Another week, another school shooting

[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.

[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

[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.

[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]

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]

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.

[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).

[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.

[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.

[ParsedOut]

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).

Well there was obviously a misunderstanding in the wording of your question. I had no way of knowing that you live in CA (right here...lol) and you said "what they currently do", so you must have meant what they currently do in CA. So, -1 fail for you not being thorough in your question, -1 for me not being a mind reader.

You are correct, I don't believe in any sort of registration which makes universal background checks logistically impossible. I understand the desire for such checks and when the mass population aren't educated on the topic or understand the potential and likely ramifications then it's easy to say Yes.

It's like saying, "Hey Mr Citizen, do you support shaken baby syndrome or would you like to see it eliminated?", oh by the way in order for us to regulate this promise of non-shaken babies we need to implement a China like restriction on the number of children you can have because "statistics" show people with more than 1.5 children shake their babies more often.
I realize this example is absurdum but constantly floating the "Americans demand background checks!" argument is flawed in so many ways.

[smooth]

It's not simply a California regulation. Arizona also requires background checks for purchases.

[marshallnoise]

Wow, God sure broke the mold. Didn't he?

[ParsedOut]

It's not simply a California regulation. Arizona also requires background checks for purchases.

Ok, you've obviously lost all grasp on what we're talking about here, so I'm done talking to you...

[smooth]

That's your go-to response every time someone asks you to explain your logic.

I asked you why you support retail background checks but not requiring personal purchases to go through an FFL.

California is an example of states that requires both, but we aren't the only state.

You didn't need to know I live in California, or was thinking of California, to answer the question. Arizona requires background checks on retail purchases.

Why do you support background checks for retail purchases and not for private party transfers?

So far, your logic has been that you don't support private party transfer background checks because it compiles a registry of gun owners. That's what Arizona currently does for retail purchases.

The only answer that is consistent with your logic is that you do *not* support background checks at any level, private party transfers or retail purchases.

This is a very distant position than the one you implied when you stated that you were in support of universal background checks. In fact, you disagree with all federal and state level background checks for private or retail purchases.

You're so far out from the mainstream at this point that it begs the question why you even attempted to draw me into a conversation with you. I'm glad you're done talking *to* me.

[ParsedOut]

You didn't need to know I live in California, or was thinking of California, to answer the question. Arizona requires background checks on retail purchases.
No shit, but we aren't talking about retail.

So far, your logic has been that you don't support private party transfer background checks because it compiles a registry of gun owners. That's what Arizona currently does for retail purchases.
More proof of ignorance, I don't even feel bad saying it. Arizona does NOT compile a registry for retail purchases.

You can keep spewing non-sense if you'd like, but I'm confident enough that I've made my point and that you're off your rocker or in over your head.