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

[Sisyphus]

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

Yet you applied the change to the people, if you are going to be consistent you meant to post:

A well regulated Militia's ability to sustain the market value of their Arms being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

If it is about the militia and not the people you why did you apply the market value to the people and not the militia? I'll tell you why, because even you know your intentional and deceptive mus-interpretation is a steaming pile of horse ****.

Nope; verbatim of what was ratified in Congress. Why the straw man? Having trouble debating what's actually written?

 

[Sisyphus]

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

So when you are arrested and held indefinitely without even being charged with a crime just remember that the SC has ruled that the suspension of Habeas Corpus is completely constitutional. In fact since you insist that "a right we do not have which some think we have is the epitome of "no value." you should have no problem if people all over the country are round up and placed in concentration camps because the SC has ruled the suspension of Habeas Corpus is completely constitutional. Don't like it read the patriot act.

Thanks for the heads up and advice.

Meanwhile, if unicorns come and take the giant bunny rabbit that's your best pal, be sure to let me know. I'll look into what I think your recourse might be under the right to privacy, from the State and Unicorns.

 

[haymarket]

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

You have posted the evidence against yourself...

If saying that "we have background checks" is a lie as you claim because though we DO have background checks for most gun purchases but not all...

Then you claiming that we don't have background checks is ALSO a lie using your same criteria.. because we don't have backgrounds only on SOME purchases.

American has you hoisted by your own petard... sorry if you cannot see it.

A little suggestion... take it for whatever its worth... but how about you calm down on the "lying, and intellectually dishonest" comments and focus on facts and debate? HMMMM?


The point being is that we do have background checks on purchases,, not all but on a lot... and the fact is.. things like Sandy Hook... which has got the liberals in a gun hating knot.... will still happen... because criminals don't have to go through legal channels to get a gun. Or murder for that matter. If you want to murder someone and are willing to take the consequences for that.... why do you think its reasonable to assume that a person planning murder.. will be deterred by a background check?

You are not making sense.

YOu are not reporting my posts accurately.

You are taking the side of a liar.

I clearly stated that the idea that somebody stating that we have background truths is only partially truthful but is also partially a lie if it is just left out there without acknowledgment that one can purchase firearms without a background check.

What part about that do you fail to comprehend?

I little suggestion to you. Don't tell me how to deal with the intellectually dishonest. I will do it in my own manner and in my own way.

 

[haymarket]

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

No. Now you are trying to tell me the MEANING of what I said? Nope.

Bill Clinton It Depends on what the meaning of the word is is - YouTube

Go back and read my words. I DID NOT say that background checks are conducted 100% of the time. At NO POINT did I say that. Never. That isn't a lie. You can come each post. I wouldn't make a claim like that because I know that claim is wrong.

I am TELLING YOU that 100% refers to the EXISTENCE of background checks. Not the limitations of said background checks. My statement stands. Yours does not. So riddle me this:

Do we have a system of background checks in place?

Not all your twisting has gotten you nowhere but back to this same question. You can talk about the limitations of the system...but that is not a discussion of the EXISTENCE.

Any attempt to discuss the limitations from hence forth will be taken as a sign that you AGREE about the existence...and that you CONCEDE the FACT that background checks exist. Because you cannot discuss the limitations of a system, that is in place, that does not exist.

Now. If you feel you need clarification about this...why not ask American what he meant by "background checks." I am willing to bet that he confirms that he was not discussing the limitations of said background checks, but their existence.

Game over. Thanks for playing.

The game was over before you ever stepped onto the field as your comments bear no relationship to normal usage of the English language.

What you ASSUME is entirely upon you and a figment of your own wishful thinking.

 

[blackjack50]

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

Gotcha. So we have 100% checks, provided we ignore instances where folks can easily buy guns without checks. I'm seeing now. Thanks.

If that is what you got out of that...then you aren't here for reasonable discussion. In which case...whatever. Nothing you say matters because I can only assume it will be driven by emotion and willful ignorance.

If you feel like being an adult and having a reasonable discussion...then you know we have background checks that 100% exist, and that you disagree with the limitations of said background check and you desire the expansion. I will obviously be opposed to the idea of expansion, but you will at least have a basis in that it is a discussion of opinion/viewpoint and we can continue to be adults from there. You decide

 

[blackjack50]

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

The game was over before you ever stepped onto the field as your comments bear no relationship to normal usage of the English language.

What you ASSUME is entirely upon you and a figment of your own wishful thinking.

I take this as your resignation and acceptance that I am 100% correct. Thanks for playing.

 

[blaxshep]

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

Nope; verbatim of what was ratified in Congress. Why the straw man? Having trouble debating what's actually written?

BWAAAA HAAA HAAAA HAAA!!!

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to sustain the market value of their Arms shall not be infringed.


That is verbatim of what was ratified in congress? :lamo

 

[blaxshep]

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

Thanks for the heads up and advice.

Meanwhile, if unicorns come and take the giant bunny rabbit that's your best pal, be sure to let me know. I'll look into what I think your recourse might be under the right to privacy, from the State and Unicorns.

So now the Patriot act is a fairy tale, ok got it. Your credibility is non-existent.

 

[haymarket]

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

I take this as your resignation and acceptance that I am 100% correct. Thanks for playing.

What is there about this following sentence that you somehow are incapable of understanding?

I clearly stated that the idea that somebody stating that we have background checks is only partially truthful but is also partially a lie if it is just left out there without acknowledgment that one can purchase firearms without a background check.

 

[Sisyphus]

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

BWAAAA HAAA HAAAA HAAA!!!

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to sustain the market value of their Arms shall not be infringed.


That is verbatim of what was ratified in congress? :lamo

Yes, in regard to the aspect, "the right of the people." No change was made in that regard, despite your straw man contention I had changed the importance of "people" vs. "Militia."

So lie and move on. No need to keep lying about your lies. It get's you nowhere.

 

[blaxshep]

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

Yes, in regard to the aspect, "the right of the people." No change was made in that regard, despite your straw man contention I had changed the importance of "people" vs. "Militia."

So lie and move on. No need to keep lying about your lies. It get's you nowhere.

Your asinine BS is so far from the truth it's not even a debate we are having, but a laugh fest at your liberal programed ignorance.

It is quite sad when a person's English skills are so poor they believe the independent clause depends on the dependent clause. :lamo

 

[jaeger19]

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

Okay; what if the mom didn't have them to take? Seems to me a loon on a suicide-kill mission like that might choose option B if option A does not exist. So by removing the not as easy gun show option, loons on a mission who lack the serendipitous "mom has the guns," option are now forced to use the much harder option C: hit the street and try to find bad guys selling ARs; none too easy, and risks running into undercover cops.

That's the point. We'll never eliminate loons, but we can close down their ease of access.

And right there in a nutshell, you have posted why gun owners in America have reason to believe that the anti gun nuts want to take away access to law abiding citizens...

What if she didn't have them?..... the whole premise centers around the idea that the only way to go to option B.. is if you eliminate option A... which is to eliminate the private ownership of guns. But the truth is this, If the Sandy Hook Killer couldn't get them from MOM.. his next option would be to kill and steal them from someone else... That's the easiest option...

Going down to option c? Why try to purchase when you can kill and steal?

That's the problem with the anti gun crowd... I get it.. I have been around them. Its part of the "liberal" bent I guess. But they don't want to seem to understand that its the SHOOTER.. the MURDERER.. that's the issue. Not the gun.

Look at your logic... If he can't MURDER HIS MOTHER and take her guns... why then he will go down to the local walmart and subject himself to a background check, or wait for the next gun show and hope to find a private sale there (by the way, dealers at a gun show still have to background check).

Any reasonable person understands that the killer is the issue, and that a background check is not going to be a deterrent.

By the way.. we CAN eliminate the "loons" in this country.. or at least severely curtail them... and that's by having a real mental health program in this country. By removing the stigma around mental health (and quite frankly, demanding that guns be removed from folks who have had say depression isn't going to help in this regard). By getting interventions in schools etc to identify those struggling with mental health and access to appropriate mental health services (and not just in crisis).

But to do that.. which really WILL have a positive effect... we as a nation need to focus on the person.. and not on the gun.

 

[jaeger19]

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

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to sustain the market value of their Arms shall not be infringed.

absolutely.. that is correct sir...

You have to recognize a simple fact... the Bill of rights isn't exclusionary in that only those rights enumerated are protected.

 

[jaeger19]

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

Or put a less glib way: the fear that he'll have to sell it or diminish it's market value, is contradictory. If he's not selling, its market value becomes a moot point. Moreover, if he plans on selling it, tell him to wait for an AWB, when it will increase significantly in value due to fewer being available for purchase (private sale only.)

He's golden. Nothing to worry about.

Still very glib... because you have to understand.. under the law.. no person in the state is allowed to possess this magazine.. so therefore, he is unable to sell it to anyone in state...

Take such a thing to a federal level and he would not be able to possess it OR sell it.

Certainly something to worry about...

 

[blackjack50]

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

What is there about this following sentence that you somehow are incapable of understanding?

I clearly stated that the idea that somebody stating that we have background checks is only partially truthful but is also partially a lie if it is just left out there without acknowledgment that one can purchase firearms without a background check.

That has NOTHING to do with what he posted. He stated..."WE HAVE BACKGROUND CHECKS." That statement is not a half truth. It isn't a half lie. You cannot have a half true statement unless it has more than one premise. It did not. It had one. The conclusion is either TRUE or it is FALSE. It cannot be both.

You are claiming that because you think it should be expanded...that it does not exist. That makes no logical sense. So. We arrive at the same question.

Do we have a background check system in place in this country?

 

[CRUE CAB]

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

What is there about this following sentence that you somehow are incapable of understanding?

I clearly stated that the idea that somebody stating that we have background checks is only partially truthful but is also partially a lie if it is just left out there without acknowledgment that one can purchase firearms without a background check.

Not through a FFL.

 

[haymarket]

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

That has NOTHING to do with what he posted. He stated..."WE HAVE BACKGROUND CHECKS." That statement is not a half truth. It isn't a half lie. You cannot have a half true statement unless it has more than one premise. It did not. It had one. The conclusion is either TRUE or it is FALSE. It cannot be both.

You are claiming that because you think it should be expanded...that it does not exist. That makes no logical sense. So. We arrive at the same question.

Do we have a background check system in place in this country?

Actually, if the statement is presented as anything less that an accurate portrayal of the issue of background checks - is is indeed a half truth that is intended to deceive.

To answer your question: for some purchases we do and for some purchases we do not.

 

[haymarket]

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

Not through a FFL.

Which as I have repeatedly stated is NOT the only source of legal purchases.

 

[blackjack50]

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

Actually, if the statement is presented as anything less that an accurate portrayal of the issue of background checks - is is indeed a half truth that is intended to deceive.

To answer your question: for some purchases we do and for some purchases we do not.

So. Then. Do we have a system for background checks in place?

 

[haymarket]

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

So. Then. Do we have a system for background checks in place?

For some gun purchases we do and for other gun purchases we do NOT.

 

[CRUE CAB]

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

Which as I have repeatedly stated is NOT the only source of legal purchases.

So you want me to do a background check on friends I swap guns with?
Excuse me while I laugh my ass off.

 

[CRUE CAB]

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

So. Then. Do we have a system for background checks in place?

There is a system, the NRA backed it. Been in place for at least 20 years.

 

[blackjack50]

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

For some gun purchases we do and for other gun purchases we do NOT.

So. We DO have a system in place? You admit that there is a system that is 100 in existence, and while it may not pertain to ALL purchases, it does in fact exist?

 

[haymarket]

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

So. We DO have a system in place? You admit that there is a system that is 100 in existence, and while it may not pertain to ALL purchases, it does in fact exist?

"a system that is 100 in existence"..... I have no idea what that is suppose to mean. Did you leave you some words in that phrase?

Again, you seem to not comprehend the answer: we have background checks for some gun purchases and do not have background checks for other gun purchases.

Got that?

 

[blackjack50]

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

"a system that is 100 in existence"..... I have no idea what that is suppose to mean. Did you leave you some words in that phrase?

Again, you seem to not comprehend the answer: we have background checks for some gun purchases and do not have background checks for other gun purchases.

Got that?

That is a child's ploy. I have used the same phrase repeatedly in this thread. I think you 100 PERCENT KNOW what "word" was supposed to go there. Or is contest tough for you? I under stand. I have an aunt who doesn't really get sarcasm because she doesn't get the whole context thing.

So. Again. This is a simple or yes or no question. Is there a system in place to background check firearms? Does one exist?