- Joined
- Oct 12, 2005
- Messages
- 281,619
- Reaction score
- 100,389
- Location
- Ohio
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
As someone who deals with the writing of legislation on a weekly basis, loopholes do not happen by accident. It was intended to do all the things it actually does and one of which is to provide a way for people to buy weapons without background check.
why are you calling it a loophole-have you been reading the lies of the anti gunners? a loophole suggests someway of evading a uniform law. The law was never intended to cover those who do not have a legal duty to maintain log books of all weapons received and sold in the course of business
Good point. I should not adopt the language of the hoplophobes.
And none of them have addressed the issue I raised. Would it be possible to enact their universal background check scheme without a federal gun registry?
Their silence is very telling indeed.
uh wrong, many congress members who voted to impose such duties on those required to keep a log of all firearms they receive and transfer in commerce decided not to impose those requirements on those not so required because they understood it could not be enforced
its so obvious to us who understand the issue how completely dishonest the ARC is on these topics
they refuse to state their real goals because it would alarm lots of people who are LIVs or are not really rigorous thinkers. Their goal is to give the government (their wellspring) and criminals (people they often identify with) a complete monopoly on firearms
And the evidence for this statement?
It is far easier for some to pretend that you are battling vicious demons who would destroy your rights and those of Americans rather than simply deal with the reality of a persons position.
That is called battling a strawman of their own creation.
Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Well unlike some, I was actually watching the discussion on cable as it happened. I also met with a couple congressional leaders on tis matter as well
so tell me Haymarket, why do you think the brady supporters did not extend the law to private sellers
we have constantly demonstrated the plethora of lies spewed by both ARC posters on this board and the politicians they support such as Bloomberg and DIFI
So you have no verifiable evidence to present.
Thank you for clarifying that.
I did not realize that Bloomberg was a member here and posted.
As for you demonstrating lies - you have repeatedly and frequently stated that i do not state my position. I have repeatedly and frequently stated my position on the Second Amendment.
Why do you keep persisting in the very word you used - LIES - about that?
I realize its easier to battle a cartoon strawman of your own creation than it is to deal with the subtle and complex intracies of a real person with a real position that defies traditional stereotyping. But that indeed is your challenge.
Actually you could go back and read all of that -its called the legislative history-as well as the news reports that were written about the bill's passage
I know what the facts are, I really don't care if you were not aware of the facts surrounding the debate over the background check
and most of the people who actually understand this issue and make it a priority to understand the issue before arguing about it know I am correct
did you read what I said. I said the posters here and THE POLITICIANS THEY SUPPORT
as to lies-one poster claimed that gun shows are where criminals get most of their guns
try this on for size if you believe that
Gun Control - Just Facts
A 1997 U.S. Justice Department survey of 14,285 state prison inmates found that among those inmates who carried a firearm during the offense for which they were sent to jail, 0.7% obtained the firearm at a gun show, 1% at a flea market, 3.8% from a pawn shop, 8.3% from a retail store, 39.2% through an illegal/street source, and 39.6% through family or friends
It is your job to back up any claims and allegations of fact you make with verifiable evidence. That is always the way debate works. It is incumbent upon the maker of the claim to back it up when challenged.
And you are FAILING to do that.
If you continue to FAIL to do that, then your claims and allegations of fact are worthless.
NO I can do what I want and I clearly state what my position is and why
No one has come close to proving anything I have asserted is in error
and I should note that I do not avoid topics or fail to take stands on this issue
NO I can do what I want and I clearly state what my position is and why
No one has come close to proving anything I have asserted is in error
and I should note that I do not avoid topics or fail to take stands on this issue
its so obvious to us who understand the issue how completely dishonest the ARC is on these topics
they refuse to state their real goals because it would alarm lots of people who are LIVs or are not really rigorous thinkers. Their goal is to give the government (their wellspring) and criminals (people they often identify with) a complete monopoly on firearms
Whenever he's saying you failed to do something, that means you're spot on.
It is far easier for some to pretend that you are battling vicious demons who would destroy your rights and those of Americans rather than simply deal with the reality of a persons position.
Unfortunately for many of us, the reality is that there are far too many authoritarian control freaks out there that DO want to control, rule, and dominate us. That is not pretending; that is reality.
Then you should find them and debate them where your prepared and prepackaged talking points may fit better.
Why ?
Could it be that the Swiss are far more civilized that us ?
Or is it "we" ?
And "we" have already been thru "less restrictions", thanks to the conservatives...
The first thing we must do is have 100% background checks for 100% of potential gun owners....the liberty lovers will NOT like this......
The next step is to ban the assault weapon ownership for civilians....
Think I am angry now ?
If I were a parent of a murdered child..........
Mandatory military service does have its merits, if instilled, another tax hike, but, maybe worth it...this may help with the "better people" thing of mine.
Included would be how to handle and respect a weapon, also, our government would know a lot more about its people....
Maybe our voluntary military is not the best way of doing things.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?