Common sense question about gun control leaders [W:753]

[BretJ]

If you're going to debate gun law, especially if you're going to say I'm wrong, you may want to first learn something about the laws you're blabbing about.

:roll: I own several of those items you claimed required licenses. Where in that snippet you posted say anything about a special license. You were the one that said they require special licenses remember? Here is how it happens:

1. You go to a Firearms dealer whoe does require a special license to sell NFA items.

2. You pay him for the NFA item.

3. He fills out a Form 4 with all the details.

4. Depending on how you do it, you can get a law enforcment signature stating you are not an asshat. I did not need one.

5. You submit the paperwork along with a $200 check and another form stating you are or are not a US citizen.

6. You wait for them to cash the check and the paperwork goes to the bottom of a stack of several thousand others. (A couple years ago, they processed well over 20,000 request for short barreled shotguns/rifles, silencers, machine guns, AOWs and destructive devices. They have well exceeded that the past couple).

7. After waiting for your paperwork to get to the top, they make sure all the ts are crossed and is dotted. They sign it and put a real live $200 stamp on it (just like a duck stamp) and send it back.

8. Dealer gets paperwork, runs a NICs check (just like Walmart) and gives you the NFA item you purchased nearly a year ago. Did I mention he has had to keep the item in his possession until the Form 4 comes back approved?

If I want to make an NFA item, I fill out a form 1. Everything minus the dealer and NICs check is still the same. I have to wait until I have the Form 1 in hand before I can even begin to make anything.

The only background check done was the same NICs check required when you buy a shotgun or rifle at Walmart.

So why don't' you answer the question posed vice going off on a tangent. Given the ease with which a criminal can make these things, how did the process I go through to do it legally prevent a criminal from making them illegally? How is it a success? I answered what was a success. Now you need to step up and explain.

 

[BretJ]

Did you see NYC in the 70's?

If not for Guiliani's tactics most of the city would be like Detroit right now. You have no idea what you're talking about. You sound like a raging liberal.

And there you have it. According to Calamity, institutionalized bigotry is justified if it cleaned up the streets of NYC. You are rationalizing bigotry because it suited you needs.

 

[calamity]

And there you have it. According to Calamity, institutionalized bigotry is justified if it cleaned up the streets of NYC. You are rationalizing bigotry because it suited you needs.

It's called aggressive policing. The parts of it that were discriminatory were found by the courts to be unconstitutional. Which is as it should be.

 

[calamity]

:roll: I own several of those items you claimed required licenses. Where in that snippet you posted say anything about a special license. You were the one that said they require special licenses remember? Here is how it happens:

1. You go to a Firearms dealer whoe does require a special license to sell NFA items.

2. You pay him for the NFA item.

3. He fills out a Form 4 with all the details.

4. Depending on how you do it, you can get a law enforcment signature stating you are not an asshat. I did not need one.

5. You submit the paperwork along with a $200 check and another form stating you are or are not a US citizen.

6. You wait for them to cash the check and the paperwork goes to the bottom of a stack of several thousand others. (A couple years ago, they processed well over 20,000 request for short barreled shotguns/rifles, silencers, machine guns, AOWs and destructive devices. They have well exceeded that the past couple).

7. After waiting for your paperwork to get to the top, they make sure all the ts are crossed and is dotted. They sign it and put a real live $200 stamp on it (just like a duck stamp) and send it back.

8. Dealer gets paperwork, runs a NICs check (just like Walmart) and gives you the NFA item you purchased nearly a year ago. Did I mention he has had to keep the item in his possession until the Form 4 comes back approved?

If I want to make an NFA item, I fill out a form 1. Everything minus the dealer and NICs check is still the same. I have to wait until I have the Form 1 in hand before I can even begin to make anything.

The only background check done was the same NICs check required when you buy a shotgun or rifle at Walmart.

So why don't' you answer the question posed vice going off on a tangent. Given the ease with which a criminal can make these things, how did the process I go through to do it legally prevent a criminal from making them illegally? How is it a success? I answered what was a success. Now you need to step up and explain.

I stand corrected.

 

[BretJ]

I stand corrected.

You do surprise me sometimes.....

 

[Crimefree]

Odd is not being able to write legibly and blaming the reader for not understanding.

Since I took your claimed unreadable added one obvious word omitted and one full stop. I cannot see how anyone could possible not be able to read it correctly. It leaves huge doubt as to your comprehension and cogitation ability which have been correctly expressed as questionable based on the evidence. This doubt and your claim to be well read are further shown to be incorrect because any well read person would know cross country comparisons are not evidence of gun control success. Nor are State by state comparisons. Your are guilty of cherry picking and fruadulent claims correlation are proof of gun controls success.

You have been requested to prove this success of gun control you claim and have not. Gun control is a lie and your opportunity to make a reasonable case has turned to be nothing but whinnying and whining about others minor mistakes. It can safely be assumed you have no valid evidence against the oppressive and inhuman belief of unjustly depriving people of the rights and ability to defend themselves with the best means available.

How many chances and indulgences do you need too present this delusionary proof? About the same as you need to show the accurate future prediction ability of fMRI?

Again there are some 25,000 gun control laws in the USA. Give a list of any you can prove have reduced crime, the supply of guns to criminals or increased public safety. Lets see how good gun control is.

 

[Crimefree]

It's called aggressive policing. The parts of it that were discriminatory were found by the courts to be unconstitutional. Which is as it should be.

Nothing to do with gun control Oh! dear..

 

[Crimefree]

1. Laws which ban or restrict certain guns to only those with special licenses, like those for sawed off shotguns and silencers, are effective, to give just two examples.

Then all you have to do is show some evidence that they are. Your word is not good enough, nor does it carry any weight so produce this evidence.

2. Nope. Wrong.

A simple denial in the face of given evidence of what you have claimed and desired is not sufficient. Are you expecting to fool anybody with stuff like this?

I'll wait but not with any expectation of an intelligent response.

 

[calamity]

Nothing to do with gun control Oh! dear..

Wrong again. SCOTUS has found many laws restricting or banning guns unconstitutional. Some were not.

 

[calamity]

Then all you have to do is show some evidence that they are. Your word is not good enough, nor does it carry any weight so produce this evidence.




A simple denial in the face of given evidence of what you have claimed and desired is not sufficient. Are you expecting to fool anybody with stuff like this?

I'll wait but not with any expectation of an intelligent response.

2. You said I wanted something. I told you you are wrong. Are you claiming to know what I am thinking?

1. I presented the Hawaii example. It shows a direct correlation between gun control and very low rate of gun crimes. My job is done. Yours is to try articulating a counter argument.

 

[calamity]

Since I took your claimed unreadable added one obvious word omitted and one full stop. I cannot see how anyone could possible not be able to read it correctly. It leaves huge doubt as to your comprehension and cogitation ability which have been correctly expressed as questionable based on the evidence. This doubt and your claim to be well read are further shown to be incorrect because any well read person would know cross country comparisons are not evidence of gun control success. Nor are State by state comparisons. Your are guilty of cherry picking and fruadulent claims correlation are proof of gun controls success.

You have been requested to prove this success of gun control you claim and have not. Gun control is a lie and your opportunity to make a reasonable case has turned to be nothing but whinnying and whining about others minor mistakes. It can safely be assumed you have no valid evidence against the oppressive and inhuman belief of unjustly depriving people of the rights and ability to defend themselves with the best means available.

How many chances and indulgences do you need too present this delusionary proof? About the same as you need to show the accurate future prediction ability of fMRI?

Again there are some 25,000 gun control laws in the USA. Give a list of any you can prove have reduced crime, the supply of guns to criminals or increased public safety. Lets see how good gun control is.

Asked and answered. See Hawaii.

Another example: no guns on planes. Are you arguing those laws do not work?

 

[Crimefree]

Wrong again. SCOTUS has found many laws restricting or banning guns unconstitutional. Some were not.

What are you babbling about :roll:

Did you say something about Scot anything I missed, best point it out.

Shall we just agree. Irrelevant since are far as I am concerned it is.

 

[calamity]

1. What are you babbling about :roll:

2. Did you say something about Scot anything I missed, best point it out.

3. Shall we just agree. Irrelevant since are far as I am concerned it is.

I. Clearly, I am showing how the court will overturn laws which are unconstitutional, be they violations of the 4th or the 2nd.

II. I assume you are trying to say "SCOTUS". SCOTUS determines if a law stands. If it does not. they then strike it down. Read the articles of the constitutions to get a better understanding of how this works.

III. No.

 

[Crimefree]

Asked and answered. See Hawaii.

Refuted as complete rubbish. Hawaii is a place you offered an unproven correlation as proof with no verifiable evidence. The only people I know who try such puerile tricks are gun control advocates. Step up to the plate and offer some PROOF. Nobody wants thousand times refute rubbish any "well read" person would know is a complete lie.

Another example: no guns on planes. Are you arguing those laws do not work?

Yes because you cannot prove they do. Should I mention 911 or are you happy gun control on planes works? You keep dredging up incorrect comparisons and are not showing sound research to back up your thus far false claims.

You are arguing laws of prohibition work. So give me one example of such a law working. No don't bother there are none. Next.

 

[Kobie]

Refuted as complete rubbish. Hawaii is a place you offered an unproven correlation as proof with no verifiable evidence. The only people I know who try such puerile tricks are gun control advocates. Step up to the plate and offer some PROOF. Nobody wants thousand times refute rubbish any "well read" person would know is a complete lie.



Yes because you cannot prove they do. Should I mention 911 or are you happy gun control on planes works? You keep dredging up incorrect comparisons and are not showing sound research to back up your thus far false claims.

You are arguing laws of prohibition work. So give me one example of such a law working. No don't bother there are none. Next.

Do you know how depressurization works? You really want people packing heat on planes?

 

[Crimefree]

I. Clearly, I am showing how the court will overturn laws which are unconstitutional, be they violations of the 4th or the 2nd.

SCOTUS may rule on the constitutionality of laws and it may not allow a single infringement on the 2nd. What is your problem in not understanding that the 2nd is the peoples guarantee rogue and tyrannical government may not remove citizens arms under any circumstances? Should SCOTUS do so it is not the final authority as our rights are only AFFIRMED by the constitution.

II. I assume you are trying to say "SCOTUS". SCOTUS determines if a law stands. If it does not. they then strike it down. Read the articles of the constitutions to get a better understanding of how this works.

I know you don't know much about how the 2nd works. Laws are made within the constraints of the constitution which is OUR instructions to government on how to treat OUR laws.

III. No.

I believe it is and that has just been demonstrated to you.

 

[Crimefree]

Do you know how depressurization works? You really want people packing heat on planes?

Apparently you watch to many movies and Hollwierd is your educator. Aircraft leak like sieves and a few more small holes make no difference. Aircraft are not airtight by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[Crimefree]

Nothing to do with gun control Oh! dear..

Apparently your memory is not to good. Let me remind you of your claim.

Originally Posted by calamity
It's called aggressive policing. The parts of it that were discriminatory were found by the courts to be unconstitutional. Which is as it should be.

So New York's reduction in crime is not due to gun control until you or somebody can prove it is. We know aggressive policing works no doubt about that?

So my comment was perfectly factual and accurate.

Do review what you wrote in response

Originally Posted by calamity
Wrong again. SCOTUS has found many laws restricting or banning guns unconstitutional. Some were not.

Which received what it deserved BABBLING and IRRELEVANT

If that is not irrelevant then I do not know what is. You seem very confused. Please try to make the effort to follow the thread.

 

[Crimefree]

Again there are some 25,000 gun control laws in the USA. Give a list of any you can prove have reduced crime, the supply of guns to criminals or increased public safety. Lets see how good gun control is.

Do note Calamity, Hawaii is a place not a law. 25,000 laws and you cannot find one gun control law you can show reduced crime, the supply of guns to criminals or increased public safety. Nothing on this earth is more proof of the utter lie of gun control since gun control claimed each and every one of those laws would be for citizens benefit and safety. Gun control lies and has never ever told the truth.

Gun control should be waving this list of the wonderful successes in the face of firearm owners and government. Heck no the world.

Where is this list?

 

[blackjack50]

Asked and answered. See Hawaii.

Hawaii...and island that has little crime, several hundreds of miles from the next piece of land and how far from the mainland? An apt analogy would be calling a vehicle rugged and reliable...and never putting it in a condition that would test its ruggedness or reliability.

Another example: no guns on planes. Are you arguing those laws do not work?

Lmao! Really? So because it works in a place with security check points and metal detectors...it can work in a place with none? And nobody stopping you? Come on. You has a breakthrough a while back. Pick it up.

 

[haymarket]

So New York's reduction in crime is not due to gun control until you or somebody can prove it is.

Since you have repeatedly fallen back on this argument I have a simple question for you? How do we provide evidence that something DID NOT HAPPEN because of any one factor be it gun control, increased policing, reduction in poverty, increased jobs, or any other factor? Are you not asking for something which is impossible to provide definitive verifiable evidence for?

 

[blackjack50]

Since you have repeatedly fallen back on this argument I have a simple question for you? How do we provide evidence that something DID NOT HAPPEN because of any one factor be it gun control, increased policing, reduction in poverty, increased jobs, or any other factor? Are you not asking for something which is impossible to provide definitive verifiable evidence for?

He is asking you to demonstrate that GUN CONTROL is the sole factor in reducing crime. That OTHER policies (like stop and frisk) were in no way shape or form the reason. He isn't asking you to prove a negative. He is asking you to either: demonstrate the exclusivity of gun control, or disprove other factors. Dealers choice.

 

[haymarket]

He is asking you to demonstrate that GUN CONTROL is the sole factor in reducing crime. That OTHER policies (like stop and frisk) were in no way shape or form the reason. He isn't asking you to prove a negative. He is asking you to either: demonstrate the exclusivity of gun control, or disprove other factors. Dealers choice.

I am well aware. How do we provide evidence that something DID NOT HAPPEN (a crime occurring) because of any one factor be it gun control, increased policing, reduction in poverty, increased jobs, or any other factor? Are you not asking for something which is impossible to provide definitive verifiable evidence for? It appears an impossible task and a foolish request at that. And I suspect that is why it is posed in the way it is since the asked knows darn well it is impossible to comply with to any degree of verifiable satisfaction.

As such - it is fundamentally a cheap trick.

 

[justabubba]

I am well aware. How do we provide evidence that something DID NOT HAPPEN (a crime occurring) because of any one factor be it gun control, increased policing, reduction in poverty, increased jobs, or any other factor? Are you not asking for something which is impossible to provide definitive verifiable evidence for? It appears an impossible task and a foolish request at that. And I suspect that is why it is posed in the way it is since the asked knows darn well it is impossible to comply with to any degree of verifiable satisfaction.

As such - it is fundamentally a cheap trick.

c'mon haymarket, prove a negative
right after the gun nuts show you how to divide by zero

 

[calamity]

He is asking you to demonstrate that GUN CONTROL is the sole factor in reducing crime. That OTHER policies (like stop and frisk) were in no way shape or form the reason. He isn't asking you to prove a negative. He is asking you to either: demonstrate the exclusivity of gun control, or disprove other factors. Dealers choice.

nonsense