New gun control thread!

[B-Man]

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.

 

Quit being a dick..................................lol.......just agreeing with you WCIP.

 

But actually this is exactly what I am talking about with many of my posts.

 

You really couldn't have looked at it very well and brushed it off as "a guy on Facebook and another guy with 13 followers on some blog."

 

There is no time even to go through all the bona fides of these writers (that you apparently do not recognize)

 

The article was written by Clarice Feldman, a litigation lawyer in DC who writes for multiple sites.

 

also there were links and clips from articles written by John Hinderaker, Timothy Stanley, James Tarento, Kevin Williamson, and Pete Wehner. These people write for some of the largest newspapers in the world.

 

Their opinions are certainly as relevant as many of the sources that you read,

 

and when you incorrectly identify, or interpret many of these articles you demonstrate the shallowness of many of your responses.

 

Pick up your game WCIP, you can do it I'm sure.

 

 

 

.

[We Come In Peace]

Quit being a dick..................................lol.......just agreeing with you WCIP.

 

But actually this is exactly what I am talking about with many of my posts.

 

You really couldn't have looked at it very well and brushed it off as "a guy on Facebook and another guy with 13 followers on some blog."

 

There is no time even to go through all the bona fides of these writers (that you apparently do not recognize)

 

The article was written by Clarice Feldman, a litigation lawyer in DC who writes for multiple sites.

 

also there were links and clips from articles written by John Hinderaker, Timothy Stanley, James Tarento, Kevin Williamson, and Pete Wehner. These people write for some of the largest newspapers in the world.

 

Their opinions are certainly as relevant as many of the sources that you read,

 

and when you incorrectly identify, or interpret many of these articles you demonstrate the shallowness of many of your responses.

 

Pick up your game WCIP, you can do it I'm sure.

 

 

 

.

 

From your excerpt:

 

As to the repeated claim that 90% of Americans wanted this legislation and the wicked NRA was strong enough to block it, and did so by lies, the first answer is to admire the strength of the president's opponents and marvel at his own incredible impotence. On the other hand, it's more likely that claim is bunk. Charlie Martin and Tom Maguire dismantle that nonsensical excuse:

Charlie on Facebook:

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?

 

 

Odd how something is bipartisan if 59 Democrats and 1 Republican votes for it in the face of mass public opposition in many polls (*cough*

health care

*cough*), but it's Republican when 5 Democrats vote against it.

It's also funny how a slightly different question ("change gun control laws"/"leave them as they are") gets a substantial majority in favor of keeping them as they are:

http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm

 

Tom Maguire also probed the 90% claim and found it without substance:

 

So when our peerless leader says that "90 percent of the American people support universal background checks"

he really means that roughly 90% support the current law and a bare majority favor extending that law to family transfers. I wonder if he knows he is wrong about this?

 

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:

 

[B-Man]

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?

 

[/indent]

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/h...n-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.

 

 

What a hoot................I am so tempted to post a picture of a mirror again, as you are doing exactly what you are "objecting" to.

 

It's also funny how a slightly different question ("change gun control laws"/"leave them as they are") gets a substantial majority in favor of keeping them as they are

 

The author states that the question is different,

 

somehow you torture this into ignorance or lying on the author's part and you call it conveniently absent................hmmm, I call it bullsh*t on your part.

 

but at least you read it.....................progress.

 

 

.

[We Come In Peace]

The author states that the question is different,

 

somehow you torture this into ignorance or lying on the author's part

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.

 

and you call it conveniently absent................hmmm, I call it bullsh*t on your part.

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.

 

Edited April 22, 2013 by We Come In Peace

[B-Man]

Posted image ? ................lol

 

 

Mass. police: Bomb suspects didn't have gun permit

 

CAMBRIDGE, Mass. (AP) — A Massachusetts police official say the brothers suspected of bombing the Boston Marathon before having shootouts with authorities didn't have gun permits.

Cambridge Police Commissioner Robert Haas tells The Associated Press in an interview Sunday that neither Tamerlan Tsarnaev (tsahr-NEYE'-ehv) nor his brother Dzhokhar had permission to carry firearms.

He says it's unclear whether either ever applied and the applications aren't considered public records.

But he says the 19-year-old Dzhokhar (joh-KHAR') would have been denied a permit because of his age. Only people 21 or older are allowed gun licenses in Massachusetts.

 

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/mass-police-bomb-suspects-didnt-have-gun-permit

 

 

 

The Boston Marathon bombers had… illegal guns.

 

Which is impossible, right?

A Massachusetts police official say the brothers suspected of bombing the Boston Marathon before having shootouts with authorities didn’t have gun permits.

Cambridge Police Commissioner Robert Haas tells The Associated Press in an interview Sunday that neither Tamerlan Tsarnaev (tsahr-NEYE’-ehv) nor his brother Dzhokhar had permission to carry firearms.

 

http://www.redstate.com/2013/04/21/gun-control-boston-marathon-illegal-guns/

…I mean, Massachusetts has strict gun control laws. You’re not allowed to have a firearm without permission! How could this have happened?

[We Come In Peace]

 

http://bigstory.ap.o...have-gun-permit

 

http://www.redstate....n-illegal-guns/

…I mean, Massachusetts has strict gun control laws. You’re not allowed to have a firearm without permission! How could this have happened?

 

And the point being what?

[DC Tom]

And the point being what?

 

That gun laws don't prevent illegal gun possession. Hence the reason it's called illegal gun possession.

 

Of course, you could also argue the point is that all guns should be banned and made illegal, which would make enforcement of gun laws easier (you have a gun, it's illegal. No dicking around with licenses and permits.) I don't think that was his point...but it's equally valid. I think he missed that.

[We Come In Peace]

That gun laws don't prevent illegal gun possession. Hence the reason it's called illegal gun possession.

 

Of course, you could also argue the point is that all guns should be banned and made illegal, which would make enforcement of gun laws easier (you have a gun, it's illegal. No dicking around with licenses and permits.) I don't think that was his point...but it's equally valid. I think he missed that.

 

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.

[birdog1960]

take away drudge and obscure nut job far right blogger references and 75+% of ppp posts suddenly become moderate or progressive.

[BringBackFergy]

Posted image ? ................lol

 

 

 

 

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/mass-police-bomb-suspects-didnt-have-gun-permit

 

 

 

 

http://www.redstate.com/2013/04/21/gun-control-boston-marathon-illegal-guns/

…I mean, Massachusetts has strict gun control laws. You’re not allowed to have a firearm without permission! How could this have happened?

I was hoping this would come out but it was a foregone conclusion. Maybe more background checks would have stopped this from happening???????????????

[We Come In Peace]

I was hoping this would come out but it was a foregone conclusion. Maybe more background checks would have stopped this from happening???????????????

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.

[3rdnlng]

Posted image ? ................lol

 

 

 

 

http://bigstory.ap.o...have-gun-permit

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.redstate....n-illegal-guns/

…I mean, Massachusetts has strict gun control laws. You’re not allowed to have a firearm without permission! How could this have happened?

 

It's obvious that we need stricter gun control laws to prevent these nutjobs from getting guns.

[BringBackFergy]

 

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.

So what IS the answer?? Inventory and limit gun production? Ban All guns except for law enforcement?

[We Come In Peace]

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.

And right on cue...

http://bigstory.ap.o...have-gun-permit

 

http://www.redstate....n-illegal-guns/

…I mean, Massachusetts has strict gun control laws. You’re not allowed to have a firearm without permission! How could this have happened?

I was hoping this would come out but it was a foregone conclusion. Maybe more background checks would have stopped this from happening???????????????

It's obvious that we need stricter gun control laws to prevent these nutjobs from getting guns.

 

 

So what IS the answer?? Inventory and limit gun production? Ban All guns except for law enforcement?

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.

Edited April 22, 2013 by We Come In Peace

[BringBackFergy]

 

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.

If I had one of those snazzy meme things like you post every other time mine would say "Answer the friggin question". What is the alternative? Banning guns? Longer waiting periods? Rubber bullets?

 

Wait - I figured it out...education and counseling??

Edited April 22, 2013 by BringBackFergy

[Jim in Anchorage]

 

If I had one of those snazzy meme things like you post every other time mine would say "Answer the friggin question". What is the alternative? Banning guns? Longer waiting periods? Rubber bullets?

You're asking WCIP for facts? Good luck.

[B-Man]

You're asking WCIP for facts? Good luck.

 

LOL....................................I'm still trying to figure out how my post (6 hours later) and after several other posts between us,

 

is "evidence" of being "right on cue"

 

One might think that he was exaggerating, to try and make a point....................lol

 

.

[Jim in Anchorage]

 

 

LOL....................................I'm still trying to figure out how my post (6 hours later) and after several other posts between us,

 

is "evidence" of being "right on cue"

 

One might think that he was exaggerating, to try and make a point....................lol

 

.

You could review all his posts here and not find one of substance, or worth a answer. All the classic emotional "we must save the children" diversion from facts ploy's. " Criminals don't obey gun laws." Answer- "So does that mean murder should be legal?" How can you argue with that?

[We Come In Peace]

LOL....................................I'm still trying to figure out how my post (6 hours later) and after several other posts between us,

 

is "evidence" of being "right on cue"

 

One might think that he was exaggerating, to try and make a point....................lol

 

.

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.

Edited April 22, 2013 by We Come In Peace

[Alaska Darin]

You know it's true. Or you would if you actually stepped outside of your personal bubble and looked at it rationally.

At the end of the day, until governments at all levels re-prioritize we don't need any more laws passed.

 

You can continue this charade for the next month but this law wouldn't have changed a damn thing and blaming the NRA (the GOA is actually a far more effective organization) for gun violence is blindingly stupid.