Another week, another school shooting

[marshallnoise]

it's not ridiculous. it seems ridiculous to you because you are *also* opposed to state level registries and state level universal background checks. that's not something you explained when I asked the question.

when you say that you're all for federal universal background checks in theory and I present how one works at the state level in practice and ask you how you see differences between the two, that's not a ridiculous question that's trying to figure out where you see the problems and benefits of one system over the other. if you come back after the fact and state that you're actually opposed to *any* level of background check in practice, and *any* type of registration list then that's an impasse with regards to the rest of the population and the discussion we were trying to have (or I thought we were trying to have when you pointed out you'd like to see a universal background checking system that worked).

Principle = governmental authorities should not have the right to "know" where private property is or what my private property is.

Application of Principle = Federal government, state government, local government, etc should not have access to the whereabouts or what my private property is.

[smooth]

Oh really?

“If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America turn them all in, I would have done it”

-Diane Feinstein

she may want to ban them all but that doesn't mean anyone has to turn any in. of course she would have done it if she could, but she can't and there is no legal authority for her to do so. it's just wishful thinking and political posturing.

we have lots of banned weapons in the state but they can still be transferred between private parties at an FFL. the bans against "selling" them only impact retail sales.

[smooth]

If you don't know why that question is ridiculous, then you aren't as intelligent and educated as you think you are.

it's not ridiculous. it seems ridiculous to you because you are *also* opposed to state level registries and state level universal background checks. that's not something you explained when I asked the question.

when you say that you're all for federal universal background checks in theory and I present how one works at the state level in practice and ask you how you see differences between the two, that's not a ridiculous question that's trying to figure out where you see the problems and benefits of one system over the other. if you come back after the fact and state that you're actually opposed to *any* level of background check in practice, and *any* type of registration list then that's an impasse with regards to the rest of the population and the discussion we were trying to have (or I thought we were trying to have when you pointed out you'd like to see a universal background checking system that worked).

[marshallnoise]

none of this is true

Happened in Connecticut. They told everyone they had to register their AR-15s. If they didn't they were felons. The ones who complied now are on the state's shit list.

And Feinstein presented a list on the federal level of something like 100 firearms to be banned after Sandy Hook.

[ParsedOut]

none of this is true

Oh really?

“If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America turn them all in, I would have done it”

-Diane Feinstein

[marshallnoise]

Well...whatever. I asked you a straight forward question:

"please explain how requiring private party sellers and buyers to process sales through an FFL is any different than what they currently do when buying/selling retail?"

instead of simply answering the question you said that me asking that proved to you that I am "as ignorant as CorvallisBMW."

The fact that you can't carry a reasonable conversation without using inflammatory words or personal insults, and you can try and minimize what you wrote all you want it doesn't matter because the last half dozen pages are filled with posts of yours insulting various members not just me, means that you don't have a very well thought out position and get riled up fairly easily when someone asks you to explain yourself.

You really have an association problem, don't you? Hello! I am the one insulting you! I am the one who thinks you are full of shit! Not ParsedOut.

He said for the 4th time, and that is engaging you, that he doesn't see a viable solution to the problem. Then you again, tell him that he is insulting you.

What is going on upstairs? Anything? Someone should peer-review your brain see if you are fit to teach still.

[ParsedOut]

Well...whatever. I asked you a straight forward question:

"please explain how requiring private party sellers and buyers to process sales through an FFL is any different than what they currently do when buying/selling retail?"

instead of simply answering the question you said that me asking that proved to you that I am "as ignorant as CorvallisBMW."

The fact that you can't carry a reasonable conversation without using inflammatory words or personal insults, and you can try and minimize what you wrote all you want it doesn't matter because the last half dozen pages are filled with posts of yours insulting various members not just me, means that you don't have a very well thought out position and get riled up fairly easily when someone asks you to explain yourself.

If you don't know why that question is ridiculous, then you aren't as intelligent and educated as you think you are.

So comparing you to CorvallisBMW was the real offense here? I can understand that, I apologize for that.

Personal insults, if you think what I said was a personal insult, you should read back to what BraveUlysses has spouted off over the last few pages and threads. The only other person I've had problems that could be construed as "personal" was with einhorn and he is just a troll that gets his jollies off by rubbing people the wrong way. Otherwise, I may not agree but I don't resort to personal attacks, at least what people with skin thicker than vellum would consider personal.

[smooth]

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.

none of this is true

[smooth]

Well...whatever. I asked you a straight forward question:

"please explain how requiring private party sellers and buyers to process sales through an FFL is any different than what they currently do when buying/selling retail?"

instead of simply answering the question you said that me asking that proved to you that I am "as ignorant as CorvallisBMW."

The fact that you can't carry a reasonable conversation without using inflammatory words or personal insults, and you can try and minimize what you wrote all you want it doesn't matter because the last half dozen pages are filled with posts of yours insulting various members not just me, means that you don't have a very well thought out position and get riled up fairly easily when someone asks you to explain yourself.

[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.

[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]

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]

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.

[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]

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.