the law you support can only get 'some' because it is lacking a certain a feature, registration. Without that feature you will only get 'some', with that feature you can get 'all'. You want 'all' and I've been telling you what you have to do to get it. Funny that you would argue with me when I'm giving you the help you need to achieve your goal......
Unless you already know this.
I've kept this conversation on the topic of UBC's only. I have not run off onto the topic of registration because under my contention that UBC's would be ineffective without registration, the topic of registration itself would only be relevant if one would agree not only that registration would be necessary for UBC's to be effective but also to then advocate for registration.
You however, have multiple times tried to throw out comments about slippery slopes that only would apply within a conversation about registration.
So, as we have seen, you do agree that UBC's would be ineffective without registration. So let's see if you are also an advocate for them as well.
You appear to defend registration when you comment that 'nobody is coming to get' my guns. Since the standard refrain is that registration leads to confiscation and you call that a slippery slope then I must assume you think that registration would not in fact lead to confiscation. In telling me that over and over again you defend the entire idea of registration. It appears that you are in favor of registration.
Now, let me ask you something.
If you are in favor of 'all' gun transfers having a background check.
And
If you already have a law that only 'some' transfers get a background check.
And
If that is not enough and you want more.
And
If you advocate for another law that will still only get 'some' more.
And
If you know that the only way to get 'all' is with registration.
And
If you defend the idea of registration.
Then
Would you or do you favor registration of guns in order to achieve your goal of 'all' transfers receiving a background check?
So you would get some guns transferred with a background check. But you would also get some that were not
You would get that with Manchin-Toomey as well due to the exceptions. The problem here, GD, is that you believe the right wing blog douche about Democrats. We aren't after perfect solutions. Just ones that work better.
Would you be content with just 'some' transfers getting a background check?
Again, that's Manchin-Toomey because there are exceptions. And, sure, I would be content with some, meaning more than now. I have no problem with the exceptions in MT which do address your concerns. Have you even read the bill? The link is above.
because under my contention that UBC's would be ineffective without registration
I disagree. Background checks are run in all sorts of other instances without registration. Again, all you need is a connection to the internet to check and see if someone has a criminal record.
Now, let me ask you something.
Let's see...in order....
No, the exceptions of MT are fine with me.
I'd like to see more and by that I mean the extensions in MT
Yes
Yes
Disagree, as stated and illustrated above.
I don't defend the idea of registration but I disagree that it would lead to confiscation or black helicopters or some other paranoid nonsense.
No, because it's not necessary.
What sort of plan do you have that will significantly reduce the 33 Americans who die every day from gun violence? Specifically, how do we keep criminals and the mentally ill from obtaining weapons?
You would get that with Manchin-Toomey as well due to the exceptions
None of the non checked transfers I have discussed fall under M-T exceptions. I am talking about transfers that should, under M-T have a check but as M-T is written there is no way to ensure the check happens, no way to know a check didn't happen and no way to punish those who didn't get a check.
The problem here, GD, is that you believe the right wing blog douche about Democrats
Really? Show me where.
We aren't after perfect solutions. Just ones that work better.
I know. By better you mean more background checks. I have shown than you won't get as many as you think you should. So the next step is what? Another 'better' solution. Which is what? M-T modified so that it will be effective? How do you do that? By advocating for registration?
And, sure, I would be content with some, meaning more than now
How much more? If M-T only increase background checks by 1% due the deficiencies inherent in it would you be content? Or would you again want more?
I have no problem with the exceptions in MT which do address your concerns
Again, no they don't. I have not addressed any transfers that fall under the M-T exceptions.
I disagree. Background checks are run in all sorts of other instances without registration. Again, all you need is a connection to the internet to check and see if someone has a criminal record.
You keep saying this. It is not relevant. What you are saying is that background checks are easy to do and other people do them for reasons other than the purpose of a gun transfer. So freaking what. Not relevant to the point that I have made. Which is that Og may sell a gun to his neighbor Gog, who he has known for years and there ain't going to be any extra background check involved. And you can't do anything about that happening.
No, the exceptions of MT are fine with me.
We ARE NOT talking about the exceptions. We are talking about non-compliance and the inability to ensure compliance. Have you even read anything I have said?
I'd like to see more and by that I mean the extensions in MT
Which will not extend number up to anywhere close to what you think it will.
Disagree, as stated and illustrated above.
You have not stated above. You have not explained how to achieve compliance with the law to any reasonable degree. You have not explained how to keep Og from selling a gun to Gog without a check and how to catch and punish them for their failure. In short you have done nothing to actually address the points I have been making.
What sort of plan do you have that will significantly reduce the 33 Americans
What is your plan to deal with the other 20 Americans who are killed from other causes every day?
no way to know a check didn't happen and no way to punish those who didn't get a check.
Not every law is perfect, GD. Why do you insist on placing that caveat on them? Again, should we even have laws? Because it sounds like you are asserting here that if they are ineffective in any way, we should just do away with them.
Do you think sex offenders should be registered as they are now?
I have shown than you won't get as many as you think you should. So the next step is what? Another 'better' solution. Which is what?
Again with the paranoia and slippery slope. Maybe the next step has to do with mental health support (also in MT) and nothing to do with guns at all.
So freaking what
Well, I guess that's a close to an admission of error as I am going to get. Of course, it is relevant because we are talking about ways to keep guns out of the hands of violent criminals.
Have you even read anything I have said?
Considering you have offered nothing in the way of solutions nor have you addressed the issue of whether we should have laws at all, given you logic, I say this question is simply more denial and redirect.
I'm more or less done here, GD. Start offering solutions and explain why we have laws in the first place in your world of ineffectiveness and then we can proceed.
Why do we have any background check - considering that violations of it go essentially unpunished (i.e. the prosecution rate - not conviction, prosecution - is in single digit percentages of violations).
Well, d'uh, juris. So we can pass more laws. That's what legislators do, and what those who put not only their faith in certain politicians, but also their time polishing the knob of said politicians expect them to do. Who cares about results when you really caare? Furiously Fluffing the Power, Man!
Considering you have offered nothing in the way of solutions nor have you addressed the issue of whether we should have laws at all
Well gosh Mark, at least you could give me as much time as you used avoiding explaining how you 'rejected' my argument. Maybe even as much time as you've taken avoiding explaining what is wrong with the solution to gun violence I have provided.
Yes, the solution I HAVE offered. The solution that you have again 'rejected' without addressing it directly in any manner whatsoever. A solution that unlike the one you offer is guaranteed to keep the mentally ill and violent criminals away from guns. 100% guaranteed.
I guess that's a close to an admission of error as I am going to get.
Nope. Is an accusation that the analogy you have used is not correct. The ease of doing background checks has no bearing on the ability of M-T to enforce them being done. The commonness of people doing background checks for certain things (that they are doing for their own purpose) also has no bearing on the ability of M-T to gain compliance.
Not every law is perfect, GD. Why do you insist on placing that caveat on them? Again, should we even have laws
Gross mis-characterization of my position. If I were to write a law prohibiting murder that was written in such a way that the ONLY way to catch someone and punish them for that murder is for a police officer to witness the murder - that would not be a very well written law. I would hazard to say that law would be ineffective. I would also guess that you would oppose that law. There is a difference between being opposed to ineffective poorly executed laws and claiming that that opposition is akin to wanting no laws. Your statement is illogical and juvenile.
Start offering solutions and explain why we have laws in the first place in your world of ineffectiveness and then we can proceed
Proceed. Start with a well thought out and reasoned position in reply to my solution to gun violence. Address my statements directly and back up any disagreement with explanation rather than a blanket 'rejection'.
What solution are you talking about? The thing about keeping dangerous people off the street? Once again, there's no there there...only being contrary to whatever the Democrat/liberal/progtard proposes.
There is a difference between being opposed to ineffective poorly executed laws and claiming that that opposition is akin to wanting no laws. Your statement is illogical and juvenile.
You are the one who set up the parameters of UBC by saying that it has to be 100 percent effective otherwise it's a waste of time.
Think about this way. Suppose MT is passed and not every gun buy goes through a background check. But more do and lives are saved. 33 drops to 30 or lower. That's not worth it?
An let's cut the shit, GD. For what is obviously some sort of personal problem, you don't want any new gun laws because you think your guns are going to be taken away. That's not going to happen.
What people do you want to keep guns away from? Violent criminals and mentally ill. When you do a 'background check' these people would be listed in that check, right? So that means we know who it is we don't want to have guns. We know who it is because at some point they were in custody to be adjudicated as a violent criminal or a dangerously mentally ill person.
Then it's like !magic! they are back walking on the street and we need to keep guns away from them, right?
Are you OK with a person who is too dangerous to be trusted with a gun having a knife walking next to your wife? I'm not. If they are too dangerous to have a gun they are too dangerous to be in public. And that !magic! that let them get out of custody and back walking on the street with all kinds of dangerous materials and innocent people around them is unacceptable.
The questions I have to ask you are why did I even have to explain this to you like you were a three year old and why do you want dangerous criminals walking around next to innocent people?
You are the one who set up the parameters of UBC by saying that it has to be 100 percent effective otherwise it's a waste of time.
No, I didn't say it would be a waste of time. I said it would be ineffective. You are the one whose goal is all (other than for minor exceptions) transfers have a background check. MT WILL NOT ACHIEVE YOU OWN FUCKING GOAL.
But more do and lives are saved. 33 drops to 30 or lower. That's not worth it?
Oh. And if somebody figures out that if guns were registered and compliance would then increase dramatically and 30 drops to 15? Are you going to say "Oh no! We didn't pass this law just as a stepping stone to registration!"? Didn't think so.
An let's cut the shit, GD. For what is obviously some sort of personal problem, you don't want any new gun laws because you think your guns are going to be taken away. That's not going to happen.
Yes, let's cut the shit Mark. Stop going off topic, addressing strawmen and voices in your head. Stop throwing out things like these personal attacks that have no bearing to anything I've presented. Note that I have not once in this thread said a single thing about why I am opposed to registration. Yet you have continuously referred to that. So yes, cut the shit.
why did I even have to explain this to you like you were a three year old
Because your solution is something that a three year old would propose. Let's put more people in jail! Like we don't already have a problem with that anyway....
It's not really a plan, GD, more of simplistic declaration which is characteristic of what the Right has to offer these days. I suspect you know this and that's why you want to spend most of your time ripping the adult solutions because you don't have any of your own. Where's the beef?
liberals succeeding at something and completely demolishing my world.
You don't even know what succeeding looks like. You might as well whip your dick out and parade down Main St. and call it success for all of your ability to define it.
If that's the way you want to provide reasoned well thought out responses then that the kind of responses you'll get in return.
In that vein, a Markadelphia style response to your approval of M-T:
Your solution is naive and ill-considered. Let's require people to do something that we can't enforce! Like that will work....
It's not really a plan, Mark, more of simplistic fantasy which is characteristic of what the Left has to offer these days. I suspect you know this and that's why you want to spend most of your time ripping the adult solutions because you don't have any of your own. Where's the beef?
Please save the adolescent taunting for junior high, juris. When you are ready to give liberal and progressive ideas an unbiased look, you know where to find me. Until then your knee jerk contrarian dance fits perfectly with your never ending stomp down the hallway.
Why don't we start with rape? People still get raped and then they are out walking around again. Let's just not have any laws against rape because people keep doing it and they are ineffective.
In essence, this is he same sort of logic you are using but with increased background checks.
Please save the adolescent taunting for junior high, juris.
It isn't taunting that you can't define, even broadly, what constitutes success for the PPACA, or background checks for that matter. Your whole position boils down to "do what I want, because I want it and say it is good". That is considerably below adolescent behavior.
So morons like you can whine about how they aren't effective because people like me don't believe in the same fairie magic and therefore we must have MORE ineffective laws to make up for the ones that are already ineffective.
And no, the law against rape is NOT ineffective. If you believe it is - you got right ahead and rape someone.
Ah yes, rape is a completely unenforceable law.....Except it's not.
And just exactly like all the issues I've explained about UBC's....except in every way.
See, if you rape someone you can get caught. The victim reports the crime. There is evidence and testimony.
With UBC's there is none of that. Evidence? Like I've said over and over, if you don't know what guns a person had yesterday, you can't show that they were transferred today. Testimony? No victim to report the 'crime'.
Apparently you still don't grok the issues I've explained. Really. Otherwise you wouldn't have made this comparison.
Let's try this. Explain how, if two people ignored M-T and transferred a gun without a background check, they would get caught.
Because your solution is something that a three year old would propose. Let's put more people in jail! Like we don't already have a problem with that anyway....
It's not really a plan, GD, more of simplistic declaration which is characteristic of what the Right has to offer these days.
Hey, Milwaukie Mayor and police chief come up with a proposal a three year old would like. Some kind of simplistic declaration that came from.....lefies???
Wow, I guess there are some ideas that the left 'comes up with' that I can agree with....
if you don't know what guns a person had yesterday, you can't show that they were transferred today.
So what? All that matters is if you check to see if they have a criminal record. Nothing else needs to be done except, of course, we bring in people that have severe mental health issues. Those people are also registered as well. Don't you want to prevent these two groups from obtaining guns?
Obviously you do because of your link that your provided. I'm all for putting people who are dangerous in jail longer and emptying the prisons of the softer crime folks, especially drug related offenses. That still won't prevent people from finding avenues to buy guns from places that don't do a background check. And that's not just person to person.
Why would it be so difficult to type your name and social when buying a gun from an internet source? If a record came up, no gun.
So what? All that matters is if you check to see if they have a criminal record.
Wow. After all this you still don't fucking get it.
Great. All that matters is if they check.....
But if they don't there isn't a thing you can do about it, because you won't even know they didn't do a check. And since there isn't anything you can do to people who didn't get a check then there are going to be a lot of people NOT getting checks.
But I guess all that really matters to you is a law that says people have to get checks, even if that law is written in such a manner that nobody will actually have to get checks. Truly genius level intellect there.
And that's not just person to person.
And what pray tell are those other sales?
Why would it be so difficult to type your name and social when buying a gun from an internet source? If a record came up, no gun.
Ahh, internet sales. LOL. You still don't understand anything about guns laws do you? Wow again.
An internet sale done by a dealer is still a dealer sale. An internet sale done by a person is still a person to person sale. The internet doesn't make it any different than a classified ad and a different way of making a phone call.
We aren't talking about how difficult it would be to do a check. The difficulty is ensuring the checks are done. You can't be this naive. If you haven't exceeded the speed limit yourself you've seen it done - a lot. And hell, speeders can be caught - unlike the way M-T is written.
Here's a simple question for you, GD. If a background check was required on every gun purchase, save the exceptions, would there be more done than there are now? Yes or no?
Is your goal to prevent guns getting into the hands of criminals and mentally ill people or is it to inconvenience lawful gun owners?
Because that yes would cover some lawful owners and not the criminals.
Besides, I don't believe you when you say you'd be content with just a few more background checks being done. You already have a percentage of transfers getting checks and that's just not enough for you. Why should I believe you'd be happy with just a little bit 'more'. Especially when your goal is 'all'?
It's not my fault that you suffer from paranoia, GD. My goal is to make Manchin Toomey law. That's it. Anything else is logical fallacy on your part.
Since you admitted that there would be more background checks performed, that meanns that less guns would get into the hands of criminals. Law abiding gun owners should have no problem with this as they buy guns all places where background checks are regularly performed, right?
It's not my fault that you suffer from paranoia, GD. My goal is to make Manchin Toomey law. That's it. Anything else is logical fallacy on your part.
Fact: Some gun transfers now receive background checks.
Fact: M-T requires all* transfers to receive background checks.
Fact: You want M-T enacted.
It's not paranoia to connect those dots Mark. You support a law that says all* transfers need to have checks. Therefore you want all* transfers to have checks. You are not content with some you want all. So quit bullshitting me about it. You are either lying to me or to yourself otherwise.
Since you admitted that there would be more background checks performed, that meanns that less guns would get into the hands of criminals.
Well, that's a leap of logic. So tell me, if McDonald's stopped selling hamburgers to fat people, would that mean there would be less hamburgers eaten by fat people? Or would they go to burger king instead?
Law abiding gun owners should have no problem with this as they buy guns all places where background checks are regularly performed, right?
So, you don't really care about criminals getting guns via the huge holes this law allows but you really do care about law abiding gun owners having to spend more money to buy guns. I see.
Fact: M-T requires all* transfers to receive background checks.
What's with the asterisk?:)
It's not really all* transfers so knock off the lying/game playing.
So quit bullshitting me about it.
Heading off at the pass and redirect...
The only bullshitting going on is the crapola you are slinging about how a law that specifically outlaws registration will lead to registration. And that said law will be ineffective without registration because some Democrat was quoted on some right wing blog as saying that it would. So now it's gospel because we all know right wing blogs tell the truth, unlike the "liberal" media.
The real truth here is that you just don't want it to happen just cuz! (stomp stomp stomp...SLAM!!)
but you really do care about law abiding gun owners having to spend more money to buy guns. I see.
How exactly is that going to happen? I still have yet to see how increasing background checks infringe on people already submitting to them. It seems to me that you want to be able to buy guns without a background check. Why is that, GD? Why would someone want that?
93 comments:
So when they say they want to ban assault weapons they are talking about people not guns?
And when they say they want to limit magazine size they are talking about people not guns?
And when they say they want to limit sales to one gun a month they are talking about people not guns?
Because that all really sounds like somebody talking about guns, not people.
So when they say they want to ban assault weapons they are talking about people not guns?
Yes, they were and they were wrong in thinking that. Bad policy.
And when they say they want to limit magazine size they are talking about people not guns?
Same answer as above.
And when they say they want to limit sales to one gun a month they are talking about people not guns?
I've never heard anything about that. If you have a unbiased link I could examine, I'd be happy to check it out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_handgun_a_month_law
Yes, they were and they were wrong in thinking that. Bad policy.
So are the goofy things in your graphic.
Ah, so it's one handgun a month, not one gun a month.
Well, I was hoping if I demonstrated that I don't like some of the things the left presents on gun control that you would respond in kind with some the things you would change about the gun rights community. I actually think gun bans are a bad idea.
What's not a bad idea, however, is everyone getting a fucking background check who buys a gun. It's completely ridiculous that you don't support this. Further, you guys should be doing everything in your power to make sure that criminals and the mentally ill don't get guns if you don't want any government doing it.
But you aren't...
Because, as I have explained, any universal background check program that does not include registration is a hollow shell of nothingness. It is ineffective on it's face.
And since I am adamantly opposed, for lots of reasons, to registration I have to oppose the short sighted background check proposals.
And I reject your explanation and consider it to be complete partisan bullshit as well as NRA propaganda. So, the next time you or juris accuse me of being a partisan hack, remember this conversation and who is the one being obstinate.
The gun community's mea culpa moment is coming, GD, and when it happens, it's going to hurt...bad. Most of you will wonder just what the fuck you were all thinking...
And I reject your explanation
So explain how univ. background checks will work. You do have an explanation and that is the reason you reject his argument, don't you?
The gun community's mea culpa moment is coming
Is that what you consider an inducement to reasonable gun control?
Ditto, explain how universal background checks will work absent registration.
He's successfully evaded answering that question for going on 8 months now. Explaining how a law is supposed to accomplish what it claims it will accomplish is so 20th Century. Just pass it and then we'll see how it works! {/sarc} Uh huh.
No, I haven't. The only failure has been for you guys to be able to explain how Manchin-Toomey, which specifically outlawed any sort of registration (punishable by 15 years in prison), would somehow magically result in it anyway...just "cuz." And that's with gun sellers keeping the necessary records, not the government.
There are background checks now on most gun purchases. Is there registration?
There are background checks now on all job applications and things like apartment renting. Is there a registration for renters?
You go into a store or somewhere else and buy a gun. The seller asks for your ID. They run your name through a computer to see if you have a criminal record or a record of severe mentall illness. f you do, you don't get a gun. If you don't, you get a gun. The end. It doesn't have to be more complicated than that.
Further, none of you have adequately explained (aside from paranoid mouth foaming) how registration leads to confiscation even if it somehow had to happen. My car has not been confiscated. Neither has my dog or my fishing pole.
There are background checks now on most gun purchases.
I really have to assume you know that isn't true. You've certainly been told it isn't true. I further assume that you don't care about truth - only winning the argument.
Pathetic, childish and dishonest.
There is obviously a complete failure here to understand that the pressure is on you guys, not me. Obviously this is the case, hence the usual redirect. The gun community needs to explain how they are going to do a better job of keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill. Period. There is no other discussion to be had.
Who's doing the redirect?
The statement and question was that universal background checks without registration would be ineffective. Your answers did not address that.
I've already rejected your explanation as to why it would be ineffective so it's up to you to come up with a better solution for keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill. Saying the law is fine the way it is is not an option because it clearly isn't.
So what's it going to be?
Then again, you must have an explanation of why you have rejected my position.
I've already rejected your explanation
Pathetic, childish and dishonest
Sorry, GD, but we're not focusing on me and avoiding the problem. What is your solution to deal more effectively with the problem of guns getting into the hands of criminals and the mentally ill? If you don't want universal background checks, what is the alternative?
See, what I don't get here is why you think it's OK for there to be some avenues that criminals get guns without a background check. You have done a very poor job of explaining how this should be allowed.
So let me get this straight. I make several long posts explaining to you in great detail why your preferred position is unworkable and your entire reaction is to say that you unilaterally reject my argument but will not provide any reason or explanation for doing so. Then you demand from me that I provide you with an explanation of my preferred position?
Why? So you can reject it out of hand without reason or explanation as well?
Does that work both ways then? Can I reject your rejection without stating a case? Heck, I reject your rejection of my rejection.
If that's as honest and serious as you are going to be with this conversation then here: My solution to effectively deal with guns is flying purple space monkeys. I refuse to explain that further and will not respond to your objection of it.
Ball's in your court now bucko.
The ball has never been in my court, GD. You don't want a gun ban? Fine, neither do I. You don't want universal background checks? Fine. I don't agree with your paranoid leap nor does the evidence you presented prove anything but I'm willing to listen to alternatives.
33 Americans a day, GD. What you are going to do to change that?
Paranoid leap? What the fuck are you talking about? Stay on subject son.
Universal background checks would be ineffective absent registration. That is the premise. What is paranoid about that?
Sorry, GD, but we're not playing that game (staying on the territory where you can "win" and distract from real solutions).
No gun ban, no universal background checks...then what? 33 Americans die every day from gun violence. What is your solution to solving that problem? What is your solution to keep guns out the hands of criminals and the mentally ill?
Sorry Mark, as long as you are being childish and insisting that you can simply 'reject' anything I say then you have given me no reason to offer you any thoughtful proposals.
You want a discussion, you must participate. Making an imperial declaration that you 'reject' an argument without explanation does not a discussion make.
M plays the trusty "I'm a deliberate fuckwit" card in the vain attempt to escape being pathetic, childish and dishonest. Maybe someone who really loves him will explain to him why that isn't such a clever move.
Actually, GD, I'm being conciliatory and my opinion doesn't really matter regarding universal background checks. You don't like them? Fine. They're not going to happen. What is the alternative?
The avoidance you are doing here reveals quite a bit. You guys like to bitch but have no real solutions of your own. 33 Americans every day, GD...
Has it ever occurred to the deliberate fuckwit that might not be any better solution than what we have now? A solution in which firearms murder have declined by half or more in the last generation?
We keep telling the deliberate fuckwit that without universal registration (which was a miserably expensive failure even with long guns in Canada) that universal background checks are simply unenforceable (i.e., how can .gov prove beyond a reasonable doubt that any gun manufactured before 2014 (or whatever) was transferred without a background check?). We've been waiting (and waiting, and waiting
) for any kind of answer beyond, "We have to do something! This is something! Therefor we need to do this!" Everyone except the deliberate fuckwit can see that requiring universal background checks without universal registration will be even less successful and enforceable as Canada's long-gun registry or our banning marijuana (i.e., an extremely small percentage will be deterred or caught by stings, but the vast majority will continue as before).
I'm sorry, deliberate fuckwit, but if you say we need to do something, the onus is upon YOU to show how it "something" will be effective given its unenforceable nature. To any thinking person, it's only natural to suspect that you and others already know it will be ineffective, but are counting on follow-up laws that will "close loopholes".
So go stuff your straw-man argument that we (or at least most of us) think universal registration automatically leads to confiscation up your man-womb (rectum) and go give birth to it elsewhere. We simply recognize that registration is a necessary precondition to confiscation (and only applies to the law-abiding) and we don't want, nor is there any need, to go any further in that direction than we already have. Firearms crimes ave been declining for a generation, fuckwit. It's not a fucking emergency!
Has it ever occurred to the deliberate fuckwit that might not be any better solution than what we have now?
If you call 33 dead Americans every day acceptable, Larry, well, I guess that makes you a pretty heartless bastard. I wonder if you would feel differently if 33 Americans died every day from Islamic extremism.
It's not a fucking emergency!
Mea Culpa, coming soon to a theater near you.
Actually, GD, I'm being conciliatory and my opinion doesn't really matter regarding universal background checks
Does that mean you won't be posting any more smarmy facebook grabs advocating for them in the future? Does that mean we won't find ourselves next month arguing THE SAME FUCKING point again while you act like this conversation never happened?
If you really thought your opinion didn't matter then you wouldn't have made this post.
The avoidance you are doing here reveals quite a bit
Avoidance? FUCK YOU, you are the one doing the avoiding asshole.
Fine. You don't want to explain why you 'reject' my argument about universal background checks? I will take that to mean you cannot do so. If you cannot do so then you have no defense for your position. If your position is indefensible it is void.
What is the alternative?
If you can't trust a person in public with a gun, you can't trust them in public with a knife, automobile, gasoline, household chemicals, baseball bats or rocks.
The 'background check' position says that criminals and mentally defective people are too dangerous to be allowed to have guns. Fine. But if they are so dangerous why are they allowed to walk the street next to my children?
If you can't trust a person with a gun, you can't trust them in public at all.
This is talking about people, not guns.
Yet another logical fallacy (slippery slope) offered as "evidence"
I've given you every opportunity to come up with a solution to the problem of 33 Americans dying every day from gun violence, GD, and you have offered nothing but the usual BS. As I suspected you have nothing or worse, you don't see this as a problem.
Wtf?
So, as I expected you again use the 'I reject your argument but won't explain why' gambit.
So predictable.
You don't like my solution? Explain why. You can use little words if you'd like.
What solution? All you are is anti-universal background checks. I was thinking of something along be lines of maybe gun dealers doing a better job of keeping databases on criminals and refusing to sell guns to the mentally ill. Or they could be more proactive in the community when it comes to gun safety.
See? I'm doing your work for you. What a nice guy I am:)
All you are is anti-universal background checks
No I am not. If you listened to what I said you'd understand. I am anti ineffective law. I am also anti registration.
gun dealers doing a better job of keeping databases on criminals
Are you a moron? That makes no sense.
refusing to sell guns to the mentally ill
That also makes no fucking sense. Who is mentally ill? Is there a database? Oh wait - certain mentally ill people already can't own guns - AND DEALERS ALREADY CAN'T SELL GUNS TO THEM.
I'd say that you don't understand the laws, but you don't like being told obvious factoid - so I'll just content myself with the other obvious - you really are a moron.
they could be more proactive in the community when it comes to gun safety.
Like the first class NRA Eddie Eagle program that idiots of your political stripe do their best to keep from being presented to children - because "!Yuck! guns!!!!"
If someone is too fucking dangerous to have a gun then they are too fucking dangerous to be walking the street next to my kids.
That is the statement.
No more games Mark. You refused to explain why you rejected my earlier contention. Now you are refusing to do the same here. Quit with the avoidance.
I was thinking of something along be lines
I'm not really sure what it is you are doing, but I'm pretty sure it isn't thinking.
No I am not.
Uh...huh? If you are not anti-UBC, then how would you implement them?
That is the statement.
A statement that is a logical fallacy, specifically slippery slope. It could also be a straw man.
The only one doing any avoiding here is you, GD. You don't like the laws or the ones suggested? Fine. What would suggest?
Uh...huh? If you are not anti-UBC, then how would you implement them?
it's amazing how things said to you can go in one ear and out the other with nary a pause for you to actually listen.....
If you'd bothered to pay attention, the answer to that question would be obvious and obviously unnecessary as it is contained in my own words here in this thread.
Using my own words here I will show you.
universal background checks without registration would be ineffective
I am anti ineffective law. I am also anti registration.
If UBC's are ineffective absent registration - then as an ineffective law I would be opposed.
If in order to be effective, UBC's would require registration - then as I am opposed to registration I would also have to be opposed to that particular solution.
Now, as asked many times earlier, if you have a way to make UBC's effective absent registration I would be all ears. But I can't think of one.
What would suggest?
I did suggest. You are again avoiding explaining your rejection. You call it a slippery slope? Where? What specifically about what I said is a slippery slope? I don't see it, and you are treating it as soooooo obvious that it should be a simple thing to explain exactly and precisely what I said is a slippery slope and how exactly it meets the criteria for being so.
Now, as asked many times earlier, if you have a way to make UBC's effective absent registration I would be all ears. But I can't think of one.
Well, that would be Manchin-Toomey which clearly stated no registration. Have you read the bill? Here it is.
http://www.toomey.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=968
Here is the Politifact piece on the bill which illustrates your silliness.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/apr/30/summary-manchin-toomey-gun-proposal/
As of today, you have failed to explain why universal background checks without a national registry would be ineffective. If someone had a criminal record, that would be part of public record which could be easily assessed with a background check. If they were an offender, they don't get a gun. If they aren't they do. It doesn't have to be more complicated than that.
And, no, you really haven't suggested anything substantive. No new laws is not an answer given the 33 Americans that day every day from gun violence.
As of today, you have failed to explain why universal background checks without a national registry would be ineffective.
Sigh.....
Go back to the top of the page. Read. Stated: I have previously explained in detail why universal background checks would be ineffective absent registration.
Your reply was that you rejected my argument without explaining why you did so.
Now you are claiming that I have not explained why.
So which is it?
Have I failed to explain why UBC's would be ineffective absent registration.
OR
Have you rejected the explanation that I had to have already given in order for you to reject it?
Manchin-Toomey which clearly stated no registration.
Which would be ineffective without registration, as explained previously.
And, no, you really haven't suggested anything substantive. No new laws.....
Then you aren't paying attention. Use your brain for once. What do you think it could possibly mean when someone says that a person who is too dangerous to have a gun is then also too dangerous to be allowed in public? Is that really so hard a concept that you can't figure it out?
Oh, and that's the last time I explain SHIT to you if you don't start explaining yourself as well.
What exactly is the slippery slope part of my statement and how precisely does it merit such status?
Sigh.....
I've always been amused by the faux withering...:)
So which is it?
I think you guys have finally reached the point of full collective:)
Go back to the top of the page. Read. Stated: I have previously explained in detail why universal background checks would be ineffective absent registration.
Where? Which link? It shouldn't be too difficult to cut and paste.
Oh, and that's the last time I explain SHIT to you if you don't start explaining yourself as well.
Considering that you haven't explained anything to me, that's not going to be much of a loss. All you have done is keep the focus on me and away from you because you have, in fact, shit.
I've offered several options in this post including how ubc would work without registration. You have yet to rebut that. Here it is again.
. If someone had a criminal record, that would be part of public record which could be easily assessed with a background check. If they were an offender, they don't get a gun. If they aren't they do. It doesn't have to be more complicated than that.
Now, respond without asking me any questions or redirect back to me.
If someone had a criminal record, that would be part of public record which could be easily assessed with a background check. If they were an offender, they don't get a gun. If they aren't they do. It doesn't have to be more complicated than that.
Now how can that actually be enforced? I know you hate questions, but it's really rather pointless to pass an unenforceable law. All you need to do is explain to us how any police agency can prove in a court of law that any particular gun was sold without such a background check, and how they can identify and prosecute the person who sold it. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt. For example, local gang representative who actively suppressed drug trade competition says he's owned the pistol since before the law was passed. Prove he didn't (assuming the gun is older than the law, which will be 99% of them). Original purchaser traced by ATF says he sold it before the law was passed, but has no record of the cash transaction. Now what? Or the gun was reported stolen. Now what? You'll be able to catch and convict some people, but it would be every bit as effective as the War on (Some) Drugs. If you can show why that's wrong, we're eagerly awaiting. Simply doing the pseudo-intellectual version of the snotty child saying, "Nuh-uhhh!!" doesn't really cut it.
Let me summarize M's position: I AM A DELIBERATE FUCKWIT AND REFUSE TO HAVE EVEN A HALFWAY HONEST DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS.
Where? Which link? It shouldn't be too difficult to cut and paste.
So you are being an ignoramus.
GD:"Because, as I have explained, any universal background check program that does not include registration is a hollow shell of nothingness. It is ineffective on it's face."
Followed immediately by:
Markadoofus:"And I reject your explanation and consider it to be complete partisan bullshit as well as NRA propaganda."
So are you now telling me that you rejected an explanation that you actually have no fucking idea what it is, where it is or what is contained in it???? That's about par for you isn't it?
So, having done Your work for you, to refresh from February of this year:
Let me explain in a manner that your pea sized Neanderthal brain can handle.
Oh yes, asked and unanswered months ago
If they do not know what I have or what my neighbor has then they have no way of knowing if we bought or sold anything to each other.
Then we have from April of this year:
How do you know, either at the time of the transaction or at any later date, that we didn't do a background check?
Hey look I said this back then too - "It may surprise you that I actually don't have a big problem with background checks."
How do you know, either at the time of the transaction or at any later date, that any two people didn't do a background check on the sale of any particular gun?
Considering that you haven't explained anything to me,
What part of "If someone is too fucking dangerous to have a gun then they are too fucking dangerous to be walking the street next to my kids." are you having a problem with? It's a pretty god-damned simple statement that even a moron like yourself should be able to understand. You've acted like you understand it as you applied a 'rejection' to it. Still waiting for you to explain that rejection though.....
Perhaps if you explained your 'rejection' then we could progress to fixing whatever it is that you can't grasp....
Kinda just like if you had fucking explained your rejection at the top of the page we all could have figured out that you had no fucking idea what you were even rejecting....
Let me summarize for M again: I DON'T CARE WHAT I SAID, IT ISN'T WHAT I THINK NOW, OR THEN EITHER FOR THAT MATTER BECAUSE I JUST HATE YOU POOPYHEADS AND YOU'RE WRONG, DO YOU HEAR ME, W R O N G !!!!.
While I appreciate the refresher on the things you said in the past, it reminded me of why it is so difficult to have a reasonable discussion with you guys.
Now if G-man watches Ug hand the rock to Og
You expected to be taken seriously after something like this? And with the ad hom and personal insults?
Let's see if you can do two things:
1. Behaving like someone not 12 years old and more like an adult, explain why it's ineffective to run a background check on every gun purchase. A simple check at every purchase, beyond just the licensed dealers.
2. Explain, again using adult language, what sort of system you would like to see in place to solve the problem of 33 Americans dying every single day from gun violence.
No personal insults or obsessiveness with me either. That goes for you as well, juris.
Can either of you do it?
Fuck you. Read all the links.
Like I said, a few would be caught, but it would be largely ineffective because you know as well as I do that police simply can't observe any but a handful of transactions. So how do they enforce this law? Answer: they won't be able to in the vast majority of cases. And so it will make 'illegal' guns as hard for felons to obtain as crystal meth, crack cocaine, and marijuana are today.
I don't think much of your constant refrain of, "If you can't think of anything I believe is better to do, then we simply must do this stupid and ineffective thing instead. Because it shows we care and intentions are all that really matter, not results, and certainly not 2nd-order effects."
Better enforcement of laws we already have on the books and not meaningless gestures is what I suggest.
Difficult to have a discussion with us?
Dude, you just spent 2 days obstinately insisting that you had 'rejected' an argument that it turned out you didn't have any idea what the argument was.
You were provided with multiple links to that argument. Links that phrased the argument in multiple ways. But instead of reading them you focus on one that is written like a fable. You know, using metaphorical imagery. If that really is such a hardship for you to read - ignore it and read the other links that phrase it differently. Otherwise you could do like any school child and understand that 'Og' and 'Gog" could be named 'Bob' and 'Bill' and that instead of rocks they wrre exchanging a gun. But I used rocks on purpose. It was to illustrate the futility of attempting to 'track' the exchange of items without having some sort of baseline of who has what items at what point in time. So yeah, if we traded 'rocks' without a background check how would anybody except us know that occurred without somebody being able to state that a particular rock was in my possession yesterday and is in your possession today.
So to answer question #1 for the umpteenth time: It's ineffective to run a background check on every firearms transfer because there is no way to know that private firearms are even being transfered.
To answer question #2 for the umpteenth time: If somebody is too dangerous to have a gun, they are too dangerous to be in public. I still don't know why this is so difficult for you to grasp. Anybody that 'you' deem too dangerous to have a gun is too dangerous to be let loose with all the other dangerous things and amongst innocent people.
Oh and BTW. I care about people dying from all types of violence - not just gun violence. But of course, since you said it's about the people and not the guns you would never be just focusing on gun violence. Like repeating ad nauseum how many people die per day from gun violence and ignore all other deaths. No, you wouldn't do that. Such an appeal to emotion is beneath you....
Lets see if we can look at this another way...
Suppose I am a criminal and want to buy a gun without getting caught in a background check. I can't go to a licensed dealer because they run them. It's also my understanding that I can't go to a gun show because anyone who goes has to have a background check-dealer or buyer. Is this true? So, other than the street, what other avenues are available to me to buy a gun?
You could buy it from a person.
A neighbor, friend, coworker or somebody from the internet.
Let's say you are a criminal and I sell you a gun. We are supposed to do a background check but we ignore the law.
How do we get caught ignoring the law?
The gun I sell you is not registered to me, so nobody knows I have it now and nobody can prove I ever had it - so I can't get in trouble for selling it to you without a background check. All I have to say is I never had that gun.
You, as a criminal would already get in trouble if you are found with any gun - that is already the law.
If you weren't a criminal and we did this same exchange and since the gun isn't registered and it can't be proven to have ever been in my possession it also can't be proven when it came into your possession. All you have to say is that you had the gun prior to the background check law coming into effect.
Without the gun being registered to a person there is no way to know who has what gun now or who has what gun tomorrow. Without knowing that, it can't be known when a transfer takes place.
If it can't be known when a transfer takes place then the law is essentially unenforceable and an unenforceable law is ineffective.
You could buy it from a person.
Manchin-Toomey excludes familial purchases.
A neighbor, friend, coworker or somebody from the internet.
It's my understanding that internet sales are pretty slim. Is that true? I know ebay doesn't sell guns. How many guns are sold each year on the internet? If it were a lot, it shouldn't be too difficult to run a quick background check using public records readily available on the internet. The same could be done for person to person sales, non-familial. By making it a law to run a background check, there would be some guns that would not make it into the hands of criminals because, while some people would exercise good judgement anyway and run a quick check, others would not. Some would if it were a law.
As to the rest of your comment, there is no way to check if people are following any of the other multitude of laws out there. Does that mean we shouldn't have any laws?
All you have to say is that you had the gun prior to the background check law coming into effect.
So what? Again, does that mean we just shouldn't have any laws? Further, all transactions that take place after the law takes effect should require a simple background check. There is no registration needed for this. I can type your name into a computer right now and find out if you have a criminal record or not. This is how people check up on people applying for jobs. It doesn't have to be that complicated but you are making it that way because you don't trust the government.
If they really wanted to take away your guns, GD, you'd be a shit stain right now.
But once it's law and the camel's nose is into the private owners' tent, it does provide a great opening for additional legislation to eventually "close the loopholes" of the ineffective and useless law and ease more of the camel inside. Of course, the first "loophole closings" won't be terribly effective, so in a few years or a decade or more, Markadelphia, Nikto, and their ilk will be demanding the "obvious" solution of universal registration. Which will be defied by all criminals and also many honest citizens, so then more and more draconian penalties will be imposed until the majority of honest citizen's gun are registered (or they've been turned into criminals by fiat), but mirabile dictu!, for some reason the drug gangs and others simply won't. So then harsher measures will be proposed. There's no reason why it would have to proceed exactly like that (Canada learned the uselessness of their hugely expensive and widely defied long-gun registry), but the gun-banning organizations make no secret of their long-term Fabian strategy, and we've seen it actually done in Australia and Britain. It's better for gun-rights people to fight it at the outset where we have a good chance of victory than rolling over again and again, giving up liberties in the name of (promised) safety, only to try to stop it during the end game with a generation who's grown up accepting existing massive restrictions. That's a recipe for losing. No thanks, we prefer to bash the camel's nose right back out of the tent door at the beginning, back out to where it belongs.
And Larry hits a home run with...
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html
"We've got to stop them from banning pornography. Once they start banning one form of literature, they will never stop. Next thing you know, they will be burning all the books!"
Does that mean we shouldn't have any laws?
It takes from real chutzpah to piss and moan at someone else's possible logical faux pas when you just laid down a big stinking reductio ad absurdum yourself.
I'm not sure M, is that more childish or more dishonest?
But that's essentially what he is saying, juris. Remember this?
http://markadelphia.blogspot.com/2013/07/at-least-it-makes-sense-to-them.html
Right, Mark, when I said, "There's no reason why it would have to proceed exactly like that," I was making a slippery slope argument. Your reading comprehension is running at it's usually low level. But when gun-control groups make no secret of how they long ago gave up trying for the whole salami at once and have instead settled on slicing it bit-by-bit, I guess you think we shouldn't take them at their word. Like I said, it's no secret. Even you could discover that with a little Googling. That is, unless you already know it, and are denying it because acknowledging it is unhelpful.
I said it doesn't have to go that way, but the gun-controllers say that the only way they will ever get to British-style gun bans. I think your grasp of logical fallacies is as tenuous as your grasp on many common English words, such as "primary source", "verbatim", and "infer".
But that's essentially what he is saying, juris.
Oh, he did it first - is that your argument. Which is false because you did it first.
Beyond childish and dishonest, into an entirely new realm of pathetic.
some people would exercise good judgement anyway and run a quick check, others would not. Some would if it were a law.
So you would get some guns transferred with a background check. But you would also get some that were not.
So you agree with me that the law would be ineffective. I'm not saying it would be ineffective as measured by me either, this thing would be ineffective in it's stated goals, in your own mind and by your own standards. And you would not be happy with it.
Would you be content with just 'some' transfers getting a background check? No, you would not. How do I know this? Because the situation right now is that 'some' transfers do get a background check and that apparently is not enough. You want 'more' than 'some' so you support a law that would get 'all'. If you were content with just 'some' you would content right now.
But as I have pointed out, the law you support can only get 'some' because it is lacking a certain a feature, registration. Without that feature you will only get 'some', with that feature you can get 'all'. You want 'all' and I've been telling you what you have to do to get it. Funny that you would argue with me when I'm giving you the help you need to achieve your goal......
Unless you already know this.
I've kept this conversation on the topic of UBC's only. I have not run off onto the topic of registration because under my contention that UBC's would be ineffective without registration, the topic of registration itself would only be relevant if one would agree not only that registration would be necessary for UBC's to be effective but also to then advocate for registration.
You however, have multiple times tried to throw out comments about slippery slopes that only would apply within a conversation about registration.
So, as we have seen, you do agree that UBC's would be ineffective without registration. So let's see if you are also an advocate for them as well.
You appear to defend registration when you comment that 'nobody is coming to get' my guns. Since the standard refrain is that registration leads to confiscation and you call that a slippery slope then I must assume you think that registration would not in fact lead to confiscation. In telling me that over and over again you defend the entire idea of registration. It appears that you are in favor of registration.
Now, let me ask you something.
If you are in favor of 'all' gun transfers having a background check.
And
If you already have a law that only 'some' transfers get a background check.
And
If that is not enough and you want more.
And
If you advocate for another law that will still only get 'some' more.
And
If you know that the only way to get 'all' is with registration.
And
If you defend the idea of registration.
Then
Would you or do you favor registration of guns in order to achieve your goal of 'all' transfers receiving a background check?
So you would get some guns transferred with a background check. But you would also get some that were not
You would get that with Manchin-Toomey as well due to the exceptions. The problem here, GD, is that you believe the right wing blog douche about Democrats. We aren't after perfect solutions. Just ones that work better.
Would you be content with just 'some' transfers getting a background check?
Again, that's Manchin-Toomey because there are exceptions. And, sure, I would be content with some, meaning more than now. I have no problem with the exceptions in MT which do address your concerns. Have you even read the bill? The link is above.
because under my contention that UBC's would be ineffective without registration
I disagree. Background checks are run in all sorts of other instances without registration. Again, all you need is a connection to the internet to check and see if someone has a criminal record.
Now, let me ask you something.
Let's see...in order....
No, the exceptions of MT are fine with me.
I'd like to see more and by that I mean the extensions in MT
Yes
Yes
Disagree, as stated and illustrated above.
I don't defend the idea of registration but I disagree that it would lead to confiscation or black helicopters or some other paranoid nonsense.
No, because it's not necessary.
What sort of plan do you have that will significantly reduce the 33 Americans who die every day from gun violence? Specifically, how do we keep criminals and the mentally ill from obtaining weapons?
You would get that with Manchin-Toomey as well due to the exceptions
None of the non checked transfers I have discussed fall under M-T exceptions. I am talking about transfers that should, under M-T have a check but as M-T is written there is no way to ensure the check happens, no way to know a check didn't happen and no way to punish those who didn't get a check.
The problem here, GD, is that you believe the right wing blog douche about Democrats
Really? Show me where.
We aren't after perfect solutions. Just ones that work better.
I know. By better you mean more background checks. I have shown than you won't get as many as you think you should. So the next step is what? Another 'better' solution. Which is what? M-T modified so that it will be effective? How do you do that? By advocating for registration?
And, sure, I would be content with some, meaning more than now
How much more? If M-T only increase background checks by 1% due the deficiencies inherent in it would you be content? Or would you again want more?
I have no problem with the exceptions in MT which do address your concerns
Again, no they don't. I have not addressed any transfers that fall under the M-T exceptions.
I disagree. Background checks are run in all sorts of other instances without registration. Again, all you need is a connection to the internet to check and see if someone has a criminal record.
You keep saying this. It is not relevant. What you are saying is that background checks are easy to do and other people do them for reasons other than the purpose of a gun transfer. So freaking what. Not relevant to the point that I have made. Which is that Og may sell a gun to his neighbor Gog, who he has known for years and there ain't going to be any extra background check involved. And you can't do anything about that happening.
No, the exceptions of MT are fine with me.
We ARE NOT talking about the exceptions. We are talking about non-compliance and the inability to ensure compliance. Have you even read anything I have said?
I'd like to see more and by that I mean the extensions in MT
Which will not extend number up to anywhere close to what you think it will.
Disagree, as stated and illustrated above.
You have not stated above. You have not explained how to achieve compliance with the law to any reasonable degree. You have not explained how to keep Og from selling a gun to Gog without a check and how to catch and punish them for their failure. In short you have done nothing to actually address the points I have been making.
What sort of plan do you have that will significantly reduce the 33 Americans
What is your plan to deal with the other 20 Americans who are killed from other causes every day?
Stop with the appeal to emotion.
no way to know a check didn't happen and no way to punish those who didn't get a check.
Not every law is perfect, GD. Why do you insist on placing that caveat on them? Again, should we even have laws? Because it sounds like you are asserting here that if they are ineffective in any way, we should just do away with them.
Do you think sex offenders should be registered as they are now?
I have shown than you won't get as many as you think you should. So the next step is what? Another 'better' solution. Which is what?
Again with the paranoia and slippery slope. Maybe the next step has to do with mental health support (also in MT) and nothing to do with guns at all.
So freaking what
Well, I guess that's a close to an admission of error as I am going to get. Of course, it is relevant because we are talking about ways to keep guns out of the hands of violent criminals.
Have you even read anything I have said?
Considering you have offered nothing in the way of solutions nor have you addressed the issue of whether we should have laws at all, given you logic, I say this question is simply more denial and redirect.
I'm more or less done here, GD. Start offering solutions and explain why we have laws in the first place in your world of ineffectiveness and then we can proceed.
Why do you insist on placing that caveat on them?
Why do we have any background check - considering that violations of it go essentially unpunished (i.e. the prosecution rate - not conviction, prosecution - is in single digit percentages of violations).
Why do we have laws M if we don't enforce them?
Well, d'uh, juris. So we can pass more laws. That's what legislators do, and what those who put not only their faith in certain politicians, but also their time polishing the knob of said politicians expect them to do. Who cares about results when you really caare? Furiously Fluffing the Power, Man!
Considering you have offered nothing in the way of solutions nor have you addressed the issue of whether we should have laws at all
Well gosh Mark, at least you could give me as much time as you used avoiding explaining how you 'rejected' my argument. Maybe even as much time as you've taken avoiding explaining what is wrong with the solution to gun violence I have provided.
Yes, the solution I HAVE offered. The solution that you have again 'rejected' without addressing it directly in any manner whatsoever. A solution that unlike the one you offer is guaranteed to keep the mentally ill and violent criminals away from guns. 100% guaranteed.
I guess that's a close to an admission of error as I am going to get.
Nope. Is an accusation that the analogy you have used is not correct. The ease of doing background checks has no bearing on the ability of M-T to enforce them being done. The commonness of people doing background checks for certain things (that they are doing for their own purpose) also has no bearing on the ability of M-T to gain compliance.
Not every law is perfect, GD. Why do you insist on placing that caveat on them? Again, should we even have laws
Gross mis-characterization of my position. If I were to write a law prohibiting murder that was written in such a way that the ONLY way to catch someone and punish them for that murder is for a police officer to witness the murder - that would not be a very well written law. I would hazard to say that law would be ineffective. I would also guess that you would oppose that law. There is a difference between being opposed to ineffective poorly executed laws and claiming that that opposition is akin to wanting no laws. Your statement is illogical and juvenile.
Start offering solutions and explain why we have laws in the first place in your world of ineffectiveness and then we can proceed
Proceed. Start with a well thought out and reasoned position in reply to my solution to gun violence. Address my statements directly and back up any disagreement with explanation rather than a blanket 'rejection'.
in reply to my solution to gun violence.
What solution are you talking about? The thing about keeping dangerous people off the street? Once again, there's no there there...only being contrary to whatever the Democrat/liberal/progtard proposes.
only being contrary to whatever the Democrat/liberal/progtard proposes
As if that represents something thoughtful - like being able to describe what constitutes the future success of PPACA.
You're fucking right I'll be contrary to retards wielding power.
There is a difference between being opposed to ineffective poorly executed laws and claiming that that opposition is akin to wanting no laws. Your statement is illogical and juvenile.
You are the one who set up the parameters of UBC by saying that it has to be 100 percent effective otherwise it's a waste of time.
Think about this way. Suppose MT is passed and not every gun buy goes through a background check. But more do and lives are saved. 33 drops to 30 or lower. That's not worth it?
An let's cut the shit, GD. For what is obviously some sort of personal problem, you don't want any new gun laws because you think your guns are going to be taken away. That's not going to happen.
retards wielding power.
translates into
liberals succeeding at something and completely demolishing my world.
Once again, there's no there there
What people do you want to keep guns away from? Violent criminals and mentally ill. When you do a 'background check' these people would be listed in that check, right? So that means we know who it is we don't want to have guns. We know who it is because at some point they were in custody to be adjudicated as a violent criminal or a dangerously mentally ill person.
Then it's like !magic! they are back walking on the street and we need to keep guns away from them, right?
Are you OK with a person who is too dangerous to be trusted with a gun having a knife walking next to your wife? I'm not. If they are too dangerous to have a gun they are too dangerous to be in public. And that !magic! that let them get out of custody and back walking on the street with all kinds of dangerous materials and innocent people around them is unacceptable.
The questions I have to ask you are why did I even have to explain this to you like you were a three year old and why do you want dangerous criminals walking around next to innocent people?
You are the one who set up the parameters of UBC by saying that it has to be 100 percent effective otherwise it's a waste of time.
No, I didn't say it would be a waste of time. I said it would be ineffective. You are the one whose goal is all (other than for minor exceptions) transfers have a background check. MT WILL NOT ACHIEVE YOU OWN FUCKING GOAL.
But more do and lives are saved. 33 drops to 30 or lower. That's not worth it?
Oh. And if somebody figures out that if guns were registered and compliance would then increase dramatically and 30 drops to 15? Are you going to say "Oh no! We didn't pass this law just as a stepping stone to registration!"? Didn't think so.
An let's cut the shit, GD. For what is obviously some sort of personal problem, you don't want any new gun laws because you think your guns are going to be taken away. That's not going to happen.
Yes, let's cut the shit Mark. Stop going off topic, addressing strawmen and voices in your head. Stop throwing out things like these personal attacks that have no bearing to anything I've presented. Note that I have not once in this thread said a single thing about why I am opposed to registration. Yet you have continuously referred to that. So yes, cut the shit.
why did I even have to explain this to you like you were a three year old
Because your solution is something that a three year old would propose. Let's put more people in jail! Like we don't already have a problem with that anyway....
It's not really a plan, GD, more of simplistic declaration which is characteristic of what the Right has to offer these days. I suspect you know this and that's why you want to spend most of your time ripping the adult solutions because you don't have any of your own. Where's the beef?
liberals succeeding at something and completely demolishing my world.
You don't even know what succeeding looks like. You might as well whip your dick out and parade down Main St. and call it success for all of your ability to define it.
Well that was a pathetic response.
If that's the way you want to provide reasoned well thought out responses then that the kind of responses you'll get in return.
In that vein, a Markadelphia style response to your approval of M-T:
Your solution is naive and ill-considered. Let's require people to do something that we can't enforce! Like that will work....
It's not really a plan, Mark, more of simplistic fantasy which is characteristic of what the Left has to offer these days. I suspect you know this and that's why you want to spend most of your time ripping the adult solutions because you don't have any of your own. Where's the beef?
You don't even know what succeeding looks like.
Please save the adolescent taunting for junior high, juris. When you are ready to give liberal and progressive ideas an unbiased look, you know where to find me. Until then your knee jerk contrarian dance fits perfectly with your never ending stomp down the hallway.
Speaking of adolescent response, "no, you are!" tops the list.
We have many laws that we "can't enforce." So why do we have them?
We have many laws that we "can't enforce." So why do we have them?
Many? Then it shouldn't be a problem for you to name a few.
Why don't we start with rape? People still get raped and then they are out walking around again. Let's just not have any laws against rape because people keep doing it and they are ineffective.
In essence, this is he same sort of logic you are using but with increased background checks.
Please save the adolescent taunting for junior high, juris.
It isn't taunting that you can't define, even broadly, what constitutes success for the PPACA, or background checks for that matter. Your whole position boils down to "do what I want, because I want it and say it is good". That is considerably below adolescent behavior.
So why do we have them?
So morons like you can whine about how they aren't effective because people like me don't believe in the same fairie magic and therefore we must have MORE ineffective laws to make up for the ones that are already ineffective.
And no, the law against rape is NOT ineffective. If you believe it is - you got right ahead and rape someone.
Ah yes, rape is a completely unenforceable law.....Except it's not.
And just exactly like all the issues I've explained about UBC's....except in every way.
See, if you rape someone you can get caught. The victim reports the crime. There is evidence and testimony.
With UBC's there is none of that. Evidence? Like I've said over and over, if you don't know what guns a person had yesterday, you can't show that they were transferred today. Testimony? No victim to report the 'crime'.
Apparently you still don't grok the issues I've explained. Really. Otherwise you wouldn't have made this comparison.
Let's try this. Explain how, if two people ignored M-T and transferred a gun without a background check, they would get caught.
Because your solution is something that a three year old would propose. Let's put more people in jail! Like we don't already have a problem with that anyway....
It's not really a plan, GD, more of simplistic declaration which is characteristic of what the Right has to offer these days.
Hey, Milwaukie Mayor and police chief come up with a proposal a three year old would like. Some kind of simplistic declaration that came from.....lefies???
Wow, I guess there are some ideas that the left 'comes up with' that I can agree with....
...locking up people who shouldn’t have guns makes it much easier to get along with the people who should.
Your whole position boils down to "do what I want, because I want it and say it is good". .
Nope. And that would be a straw man. Try again.
if you don't know what guns a person had yesterday, you can't show that they were transferred today.
So what? All that matters is if you check to see if they have a criminal record. Nothing else needs to be done except, of course, we bring in people that have severe mental health issues. Those people are also registered as well. Don't you want to prevent these two groups from obtaining guns?
Obviously you do because of your link that your provided. I'm all for putting people who are dangerous in jail longer and emptying the prisons of the softer crime folks, especially drug related offenses. That still won't prevent people from finding avenues to buy guns from places that don't do a background check. And that's not just person to person.
Why would it be so difficult to type your name and social when buying a gun from an internet source? If a record came up, no gun.
Nope. And that would be a straw man. Try again.
Why should I try again - you haven't even tried once. Do try and keep up.
So what?
Wow! The depth! The logic, the facts, they are unassailable. Admit it GD, we "lose" and M "wins".
So what? All that matters is if you check to see if they have a criminal record.
Wow. After all this you still don't fucking get it.
Great. All that matters is if they check.....
But if they don't there isn't a thing you can do about it, because you won't even know they didn't do a check. And since there isn't anything you can do to people who didn't get a check then there are going to be a lot of people NOT getting checks.
But I guess all that really matters to you is a law that says people have to get checks, even if that law is written in such a manner that nobody will actually have to get checks. Truly genius level intellect there.
And that's not just person to person.
And what pray tell are those other sales?
Why would it be so difficult to type your name and social when buying a gun from an internet source? If a record came up, no gun.
Ahh, internet sales. LOL.
You still don't understand anything about guns laws do you? Wow again.
An internet sale done by a dealer is still a dealer sale. An internet sale done by a person is still a person to person sale. The internet doesn't make it any different than a classified ad and a different way of making a phone call.
We aren't talking about how difficult it would be to do a check. The difficulty is ensuring the checks are done. You can't be this naive. If you haven't exceeded the speed limit yourself you've seen it done - a lot. And hell, speeders can be caught - unlike the way M-T is written.
.
Here's a simple question for you, GD. If a background check was required on every gun purchase, save the exceptions, would there be more done than there are now? Yes or no?
Yes.
Let me ask you a question.
Is your goal to prevent guns getting into the hands of criminals and mentally ill people or is it to inconvenience lawful gun owners?
Because that yes would cover some lawful owners and not the criminals.
Besides, I don't believe you when you say you'd be content with just a few more background checks being done. You already have a percentage of transfers getting checks and that's just not enough for you. Why should I believe you'd be happy with just a little bit 'more'. Especially when your goal is 'all'?
It's not my fault that you suffer from paranoia, GD. My goal is to make Manchin Toomey law. That's it. Anything else is logical fallacy on your part.
Since you admitted that there would be more background checks performed, that meanns that less guns would get into the hands of criminals. Law abiding gun owners should have no problem with this as they buy guns all places where background checks are regularly performed, right?
It's not my fault that you suffer from paranoia, GD. My goal is to make Manchin Toomey law. That's it. Anything else is logical fallacy on your part.
Fact: Some gun transfers now receive background checks.
Fact: M-T requires all* transfers to receive background checks.
Fact: You want M-T enacted.
It's not paranoia to connect those dots Mark. You support a law that says all* transfers need to have checks. Therefore you want all* transfers to have checks. You are not content with some you want all. So quit bullshitting me about it. You are either lying to me or to yourself otherwise.
Since you admitted that there would be more background checks performed, that meanns that less guns would get into the hands of criminals.
Well, that's a leap of logic. So tell me, if McDonald's stopped selling hamburgers to fat people, would that mean there would be less hamburgers eaten by fat people? Or would they go to burger king instead?
Law abiding gun owners should have no problem with this as they buy guns all places where background checks are regularly performed, right?
So, you don't really care about criminals getting guns via the huge holes this law allows but you really do care about law abiding gun owners having to spend more money to buy guns. I see.
that meanns that less guns would get into the hands of criminals
Speaking of logical fallacies.
Chutzpah, pure, unadulterated chutzpah.
Fact: M-T requires all* transfers to receive background checks.
What's with the asterisk?:)
It's not really all* transfers so knock off the lying/game playing.
So quit bullshitting me about it.
Heading off at the pass and redirect...
The only bullshitting going on is the crapola you are slinging about how a law that specifically outlaws registration will lead to registration. And that said law will be ineffective without registration because some Democrat was quoted on some right wing blog as saying that it would. So now it's gospel because we all know right wing blogs tell the truth, unlike the "liberal" media.
The real truth here is that you just don't want it to happen just cuz! (stomp stomp stomp...SLAM!!)
but you really do care about law abiding gun owners having to spend more money to buy guns. I see.
How exactly is that going to happen? I still have yet to see how increasing background checks infringe on people already submitting to them. It seems to me that you want to be able to buy guns without a background check. Why is that, GD? Why would someone want that?
Chutzpah, pure, unadulterated chutzpah.
How so?
If there were more background checks at places, they would catch more people trying to buy guns that have records, right?
How so?
I've seen dogs with more self awareness then you have. Sheesh.
Post a Comment