On 11/14/2014 2:31 AM, jps wrote:
On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 01:31:38 -0500, wrote:
On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 21:22:50 -0800, jps wrote:
On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 21:43:46 -0500, wrote:
On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 12:40:01 -0800, jps wrote:
Thank you for stepping out and making your thoughts known about gun
control. You make a reasoned argument for common sense law.
You didn't notice that his argument was based on a CNN show that
demonstrated that if you tried, you could find someone to break the
law. Would 2 laws have stopped them? Three?
If someone wants to break the law, there's little stopping them.
Please cite one law on the books that prevents a determined person
from breaking it.
Holy crap. Where do you come up with these empty arguments?
NRA pamphlet?
Laws are meant to let people know where the line is. If they cross
it, they're liable to be prosecuted and put in jail or fined silly.
How would prosecuting someone for lying on a background check or
failing to sell a gun through a proper process be any different than
any other law?
Come on, try to field a real argument, please.
I am simply saying, the justification Richard was trying to make was
the "gun show loophole" but the loophole did not exist in the cases he
was citing. Every gun they bought was already illegal under both state
and federal law. Then they broke another federal law when they crossed
state lines with them.
Does anyone believe one more law would stop them?
It is like showing someone buying crack on the street and saying we
need another drug law.
In Washington, we just passed a referendum that requires all gun
buyers to go through a background check, gun show or private sale.
It will prevent people ignoring the law when they see a few idiots
prosecuted for selling a gun illegally, either through straw purchase
or ignoring the background check.
Laws and education can incrementally stem the flow, little by little.
Same as we've cut into the death rate from auto accidents. It's a
fair comparison.
For jps:
You are about to unleash the standard "privilege" versus "right"
argument. Driving is a privilege so federally mandated seat belts and
other safety related laws are acceptable to those who oppose some
comprehensive gun controls for modern times.
They will argue that the 2nd Amendment grants them the *right* to live
in a dangerous environment.
For Greg:
It would be a more meaningful discussion if you dropped your habit of
changing what is posted here to support your arguments.
I established an opinion on background checks, gun registration and
chain of custody well before any mention of the CNN documentary was
brought into the discussion. I did not *justify* my position on it,
contrary to your revised discussion history.
In fact, someone else initially mentioned the CNN thing. I indicated
that I had seen it also and searched YouTube to see if there was a
record of it. There was and I posted the link here.
You supposedly watched it and decided that it was probably scripted.
You made statements that were totally false about the documentary,
including saying that they said they had to drive 600 miles in
three different states to find anyone who would sell them a gun.
CNN never said that. Total bull**** on your part. But you have
a habit of introducing an imaginary facet of a subject and then
running with it as the fact basis of your arguments. Unrelated, but to
emphasize your debate tactics, you demonstrated them again in the
"Harry" incident, putting forth "facts" that established the
relationship of the people involved and Harry's initial actions,
none of which were reported by the person actually involved.
It really doesn't matter. Regardless of what you think, the CNN
documentary underscored an important issue, that being how easily a
Bushmaster semi-automatic, two Glock 17's and a S&W .45 could be
purchased over a weekend with absolutely no traceability of the
transaction and no record of custody of where those guns may ultimately
end up.