On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 01:22:33 -0600, Califbill
wrote:

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.

Is this hyperbole, hypothetical or do you have an actual example?

All the gun laws in the world will never stop the flow of illegal guns. The criminals will always find a way to get their guns. That said I have no problems with background checks for those who want to legally purchase their guns.

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?

--
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.

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.

On 11/14/2014 12:16 AM, 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?

Hoo boy, here we go again.

On 11/14/2014 2:20 AM, jps wrote:
Doesn't mean that we cannot target them and demolish
their capabilities.

What you really mean is kill them all without guns.

On 11/14/2014 6:50 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
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.

If those guns could be tied to crimes, guess who would have to answer to
those crimes? Laws or no laws, it behooves one to establish a chain of
custody for his own protection.

On 11/13/2014 7:03 PM, Poco Loco wrote:


It was a great discussion. However, the failure of many to agree with
Luddite caused a degree of frustration which resulted in some comments
not taken well.

It's a damn shame that a difference of opinion can't simply be
accepted. Very sad!

It is strange how some folks handle opposition when they feel they are
smarter than everyone else in the room... Even if they are, I have
always found that new blood can lead to new innovations and even new
attitudes... I think these types of folks are ripping themselves off.

On 11/14/2014 8:15 AM, BAR wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 19:03:06 -0500, Poco Loco
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.

"I've shot (pun intended) my mouth off regarding my views on the need
for reasonable gun control laws, basically supporting universal
background checks, gun registration, a chain of custody record of
ownership and standardization of the myriad state laws. I believe
they should apply to both FFL dealer purchases and subsequent private
sales."

This is exactly the import of the referendum Washington voters just
passed by 60%+. Our legislature is too weak to take it up so the
citizens have done it for themselves.

You would not believe the apoplexy demonstrated by gun owners here.
You'd have thought they were being castrated while their kids were
deep fat fried by "liberals."

Common sense laws covering the sale of weapons needs to happen in this
country, otherwise there's no chance of holding idiots, assholes and
scumbags responsible for those same guns leaking into the hands of
criminals.

Background checks on every gun sale will help stem the flow of legal
weapons into criminal hands. It's not a panacea, just a step along
the way to a safer citizenry.

Thanks for voicing your opinion.

It was a great discussion. However, the failure of many to agree with
Luddite caused a degree of frustration which resulted in some comments
not taken well.

It's a damn shame that a difference of opinion can't simply be
accepted. Very sad!

Political scientists working on behalf of parties have found ways to
neatly divide us by issue. And we're suckers for allowing ourselves
to be manipulated so expertly.

Most of the American electorate sit somewhere in the middle and have
the ability to see both sides of an issue, but the language that's
proffered by the extremes is what gets adopted in the debate.

I'm as guilty as any but I also know I sit significantly closer to the
middle than what's estimated by most of the "righties" here.

I really don't understand how people can be so obstinate about common
sense gun control. The paranoia about being on a "list" is
ridiculous. 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.

Therein lies your problem and Luddite's problem, both of you believe
that your views of common sense gun control is "the" solution and "the"
only solution that makes sense.




Criticizing a solution means you acknowledge a problem.
What's your solution?

On 11/14/2014 8:54 AM, KC wrote:
On 11/13/2014 7:03 PM, Poco Loco wrote:


It was a great discussion. However, the failure of many to agree with
Luddite caused a degree of frustration which resulted in some comments
not taken well.

It's a damn shame that a difference of opinion can't simply be
accepted. Very sad!

It is strange how some folks handle opposition when they feel they are
smarter than everyone else in the room... Even if they are, I have
always found that new blood can lead to new innovations and even new
attitudes... I think these types of folks are ripping themselves off.





Common sense is not an indicator of "smartness".

Debate and discussion is how controversial issues are resolved. When
the issue is a social problem it is the responsibility of all to
contribute to the solution. Hiding your head in the sand and pretending
the problem doesn't exist doesn't count.

In the end, those who push strongly enough win. Those who cling to the
status quo end up getting run over. Better to be a participant.