Another week, another school shooting

[BraveUlysses]

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

King me!

[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.

[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.........

[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

[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.

[smooth]

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

[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]

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.

[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.

[mrsleeve]

Derp. Rejection rate is extremely low, getthefuckout with your shitty anecdotal evidence.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/201...rms-ownership/

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...

[marshallnoise]

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 said putting another law on the books that cannot be enforced (without a national gun registry) is a waste of time. We do however need to put laws on the books that help the root cause of crime instead of useless regulations that simply "ask nicely" since there is no way to audit or track if it's being done.
I'll say it again, I think universal background checks in THEORY make sense, but when you break down the logistics and the political agendas at play here, the potential harm done to our constitutional liberties are a much greater threat. The time and effort needs to be put into addressing the disfunction and culture that causes people to go to guns for malicious intentions in the first place.

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". Your attempts at an easy solution are full of holes you conveniently avoided and decided to get high and mighty instead of actually addressing. I never said a mass confiscation will happen, you're putting words in my mouth. There is no easy (or effective) solution that does not pave the way for future administrations to gradually carve away what we're allowed to own to only a double barrel shotgun. The Second Amendment will not save us from bans and subsequent confiscation in "seems reasonable" chunks.

But...The childrenz!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

[ParsedOut]

They're aware of what you're saying intuitively because all the facts and their experiences demonstrate what you're saying. But they've been subjected to a lifetime of propaganda from the gun lobby, which spends how many hundreds of millions of dollars per year? That's why, I assume, people post contradictory positions. You have someone post that it's stupid to think one can prevent crime, then later post we need to look at the root causes of crime. We need to have universal background checks, then later post that we can't because the government will embark on mass confiscation and that we shouldn't be focused on keeping firearms out of the hands of people adjudicated to be dangers to themselves or others.

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 said putting another law on the books that cannot be enforced (without a national gun registry) is a waste of time. We do however need to put laws on the books that help the root cause of crime instead of useless regulations that simply "ask nicely" since there is no way to audit or track if it's being done.
I'll say it again, I think universal background checks in THEORY make sense, but when you break down the logistics and the political agendas at play here, the potential harm done to our constitutional liberties are a much greater threat. The time and effort needs to be put into addressing the disfunction and culture that causes people to go to guns for malicious intentions in the first place.

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". Your attempts at an easy solution are full of holes you conveniently avoided and decided to get high and mighty instead of actually addressing. I never said a mass confiscation will happen, you're putting words in my mouth. There is no easy (or effective) solution that does not pave the way for future administrations to gradually carve away what we're allowed to own to only a double barrel shotgun. The Second Amendment will not save us from bans and subsequent confiscation in "seems reasonable" chunks.

[marshallnoise]

How else am I to verify that I'm not selling to a criminal? Ask him or her? Just assume? Don't ask, don't tell?

Actually I offered both options, but showing a CCL is free while a background check is not. My point was that people contacted me and gave up immediately when I told them I wouldn't transfer without some sort of proof they are legally allowed to make the purchase. Some tried to plead with me, no dice.

But you've done a nice job with this post proving my point and smooth's as well--you tell me I should have just gone to an FFL (which I'm not opposed to) but you would balk if that was a legal requirement.

You dipshits want it both ways--you practically vilify me for doing my due diligence but at the same time you're unwilling to codify basic laws requiring verification that a party is eligible to make the purchase.



Derp. Rejection rate is extremely low, getthefuckout with your shitty anecdotal evidence.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/201...rms-ownership/

Your personal preference does not translate into the need for a law to be passed. There are no double standards here, just the standard you imposed on your own transaction.

Some people want to sell their cars to someone they think will take care of it, but it is irrational to place that limitation on the buyer. If you want to limit your base of purchasers, that is your prerogative.

Not only is it not required and my belief it shouldn't be required to have private party background checks when selling guns, your desire to do so in your transaction should have no bearing on legislation. You just made it very difficult on both yourself and the buyer for no real reason.

It is fairly clear you experienced the burden of making someone or you pay to have a background check done to buy your gun. what does that say? Do you wish it was law so you wouldn't have to ask someone to do it? Make you uncomfortable? Feels like you are being unnecessarily burdensome?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

[BraveUlysses]

What an absurd requirement to require a CCW to purchase a rifle or carbine. You should have just used an FFL for the transaction.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

How else am I to verify that I'm not selling to a criminal? Ask him or her? Just assume? Don't ask, don't tell?

Actually I offered both options, but showing a CCL is free while a background check is not. My point was that people contacted me and gave up immediately when I told them I wouldn't transfer without some sort of proof they are legally allowed to make the purchase. Some tried to plead with me, no dice.

But you've done a nice job with this post proving my point and smooth's as well--you tell me I should have just gone to an FFL (which I'm not opposed to) but you would balk if that was a legal requirement.

You dipshits want it both ways--you practically vilify me for doing my due diligence but at the same time you're unwilling to codify basic laws requiring verification that a party is eligible to make the purchase.

^^
Yup and the NICS is fool proof as well, when you have guys that have High level Govt Military Clearances getting flagged for civilian firearms purchases

Derp. Rejection rate is extremely low, getthefuckout with your shitty anecdotal evidence.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/201...rms-ownership/

[mrsleeve]

^^
Yup and the NICS is fool proof as well, when you have guys that have High level Govt Military Clearances getting flagged for civilian firearms purchases


A CCW permit is one of the best ways. Hell in my state if you have a valid CCW your FFL does not have to call your 4473 in to the feds. The reasoning, is that you have undergone a more stringent B/G from the FBI, to obtain that permit, if you have it and its valid then then there is no reason you will be flagged by the NICS.

Also about a year ago there was real possibilities that the AR would be come a federally prohibited item, many people (who wear a much larger and heavier tin foil hat than I do) were trying to obtain them 3rd party to cache them out in the woods somewhere in a vault about 2 feet underground. No 4473 with your name on it from a FFL for a AR and no paper trail leading to you in this instance.

Most guys that sell in P/P transactions do something like that and at the least have a name and phone number for the guy they are selling too. Most guys know each other or at least have a mutual friend.