On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 18:15:43 -0800, jps wrote:

The government already knows everything they need to.
Them knowing whether you own a gun isn't going to make any difference
if they decide the constitution is obsolete.

===

What you apparently fail to appreciate is that the government is
abrogating the constitution slowly, inches at a time, and always with
seemingly good intentions.

On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 23:33:21 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 18:47:02 -0800, jps wrote:

I think you misunderstand me. A rogue government can only do away
with the constitution if they have buy in from the military.

In that case, it doesn't matter how many guns you own. They have
bigger.

How many times has the US military lost a war to guys in sandals with
AK47s in the last half century? I think it was every ****ing time.
They always had bigger guns.

The guys in sandals are organized. You'd be cowering in your media
room like all your neighbors, their wives and kids. This is America,
Greg, not Afghanistan.

On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 21:47:01 -0500, 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.

Yes, just like seat belts and all those bureaucrats who manage OSHA
and Product Safety agencies. Bloody waste of money and effort, eh?

On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 23:05:28 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 18:15:43 -0800, jps wrote:

The government already knows everything they need to.
Them knowing whether you own a gun isn't going to make any difference
if they decide the constitution is obsolete.

===

What you apparently fail to appreciate is that the government is
abrogating the constitution slowly, inches at a time, and always with
seemingly good intentions.

Or political intentions. How about Congress being too ****ing scared
to debate and declare war against ISIS? They were more interested in
golf and cavorting with their wealthy donors. Hmmm, where have I
heard that complaint before?

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.

On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 01:21:38 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 21:15:08 -0800, jps wrote:

On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 23:33:21 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 18:47:02 -0800, jps wrote:

I think you misunderstand me. A rogue government can only do away
with the constitution if they have buy in from the military.

In that case, it doesn't matter how many guns you own. They have
bigger.

How many times has the US military lost a war to guys in sandals with
AK47s in the last half century? I think it was every ****ing time.
They always had bigger guns.

The guys in sandals are organized. You'd be cowering in your media
room like all your neighbors, their wives and kids. This is America,
Greg, not Afghanistan.

We taught them and the Viet Cong most of what they know.
The real difference is they are fighting for their own freedom and you
can't underestimate that.

I really do not believe this really means anything here because we are
not going to ever get that far and the people in the army are, as a
rule, the guns, guts and god folks who the left disdains.

If there was a revolution, it would be more of a military coup than
Washington sending the army against the hinterlands.
The people who like oppressive government regulation, generally dodge
the draft and would not even consider enlisting..

Right, and you'd organize yourselves into a fighting machine by
connecting via Twitter?

Command and control? Hierarchy? Leadership? Fantasies.

You'd be on your own with a few neighbors. It'd be sad if your wife
had to watch you succumb to your country's own military.

On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 01:24:55 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 21:16:36 -0800, jps wrote:

On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 21:47:01 -0500, 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.

Yes, just like seat belts and all those bureaucrats who manage OSHA
and Product Safety agencies. Bloody waste of money and effort, eh?

Bad examples. Certainly we have a seat belt law and thousands of pages
of OSHA regulations but both are universally ignored.
Making the rules tighter and increasing the PPE required, does not
help much for the people who refuse to wear it.

Bullcrap. Seatbelts are universally accepted and between those and
other legislation, have reduced vehicular deaths in accident by 1/3.

Imagine reducing annual death by gun by 1/3. Is that folly?

On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 01:27:32 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 21:18:06 -0800, jps wrote:

On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 23:05:28 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 18:15:43 -0800, jps wrote:

The government already knows everything they need to.
Them knowing whether you own a gun isn't going to make any difference
if they decide the constitution is obsolete.

===

What you apparently fail to appreciate is that the government is
abrogating the constitution slowly, inches at a time, and always with
seemingly good intentions.

Or political intentions. How about Congress being too ****ing scared
to debate and declare war against ISIS? They were more interested in
golf and cavorting with their wealthy donors. Hmmm, where have I
heard that complaint before?

Declare war against ISIS?
How will you know when you won?
We "won" in Iraq and we hanged the bad guy. How did that work out for
you?

Ha, funny that you've flip flopped and now consider Iraq an abject
failure, eh?

We broke it, we bought it. ISIS is an organized army without a
country's flag. Doesn't mean that we cannot target them and demolish
their capabilities.

Amazing that you can sitch sides as if it were your idea all along.

jps wrote:
On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 01:24:55 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 21:16:36 -0800, jps wrote:

On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 21:47:01 -0500, 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.

Yes, just like seat belts and all those bureaucrats who manage OSHA
and Product Safety agencies. Bloody waste of money and effort, eh?

Bad examples. Certainly we have a seat belt law and thousands of pages
of OSHA regulations but both are universally ignored.
Making the rules tighter and increasing the PPE required, does not
help much for the people who refuse to wear it.

Bullcrap. Seatbelts are universally accepted and between those and
other legislation, have reduced vehicular deaths in accident by 1/3.

Imagine reducing annual death by gun by 1/3. Is that folly?

How about when you have two government agencies with regulations
diametrically opposed? When both will sue you for non compliance.

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.