How many more??? [W:611]

[TurtleDude]

It is quite humorous to see one warrior of the right follow another and pick up their marching orders in this months cause celebre - the fight over vocabulary that there is no gun show loophole. After all, it stands to reason that if there is a loophole, we should close it. But then that would mandate action that the right objects to so thus we get the reason behind the all out fight over vocablulary.

I get it only too well.

One minute its all about 'there is not such thing as an assault weapon'. the next its a defense of the same 'assault weapons' that did not exist. Now its the fight over whether the reality that a person can buy a firearm at a gun show without a background check is a gun show loophole or is not.



And while the right gets all in a lather about vocabulary, over 90% of the American people in several surveys indicate strong support for universal background checks on ALL gun purchases regardless if they come at a licensed gun shop, Wal mart, a gun show or from the neighbor across the street. Even the vast overwhelming majority of NRA members and gun owners favor the universal background checks of all gun purchases. Some on the right are so focused on the right wing cause celebre of vocabulary as a battle that you are going to lose the war.

Fine with me.

most americans would not support the measures you democrats want to impose in order to make all transactions subject to "background checks" and such a law enforceable.

 

[Federalist]

Some on the right are so focused on the right wing cause celebre of vocabulary as a battle that you are going to lose the war.

So you're saying there's some sort of war going on?

 

[TurtleDude]

So you're saying there's some sort of war going on?

I believe he and others have said they are waging a war against "the gun culture" which is claimed to prevent a "reasonable dialogue on gun issues"

 

[Federalist]

I believe he and others have said they are waging a war against "the gun culture" which is claimed to prevent a "reasonable dialogue on gun issues"

Well, at least we are clear on who the aggressor is. Same as always, authoritarian control-freaks.

 

[TurtleDude]

Well, at least we are clear on who the aggressor is. Same as always, authoritarian control-freaks.

the funniest is the claim that the NRA prevents a "reasonable dialogue" on the "gun culture" I think what this really means is that those whose politicians are able to convince LIV and the sheeple that guns are bad cannot parlay that mass ignorance into the gun bans that those who hate the "gun culture" want in order to destroy the NRA and other organizations that funnel most of their money to anti-welfare socialist candidates

 

[Federalist]

the funniest is the claim that the NRA prevents a "reasonable dialogue" on the "gun culture" I think what this really means is that those whose politicians are able to convince LIV and the sheeple that guns are bad cannot parlay that mass ignorance into the gun bans that those who hate the "gun culture" want in order to destroy the NRA and other organizations that funnel most of their money to anti-welfare socialist candidates

Of course they hate the NRA, since the NRA opposes their war.

 

[BretJ]

It is quite humorous to see one warrior of the right follow another and pick up their marching orders in this months cause celebre - the fight over vocabulary that there is no gun show loophole. After all, it stands to reason that if there is a loophole, we should close it. But then that would mandate action that the right objects to so thus we get the reason behind the all out fight over vocablulary.

I get it only too well.

One minute its all about 'there is not such thing as an assault weapon'. the next its a defense of the same 'assault weapons' that did not exist. Now its the fight over whether the reality that a person can buy a firearm at a gun show without a background check is a gun show loophole or is not.



And while the right gets all in a lather about vocabulary, over 90% of the American people in several surveys indicate strong support for universal background checks on ALL gun purchases regardless if they come at a licensed gun shop, Wal mart, a gun show or from the neighbor across the street. Even the vast overwhelming majority of NRA members and gun owners favor the universal background checks of all gun purchases. Some on the right are so focused on the right wing cause celebre of vocabulary as a battle that you are going to lose the war.

Fine with me.

:roll: Many of us agree on some sort of universal background check if it can be done without violating other principles. If someone is unable to accept correction from people who understand the law and instead ascribe the correction to some sort of "right wing" conspiracy to avoid dealing with the issue, that could be seen as a character flaw. Debate the your point but but do it accurately and modify it if needed when corrected. It is poor debate form to do otherwise and an obstacle to rational discussion.

 

[TurtleDude]

Of course they hate the NRA, since the NRA opposes their war.

the main hatred goes back 45 years when the dems tried to defend against Nixon and other republicans (Nixon was anti gun BTW) bashing the dems for soft hearted judges being soft on crime and the dem party making excuses for black inner city violent crime. The dems adopted "gun control" in order to

1) claim they were actually pushing laws to stop crime

2) not hurt criminals or offend their constituents who opposed crack downs on inner city criminals

and the NRA blew the whistle on this idiotic nonsense noting it did not affect criminals or reduce crime. From then on, the DNC has had a major hatred of the NRA and while more than a few democrats (usually in pro gun areas) have opposed this Jihad (notable examples include long time Union consigliere JOhn Dingell of Michigan and former congressman and Governor of Ohio Ted Strickland who comes from the extremely pro gun Appalachian part of Ohio), the party regulars in DC are almost all major gun haters

Look at Al Gore-when he was a senator from Pro Gun Tennessee, he was an A rated NRA senator. He goes to the clinton white house and when he runs for president, he sounds like sarah Brady which is why he lost his home state (though by then DC was his home state) and with it the election

 

[haymarket]

It was intentional-it could not pass.

Very good. An intentional loophole is still a loophole.

 

[haymarket]

most americans would not support the measures you democrats want to impose in order to make all transactions subject to "background checks" and such a law enforceable.

I have no idea where you statement comes from since surveys indicate over 90% of the American public does indeed support background checks on ALL firearm purchases. Even a majority of both gun owners as well as NRA members support this.

But please do present your own survey data which supports your claims and allegations. I would like to see it.

 

[TurtleDude]

Very good. An intentional loophole is still a loophole.

wrong again. Do you believe that we who drive non commercial vehicles enjoy a loophole by not having to have a commercial drivers license even if we carpool other peoples' kids to school.

 

[TurtleDude]

I have no idea where you statement comes from since surveys indicate over 90% of the American public does indeed support background checks on ALL firearm purchases. Even a majority of both gun owners as well as NRA members support this.

But please do present your own survey data which supports your claims and allegations. I would like to see it.

its known as the consequences of Low Information Voters

 

[haymarket]

So you're saying there's some sort of war going on?

Apparently by turn of phrase has confused you and you took it far too literally. Perhaps this will help you understand the comparison?

Re: Win the battle only to lose the war

if that does not help, this may

win the battle, lose the war - WordReference Forums

and this

What does the phrase "They won the battle but lost the war" mean? Please help, 10 points!!? - Yahoo! Answers

You can see rather quickly that we are talking about something other than military engagements, napalm and big bangs that kill people. :roll:

 

[haymarket]

its known as the consequences of Low Information Voters

It is known as the will of the people. In a nation such as ours where the people elect those who pass laws, it is a main supportive pillar of a democratic republic with a Constitution.

Your contempt for your fellow Americans seems risked at your own peril lest your and your allies on the right publicly show your true feelings for them. Such a display is not wise if you depend on public support for any public policy ideas.

 

[haymarket]

wrong again. Do you believe that we who drive non commercial vehicles enjoy a loophole by not having to have a commercial drivers license even if we carpool other peoples' kids to school.

We are NOT talking about drivers licenses. You are badly confusing apples with cinder blocks and wondering why you chip your teeth on that hard grey pie filling. This is this - it is not something else.

A loophole can be intended. You have not presented any evidence otherwise that disqualifies the use of the term.

 

[TurtleDude]

Apparently by turn of phrase has confused you and you took it far too literally. Perhaps this will help you understand the comparison?

Re: Win the battle only to lose the war

if that does not help, this may

win the battle, lose the war - WordReference Forums

and this

What does the phrase "They won the battle but lost the war" mean? Please help, 10 points!!? - Yahoo! Answers

You can see rather quickly that we are talking about something other than military engagements, napalm and big bangs that kill people. :roll:

Oh he know what you mean-using the government to punish people who don't buy into the democratic party's welfare socialist agenda by restricting gun rights and making sport shooting too expensive for many people (Dems in Mass. likely to impose a 25% tax on ammunition-who does that hurt-criminals? no it hurts skeet shooters and target pistol shooters who have to shoot lots of times to win)

 

[TurtleDude]

We are NOT talking about drivers licenses. You are badly confusing apples with cinder blocks and wondering why you chip your teeth on that hard grey pie filling. This is this - it is not something else.

A loophole can be intended. You have not presented any evidence otherwise that disqualifies the use of the term.

you reject any analogy that destroys the silly loophole claim with that stupid cinderblocks nonsense.

for almost all of our history NO ONE had to conduct background checks. Then in an orgasm of anti gun idiocy fueled by dems controlling both houses and the Presidency, law was passed but it was only applied to licensed dealers for several reasons. Your claim that its a loophole that private citizens are treated the same as they have been for 200+ years is just contrary to fact and is designed to convince LIVs that something needs to be done even though there is no evidence that crime was decreased by either the background check or the original waiting period that the brady feel good bill imposed

 

[haymarket]

:roll: Many of us agree on some sort of universal background check if it can be done without violating other principles. If someone is unable to accept correction from people who understand the law and instead ascribe the correction to some sort of "right wing" conspiracy to avoid dealing with the issue, that could be seen as a character flaw. Debate the your point but but do it accurately and modify it if needed when corrected. It is poor debate form to do otherwise and an obstacle to rational discussion.

The center of the dispute here seems to be the idea of what constitutes a loophole. There is nothing which says that a loophole cannot be intentional and Turtle has already gone on record as admitting that the law was indeed intentional in its omission of gun show sales and other private sales.

So when we refer to what happens at gun shows as a gun show loophole - it is indeed accurate and factual. We would NOT call other private sales a gun show loophole because they do NOT occur at gun shows. But for those that do it is a perfectly applicable and accurate descriptor.

Language means what it means to the person both using the term and the one understanding the same meaning from the use of the term. I would refer you to the term BOSTON CREAM PIE. When a baker uses it he knows of the product he is describing. When a pastry purchaser buys it and eats it, they also understand the same identical product. It is irrelevant that a BOSTON CREAM PIE is not a pie but actually a cake. The user and the recipient both fully understand the meaning conveyed.

I would suggest that the same thing with the term GUN SHOW LOOPHOLE. Some here may dispute it, but used to describe what happens at gun shows because of a intended omission in the law - it is indeed accurate and both the user and others who hear it know well its intended meaning.

 

[haymarket]

you reject any analogy that destroys the silly loophole claim with that stupid cinderblocks nonsense.

Come up with an apt comparison and it will be considered. The one you came ip with is not at all fitting or apt.

 

[BretJ]

Very good. An intentional loophole is still a loophole.

At this point I say, "But why?" and you say, "It has electrolytes. It's what plants crave." Continue to use loophole. Accept the correction or not. No biggy at this point.

 

[VanceMack]

It is quite humorous to see one warrior of the right follow another and pick up their marching orders in this months cause celebre - the fight over vocabulary that there is no gun show loophole. After all, it stands to reason that if there is a loophole, we should close it. But then that would mandate action that the right objects to so thus we get the reason behind the all out fight over vocablulary.

I get it only too well.

One minute its all about 'there is not such thing as an assault weapon'. the next its a defense of the same 'assault weapons' that did not exist. Now its the fight over whether the reality that a person can buy a firearm at a gun show without a background check is a gun show loophole or is not.



And while the right gets all in a lather about vocabulary, over 90% of the American people in several surveys indicate strong support for universal background checks on ALL gun purchases regardless if they come at a licensed gun shop, Wal mart, a gun show or from the neighbor across the street. Even the vast overwhelming majority of NRA members and gun owners favor the universal background checks of all gun purchases. Some on the right are so focused on the right wing cause celebre of vocabulary as a battle that you are going to lose the war.

Fine with me.

:lamo Marching orders...THIS from the ideologue that spews talking point rhetoric like crib notes. Tell us all again the difference between a 'private sales loophole' and a 'gunshow loophole' and then tell us why you always cling to that mindless empty headed 'gunshow loophole' rhetoric.

Classic.

 

[haymarket]

At this point I say, "But why?" and you say, "It has electrolytes. It's what plants crave."

I have no idea what that means.

 

[Federalist]

We are NOT talking about drivers licenses. You are badly confusing apples with cinder blocks and wondering why you chip your teeth on that hard grey pie filling. This is this - it is not something else.

Yes, driving is not a constitutionally protected right. The right to keep and bear arms is. In my country (Pennsylvania) our constitution says: "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."

 

[haymarket]

Tell us all again the difference between a 'private sales loophole' and a 'gunshow loophole' and then tell us why you always cling to that mindless empty headed 'gunshow loophole' rhetoric.

It describes the site of purchase and is more descriptive and more accurate as to the circumstances of the sale.

 

[haymarket]

Yes, driving is not a constitutionally protected right. The right to keep and bear arms is. In my country (Pennsylvania) our constitution says: "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."

Which is irrelevant and meaningless in the discussion and changes nothing.