• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The background check campaign

haymarket said:
You get to live in a society which moves forward toward progress and peace and a better America.
Click to expand...
By going backwards to an authoritarian model based upon a centralized authority? Hate to break it to you but that is the reverse of progress, the whole reason an American monarchy was rejected was due to the dangers of centralized power, the whole reason despotism is better left to ancient cultures is because it stagnates the individual and society. Progress my ass.
 
TurtleDude said:
that is even more stupid than the last post you made.
Click to expand...
"Progressives" are truly blind to the fact that authoritarianism is the most ancient and flawed model in human history. They don't even realize the regression that subjugating individuals to ever increasing regulatory law is the very definition of going backwards.
 
LaMidRighter said:
"Progressives" are truly blind to the fact that authoritarianism is the most ancient and flawed model in human history. They don't even realize the regression that subjugating individuals to ever increasing regulatory law is the very definition of going backwards.
Click to expand...

real progress is for people to grow up and no longer need or HAVE parents telling them what to do. dependence and control are the signs of de-evolution.
 
TurtleDude said:
real progress is for people to grow up and no longer need or HAVE parents telling them what to do. dependence and control are the signs of de-evolution.
Click to expand...
Indeed. Then again, the people who want that control need adult children who only care about how big the next handout will be to retain power, it's the only way people would accept this nanny state crap. The king gave away pittances as well, it was a good way to stave off revolt and keep the "dirty peasants" quiet.
 
TurtleDude said:
do you realize how stupid that question is?
Click to expand...

I do realize how utterly ridiculous it is for anyone to assert that a right pre-existed but when constantly asked where it existed they cannot tell you where it existed. A so called pre-existingright that only exists in the mind of a person is not at all a right since nobody is able to exercise it or use it.

That is the giant hole in your argument that you can only run from.
 
LaMidRighter said:
By going backwards to an authoritarian model based upon a centralized authority? Hate to break it to you but that is the reverse of progress, the whole reason an American monarchy was rejected was due to the dangers of centralized power, the whole reason despotism is better left to ancient cultures is because it stagnates the individual and society. Progress my ass.
Click to expand...

I can see why a right libertarian who subscribes to an ersatz ideology based on personal selfishness and a rejection of any societal rights or responsibilities would hate the idea of social progress.
 
haymarket said:
I can see why a right libertarian who subscribes to an ersatz ideology based on personal selfishness and a rejection of any societal rights or responsibilities would hate the idea of social progress.
Click to expand...

Lib definition of social progress: Sit down, shut up, do as we say, and like it. :roll:
 
countryboy said:
Lib definition of social progress: Sit down, shut up, do as we say, and like it. :roll:
Click to expand...

Your comment has nothing to do with the post from me which you reproduced as its lead in.

I totally support 100% your right not to "like it" and would never demand that you do. What you may like or not like is irrelevant to me. In fact, if you did not "like it" so much that you decided to pack up and leave - I would 100% support that decision also.
 
haymarket said:
Your comment has nothing to do with the post from me which you reproduced as its lead in.
Click to expand...

It has everything to do with it. You used the term "social progress", I gave the definition of what it means to you and your ilk.
 
countryboy said:
It has everything to do with it. You used the term "social progress", I gave the definition of what it means to you and your ilk.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you can then quote where I gave that definition that you ascribe to me?

Of course, you cannot and you will not.
 
haymarket said:
I can see why a right libertarian who subscribes to an ersatz ideology based on personal selfishness and a rejection of any societal rights or responsibilities would hate the idea of social progress.
Click to expand...
Apparently you can't see much because you are going off of negative assumptions about my character. Unfortunately for you my words back individual rights and liberties and not just my own. So what would be more selfish, arguing for the freedom of others to be left to their own devices, or arguing for a person's party to have more power? I'll let you think about that one for a while. :lol:
 
haymarket said:
Perhaps you can then quote where I gave that definition that you ascribe to me?

Of course, you cannot and you will not.
Click to expand...
You constantly argue that the constitution allows unlimited government power. Your own words lead to that conclusion.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Apparently you can't see much because you are going off of negative assumptions about my character. Unfortunately for you my words back individual rights and liberties and not just my own. So what would be more selfish, arguing for the freedom of others to be left to their own devices, or arguing for a person's party to have more power? I'll let you think about that one for a while. :lol:
Click to expand...

People on the far right such a self identified Right Libertarians - throw around terms like FREEDOM and LIBERTY the way you just did like a lounge lizard throws around the word LOVE at bar closing time to the last woman at the bar. And the goal is exactly the same. Get it straight - I do not want to take away any of your Constitutional rights or freedoms so you can take that strawman back into the barn.
 
LaMidRighter said:
You constantly argue that the constitution allows unlimited government power. Your own words lead to that conclusion.
Click to expand...

Now all you have to do is reprint a quote from me saying that the government is entitled to UNLIMITED GOVERNMENT POWER to show that you did not make it up or are engaging in a falsehood.

Of course, since I never made such a statement, you cannot and will not do so.
 
haymarket said:
People on the far right such a self identified Right Libertarians - throw around terms like FREEDOM and LIBERTY the way you just did like a lounge lizard throws around the word LOVE at bar closing time to the last woman at the bar. And the goal is exactly the same. Get it straight - I do not want to take away any of your Constitutional rights or freedoms so you can take that strawman back into the barn.
Click to expand...
"Far right"? Hardly, I am for freedoms and oppose ALL attempts to regulate them away. Sorry, but your read of my stances is very weak.

EDIT - And don't even try to back away from your stances, your posts are all over this board for all to see and I am not doing your homework for you.
 
LaMidRighter said:
"Far right"? Hardly, I am for freedoms and oppose ALL attempts to regulate them away. Sorry, but your read of my stances is very weak.
Click to expand...

Your publicly proclaimed lean says otherwise.
 
haymarket said:
Perhaps you can then quote where I gave that definition that you ascribe to me?

Of course, you cannot and you will not.
Click to expand...

You used the term "social progress", of course you and you ilk are not going to admit the term means anything but. I am shining a light on your authoritarianism. Though, you do a pretty good job of it yourself.
 
Crimefree said:
Remember those claims that 80 to 90% of Americans wanted expanded background checks?: Well, they were clearly wrong - Crime Prevention Research Center

Remember those claims that 80 to 90% of Americans wanted expanded background checks?: Well, they were clearly wrong

UPDATE January 27, 2014: In a new national ad, former Congresswoman Gabby Giffords again implies that since 90% of Americans support background checks that means that they will support the legislation that she is pushing.

While firearm organisations are fast asleep gun control is hard at work.

Washington approves expanded gun background checks

Washington approves expanded gun background checks | The Columbian


Polls have shown a steady increase in support as gun control propaganda has its impact. The latest road show the final push to universal checks. Get ready for more gun control BS in your life as firearm organisations are doing nothing but hoping support is not so high.... Nobody will believe gun controls propaganda......
Click to expand...

86% of republicans support background checks for all gun buyers, 98% of democrats and 92% of independents (Quinnipiac university june 2014)

84% of republicans support background checks for all gun buyers, 92% of democrats, 81% of independents and 84% of gun owners also agree with universal background checks (CBS news poll December 2013)

Guns

Universal agreement will never be achieved, but on this issue and this issue alone it seems that gun owners, republicans, democrats and independents agree, there should be universal background checks.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Mandating that all gun sales (and transfers) go through federal nannies (FFL dealers) for approval, for a reasonable "processing" fee, virtually assures that registration, again for a reasonable "processing" fee, is the next step in turning a constitutional right into a state issued privilege.
Click to expand...

Why? Everyone who is legally allowed to own a gun should be able to buy that gun as soon as it is verified he is not one of those people in the US who are banned from owning guns. That does not make something a state issued privilege but it does prevent (or make it very hard) for people who aren't allowed to own guns from acquiring such a gun.

You also pay for other documents provided by the state so why not this one?
 
haymarket said:
I do realize how utterly ridiculous it is for anyone to assert that a right pre-existed but when constantly asked where it existed they cannot tell you where it existed. A so called pre-existingright that only exists in the mind of a person is not at all a right since nobody is able to exercise it or use it.

That is the giant hole in your argument that you can only run from.
Click to expand...

nice twisting of what I said but what is really stupid is pretending the founders did not wish to recognize a right

you constantly pretend that the issue is whether the right "existed" rather than conceding that the founders believed people had a right to be armed and th 2A recognized that.
 
Peter King said:
86% of republicans support background checks for all gun buyers, 98% of democrats and 92% of independents (Quinnipiac university june 2014)

84% of republicans support background checks for all gun buyers, 92% of democrats, 81% of independents and 84% of gun owners also agree with universal background checks (CBS news poll December 2013)

Guns

Universal agreement will never be achieved, but on this issue and this issue alone it seems that gun owners, republicans, democrats and independents agree, there should be universal background checks.
Click to expand...

How a poll question is worded makes all of the difference. Making all "potential" gun buyers, which seems to include all adults, undergo BG checks somehow gets more support than making gun laws more strict. Hmm...

"Do you favor or oppose a federal law requiring background checks on all potential gun buyers?"
Click to expand...
Got majority support from all.

"In general, do you think laws covering the sale of guns should be made more strict, less strict, or kept as they are now?"
Click to expand...
Got majority support only among demorats.

What I want to know is how a federal law requiring universal BG checks is not making the law more strict for the sale of guns? Perhaps that "proves" that the BG check should be separate from the gun sale (e.g. truly universal).

When people understand that BG checks carry a "user fee" and require that all gun "transfers" must go through a FFL dealer (who will charge a fee for that service) then the picture would likely be far different. BTW, how can any BG check not first require presenting that valid, state issued, photo ID which we are assured is such a "discriminatory burden"?
 
Last edited:
LaMidRighter said:
"Far right"? Hardly, I am for freedoms and oppose ALL attempts to regulate them away. Sorry, but your read of my stances is very weak.

EDIT - And don't even try to back away from your stances, your posts are all over this board for all to see and I am not doing your homework for you.
Click to expand...


anyone who supports freedom is far right to those who think the government is the source of all good and that the peasants should be thankful for the government allowing them any prerogative to act on their own without getting permission first
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom