Guns: how much longer will it take ....

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

it is a ploy....give a foot when 2 yards are required for a first down, then act all pissed off. if I am right this deal will change very little about gun culture (or the ability of whack jobs to get guns)...it certainly will not do what Obama said he set out to do....IE save the babies.

What the bill will do is further an illicit gun registration scheme.

And given the way the background check system is being turned against law-abiding citizens, it will also make it a greater hassle for those law-abiding citizens to circumvent the system.

Not even remotely acceptable.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

Yes. The fact that it might be possible to avoid confiscation by fleeing the jurisdiction does not change the reality that the jurisdiction is confiscating guns.

fleeing the jurisdiction? I guess the slippery slope argument isn't enough you now are going to resort to hyperbole in your justification of using that fallacy.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

oralloy wrote:
Yes. The fact that it might be possible to avoid confiscation by fleeing the jurisdiction does not change the reality that the jurisdiction is confiscating guns.

fleeing the jurisdiction? I guess the slippery slope argument isn't enough you now are going to resort to hyperbole in your justification of using that fallacy.

You cannot show any case of me ever using a slippery slope fallacy, as I have provided numerous examples of the claimed abuses actually being carried out.

It is not hyperbole to point out that the option of leaving a jurisdiction does not in any way alter the fact that Democrats are confiscating guns (after first tricking people into registering them).

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

You cannot show any case of me ever using a slippery slope fallacy, as I have provided numerous examples of the claimed abuses actually being carried out.

What you think you provided and what you actually provided are completely different things. You are so blinded you can't see the facts in what you provided. There was no confiscation of guns in what you provided.

If I go to the movies does that mean I was confiscated? According to you it does.

1 Reply

We the people need our government to be afraid of an armed citizenry.

We must not allow the government to further restrict the peoples right the bear arms.

1 Reply

@H2O MAN,

H2O MAN wrote:

We the people need our government to be afraid of an armed citizenry.

We must not allow the government to further restrict the peoples right the bear arms.

"Not one inch!" Is not going to work for you....you must learn to separate fantasy from reality.

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

H2O MAN wrote:

We the people need our government to be afraid of an armed citizenry.

We must not allow the government to further restrict the peoples right the bear arms.

"Not one inch!" Is not going to work for you....you must learn to separate fantasy from reality.

Liberalism being the fantasy.

1 Reply

@H2O MAN,

the reality is that Washington has to pass something that they can claim deals with gun violence now that they claimed to be working on it. so get a nearly useless bill made law and then for years your side can put off all calls for real action with "we just did that".

Obama the Great pushing for law change at the wrong time will help you for years. his original evaluation that this was no time to go after gun culture was the right call, and now that he fucked up your side wins.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

the reality is that Washington has to pass something that they can claim deals with gun violence now that they claimed to be working on it. so get a nearly useless bill made law and then for years your side can put off all calls for real action with "we just did that".

Obama the Great pushing for law change at the wrong time will help you for years. his original evaluation that this was no time to go after gun culture was the right call, and now that he fucked up your side wins.

My side? ... All of America wins when Obama and his ilk are unsuccessful.

1 Reply

@H2O MAN,

Quote:

My side? ... All of America wins when Obama and his ilk **** up.

all of America loses with these continual displays of incompetence and dishonesty coming out of Washington.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
My side? ... All of America wins when Obama and his ilk **** up.

all of America loses with these continual displays of incompetence and dishonesty coming out of Washington.

Agreed.

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

What you think you provided and what you actually provided are completely different things.

No they aren't. I provided actual examples of Democrats tricking law abiding people into registering their guns, and then confiscating them.

parados wrote:

You are so blinded you can't see the facts in what you provided.

I see just fine. And the facts are that Democrats always tell people that if they register their guns, there will be no mass confiscation, but then they turn around and confiscate guns anyway.

parados wrote:

There was no confiscation of guns in what you provided.

Yes there was.

parados wrote:

If I go to the movies does that mean I was confiscated? According to you it does.

No. I mean what I say I mean, not what you pretend I mean.

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

"Not one inch!" Is not going to work for you....you must learn to separate fantasy from reality.

Depends on the inch. This compromise is a horrific assault on the US Constitution and must be opposed.

If they wanted to pass a truly harmless "inch", that might be different.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

This compromise is a horrific assault on the US Constitution and must be opposed.

if what ever is passed is so then go talk to SCOTUS, in theory they will fix it.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

No they aren't. I provided actual examples of Democrats tricking law abiding people into registering their guns, and then confiscating them.

Except you didn't.
In one case the guns were just moved out of the city and not confiscated.
In the other case the gun was legal by simply replacing the original magazine.
Read what you posted.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

From your first source about NY oralloy

Quote:

The department subsequently announced that the majority… 2,615 out of 3,360… of these previously-registered faux "assault firearms" had been taken out of the city.

So somehow those guns that went to the movies (outside the city) were confiscated according to you.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

oralloy wrote:
This compromise is a horrific assault on the US Constitution and must be opposed.

if what ever is passed is so then go talk to SCOTUS, in theory they will fix it.

That's a last resort. The first line of defense will be to amend the bill on the Senate floor to remove all objectionable provisions.

Failing that, the next line of defense will be a filibuster. If the objectionable version is blocked by a filibuster, the Senate can then vote for an alternate version that is not objectionable.

Failing that, the next line of defense will be to have the House refuse to even bring it to a vote. They can vote for an alternate version that is not objectionable.

Failing that, if the House brings it to a vote, the next line of defense will be to get the House to vote against it (while voting for a non-objectionable version).

If the objectionable version is actually passed into law, we'll need to destroy some political careers.

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

oralloy wrote:
No they aren't. I provided actual examples of Democrats tricking law abiding people into registering their guns, and then confiscating them.

Except you didn't.

New York City tricked people into registering guns, and then confiscated them in 1991.

California tricked people into registering guns, and then confiscated them in 1999.

parados wrote:

In one case the guns were just moved out of the city and not confiscated.

Nonsense. Using that same logic, a total nationwide ban on all guns would not actually be a ban, because people could simply take their guns out of the country.

The fact that some people avoided confiscation by fleeing the jurisdiction does not in any way change the reality that Democrats tricked people into registering guns and then turned around and used that registration to confiscate guns.

parados wrote:

In the other case the gun was legal by simply replacing the original magazine.

That option was only available for some versions of the gun.

People who had the wrong version of the gun faced the same choice of "fleeing the jurisdiction or having their gun confiscated" that people in New York City had.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

From your first source about NY oralloy

Quote:
The department subsequently announced that the majority… 2,615 out of 3,360… of these previously-registered faux "assault firearms" had been taken out of the city.

So somehow those guns that went to the movies (outside the city) were confiscated according to you.

The fact that people were able to avoid confiscation by fleeing the jurisdiction, does not change the fact that the jurisdiction was confiscating guns (after first tricking people into registering them).

0 Replies

@oralloy,

We are not talking about a case of what they "could" do. We are talking about a case where they actually did something. It seems you prefer to fantasize about what people actually did in NY and Ca rather than sticking to the facts.

1 Reply

Guns: how much longer will it take ....

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know