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 11/14/2014 12:22 AM, jps wrote:


Come on, try to field a real argument, please.


Now that's funny...

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 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.

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 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 Fri, 14 Nov 2014 08:26:46 -0500, Harrold wrote:

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.

A chain of custody can easily be established with transfer documents
that require no increase in the federal bureaucracy.

On Friday, November 14, 2014 2:32:05 AM UTC-5, jps wrote:

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.

Then we'd better pass a law against murder and prosecute a few people that do it anyway. That will prevent people from ignoring that law, right?

Do you actually think this stuff through before you write it?

On 11/14/14 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.



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

--
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 11:03:09 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

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

===

And to me that seems perfectly reasonable given that Virginia was one
of the key states in the founding of this country and the resulting
constitution and bill of rights.

Do you have a problem with any of that?

If you want to live under British colonial rule I'd be happy to take
up a collection for your plane ticket.