On 11/14/14 8:27 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/14/2014 8:02 PM, KC wrote:
On 11/14/2014 7:36 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/14/2014 6:06 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 17:52:30 -0500, BAR wrote:
In article ,
says...
On 11/14/2014 10:59 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 23:31:59 -0800, 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.
That reading thing again. I was pointing out that there were already
laws that would have prevented the CNN crew from legally purchasing
the guns they bought and they still bought them. The thing that
****ed
Richard off was when I pointed out that they had to drive over 600
miles, visit 5 gun shows just to find 3 illegal sellers.
If you know anything about TV at all you know they had hours of
footage of people following the law that ended up on the cutting
room
floor to get the "70 seconds" they used.
You don't know how many people turned them down other than the one
person in Tennessee.
You are right, we don't know how many people turned down the
offers. If
CNN wasn't practicing yellow journalism they would have provided that
information in their report.
I don't know either. Unlike you however, I don't "assume" what I
don't
know and make it a fact in my conclusions.
We shouldn't have to assume. They, the media, should provide the
information without our asking.
It is like the NBC guys not telling us that the put an IED next to the
truck's gas tank to make it blow up because they were unable to
make it
blow up when they crashed other vehicles into the side of the truck.
Again though, the point is missed. They still bought a small
arsenal in
two days consisting of a Bushmaster semi-automatic rifle, two Glock
17's
and a S&W 45 with no questions asked.
Were the sales illegal? Did they do the paperwork after the sales and
neglect to report it in the video they released.
You'll find that both Luddite and Krause tend to ignore arguments they
can't refute.
Refute what? None of the questions or comments have anything to do
with the issue being discussed.
This whole subject centers around the strange wording of the 2A that
historians and legal scholars have been scratching their asses for a
couple of hundred years trying to figure out what the hell Madison was
talking about. He lived in the days of Red Coats, Minute Men, muskets
and flintlocks not 30 round magazines, semi-automatic rifles and
pistols. When he drafted the wording of the 2A, the "militia" consisted
of farmers and fishermen who were expected to bring their own musket or
flintlock to the fight when needed.
So, are you saying Madison wasn't forward thinking enough to write that
part of the constitution?
Not only do I believe that but so do many people far more qualified than
I. Experts have been debating the wording of what he wrote and it's
applicability in more modern times for years.
The Constitution has been interpreted, re-intepreted, added to and
subtracted from since the beginning. There's nothing particularly
sacrosanct about the 2nd Amendment. A few more mass shootings at
schools, movie theaters, sporting events, shopping centers, et cetera,
and the pressure for universal licensing and registration will be upon
us, no matter what the gun nutzies in rec.boats and the NRA want.
I'm already "licensed," as are you, Richard. I have no problem supplying
state or federal authorities with the serial numbers of firearms I
legally own and may someday sell to other individuals.
I'm certainly not depending upon the likes of Herring, BAR, Wayne, or
PsychoSnotty to defend us from the government.
--
Just because you are opposed to abortion doesn’t make you pro-life. Your
morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a
child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed, not a child
clothed, not a child able to see the doctor. That’s not pro-life…that’s
pro-birth.