Another epic failure in gun control

[freyasman]

No, I do not think you are going to kill anyone. I think you are a big mouth bully attempting to pretend to be such a bad ass that you can order people to vote the way you want them to, vote for the congressional candidates you want them to and then pretend to know who voted for the ones you don't like....So go figure out who voted for the congressman in the Colorado 7th...You're going to be one busy serial killer. My bet is you'd last less than a day.

What did I ever tell you or anyone else to do, except to leave me be?

Where did you get the authority to vote that my harmless actions be criminalized?

I was not, am not, and will not hurt you or anyone else...... unless you try to get me thrown into a cage or killed. You keep that shit up, and whatever happens to you as a result, is on you.

 

[trapdoor]

Somehow you twist wanting background checks to make it more difficult for ex-felons and psych patients to buy guns into "We just wanted to eliminate guns"....making you one dishonest POS gun nut who cannot argue against a simple proposal, so you turn to the magical slippery slope.

How many other gun nuts do you suppose will sign up for your civil war against background checks? May be difficult to recruit very many...it seems even among gun owners the majority are in favor of Universal Background Checks.

It's because we've seen that happen in other places. Some English legisators are wanting to regulate kitchen knives. We know that background checks won't reduce crime, and you've produced no evidence that they reduce crime -- and when they fail the anti-gun types will want more. But more than that, they already want more, and background checks are merely a stepping stone. It's not a "magical" slippery, it's almost an inevitable one.

 

[middleview]

Which proves precisely nothing about the efficacy of the law. The law is designed to reduce violent crime. If it's not doing that (and to date we've seen no evidence that it has), then there's no point in having it.

1. At present there are enough guns on the black market to keep guns in circulation for a few more years. Nobody ran around confiscating guns from people who shouldn't have legally owned them.
2. The law is designed to prevent the illegal ownership of guns by ex-felons and people undergoing court ordered psychiatric care ...and a few other categories. By the CBI records it appears to be doing that.

 

[middleview]

What did I ever tell you or anyone else to do, except to leave me be?

Where did you get the authority to vote that my harmless actions be criminalized?

I was not, am not, and will not hurt you or anyone else...... unless you try to get me thrown into a cage or killed. You keep that shit up, and whatever happens to you as a result, is on you.

You knowingly break the law and want to blame someone else....how adult of you.

 

[freyasman]

You knowingly break the law and want to blame someone else....how adult of you.

You knowingly attempt to turn millions (who are not harming anyone) into criminals and refuse to accept any responsibility for your actions..... how adult of you.

 

[trapdoor]

1. At present there are enough guns on the black market to keep guns in circulation for a few more years. Nobody ran around confiscating guns from people who shouldn't have legally owned them.
2. The law is designed to prevent the illegal ownership of guns by ex-felons and people undergoing court ordered psychiatric care ...and a few other categories. By the CBI records it appears to be doing that.

1) Ho would background checks EVER change that?
2) Does it appear to be reducing crime? Because the reason you don't want felons or those other categories you named to have guns is that you want crime to be reduced. In Colorado, those laws have been on the books for five years now. Simple question, is crime down or not?

 

[middleview]

You would take it that way. Perhaps if you re-read the post again you might get the point.

What would it mean to make buying guns easier? It would put more guns in circulation.

 

[middleview]

You knowingly attempt to turn millions (who are not harming anyone) into criminals and refuse to accept any responsibility for your actions..... how adult of you.

1. It is already against the law for you to sell a gun to an ex-felon.
2. UBCs close the loophole that allowed you to claim you didn't know
the person you were selling to was an ex-felon. You preferred the "ignorance
as an excuse" option.

 

[freyasman]

What would it mean to make buying guns easier? It would put more guns in circulation.

Why is that a problem?

 

[Capitalist]

Somehow you twist wanting background checks to make it more difficult for ex-felons and psych patients to buy guns into "We just wanted to eliminate guns"....making you one dishonest POS gun nut who cannot argue against a simple proposal, so you turn to the magical slippery slope.

I must seem downright clairvoyant to you.

Here you are proposing the tiniest most insignificant tiny little pip squeak of a UBC and I go and blow it up into a gun confiscation measure. So yeah, I can see how you’d be baffled by my replies. It’s because you can’t see how pointless and irrelevant your immediate measure is and you refuse to look past your nose on what it could become. But it’s not real clairvoyance I possess, merely critical thinking. So lemme break it down for you:

1) A UBC for all transactions really is pointless. So don’t do it. Period. Nothing good has come from worthless legislation. Ever. “Oh but we’re capturing fel—,”. Stop. No you’re not. Not with Colorado’s new law. You’re just not. You’re hoping and wishing really REALLY hard that you are but wishing is not reality. Your shitistics are nothing more than regular shitistics on felons caught with regular NICS BCs folded into a discussion on the new CO law to make it look like the new law is effective. But to this date you have been unable to tease the truth from the shitistics. Why? Because you can’t. Nobody can. And that’s by design. So give it up.

2) Because I acknowledge the futility of such a law I can look beyond my nose and see what will happen in the very near future. And what will happen? Gun banners like yourself will start repeating my point 1) and demand further more restrictive gun control measures. I’m giving you your future talking points! How am I so confident? Because it’s already happened. NICS was supposed to cure all that. So we implemented NICS. But “Oh heavens to Betsy! What about private transactions?” And so we have Colorado’s UBC. Nobody who has a memory better than a goldfish and the ability to look past their nose will concede it will end there. The gun banners will scream out how ineffective UBCs are and demand more. You refuse to acknowledge that your precious little UBC will be used as a vehicle for far more nefarious purposes. And for that you are a willfully ignorant gun banner.

“Oh but I’m just proposing—,” Yeah, I get it. And I’m just proposing liberty. . .which you oppose.

 

[freyasman]

1. It is already against the law for you to sell a gun to an ex-felon.
2. UBCs close the loophole that allowed you to claim you didn't know
the person you were selling to was an ex-felon. You preferred the "ignorance
as an excuse" option.

1. So why do you need another law? Especially one that doesn't reduce crime? Unless you just want to make felons out of as many people as possible, so they will quit voting against your bullshit.
2. I'm a better judge of character than any government ever was, why shouldn't I be the one making that call?

(None of this matters anyway, because it's not going to happen. Get over it.)

 

[middleview]

1) Ho would background checks EVER change that?
2) Does it appear to be reducing crime? Because the reason you don't want felons or those other categories you named to have guns is that you want crime to be reduced. In Colorado, those laws have been on the books for five years now. Simple question, is crime down or not?

Seems like a pretty stupid question. If an ex-felon can buy a gun anywhere (ie...no background checks at all). Would there be more or less crime?

If an ex-felon can only buy from a private seller or go out and steal one...then the pool of available guns to ex-felons is unimpeded. In states without a UBC, it is a trivial matter to find a seller willing to sell a gun to someone without any check at all.

If the pool of available guns for purchase by someone who cannot pass a background check is limited to just those sellers willing to break the law and some number of those guns are confiscated every year in criminal investigations...the pool gets smaller every year.

 

[Capitalist]

What would it mean to make buying guns easier? It would put more guns in circulation.

I am 100% in favor of making guns easier to buy.

My efforts lean towards improving the gun culture in America. Because once the culture embraces guns as a form of responsibility, self-defense, and—youbetcherass—liberty instead of Hollywood toys and evil genies raining death and destruction on “won’t-somebody-think-of-the” children then nothing in the world can stop the elimination of the gun banner efforts.

Once that happens you will be as obsolete as a Betamax.

 

[middleview]

I must seem downright clairvoyant to you.

“Oh but I’m just proposing—,” Yeah, I get it. And I’m just proposing liberty. . .which you oppose.

You clairvoyant? A legend in your own mind...

You are proposing the liberty to sell guns to ex-felons. Clearly a necessary freedom. Run for office. See how far that gets you.

 

[middleview]

I am 100% in favor of making guns easier to buy.

My efforts lean towards improving the gun culture in America. Because once the culture embraces guns as a form of responsibility, self-defense, and—youbetcherass—liberty instead of Hollywood toys and evil genies raining death and destruction on “won’t-somebody-think-of-the” children then nothing in the world can stop the elimination of the gun banner efforts.

Once that happens you will be as obsolete as a Betamax.

Tell me about someone you know who wants a gun and can't get one...

 

[Capitalist]

You are proposing the liberty to sell guns to ex-felons.

If you can’t prove it, retract it.

If you won’t do that, you’re a liar.

 

[freyasman]

Seems like a pretty stupid question. If an ex-felon can buy a gun anywhere (ie...no background checks at all). Would there be more or less crime?

If an ex-felon can only buy from a private seller or go out and steal one...then the pool of available guns to ex-felons is unimpeded. In states without a UBC, it is a trivial matter to find a seller willing to sell a gun to someone without any check at all.

If the pool of available guns for purchase by someone who cannot pass a background check is limited to just those sellers willing to break the law and some number of those guns are confiscated every year in criminal investigations...the pool gets smaller every year.

"it is a trivial matter to find a seller willing to sell a gun to someone without any check at all."
Demonstrate then..... find a strange guy who will sell you a gun without a referral by someone he knows and trusts, and without checking your ID.
Good luck.

 

[Capitalist]

Tell me about someone you know who wants a gun and can't get one...

I don’t know anybody like that.

And yet if I want to sell a gun to somebody, you STILL want me to buy into your shitty little UBC and play pawn in your gun banner game.

 

[freyasman]

Tell me about someone you know who wants a gun and can't get one...

Tell me about someone you know who wants crystal meth, heroin, or Oxy, and can't get it.

 

[middleview]

Tell me about someone you know who wants crystal meth, heroin, or Oxy, and can't get it.

Why? Is someone here talking about making those things easier to buy?