Is the gun debate about rights, or more of a polarization of a dem vs. r [W:146,164]

[haymarket]

Re: Is the gun debate about rights, or more of a polarization of a dem vs. rep figh

The only uninformed party here would be you. They aren't limited. Any purchase from a store requires a background check.

Which would be back slapping terrific if only the sole place you could purchase a gun is a store which does background checks. It isn't. And as such you have no point to argue.

 

[blackjack50]

Is the gun debate about rights, or more of a polarization of a dem vs. rep figh

This was discussed last evening. Perhaps you missed it?

But here it is again for your benefit

this was discussed yesterday. again - for your benefit

That is indeed the problem because what you said was only a partial truth - which makes it a partial lie as well.

Yes there are background checks on some weapons. And yes there are not on others. For you to say that there are already background checks without admitting that there are not is half a lie.

I hope that clears it up.

If we are arguing about what you have to do to become a parent, and somebody says that you have to go through a rigorous background check to see if you will be a fit parent - and leaves it at that - yes, that is a true statement - for adoptions. It is NOT a true statement for procreation. And if one leaves that statement out there without qualification - it is dishonest and disingenuous and intended to deceive by presenting only part of a picture when you know darn well it is not the complete picture.

Do we...or do we NOT have background checks?

 

[blackjack50]

Is the gun debate about rights, or more of a polarization of a dem vs. rep figh

Which would be back slapping terrific if only the sole place you could purchase a gun is a store which does background checks. It isn't. And as such you have no point to argue.

You said "limited." A majority of purchases are from stores. Your statement was an unbacked claim. Mine while not backed, is certainly widely accepted, and even the accepted truth for the only source I could find that could support your claim of "limited."

But limited doesn't mean that background checks don't exist. So.

Do background checks for firearms exist?

 

[haymarket]

Re: Is the gun debate about rights, or more of a polarization of a dem vs. rep figh

Do we...or do we NOT have background checks?

Sometimes we do and sometimes we don't. To make a statement that we have background checks and leave it out there to deceive is engaging in an intellectual fraud if one does not also acknowledge that we also DO NOT have background checks.

Its a matter of honesty.

 

[haymarket]

Re: Is the gun debate about rights, or more of a polarization of a dem vs. rep figh

You said "limited." A majority of purchases are from stores. Your statement was an unbacked claim. Mine while not backed, is certainly widely accepted, and even the accepted truth for the only source I could find that could support your claim of "limited."

But limited doesn't mean that background checks don't exist. So.

Do background checks for firearms exist?

An unbacked claim? :doh And what was the unbacked claim? :shock: By the admission of others here, we DO NOT have background checks for all firearm purchases. So where exactly is the 'unbacked claim"? :doh

Please quote me.

 

[Buck Ewer]

Re: Is the gun debate about rights, or more of a polarization of a dem vs. rep fight?

And just about 99.999999999% of the time it's a liberal,

Like Ronald Reagan?

 

[haymarket]

Re: Is the gun debate about rights, or more of a polarization of a dem vs. rep fight?

Like Ronald Reagan?

Excellent point. Oh - and the radical right has an answer about Reagan and his support of the Brady Bill. They have cooked up the excuse that poor old Ronnie was suffering from an advanced case of senility and did not know what he was advocating or what he was supporting and quite frankly did not know the difference between an uzi and a box of Depends.

Of course, they have no verifiable evidence of this scandalous claim and it is only floated out there to put some distance between on of their icons and a position that they cannot intellectually resolve him taking.

 

[American]

Re: Is the gun debate about rights, or more of a polarization of a dem vs. rep fight?

Ypu are catching on. That is indeed the problem because what you said was only a partial truth - which makes it a partial lie as well.

Yes there are background checks on some weapons. And yes there are not on others. For you to say that there are already background checks without admitting that there are not is half a lie.

Just using YOUR tactics against you, so you just described yourself.

 

[blackjack50]

Is the gun debate about rights, or more of a polarization of a dem vs. rep figh

Sometimes we do and sometimes we don't. To make a statement that we have background checks and leave it out there to deceive is engaging in an intellectual fraud if one does not also acknowledge that we also DO NOT have background checks.

Its a matter of honesty.

I agree. But not the honesty of the OP of this topic.

The statement was, "We have background checks."

You are claiming this is dishonest. I am telling you that it is 100% true. We do have them. Do you agree or disagree? Do we or do we not have background checks? Black and white. Yes or no. Simple as that. If you disagree you are wrong.

 

[haymarket]

Re: Is the gun debate about rights, or more of a polarization of a dem vs. rep fight?

Just using YOUR tactics against you, so you just described yourself.

I have no idea what you are talking about with this vague drive-by line about "using your tactics against you". No idea at all. And you utterly failed to provide any example of the same so this is something that appears to be without any actual foundation on our part.

 

[American]

Re: Is the gun debate about rights, or more of a polarization of a dem vs. rep fight?

I have no idea what you are talking about with this vague drive-by line about "using your tactics against you". No idea at all. And you utterly failed to provide any example of the same so this is something that appears to be without any actual foundation on our part.

I knew turning the quote notification back on was going to drive me crazy. I should learn to just ignore it.

 

[haymarket]

Re: Is the gun debate about rights, or more of a polarization of a dem vs. rep figh

I agree. But not the honesty of the OP of this topic.

The statement was, "We have background checks."

You are claiming this is dishonest. I am telling you that it is 100% true. We do have them. Do you agree or disagree? Do we or do we not have background checks? Black and white. Yes or no. Simple as that. If you disagree you are wrong.

The statement was given as a part of a longer post saying why liberals were dishonest about background checks when we have them. So put that together and tell me what results? A claim that people are being dishonest since there are background checks when in reality you can purchase a firearm without background checks.

post 2 from American

It all sounds good till you come with some silly gun control measure that makes you feel good, but doesn't work. And just about 99.999999999% of the time it's a liberal, and they won't get off of it. Like background checks, we already have them. But that's not good enough. The whole business of AR15's, and the fact that they make up a piece of cosmic dust in the universe of all gun crime, but the news and leftist insist on controlling them. Silly **** like that, you won't let it go.

Sometimes we have checks and sometimes do do not have checks.

It is just as dishonest for anyone to say WE DO NOT HAVE BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR FIREARMS PURCHASES and leave it out there as it is to say WE HAVE BACKGROUND CHECKS and pretend that is the whole picture. Because it is not.

This has been explained to you several times now but for some reason you keep wanting to be obtuse about it and restrict your comments to the very limited "do we have background checks". Ignoring the entire picture while trying to dishonestly limiting this discussion as to why the statement was dishonest is simply furthering the intellectual fraud that American first attempted to perpetuate.

 

[haymarket]

Re: Is the gun debate about rights, or more of a polarization of a dem vs. rep fight?

I knew turning the quote notification back on was going to drive me crazy. I should learn to just ignore it.

Or you could simply engage in actual debate and proved the information you were challenged to present to provide some semblance of honesty to your charges.

 

[American]

Re: Is the gun debate about rights, or more of a polarization of a dem vs. rep fight?

Or you could simply engage in actual debate and proved the information you were challenged to present to provide some semblance of honesty to your charges.

In other words, do as you say not as you do.

 

[blackjack50]

Is the gun debate about rights, or more of a polarization of a dem vs. rep figh

The statement was given as a part of a longer post saying why liberals were dishonest about background checks when we have them. So put that together and tell me what results? A claim that people are being dishonest since there are background checks when in reality you can purchase a firearm without background checks.

post 2 from American






Sometimes we have checks and sometimes do do not have checks.

It is just as dishonest for anyone to say WE DO NOT HAVE BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR FIREARMS PURCHASES and leave it out there as it is to say WE HAVE BACKGROUND CHECKS and pretend that is the whole picture. Because it is not.

This has been explained to you several times now but for some reason you keep wanting to be obtuse about it and restrict your comments to the very limited "do we have background checks". Ignoring the entire picture while trying to dishonestly limiting this discussion as to why the statement was dishonest is simply furthering the intellectual fraud that American first attempted to perpetuate.

Funny. Calling someone obtuse when you yourself didn't even understand his post.

We have background checks. That is 100% correct. That isn't a dishonest statement. He said that the background checks aren't enough and blah blah blah about AR15s. His comment was informing about something else. Making background checks not the topic of his post.

The dishonesty is from you...trying to debate the nature of the background checks. We 100% have background checks. They are not conducted 100% of the time. That does not mean we do not have them. Don't be deliberately obtuse. It makes you look bad.

 

[blackjack50]

Is the gun debate about rights, or more of a polarization of a dem vs. rep figh

Or you could simply engage in actual debate and proved the information you were challenged to present to provide some semblance of honesty to your charges.

Lmao!!

 

[fmw]

Re: Is the gun debate about rights, or more of a polarization of a dem vs. rep fight?

The gun debate is about power and control just every other political debate.

 

[blackjack50]

Is the gun debate about rights, or more of a polarization of a dem vs. rep figh

The gun debate is about power and control just every other political debate.

Bingo

 

[American]

Re: Is the gun debate about rights, or more of a polarization of a dem vs. rep figh

Lmao!!

Yeah, speaking of honesty......this one applies.

 

[blackjack50]

Is the gun debate about rights, or more of a polarization of a dem vs. rep figh

Yeah, speaking of honesty......this one applies.

Good onw

 

[haymarket]

Re: Is the gun debate about rights, or more of a polarization of a dem vs. rep figh

Funny. Calling someone obtuse when you yourself didn't even understand his post.

We have background checks. That is 100% correct. That isn't a dishonest statement. He said that the background checks aren't enough and blah blah blah about AR15s. His comment was informing about something else. Making background checks not the topic of his post.

The dishonesty is from you...trying to debate the nature of the background checks. We 100% have background checks. They are not conducted 100% of the time. That does not mean we do not have them. Don't be deliberately obtuse. It makes you look bad.

We obviously disagree.

Another obvious fact is that you are intent on purposely and willfully blindly NOT willing to consider the remarks of American and see why they are only half true while being half dishonest.

You just said "WE HAVE 100% BACKGROUND CHECKS".

Really? Perhaps - since you wrote that claim - you can tell us what it actually means in practical everyday terms?

Does it mean that we do background checks on 100% of firearms purchases in the USA? Because if it does not mean that, your statement is a lie.

Does it mean that we background checks on 100% of people who want to buy a firearm regardless from whom they are buying it from? Because if it does not mean that, your statement is a lie.

So do step up and tell us just what your statement means.

 

[American]

Re: Is the gun debate about rights, or more of a polarization of a dem vs. rep figh

We obviously disagree.

Another obvious fact is that you are intent on purposely and willfully blindly NOT willing to consider the remarks of American and see why they are only half true while being half dishonest.

You just said "WE HAVE 100% BACKGROUND CHECKS".

Really? Perhaps - since you wrote that claim - you can tell us what it actually means in practical everyday terms?

Does it mean that we do background checks on 100% of firearms purchases in the USA? Because if it does not mean that, your statement is a lie.

Does it mean that we background checks on 100% of people who want to buy a firearm regardless from whom they are buying it from? Because if it does not mean that, your statement is a lie.

So do step up and tell us just what your statement means.

So following the law isn't enough for you, you want to go beyond the law because?

 

[Sisyphus]

Re: Is the gun debate about rights, or more of a polarization of a dem vs. rep fight?

My money is on polarization. No one with guns, among whom I am included, should rationally believe they're at risk of losing the right, short of beating the tar out of a domestic partner or committing a felony.

 

[haymarket]

Re: Is the gun debate about rights, or more of a polarization of a dem vs. rep figh

Lmao!!

What is there about providing evidence in debate when asked that causes you to laugh your ass off?

 

[haymarket]

Re: Is the gun debate about rights, or more of a polarization of a dem vs. rep figh

So following the law isn't enough for you, you want to go beyond the law because?

That does not even make sense as a reply to what I wrote.