100 replies to this topic

[ninjadude]

Yamato, on 14 February 2013 - 06:27 AM, said:

worrying over AR-15 background checks.

I'm pretty certain background checks would be universal not based on a particular type of arm.

[Yamato]

ninjadude, on 15 February 2013 - 03:49 AM, said:

I'm pretty certain background checks would be universal not based on a particular type of arm.

They've worked so well for handguns, a particular type of arm, since handguns dominate the totality of gun crime in this country.   It's hard to see how asking for more failure is going to achieve success.   It's just applying politically correct window dressings to keep uneducated/ambivalent/fearful voters encouraged and appeased.

[ninjadude]

Yamato, on 15 February 2013 - 07:45 AM, said:

They've worked so well for handguns, a particular type of arm, since handguns dominate the totality of gun crime in this country.   It's hard to see how asking for more failure is going to achieve success.   It's just applying politically correct window dressings to keep uneducated/ambivalent/fearful voters encouraged and appeased.

we don't have universal background checks for handguns so I'm not sure what you're comparing to. Maybe you don't understand. Universal background checks could apply to ALL gun transactions in any form whatsoever in all states. They do not currently.

[Yamato]

ninjadude, on 17 February 2013 - 02:27 AM, said:

we don't have universal background checks for handguns so I'm not sure what you're comparing to. Maybe you don't understand. Universal background checks could apply to ALL gun transactions in any form whatsoever in all states. They do not currently.

To "certain background checks based on a particular type of arm" (to what I replied to).  DC bombing five countries in the Middle East, the biggest proliferator of arms on the planet, starting multiple wars of aggression on a pack of lies, taking the lives of millions of innocent people, and you want to surrender our rights to that gang of murderous hypocritical nuts?   How can you not see how wrongheaded that is?   Again, go to your local government and start there.  If your ideas are so intelligent and effective you can demonstrate how wonderful it is on a local level and then expand that greatness from there.   Where does this blind faith in bureaucrats famous for mass-BS come from?

[ninjadude]

Yamato, on 17 February 2013 - 10:14 AM, said:

DC bombing five countries in the Middle East, the biggest proliferator of arms on the planet, starting multiple wars of aggression on a pack of lies, taking the lives of millions of innocent people, and you want to surrender our rights to that gang of murderous hypocritical nuts?  

no one is "surrendering" any rights and wars in five countries outside of the US really has nothing to do with gun control in the US.

Quote

Again, go to your local government and start there.  If your ideas are so intelligent and effective you can demonstrate how wonderful it is on a local level and then expand that greatness from there.   Where does this blind faith in bureaucrats famous for mass-BS come from?

Government that provides you with benefits on a daily basis without which we would not be talking, you might not be living, and you depend upon for your current existence.  Further, it is not "blind faith", that should be reserved for religion. The governed must participate in government by voting, speaking and being informed. I am relatively happy with my local government. The alternative to government is anarchy - something that you dance around but won't come out of the closet.

[MichaelW]

Yamato, on 17 February 2013 - 10:14 AM, said:

To "certain background checks based on a particular type of arm" (to what I replied to).  DC bombing five countries in the Middle East, the biggest proliferator of arms on the planet, starting multiple wars of aggression on a pack of lies, taking the lives of millions of innocent people, and you want to surrender our rights to that gang of murderous hypocritical nuts?  

It'd certainly be much safer than keeping them in the hands of people such as yourself. After all, when you claim five countries are being bombed as we speak and a gazillion people are dead, it's not difficult to imagine you like that black guy in California.

[Yamato]

MichaelW, on 18 February 2013 - 12:20 AM, said:

It'd certainly be much safer than keeping them in the hands of people such as yourself. After all, when you claim five countries are being bombed as we speak and a gazillion people are dead, it's not difficult to imagine you like that black guy in California.

That black guy?  Oh okay.

[Yamato]

ninjadude, on 17 February 2013 - 09:37 PM, said:

no one is "surrendering" any rights and wars in five countries outside of the US really has nothing to do with gun control in the US.



Government that provides you with benefits on a daily basis without which we would not be talking, you might not be living, and you depend upon for your current existence.  Further, it is not "blind faith", that should be reserved for religion. The governed must participate in government by voting, speaking and being informed. I am relatively happy with my local government. The alternative to government is anarchy - something that you dance around but won't come out of the closet.

I hope nobody is surrendering their rights.  I will remind you though:   Don't surrender the right to bear arms.

Of course the government's guns have to do with gun control.   Except it's We the People controlling our government and not the reverse.  Gubmint "assault rifles" are sent overseas to "help" and what they wind up doing is mass murdering good people and other people only "suspected" of being bad people.   When your government is bombing your neighborhood because some suspects were spotted there, and your daughter or wife get blown into hamburger meat, then you'll see the reflection in the mirror and romble romble demanding immediate change and someone to be held accountable for their murder.  There's no logical or moral excuse for that kind of leadership.  It's putrid inhumane and morally unacceptable.  That's not who we should turn to, to throw a wet blanket over the entire country due to exceedingly rare mass shootings in this country.  Inconveniencing upstanding citizens with another litany of impotent gun laws isn't going to solve anything.  It's just another rung on the ladder to Statism and another big chip off the 2nd Amendment rock.

What benefits do I get that I can't keep my own money and provide for myself elsewhere?    Bombing the Middle East isn't a benefit, it's a moral hazard that jeopardizes my liberty and security both, and my financial future to boot.
If you're happy with your local government, then stay where you are and stop trying to change the rules for everyone else who are happy with where they are.   It's the quintessential liberal who has this amazing amount of faith in the DC messiah to find that miraculous one-size fits all policy to make the entire country color between the same lines in the same coloring book.  We are uniquely diverse in the world because we have a limited government confined by the Constitution that allows 50 different states and their people to engage in infinite degrees of legal and social diversity.  If you're not happy with where you are, you're free to go.  If you are happy, it makes it even more unbelievable how adamant you are to jam your opinions down other people's throats by force of arms.  When the issue you want to do this with is gun control, the irony is so thick you can cut it with a knife.   Different strokes for different folks, ninja.

[ninjadude]

tthat has got to be the largest leap of logic I have read here in some time.

[green_dude777]

ninjadude, on 18 February 2013 - 10:52 PM, said:

tthat has got to be the largest leap of logic I have read here in some time.

Yeah, it wasn't quite as informative and well written as most of your posts.  I always applaud the detail and effort you put into them.

[shrooma]

ninjadude, on 17 February 2013 - 09:37 PM, said:

.

ninjadude, on 17 February 2013 - 09:37 PM, said:

The alternative to government is anarchy

_
the TRUE meaning of the word 'Anarchy', is 'an ideal state where governance and laws are not needed.'
the definition we know of now, namely 'lawlessness and chaos' came about after the government of the time, forced the OED to amend the meaning in 1908, being fearful of the rising popularity of the Anarchist Party. Anarchists believe in self governance, not disorder. that's something the ruling class invented to keep their gravy train running.....

[shrooma]

(an AR15 isn't a scary looking gun, a GAU-8 Avenger is a scary looking gun.....)