On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 12:02:11 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 11:19:29 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/14/2014 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.



You don't know how many people turned them down other than the one
person in Tennessee.

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.


I know they admitted they went to 5 gun shows in 4 states. Are you
saying they only ran into 4 sellers?
It is clear they were dissuaded from buying a lot of guns. Only one
made the show.


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.

I think there were a lot of questions asked at the booths they didn't
buy from. They just did not make the show. Otherwise why didn't they
just buy all the guns in Ellijay and they would have been home for
dinner.
The narrator said it was because of a "limited selection". He didn't
say there were no guns.

Maybe I pay more attention to what they didn't write in the script but
was apparent from the circumstances and from what they did say.

It was presented as fact that they shopped at 5 gun shows in 4 states
and found 3 illegal sellers. It is easy to assume that everyone else
they talked to was not willing to make an illegal transaction.
They admitted to one. What about the rest?
I guess people following the law is not good TV.


If they just wanted to buy a few illegal guns, they probably didn't
even have to start their car. I bet there are gang bangers in downtown
Atlanta who would sell them guns, no questions asked.

The point is not the ratio between those that follow laws and those
that don't. It's the ready availability of weapons given one's
interest and persistence in obtaining them.

If it were Taliban or ISIS in the country making those purchases,
would it be any more compellting to you?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 15:38:18 -0600, Califbill
wrote:

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.

===

Oh no, that could not be. You're talking about the culture of the
Democratic party and we all know where that discussion leads.

wrote:
On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 15:38:18 -0600, Califbill
wrote:



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.

Actually, in spite of all the hype from the left, these are the safest
times we have ever had in this country in reference to violence,
particularly gun violence. It is just that when it happens, that is
the only thing on the news for a month ... at least when it is white
people being shot or when a white person shoots a black person.
The bulk of murders are black people shooting other black people and
that is not news.
http://tinyurl.com/pvusl5x

I think we have more gun violence than in my youth. And I lay the blame on
the War on Drugs. Just like Prohibition spawned Al Capone and those type
gangs, the WOD. Has spawned new gangs. Overall we are probably safer, but
there are concentrated areas where violence is an epidemic. Comes with
drugs, not many jobs for the unskilled, and the lure of big money without
any education. But due to political correctness that can not be put
forward.