We Come In Peace

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: #mademynight

No, you made the point loud and clear yourself when you refuse to answer any questions about it. Or own up to it. You still won't. But every time you offer up that lame ass reason or link an article that uses that logic, I will call you out on it. Because you know it's a bullshiit argument to make. If you didn't know, you would have offered up an answer a few pages ago. No rational person thinks gun legislation will stop criminals from getting guns and/or committing acts of violence. Just like no rational person thinks having laws against murder will magically eliminate homicide nationwide. Pointing to what happened in Boston as evidence that gun laws don't work, as I predicted you would do just a few hours earlier, is specious. At best. You know it's true. Or you would if you actually stepped outside of your personal bubble and looked at it rationally.

What's unhealthy about "their" lifestyle? Does every gay man or woman have the same lifestyle?

And right on cue... The answer isn't as black and white as gun regulations = bad or gun regulations = good. There are a number of options that can be considered to address the matter of gun violence that don't infringe on anyone's right to bear arms. But to point to criminals/terrorists who use unregistered guns in their crimes as evidence that gun legislation doesn't work is a specious argument at best, down right lying at worst. And make no mistake, the other side does it too. They just have a different spin on it.

Why would anyone, anywhere think criminals are going to subject themselves to background checks? No clear thinking person believes that. But it sure does make a nice talking point.

Hey! I resemble that remark! :lol: :lol: You must be a friend of OC.

Of course he missed it. He's been avoiding this question for 2 pages then goes and posts the same damn thing in a different wrapper. Shameless.

And the point being what?

Because he's stating it as a different question and then comparing it to a nonexistent number. That is ignorant at best, misleading/lying at worst. The issue isn't even addressed in the article or their examination of the numbers. And it's a pretty big number to exclude from the conversation. More to the point, not mentioning it reinforces the belief that background checks over the internet are ALREADY the law. If they talk about it, the (I'm guessing) large amount of the 84% of republicans that are in favor of background checks already, will realize that the internet is not currently covered under the law. Can't have that happen... can't let people know what's really going on, right? Because you're about honesty on this topic. You're not a schill for the gun manufactures, you want to play above the board, right? Or is it that you're just making shiit up on this subject to reinforce your preconceived ideas? Based on what we've seen from your last two offerings; the poorly thought out meme that you are still refusing to own up to and this current garbage, I think we all know the answer. You would have been better off just posting this.

From your excerpt: You bolded those words to accentuate the conclusion of the article and your reason for posting it in this thread. Even a glance at the bullshiit quoted in those excerpts you chose will tell anyone who knows anything about this subject that the rest is sheer biased crap. You're relying upon the accuracy of Charlie Martin (well, his facebook post) and Tom Maguire's examination of the polls -- so let's look at them, shall we? Sounds good. Couple obvious problems though... The bill in question would have "expanded background checks to cover all firearm sales at gunshows and over the internet, but would have exempted sales between friends and acquaintances outside of commercial venues." http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/294571-senate-rejects-tougher-background-checks-on-gun-purchases So either the two people you quoted haven't read the bill or are lying. The internet question isn't referenced in the numbers they examine, it's conveniently absent because it shoots their whole conclusion to pieces.The majority of Americans in support of background checks already think that's a law! But it's not. This bill would have changed that. So right away the two bolded sections are proven to be bullshiit manipulation of the numbers. But the second bolded part is the worst offender. Tom Maguire, the one with a whole 13 followers who doesn't know how to spell or bother to proof read his own entries, that's the guy who brings up the family member portion of the bill but fails to realize it was exempted. So either he hasn't read the bill, he doesn't know what he's talking about, or he's lying/shilling for the pro-gun movement -- it's one of those things. Worse, if you look at the language that was settled upon in the bill that "would have exempted sales between friends and acquaintances outside of commercial venues" and think about what that actually means for a moment. It means that ANYONE can get around ANY background check just by claiming to be friends. And if THAT watered down, bull **** piece of legislation can't get through, it should outrage the anti-gun crowd as it has. So two douchebags with no credentials torturing numbers on their Facebook pages and blogs are not exactly credible voices in this debate. And someone who uses them to prop up their own arguments should be ridiculed until the end of time. So see, I can brush off bullshiit really quickly when you make it that easy. You link a story that relies on bullshiit numbers and take its conclusion as gospel. I guess, in other words:

Of course the brilliant statistical analysis quoted in your excerpt are misleading and wrong. But I guess that's what you get when you post claims from a guy on Facebook and another guy with 13 followers on some blog. Way not to let facts get in the way of your argument though, bro.

I've grown to like B-Man's contributions quite a bit, even though you're right about his MO. There are plenty of people on here who I disagree with on many things, including B-Man, but still enjoy throwing things back and forth with them because they bring good points to the table. Like Nanker's post above and your own. I'm a dick. I know I'm a dick. But I'm always interested in having good discussions about the topics of the day. 99% of the time B-Man contributes to that, even if it is just the conservative camp's opinion on the matter. This is just one of those times where he's being coy. Don't know why. He has so many other points to offer on this issue, why he's clinging to this one is beyond me.

:lol:

This is a much better argument than the one B-Man is proposing. I'm fine with rational, well thought out articulations of the issue at hand. What's not cool is posting bullshiit talking points that are beyond stupid to anyone with a fully functioning frontal lobe. But maybe that's asking for too much in regards to B-Man if he won't even own up to it. As for the questions in your post, which don't have to do with the specific topic I was discussing but are certainly worth exploring further... The second amendment is the only amendment with the words "well regulated" in it. This is not on accident. I would argue, from a personal perspective, that the Supremes have let the country down when it comes to their interpretation of the second amendment. I would also argue there are ways to legislate effective measures that would help curb the over 80 deaths a DAY caused by gun violence without infringing on any individual right to bear arms. Not all of these legislative measures would have to do with guns or the second amendment of course. I'm not naive enough to believe that guns are the sole cause of the violence (or even a primary cause), but believing that there's nothing we can do about it simply because of the 2nd amendment is a massive mind!@#$ perpetrated by, amongst others, the NRA and pro-gun segment of the debate. In reality, the NRA doesn't give two squirts about the constitution. They've made that abundantly clear with their flip flopping on issues and their complete de-balling of the ATF. What the NRA cares about is protecting their income stream and those of their primary benefactors, the gun manufacturers. There is a way to regulate gun ownership without infringing on the private citizen's right to bear arms or amending or eliminating the 2nd amendment. And, for the record I'm a (former/soon to be again) gun owner. EDIT: As for the statement in your post asking why I would "want to make criminals out of millions of Americans", that's not at all what I'm proposing. Nor am I proposing repealing the 2nd Amendment or banning firearms. What I'm proposing is a common sense middle ground between the two camps that is entirely reasonable and achievable without anyone surrendering any innate rights whatsoever.

And yet you refuse to answer or clarify as to why. Do you deny that's what the meme you posted means? Or are you simply not taking accountability for the viewpoint expressed in said meme? Or, did you post it as a joke knowing full well that the point offered in that meme is learning disabled? Or is it that you are you being an intellectual coward and running from something you posted when called out on it? It's gotta be one of those...

Did you ever actually listen to a W speech? He wasn't one to choose his words carefully.

I'm not trying to shift you into saying anything. I'm trying to get B-Man to answer some questions, but with you I'm just conversing. B-Man proposed the idea that we can't have gun laws because criminals won't follow them. This isn't an original thought, it's a common talking point thrown out by the right and it's a ridiculous assertion to make in the debate on guns in America. And it's talking point that will continue to be thrown around in the blogs, articles, NRA proclamations and all the other nonsense that will be coming in as this debate continues throughout the coming months and years. It's a ridiculous assertion that we cannot legislate because criminals won't follow laws. It's shallow, unsophisticated, incorrect, and disingenuous. I'm pin pointing it because I'd like to think that the serious minded folks on this board, even the ones I often disagree with, are honest enough to see through this bullshiit talking point. If B-Man doesn't want to take ownership for this position, I won't hold him to it. But at least have the balls to admit that it's a bullshiit talking point. Because that's all it is. A talking point propagated by the pro-gun crowd (you can see it in the video that Chef posted a while back in this thread) that is shallow, stupid, and fantastical. It shows a complete detachment from reality. I'll be willing to let the subject drop if we can come to some sort of detente on this one talking point. If we can agree to keep this kind of nonsense out of the debate in future posts and threads and articles that will undoubtedly be linked by B-Man and others, it will help service both sides of this issue in the long run. As I asked B-Man originally, when the pro-gun crowd has so many other valid points to make within this debate, why do they feel the need to continue to promote this particular talking point? It does nothing but make the people who repeat it look like asshats.

Thank you for your response. So what's the solution? Using your example above and the position that B-Man is advocating, it's clear that having drunk driving laws on the books isn't going to stop the guy who's 3x the legal limit, right? A guy like that is always going to be a guy like that with or without the laws on the books, no? So why do we bother if the only people being harassed by said laws are the citizens who choose to live their lives within the confines of the law? Is it just to appease MADD?

No checkpoint can ever hold you!

Interesting, yet we still have thousands of drunk driving accidents every year. So the laws didn't take the drunks off the road, did it? So you could argue all Drunk Driving laws did was to criminalize peaceful folk who were not otherwise engaging in criminal behavior. (And I'm not trying to be purposefully difficult, I'm trying to hone in on a specific point). And I'd still like to hear B-Man's answer to my question(s). If he's not too busy being cranky.

The specific argument/meme in question has nothing to do with the second amendment or the constitution. Again, the logic proposed by B-Man was: "You honestly expect criminals to obey gun laws? That's a special kind of stupid". You're drifting from the point. I concede there are no rights to kill, steal, or rape. Yet, why do we bother making laws prohibiting them if killers are just going to kill, rapists are going to rape and thieves are going to steal? Applying B-Man's logic, or at the very least the logic he's advocating, we cannot legislate because criminals won't follow the laws anyway. Seems silly, don't it? And yet the second amendment is the only amendment with the word "regulated" written into it. Think about that some. Think about that logic right there for a moment. No one is talking about repealing the second amendment and no one is talking about taking away all the guns. That's the extrapolation you're drawing from a fantasy that's been sold to you by the pro-gun advocates. Do you honestly have a problem with a background check before purchasing a firearm that every "responsible" gun owner would pass with flying colors? Do you think legislation is written with criminals in mind? By your logic here we shouldn't have drunk driving laws, I mean, we have them now and drunks are still driving. So why bother? What good do they do? What's the purpose of having Drunk Driving laws on the books? If you didn't have to sound out all the words when you're reading, there wouldn't be any sound at all in my posts.

That's why you still have the gift of sight. That version was almost as bad Battle LA.

No, bigotry is bigotry. There are varying degrees of assholishness though. The fact that you think I haven't made a point yet, is alarming. The fact you think I'm a liberal is hilarious.

See? This sense of humor gives me hope you'll one day prove me wrong.

That's not it. If he were just saying faggot and queer because he's a dick -- well, yeah he is a dick. But if that's all it was, he wouldn't revel in it the way he does. Proudly so even. That's not being just a dick. That's being a dick and a bigot. And there's nothing cool about being a bigot. There's plenty of cool about being a dick.