Another week, another school shooting

[smooth]

I'm going to assume this gem was directed at me, so I feel obliged to respond even if you have elevated yourself...
Subjected to a lifetime of gun lobby propaganda? Hardly, I'm not an NRA member and I don't sit around reading only pro-gun articles. I am aware of both sides of the argument as much as you like to pretend that I'm just a brainwashed gun nut zombie.
I don't recall saying it was stupid to think crime can be prevented,

I don't expect a response from you, but it's very apparent that if someone has a fundamentally different point of view from you then all they are doing is trying to "kill a thread".

The only thing I pointed out to you was that as soon as you started with the personal attacks then I wasn't going to respond to you anymore. If you think that's acting high and mighty then that's on you. The only reason I even listed my credentials is because marshallnoise specifically asked me where I was getting my information.

If we were having a discussion about tax regulations and he started opining about something and I asked him where he got his information from, and he responded that he was an accountant and listed all the things he did around the country in relation to tax regulation, I don't think you'd think that was him acting "high and mighty."

*You* said that I was smart and educated and I merely agreed with that assessment and, furthermore, said that I assumed you were also equally smart and that's why I don't go around personally attacking your intelligence when we have difference of opinion about things.

That's a far cry from someone sitting in an ivory tower and telling everyone that they're beneath his understanding. That's something marshallnoise did in order to shut out difference of opinion, and in my specific case, an expert's opinion about the exact situation. If he was interested in learning anything about the subject instead of just talking out his ass every chance he got then he'd actually read through the things I wrote and posted for his benefit. It's not to my benefit to waste my time talking about a topic that someone isn't interested in learning more information about.

You said you were interested in universal background checks but so far haven't even attempted to propose how that would be done in light of your concerns about your 2nd amendment rights. I specifically asked you what you would like to do about the two seemingly opposing goals--that of implementing background checks and not maintaining a national gun registry. If you don't want to move the discussion forward there isn't any point in my opinion about you rehashing the same arguments you've made here over the past few years I've watched you make them. If you can't resolve the problem and explain it to us then that's that. I said I understood your concerns and I'm not sure what else you'd like me to do other than, what you seem to be ok with, just shoving my head in the sand and hoping the problem goes away.

This is the person you're aligning yourself with, though:

Lack of universal background checks is a boogeyman.

It is clear to me that your end goal is to restrict all private party sales.

This isn't "Minority Report" you know.

Its pretty clear to me that you don't care about the 2nd Amendment and inalienable rights. This isn't about preventing school shootings for you, its about preventing gun ownership. Or, you are simply that stupid to think that you can PREVENT crime from occurring.

His logic is atrocious, he can't be bothered to read peer reviewed research on the topic, and then jumps to spurious conclusions. He doesn't even agree with you that universal background checks are important. He doesn't think that crime can be prevented. He also is completely unaware of the current laws in place in California about gun ownership so it's questionable that he even owns guns--or if he does that he does so legally.

Pretty much stands for everything you say you're against in this, and other, threads.

[smooth]

Still happens right????? there have been instance of people on this forum that were getting a red flagged transaction out of the blue, and were green the week before.

Getting a CCW IS NOT FREE, Nor would going to the FFL and having them do a 4473 for the transaction, they charge for that service you know that right. Now unless you were going to force a business to provide a service for free.............. Like I tried to explain earlier if there is no free and way to avoid the NICS all together then it makes the NICS unconstitutional. Something about those pesky rights and all that jazz..........

Its your property your free to sell or not sell it to anyone you wish, and put what ever conditions you want on to that sale. That dose not mean you get to put those same conditions on everyone else's property because it makes you feel better...

FFL transfers are $10 bucks in California

your comments about the necessity of ensuring the NCIS is avoidable in order for it to be legal are incorrect. I asked you when you first stated it to cite the legal authority you are using to make those comments and you never responded.

[mrsleeve]

so are ID's poll tax is poll tax, if you dont have to prove who you are to vote why to buy a gun?? enumerated right is still enumerated..........


A vote is like a rifle; its usefulness depends upon the charter of the user - Theodore Roosevelt

[smooth]

Are you now arguing that requiring background checks is analogous to poll taxes?

[marshallnoise]

His logic is atrocious, he can't be bothered to read peer reviewed research on the topic, and then jumps to spurious conclusions. He doesn't even agree with you that universal background checks are important. He doesn't think that crime can be prevented. He also is completely unaware of the current laws in place in California about gun ownership so it's questionable that he even owns guns--or if he does that he does so legally.

Pretty much stands for everything you say you're against in this, and other, threads.

Reading your peer reviewed research, that you provided me, proved everything I stated about it: Garbage opinion based on gross misrepresentation of a statistic. If it is conceived in error, why entertain it's claims? But no, because it is peer reviewed, I am supposed to just enjoy the suppository.

I reject universal background checks for the same reason anyone else who cares about the 2nd Amendment does; the only way you have them is by creating a national database. Does it have to be spoken more than once? In a vacuum, they work and people's rights are preserved. The problem is, there is no vacuum. So why even go there?

No, I do not believe that crime can be prevented. It is illogical to think that it can be prevented. It can only be discouraged and the idea that passing laws = prevention of crime is just silly.

What firearms I own and how I acquired them, if at all, is none of your business. Why would I broadcast that to people? Do I have to compare the size of my schlong in order to even eat the scraps from your table in this conversation? Apparently so.

What is typical of academic types is to typecast and tie people together in order to stop opposition. That is what you are doing to him. Anyone with half a brain can see what you are attempting. Fortunately, he doesn't have to claim me nor does anyone else. He is a free man and so am I. You are too. This grouping and labeling shit is so old and tiresome.

[marshallnoise]

Are you now arguing that requiring background checks is analogous to poll taxes?

He may not, but I will. Can't have it both ways.

You know, it requires an ID to get into the DNC? Weird...;D

[mrsleeve]

well you have an enumerated right to vote and not be charged a fee in anyway by the govt for that, and firearms ownership falls into the same ball park in this country. Something about having cake and eating as well comes to mind

Hell I think it was PA not all that long ago said they would give a State ID to anyone that could not afford the 10-20 bucks to obtain them selves, IIRC the argument that they would have to pay to get to the DMV was used and construed as a poll tax.


We have a bill going in our state legislature to BAN texting while driving. Yup making a law to ban something will keep people from doing it.........

[BraveUlysses]

Still happens right????? there have been instance of people on this forum that were getting a red flagged transaction out of the blue, and were green the week before.

I didn't say it doesn't happen. I pointed out that your claimed evidence is statistically not remotely common in the aggregate number of NICS checks that have been performed.

No matter how many times you cite some story on the internet about high level military members or people on a forum (fucking LOL) being denied as evidence of anything other than your inability to analyze anything critically.

For the last time, learn why your arguments are unconvincing and try again:

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/volvofal.html

Getting a CCW IS NOT FREE, Nor would going to the FFL and having them do a 4473 for the transaction, they charge for that service you know that right. Now unless you were going to force a business to provide a service for free.............. Like I tried to explain earlier if there is no free and way to avoid the NICS all together then it makes the NICS unconstitutional. Something about those pesky rights and all that jazz..........

HURR DURR IM SPENDING HUNDREDS OF DOLLARS ON A GUN BUT CANT AFFORD A FEE TO PROVE IM NOT A CRIMINAL HURR DURR

Its your property your free to sell or not sell it to anyone you wish, and put what ever conditions you want on to that sale. That dose not mean you get to put those same conditions on everyone else's property because it makes you feel better...

It's not about "feeling better" its about being accountable for selling property to people who can and will lie about their legal right to own a regulated piece of property. If you were smarter you would realize this is indeed a benefit for legal gun owners but you're a great example of how myopic fucking idiots easily buy into propaganda.

[BraveUlysses]

Are you now arguing that requiring background checks is analogous to poll taxes?

King me!

[smooth]

Subjected to a lifetime of gun lobby propaganda? Hardly, I'm not an NRA member and I don't sit around reading only pro-gun articles. I am aware of both sides of the argument as much as you like to pretend that I'm just a brainwashed gun nut zombie.

Whenever someone says something that seems bizarre all one has to do is plug the terms into google...cf. mrsleeve's analogy of background checks to poll taxes. Shouldn't surprise anyone that his opinion is "shared" by the NRA (and there are also points in there that seem to be "shared" by marshallnoise, too)

"From the Desk of Jim Baker, Director of NRA-ILA":

https://d19cgyi5s8w5eh.cloudfront.net/eml/4987Z050-571U-4Y58-Z748-Y5YY3X464VW1?e=accountaccess@comcast.net&a=07ZV7538-Z318-4XYX-YVZ4-59V0Y29661YW&f=&t=1

So you tell me...you posted that you assumed that I as directing my comments towards you but now you have a couple examples of my comments being more aptly applied to other participants in the thread...so when someone like marshallnoise posts some blather about "think of the childrenz" if he's trying to "kill a thread" or at least a level of reasonable dialog. I think he is.

[marshallnoise]

Whenever someone says something that seems bizarre all one has to do is plug the terms into google...cf. mrsleeve's analogy of background checks to poll taxes. Shouldn't surprise anyone that his opinion is "shared" by the NRA (and there are also points in there that seem to be "shared" by marshallnoise, too)

"From the Desk of Jim Baker, Director of NRA-ILA":

https://d19cgyi5s8w5eh.cloudfront.net/eml/4987Z050-571U-4Y58-Z748-Y5YY3X464VW1?e=accountaccess@comcast.net&a=07ZV7538-Z318-4XYX-YVZ4-59V0Y29661YW&f=&t=1

So you tell me...you posted that you assumed that I as directing my comments towards you but now you have a couple examples of my comments being more aptly applied to other participants in the thread...so when someone like marshallnoise posts some blather about "think of the childrenz" if he's trying to "kill a thread" or at least a level of reasonable dialog. I think he is.

Its called mocking the position, dick. Not trying to kill the thread. Everything leftists do is for the children. Joke, heard of them?

[smooth]

well you have an enumerated right to vote and not be charged a fee in anyway by the govt for that, and firearms ownership falls into the same ball park in this country. Something about having cake and eating as well comes to mind

Hell I think it was PA not all that long ago said they would give a State ID to anyone that could not afford the 10-20 bucks to obtain them selves, IIRC the argument that they would have to pay to get to the DMV was used and construed as a poll tax.

I wish that if you opined about our Constitution that you'd actually go through it one of these days. I'm not saying you have to in order to have an opinion but it seems that given the amount of time you spend thinking about Constitutional issues you should have a rudimentary understanding of what it does and does not say in there.

For starters, all citizens do not have an enumerated right to vote in this country. Who can and can not vote has been achieved through a long process of battles--figuratively, legally, and literally. Poll taxation is not something prohibited until 1964 after ratification of the 24th amendment.

If that's the direction you want to take things then you should be more alarmed that the vast majority of the population supports universal background checks. That is, if you keep pushing a wall against solutions you'd be comfortable with then be prepared for a Constitutional amendment limiting what you can and can not do in regards to the Second amendment.

[ParsedOut]

The only thing I pointed out to you was that as soon as you started with the personal attacks then I wasn't going to respond to you anymore. If you think that's acting high and mighty then that's on you. The only reason I even listed my credentials is because marshallnoise specifically asked me where I was getting my information.
Calling someone "ignorant of details" is far from a personal attack. Unless of course you were only asking the questions because you wanted to see if I knew the answer and in that case I don't like to play games. So if in fact you didn't know the answer to the basic questions, you were in fact ignorant of the details. I don't know how else to explain this.

If we were having a discussion about tax regulations and he started opining about something and I asked him where he got his information from, and he responded that he was an accountant and listed all the things he did around the country in relation to tax regulation, I don't think you'd think that was him acting "high and mighty."

*You* said that I was smart and educated and I merely agreed with that assessment and, furthermore, said that I assumed you were also equally smart and that's why I don't go around personally attacking your intelligence when we have difference of opinion about things.
No, I believe you've openly offered up that opinion of yourself without provocation, maybe it was in another thread...

That's a far cry from someone sitting in an ivory tower and telling everyone that they're beneath his understanding. That's something marshallnoise did in order to shut out difference of opinion, and in my specific case, an expert's opinion about the exact situation. If he was interested in learning anything about the subject instead of just talking out his ass every chance he got then he'd actually read through the things I wrote and posted for his benefit. It's not to my benefit to waste my time talking about a topic that someone isn't interested in learning more information about.

You said you were interested in universal background checks but so far haven't even attempted to propose how that would be done in light of your concerns about your 2nd amendment rights. I specifically asked you what you would like to do about the two seemingly opposing goals--that of implementing background checks and not maintaining a national gun registry. If you don't want to move the discussion forward there isn't any point in my opinion about you rehashing the same arguments you've made here over the past few years I've watched you make them. If you can't resolve the problem and explain it to us then that's that. I said I understood your concerns and I'm not sure what else you'd like me to do other than, what you seem to be ok with, just shoving my head in the sand and hoping the problem goes away.
As a matter of fact, I've said many times that there are NO solutions. Care to read? You on the other hand have made misinformed suggestions. Something along the line of "just expand what we currently have for FFLs" but didn't cover how we would regulate individuals without a registry to track where these firearms are coming from and going to. The anonymous solution (while semi-intriguing) wouldn't work because by nature people won't pay more and jump through more hoops to do something than required. I also didn't suggest "shoving my head in the sand", I have more than once suggested that we need to put time, effort, money and legislation to combat the root of the issue. Once again, you read only what you want to. BTW, I haven't been arguing in OT for years...just recently I've decided to waste my time here.

This is the person you're aligning yourself with, though:
Aligning myself with? Have I ever given him a high five? Us pro-gun people are all the same though right?

His logic is atrocious, he can't be bothered to read peer reviewed research on the topic, and then jumps to spurious conclusions. He doesn't even agree with you that universal background checks are important. He doesn't think that crime can be prevented. He also is completely unaware of the current laws in place in California about gun ownership so it's questionable that he even owns guns--or if he does that he does so legally.
If you think peer review means the data is impartial and pure, you're delusional. Hope you don't take that as a personal attack.

Pretty much stands for everything you say you're against in this, and other, threads.

[smooth]

Why are you getting so puffy about me stating to you that I don't appreciate it when you talk down to me because I'm an intelligent and educated individual?

That seems to really stick in your craw for some reason. Whenever you bring it up, and you do so often, you also throw some more insults in your posts. It's as if you either don't know how to be civil and don't actually realize you're coming across rudely, or you think you're being sly with your insults. It's strange to witness.

You spend more time discussing that than describing for us how you'd like to implement the policy you say you want, universal background checks, without infringing on individual freedoms from being on a national gun registry.

I simply was proposing plausible things to consider for your input. To me, it's a non-issue having lived in California my entire life where it's not been an issue. We don't prevent private sales and we don't have people on a national list--yet we have universal background checks in my state.

You seem to have a problem with the two things so come up with a solution. I was trying to engage with you on what you would or would not think would be viable resolutions. Then you started to spin the conversation into all kinds of twists--anything other than respond to what we were actually talking about.

[ParsedOut]

Why are you getting so puffy about me stating to you that I don't appreciate it when you talk down to me because I'm an intelligent and educated individual?

That seems to really stick in your craw for some reason. Whenever you bring it up, and you do so often, you also throw some more insults in your posts. It's as if you either don't know how to be civil and don't actually realize you're coming across rudely, or you think you're being sly with your insults. It's strange to witness.

You spend more time discussing that than describing for us how you'd like to implement the policy you say you want, universal background checks, without infringing on individual freedoms from being on a national gun registry.

I simply was proposing plausible things to consider for your input. To me, it's a non-issue having lived in California my entire life where it's not been an issue. We don't prevent private sales and we don't have people on a national list--yet we have universal background checks in my state.

You seem to have a problem with the two things so come up with a solution. I was trying to engage with you on what you would or would not think would be viable resolutions. Then you started to spin the conversation into all kinds of twists--anything other than respond to what we were actually talking about.

I'm not puffy, I'm responding to your supposed offense to what I said. None was intended, but you used that as an excuse to bail out once I explained why your solution wouldn't work. Now you've continued to repeat that I don't want to offer up any solutions, I DON'T SEE ANY, for like the fourth time! You're still putting words in my mouth, I said I agree with the THEORY of universal background checks (as does 7x% of the American public, supposedly), I never said I want to "implement" it as you state above. I don't see a way to implement universal background checks that won't lead to further degradation of our 2A rights in the near and long term, once again for the fourth time. You're the one talking in circles here.

Oh, let me go ahead and respond to why your precious state of CA is not a good model to follow. They currently keep a registry of all handgun owners and if I'm not mistaken they just started or will soon start registering all long guns as well. So your state is the example of what we don't want to happen on a national or even state level. If Diane Feinstein gets her way, all "assault rifles" in the state of CA would be banned and everyone would be required to turn them in. Guess what happens when you have a registry? They know exactly where to go to get them. No thanks.