Thank you, Richard!!!
 

"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 11/14/2014 9:21 AM, KC wrote:
On 11/13/2014 9:47 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 18:15:43 -0800, jps wrote:

I really don't understand how people can be so obstinate about common
sense gun control

Because common criminals don't pay much attention to common sense.
These proposals are not going to do anything but create a new
bureaucracy that doesn't really accomplish anything.


The problem Greg is that liberals always think they are the only ones
smart enough to decide what "common sense" is... and there is never any
compromise unless it's a temporary means to an end.


Have you ever stopped to think about what the words "liberal" and "conservative" mean?

Depends which continent you reside on.

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

F*O*A*D wrote:
On 11/14/14 1:31 AM, 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.


I think you missed the point of Luddite's posit entirely. The point is
that firearms are being sold at gun shows sans even the instant
background checks, especially but not only by individuals who are not
FFLs. It has been demonstrated many times that Virginia, in particular, a
"gunshow loophole state," has numerous individuals selling firearms to
other individuals at gunshows and at other venues without bothering with
any background checks.

You're just so hung up on your never-ending silliness about the way you
argue, you can't see the forest for the trees.

But, no worries. After all, your position on just about everything is
that "nothing can be done about anything, so why have laws, rules, codes?" Right?


For how many years did we not have background checks, and probably less
violence than now? Maybe it is the culture now and not guns that are the
problem.

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

On 11/14/14 4:38 PM, Califbill wrote:
F*O*A*D wrote:
On 11/14/14 1:31 AM, 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.


I think you missed the point of Luddite's posit entirely. The point is
that firearms are being sold at gun shows sans even the instant
background checks, especially but not only by individuals who are not
FFLs. It has been demonstrated many times that Virginia, in particular, a
"gunshow loophole state," has numerous individuals selling firearms to
other individuals at gunshows and at other venues without bothering with
any background checks.

You're just so hung up on your never-ending silliness about the way you
argue, you can't see the forest for the trees.

But, no worries. After all, your position on just about everything is
that "nothing can be done about anything, so why have laws, rules, codes?" Right?


For how many years did we not have background checks, and probably less
violence than now? Maybe it is the culture now and not guns that are the
problem.


Entirely separate debate.

--
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.

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 15:34:53 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 11/14/14 2:46 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 14:15:10 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/14/2014 12:17 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 11:44:20 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 11/14/14 11:41 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 11:03:09 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 11/14/14 10:59 AM, wrote:


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.



Perfectly legal in "gun show loophole states" like Virginia for
individuals to sell their regulated firearms to someone without
an instant check.

I ask again, why did CNN go to Tennessee, North Carolina and South
Carolina then? Were they saying there are no gun shows in Georgia or
are they not saying that those sellers wanted them to walk over to the
instant check booth first?

That is the problem with TV, you only see what the producer wants you
to see.


I don't know why they went there, and neither do you. The point is that
you can buy firearms at gunshows without a background check. Period. You
should not be able to buy or sell or gift a firearm without paperwork
recording the giver, seller and buyer.

If the seller is willing to break the law, what difference does it
make?
In this case the buyers and the sellers were breaking a federal law.

It would have been far more convincing if they just stayed in Georgia
and the fact that they didn't makes it sound like maybe they were
being asked more questions than they wanted for their show.

After all it is just a TV show and not a whole lot different than the
Kardashians or Honey Boo Boo. They shoot hours of tape to get a 12
minute segment.



Private sellers can break the law with virtual immunity *because there
is no requirement for a background check or registration of the
purchased firearm*. Geeze ...


Private sellers could break the law if there *was* a requirement for a
background check or registration..."

Geeezeeee Peet!


But since there isn't such a law in Virginia...

So what? You're the one saying the law is broken all the time. What
would another law do? OK, it would increase the size of the AFGE.
Other than that - nothing.

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 16:41:36 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 11/14/14 4:38 PM, Califbill wrote:
F*O*A*D wrote:
On 11/14/14 1:31 AM, 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.


I think you missed the point of Luddite's posit entirely. The point is
that firearms are being sold at gun shows sans even the instant
background checks, especially but not only by individuals who are not
FFLs. It has been demonstrated many times that Virginia, in particular, a
"gunshow loophole state," has numerous individuals selling firearms to
other individuals at gunshows and at other venues without bothering with
any background checks.

You're just so hung up on your never-ending silliness about the way you
argue, you can't see the forest for the trees.

But, no worries. After all, your position on just about everything is
that "nothing can be done about anything, so why have laws, rules, codes?" Right?


For how many years did we not have background checks, and probably less
violence than now? Maybe it is the culture now and not guns that are the
problem.


Entirely separate debate.

Why? 'Cause it makes the arguments by you and Luddite ridiculous? Do
you think the Chicago, DC, Flint, NO, etc, shooters undergo background
checks?

It's so ridiculous it's sad, really sad.

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

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.

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

Bertram spews..
".Death from auto accident is cheaper for the insurance company than
paying for emergency care of the injured. When your head goes through
the windshield and is then popped off you die. If you head bangs into
something and the seat belt breaks some of your bones you are really
****ed up and you will require quite a huge amount of care. "


Silly me, I was thinking of the welfare of the accident victim.......not the bottom line of the insurance company.

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

On 11/14/14 6:40 PM, True North wrote:
Bertram spews..
".Death from auto accident is cheaper for the insurance company than
paying for emergency care of the injured. When your head goes through
the windshield and is then popped off you die. If you head bangs into
something and the seat belt breaks some of your bones you are really
****ed up and you will require quite a huge amount of care. "


Silly me, I was thinking of the welfare of the accident victim.......not the bottom line of the insurance company.


That's because you are a human being, and not a corporate automaton.

--
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.

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

On 11/14/14 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.



Whoosh...

--
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.

Thank you, Richard!!!
 

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.