Gun Control

[Evil Semp]

If back ground checks prevent one nut job from getting a gun and killing someone that it is worth doing.

Doesn't that logic hold true for going outside too? After all, if we made going outside illegal unless it was for work/school, millions every year would still be alive. Forget just one person...

I don't know if that logic holds true for going outside but it might hold true for going to gun shows.

Your logic is that it will save lives, and even if it saves one life, we should do it...

if we make it illegal for people to go outside, that would save at least one life right? Same can be said for making it harder for people to drive. Hell, you can justify practically anything on the basis of "if it saves one life"

My logic is if BACK GROUND CHECKS save one life it is worth it.

[kentington]

If back ground checks prevent one nut job from getting a gun and killing someone that it is worth doing.

Doesn't that logic hold true for going outside too? After all, if we made going outside illegal unless it was for work/school, millions every year would still be alive. Forget just one person...

I don't know if that logic holds true for going outside but it might hold true for going to gun shows.

Your logic is that it will save lives, and even if it saves one life, we should do it...

if we make it illegal for people to go outside, that would save at least one life right? Same can be said for making it harder for people to drive. Hell, you can justify practically anything on the basis of "if it saves one life"

My logic is if BACK GROUND CHECKS save one life it is worth it.

Background checks are not enough of a hassle to not use them.
However, who decides what, in a background check, disqualifies one from gun ownership?
Compromise, background check for drivers license. Separate ID available for those who opt out of Driver's license. Without these you can not buy a gun. If your driver's license is suspended for DUI or failure to pay parking tickets then that would be a disqualifier for special ID.

[Phatscotty]

If back ground checks prevent one nut job from getting a gun and killing someone that it is worth doing.

Doesn't that logic hold true for going outside too? After all, if we made going outside illegal unless it was for work/school, millions every year would still be alive. Forget just one person...

I don't know if that logic holds true for going outside but it might hold true for going to gun shows.

Your logic is that it will save lives, and even if it saves one life, we should do it...

if we make it illegal for people to go outside, that would save at least one life right? Same can be said for making it harder for people to drive. Hell, you can justify practically anything on the basis of "if it saves one life"

My logic is if BACK GROUND CHECKS save one life it is worth it.

That's fine, but like I said, you can say that about anything and it will save at least one life, including butter knives.

I don't know if you can, and I'm not trying to score an easy point, but can you show where/when/how a background check saved a life? The best stats I have seen from the FBI were that around 700,000 background checks over the last 10 years, with only (roughly) 70 or so people being charged with anything, and only (roughly) 40 convictions. Which raises another question. We all know that our government cannot even handle the terror watch list (Boston Bombers were on it, but it didn't make one difference or one person more secure or save one life). Of course, for those who want to jump to extreme conclusion, I'm not saying the terror watch list is 0% effective or that we should scrap it. But I am saying if the government can't even handle the big stuff (bombings, hijacking planes), why would we expand their power to try to control the little stuff (a shooting)? They can't even get it right with the laws we have now concerning background checks, what good would it do to give them more responsibilities?? I'm sure you will say it might save one more life, but I say background checks barely even work. Again, of course I am not saying to scrap background checks, as I believe they do a little bit of good (I voted "not really")

Also, for the cost, at a time when we only have enough money to cover 60% (we have to borrow, with interest, the other 40% every year) of our expenditures as a country, does it make sense to run 30 million background checks in order to save one life? How about 300 million? There's got to be a point somewhere when we realize we are spending a billion dollars for something that might only save one life, might not.

Do you admit that you are basically saying we should give up some of our Liberty for the tiniest bit more of security?

[Juan_Bottom]

Yet another example of how gun control doesn't work, and individual firearms do. this is educational and real world fact.

Good Guy With a Gun Stops Bad Guy

A mass stabbing was abruptly stopped in Utah yesterday by a law abiding armed citizen. More from ABC4Utah:

A citizen with a gun stopped a knife wielding man as he began stabbing people Thursday evening at the downtown Salt Lake City Smith's store.

Police say the suspect purchased a knife inside the store and then turned it into a weapon. Smith's employee Dorothy Espinoza says, "He pulled it out and stood outside the Smiths in the foyer. And just started stabbing people and yelling you killed my people. You killed my people."

Espinoza says, the knife wielding man seriously injured two people. "There is blood all over. One got stabbed in the stomach and got stabbed in the head and held his hands and got stabbed all over the arms."

Then, before the suspect could find another victim - a citizen with a gun stopped the madness. "A guy pulled gun on him and told him to drop his weapon or he would shoot him. So, he dropped his weapon and the people from Smith's grabbed him."

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavli ... g-n1579924

It's hilarious how you post this right after you said this gem:

Your point only makes sense if it were the case that anyone who claims self defense automatically means beyond a doubt that it is in fact self defense. that isn't the case, but if it were, sure, you would have a point.

Except you don't. All you have is 1 exception to some jackass who was trying to save his own butt anyways he could. That is the actions of the lying jackass, that is not a valid example of self defense

In any case, that is a very poor example of self defense, which doesn't actually add anything to the discussion, except to point out an exception, which of course we all agree, every person who says it was self defense doesn't automatically mean it was self defense. so...wtg

The bill, in very plain terms, does just that: It informs Washington that Missouri will not surrender her sovereign right to reject unconstitutional federal acts and will guard her citizens' right to keep and bear arms as protected by the Second Amendment.

Missouri does not have 'a sovereign right' to reject federal acts.

[Juan_Bottom]

However, the keeping of records on gun purchases by any government entity is another matter entirely.

The lack of record-keeping is how the Fast & Furious debacle happened. Cops aren't able to confront the gun dealers and citizens who are purposely selling guns to organized crime, because they aren't legally allowed to look at purchase records, if any exist. Dealers themselves aren't legally required to keep purchase records either, it's just encouraged. It's a pretty serious problem.

The best stats I have seen from the FBI were that around 700,000 background checks over the last 10 years, with only (roughly) 70 or so people being charged with anything, and only (roughly) 40 convictions.

My understanding is that background checks are not traps used to arrest people. If you fail it, you just don't get a gun. Lots of people don't even know that they have a felony. I didn't know that I had a felony, or that my license was revoked until about a year later.

Also, for the cost, at a time when we only have enough money to cover 60% (we have to borrow, with interest, the other 40% every year) of our expenditures as a country, does it make sense to run 30 million background checks in order to save one life? How about 300 million? There's got to be a point somewhere when we realize we are spending a billion dollars for something that might only save one life, might not.

Do you admit that you are basically saying we should give up some of our Liberty for the tiniest bit more of security?

Is your argument about liberty or about money?
If you're buying the gun, you pay the cost for the check... not the government.

[Night Strike]

Nullification laws like this don't tend to stand up in federal courts though.

The states created the federal government, not the other way around, so every nullification law (that doesn't try to nullify a role of the federal government that was specifically laid out in the Constitution) should be upheld. The fact that federal courts have failed to understand and abide by this fact doesn't mean that they're doing the correct thing.

[Symmetry]

Nullification laws like this don't tend to stand up in federal courts though.

The states created the federal government, not the other way around, so every nullification law (that doesn't try to nullify a role of the federal government that was specifically laid out in the Constitution) should be upheld. The fact that federal courts have failed to understand and abide by this fact doesn't mean that they're doing the correct thing.

Not sure ifs you're agreeing or disagreeing with me here NS.

[Juan_Bottom]

Nullification laws like this don't tend to stand up in federal courts though.

The states created the federal government, not the other way around, so every nullification law (that doesn't try to nullify a role of the federal government that was specifically laid out in the Constitution) should be upheld. The fact that federal courts have failed to understand and abide by this fact doesn't mean that they're doing the correct thing.

Slavery.
Jim Crow.
Segregation.
Southern Strategy.

[Night Strike]

Nullification laws like this don't tend to stand up in federal courts though.

The states created the federal government, not the other way around, so every nullification law (that doesn't try to nullify a role of the federal government that was specifically laid out in the Constitution) should be upheld. The fact that federal courts have failed to understand and abide by this fact doesn't mean that they're doing the correct thing.

Slavery.
Jim Crow.
Segregation.
Southern Strategy.

13th amendment.
14th amendment.
15th amendment.
All ratified by the states.

[Juan_Bottom]

Nullification laws like this don't tend to stand up in federal courts though.

The states created the federal government, not the other way around, so every nullification law (that doesn't try to nullify a role of the federal government that was specifically laid out in the Constitution) should be upheld. The fact that federal courts have failed to understand and abide by this fact doesn't mean that they're doing the correct thing.

Slavery.
Jim Crow.
Segregation.
Southern Strategy.

13th amendment.
14th amendment.
15th amendment.
All ratified by the states.

You are so full of epic bullshit.

The reconstruction amendments were passed in the late 1860s. They immediately followed by Jim Crow, Segregation, Poll Taxes, and Southern Strategy. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BEGAN RAMMING EQUALITY DOWN THE THROAT OF THE SOUTH IN THE LATE 1960s. Every Jim Crow law in between was a nullification law that was not ended by the Fed. The 13th and 14th Amendment would never have passed in the South if they hadn't been tied to the end of a bayonet, hence the reason they were ratified, then nullified.

You will not ignore history.

[Juan_Bottom]

I love how you're like "segregation was ok because the 14th Amendment was ratified."

[Phatscotty]

Second Amendment.

the end

[Juan_Bottom]

Second Amendment.

the end

It's a sign of intelligence to be able to entertain an idea while knowing that you do not have to accept it.

That said, if they had your attitude in the 1800s, then slavery would be legal today.

[Phatscotty]

I think history to you is just a bunch of hateful images of a slave with scars on his back, and an angry white racist man, and people protesting interracial marriage, and woman suffering.

You have EVERYTHING backwards. I would love to teach you some history from the correct perspective sometime, rather than your race obsessed, hate dominated, liberal college professor hate America version.

I would love for you to learn about how America ended these things, rather than is responsible for them.

These things are the way the world ALWAYS was. America changed that for the better, not the worse, in that all men are created equal. I already know you expect the express overnight version of equality where you just flip a switch and all the slaves are freed and women can vote and interracial marriage is tolerated, but things take time. Cultures take time to evolve. Women did not vote for a long time because they were not ready to get involved yet. The way of the old world demanded the woman stay home and take care of 9 kids, because they expected 2 of the kids to die before the age of 3. It's not like they had microwaves or automobiles. It's not like they could drive a sick family member to the doctor, they had to stay home the entire time a child was sick. I imagine a single mother might have to dedicate many hours a day just preparing food and getting water, cleaning out the horse stable and fixing a wheel on the wagon There probably was not a lot of time for reading, if they even could read.

You have to have some context. You cannot take today's values and morals and judge the old world by them. That is ass backwards.

[Symmetry]

I think history to me is just a bunch of hateful images of a white racist man with scars on his back, and an angry slave.

Is that your view? I had to edit your post to put it backward.

[Nobunaga]

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. life is more important then your liberty to own a Bazooka. kills on rare occasions?One million Americans killed by gun violence over the same period in which four thousand Americans are killed by terrorist actions.The country sure has gone to great lengths to stop terrorists deaths.

Which is why it's illegal to take away the life of another person.

Except in those States that still operate the Death Penalty and have laughable ' self defence ' laws that allow murderers to walk away laughing .

Self defense isn't murder....it's self defense

If its disproportionate to the level of danger then it should be unlawfull. A guy in Texas saw 2 intruders breaking into a neighbours house , he phoned the cops who told him they were on their way and he should just sit tight. Instead he grabbed his rifle , confronted the burglars , who were not on his property, then shot them both in the back as they ran away.
That was not self defence , it was murder , he was not charged with anything and was interviewed on TV boasting that he was proud of his actions.

I remember that one... There was a big "racist" stink about that one if memory serves.

You inserted, "..then shot them both in the back as they ran away"... That does not seem to be the case. Why would you add that?

And it was a shotgun - very close range weapon.



Had that been my house he was protecting I would've bought the man a big dinner at the restaurant of his choice.

[comic boy]

I think history to you is just a bunch of hateful images of a slave with scars on his back, and an angry white racist man, and people protesting interracial marriage, and woman suffering.

You have EVERYTHING backwards. I would love to teach you some history from the correct perspective sometime, rather than your race obsessed, hate dominated, liberal college professor hate America version.

I would love for you to learn about how America ended these things, rather than is responsible for them.

These things are the way the world ALWAYS was. America changed that for the better, not the worse, in that all men are created equal. I already know you expect the express overnight version of equality where you just flip a switch and all the slaves are freed and women can vote and interracial marriage is tolerated, but things take time. Cultures take time to evolve. Women did not vote for a long time because they were not ready to get involved yet. The way of the old world demanded the woman stay home and take care of 9 kids, because they expected 2 of the kids to die before the age of 3. It's not like they had microwaves or automobiles. It's not like they could drive a sick family member to the doctor, they had to stay home the entire time a child was sick. I imagine a single mother might have to dedicate many hours a day just preparing food and getting water, cleaning out the horse stable and fixing a wheel on the wagon There probably was not a lot of time for reading, if they even could read.

You have to have some context. You cannot take today's values and morals and judge the old world by them. That is ass backwards.

Yet in another thread you state ' The British have blood on their hands ' refering to supposed genocide in Ireland 150 years ago. Hypocrisy is not a very admirable trait you know , it sort of weakens your argument and makes you look stupid.

[Nobunaga]

Here's a good one.

[Night Strike]

Nullification laws like this don't tend to stand up in federal courts though.

The states created the federal government, not the other way around, so every nullification law (that doesn't try to nullify a role of the federal government that was specifically laid out in the Constitution) should be upheld. The fact that federal courts have failed to understand and abide by this fact doesn't mean that they're doing the correct thing.

Slavery.
Jim Crow.
Segregation.
Southern Strategy.

13th amendment.
14th amendment.
15th amendment.
All ratified by the states.

You are so full of epic bullshit.

The reconstruction amendments were passed in the late 1860s. They immediately followed by Jim Crow, Segregation, Poll Taxes, and Southern Strategy. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BEGAN RAMMING EQUALITY DOWN THE THROAT OF THE SOUTH IN THE LATE 1960s. Every Jim Crow law in between was a nullification law that was not ended by the Fed. The 13th and 14th Amendment would never have passed in the South if they hadn't been tied to the end of a bayonet, hence the reason they were ratified, then nullified.

You will not ignore history.

Where's the bullshit? The states ratified the amendments but then failed to enforce them, so the federal government properly stepped in. States can't nullify Constitutional amendments. Where in the Constitution did the states give the federal government the ability to infringe upon the right to bear arms? In fact, the states specifically forbade the federal government from having such authority. Please learn how federalism works before you start calling bullshit.

[Woodruff]

I think history to you is just a bunch of hateful images of a slave with scars on his back, and an angry white racist man, and people protesting interracial marriage, and woman suffering.
You have EVERYTHING backwards. I would love to teach you some history from the correct perspective sometime, rather than your race obsessed, hate dominated, liberal college professor hate America version.

You mean those things didn't happen in history? Fascinating.

I would love for you to learn about how America ended these things, rather than is responsible for them.

You realize that when America ended slavery (never mind "the other things" you refer to), the British had already done so more than fifty years earlier, right?

These things are the way the world ALWAYS was. America changed that for the better, not the worse, in that all men are created equal.

Your version of history is flawed. America did not "change the world" as far as slavery was concerned...well, at least not for the better.

You have to have some context. You cannot take today's values and morals and judge the old world by them. That is ass backwards.

I agree with that. You also can't just make up history the way you want it to have been.

[Woodruff]

Where in the Constitution did the states give the federal government the ability to infringe upon the right to bear arms?

Were you ever going to deal with the point that you support the infringment of the Second Amendment, or did you want to just ignore all that because it's not convenient to your argument?

[Nobunaga]

This is good. Listen to the stats - Afghanistan vs. Chicago.



She also makes a decent case for the racism lurking behind anti-gun regulations.

[Nobunaga]

14 year-old boy protects his younger siblings:



And let's toss this one in just for kicks.

[Night Strike]

Where in the Constitution did the states give the federal government the ability to infringe upon the right to bear arms?

Were you ever going to deal with the point that you support the infringment of the Second Amendment, or did you want to just ignore all that because it's not convenient to your argument?

The government doesn't have the authority to remove rights from all people. The only time rights can be denied to individual people is after they have chosen of their own free will to take away the rights of another person. You need to learn the difference.

[Phatscotty]

I think history to you is just a bunch of hateful images of a slave with scars on his back, and an angry white racist man, and people protesting interracial marriage, and woman suffering.

You have EVERYTHING backwards. I would love to teach you some history from the correct perspective sometime, rather than your race obsessed, hate dominated, liberal college professor hate America version.

I would love for you to learn about how America ended these things, rather than is responsible for them.

These things are the way the world ALWAYS was. America changed that for the better, not the worse, in that all men are created equal. I already know you expect the express overnight version of equality where you just flip a switch and all the slaves are freed and women can vote and interracial marriage is tolerated, but things take time. Cultures take time to evolve. Women did not vote for a long time because they were not ready to get involved yet. The way of the old world demanded the woman stay home and take care of 9 kids, because they expected 2 of the kids to die before the age of 3. It's not like they had microwaves or automobiles. It's not like they could drive a sick family member to the doctor, they had to stay home the entire time a child was sick. I imagine a single mother might have to dedicate many hours a day just preparing food and getting water, cleaning out the horse stable and fixing a wheel on the wagon There probably was not a lot of time for reading, if they even could read.

You have to have some context. You cannot take today's values and morals and judge the old world by them. That is ass backwards.

Yet in another thread you state ' The British have blood on their hands ' refering to supposed genocide in Ireland 150 years ago. Hypocrisy is not a very admirable trait you know , it sort of weakens your argument and makes you look stupid.

This post is for Juan. Not for you, and certainly not in relation to UK/Ireland 150 years ago.

That has nothing to do with anything. You got busted saying I just made up % when I didn't, and now here you are lying again about the criminals being shot in the back