gun owners

[Adam Lambert]

tbh why is it that gun owners

1 - constantly talk about their guns
2 - constantly post pictures of themselves with their guns on facebook
3 - drive around with ak47 dont tread on me stickers on their pickups
4 - revolve their entire identity around owning guns

but...
shit their panties about any talk of a gun registry?

[CosmicCowboy]

Most gun owners aren't like that.

You, on the other hand, shit your panties all the time.

[clambake]

"this is my gun. there are many like her, but this one is mine"

[Adam Lambert]

Most gun owners aren't like that.



i guarantee you every single gun owner who shits his panties over registries is this type of gun owner

[Trill Clinton]

"this is my gun. there are many like her, but this one is mine"

Lol

[Axl Rose]

Shall not be infringed

[TheSanityAnnex]

OP browses male profiles on Facebook

[DMC]

tbh why is it that gun owners

1 - constantly talk about their guns
2 - constantly post pictures of themselves with their guns on facebook
3 - drive around with ak47 dont tread on me stickers on their pickups
4 - revolve their entire identity around owning guns

but...
shit their panties about any talk of a gun registry?

Those aren't contradictory positions. Why do posters disguise themselves to talk shit then call out a large group of people who tell you their stance right on their personal vehicle?

[DMC]

"this is my gun. there are many like her, but this one is mine"

rifle..

[IceColdBrewski]

Funny, because 9 times out of 10 when I see people talking about guns online, it's coming from triggered snowflakes like the op crying about them.

[Adam Lambert]

come and take it
yeehaw

vs

we cant have a list or they might come and take it

[Adam Lambert]

Funny, because 9 times out of 10 when I see people talking about guns online, it's coming from triggered snowflakes like the op crying about them.

if you say triggered snowflake in the mirror three times a magical transgender negro will appear and actually believe you when you say its other people who are triggered and not you

this also works with the word cuck

[DMC]

come and take it
yeehaw

vs

we cant have a list or they might come and take it

That message is for you. Did you go take it? If not, you're a pussy. They act that way because they can, because they are armed. Go force your will upon them.

[CosmicCowboy]

come and take it
yeehaw

vs

we cant have a list or they might come and take it

What good is a list?

[Adam Lambert]

That message is for you. Did you go take it? If not, you're a pussy. They act that way because they can, because they are armed. Go force your will upon them.

actually its not for me

that message is for the people in the fictional universe where any gun regulation means taking peoples guns away

you apparently are this stupid too. bet youre itching to tell us all about your guns

[IceColdBrewski]

if you say triggered snowflake in the mirror three times a magical transgender negro will appear and actually believe you when you say its other people who are triggered and not you

this also works with the word cuck


Triggered^^^:lol

[CosmicCowboy]

Why do you want a list of legal guns?

What purpose does it serve?

[Adam Lambert]

What good is a list?

what bad is it?

tbh - im not really here to argue the merits of a list
youre probably better off having that conversation with someone who owns guns and isnt afraid of the gubmint

[CosmicCowboy]

what bad is it?

tbh - im not really here to argue the merits of a list
youre probably better off having that conversation with someone who owns guns and isnt afraid of the gubmint

You are the one advocating a list, faggot.

Back your shit up.

[Adam Lambert]

Triggered^^^:lol

i love how easy it is to tell what kind of 5 year old someone was based on their posting style. you were the "i know you are but what am i" kid, werent you

one more time for the magic negro, you special guy

[Adam Lambert]

You are the one advocating a list, faggot.

Back your shit up.

whoa there big guy take it easy with the rage, you wouldnt want the gubmint logging this

i didnt advocate a list. i made fun of people for being afraid of a list.

huge difference

[CosmicCowboy]

whoa there big guy take it easy with the rage, you wouldnt want the gubmint logging this

i didnt advocate a list. i made fun of people for being afraid of a list.

huge difference

Oh, so you don't believe in lists either?

what was your point of posting that shit? Just to prove you are a faggot looking for an internet fight about something he really doesn't have an opinion on?

[IceColdBrewski]

i love how easy it is to tell what kind of 5 year old someone was based on their posting style. you were the "i know you are but what am i" kid, werent you

one more time for the magic negro, you special guy


Where are all these people bragging about guns? 90% of gun talk online is from crybaby liberals like you whining about them. You know it, and I know it.

This is a seriously played out shtick anyway. You wanted an excuse to poke fun at gun owners, so you made up some BS about all these people you see bragging about guns so you can come in here and say "yee haw" and some other played out shit because you think it somehow makes you sound funny and clever. It might've been mildly entertaining if it wasn't so unoriginal. Try harder.

[Adam Lambert]

Oh, so you don't believe in lists either?

what was your point of posting that shit? Just to prove you are a faggot looking for an internet fight about something he really doesn't have an opinion on?

i was not aware that the bylaws of the spurstalk political forum prohibit the posting of an observation as a thread starter, but holy shit look at the hive of butthurt gunfuckers i stirred up

i sowwy

[Adam Lambert]

Where are all these people bragging about guns? 90% of gun talk online is from crybaby liberals like you whining about them. You know it, and I know it.

This is a seriously played out shtick anyway. You wanted an excuse to poke fun at gun owners, so you made up some BS about all these people you see bragging about guns so you can come in here and say "yee haw" and some other played out shit because you think it somehow makes you sound funny and clever. It might've been mildly entertaining if it wasn't so unoriginal. Try harder.

lol see? this faggot says im the triggered one

btw, im honored to be the first poster in this forum to ever stereotype people with certain beliefs for the purpose of making fun of them

this could be a turning point in internet discussion forums as we know them

[IceColdBrewski]

Note to self: OP gets twelve different kinds of butthurt when you point out that he's been triggered.

OP also too dense to realize that most of the people posting pics online of themselves with guns are doing it just to piss off people like him. It's comforting to know that if I ever do get the odd compulsion to post a pic online of myself holding a gun, I'll at least do it with the satisfaction of knowing that it will surely get under the skin of some special snowflake like him, somewhere. :lol

[Axl Rose]

Only a closet homosexual creates a homosexual alt

[Clipper Nation]

:lol OP
:lol SJW faggot

[DMC]

actually its not for me

that message is for the people in the fictional universe where any gun regulation means taking peoples guns away

you apparently are this stupid too. bet youre itching to tell us all about your guns

No, it's for you. Bend over, I'll show you my gun.

[rasuo214]

So you're fine with a Muslim registry?

[CosmicCowboy]

So you're fine with a Muslim registry?

Now that's a giant transformer quality mega strawman. Get the fuck outa here.

[rasuo214]

Now that's a giant transformer quality mega strawman. Get the fuck outa here.

OP stated a registry is just a list, and people shouldn't fear a list. So I just wanted clarity on his/her stance on a Muslim registry.

[CosmicCowboy]

OP stated a registry is just a list, and people shouldn't fear a list. So I just wanted clarity on his/her stance on a Muslim registry.

OK...sorry didn't get the sarcasm. OP eventually shit backwards when pressed and said he wasn't actually advocating a list. He just got stood up tonight and wasn't getting his shit packed on schedule and decided to come in here and get his ass packed digitally.

[DMC]

So you're fine with a Muslim registry?

Yes, it's called the obituaries.

[Axl Rose]

Op DMC just said u got about 5 seconds to show him that hole because this gorilla dick daddys hungry

[Adam Lambert]

Note to self: OP gets twelve different kinds of butthurt when you point out that he's been triggered.

OP also too dense to realize that most of the people posting pics online of themselves with guns are doing it just to piss off people like him. It's comforting to know that if I ever do get the odd compulsion to post a pic online of myself holding a gun, I'll at least do it with the satisfaction of knowing that it will surely get under the skin of some special snowflake like him, somewhere. :lol

note to you: when you keep accusing someone of being triggered its probably because you yourself are triggered.

also i completely disagree with you on gun owners posting pictures. i think its perfectly acceptable for them to be proud of their guns and not sure why you would stereotype them as the kinds of pathetic faggots who would do something just to annoy internet strangers.

how stupid would that be? im gonna take a selfie with my gun because lol libtards on the internet.

only an enormous faggot with no hope of ever getting close to an actual pussy would do something like that. and here you are accusing every gun owner of being that kind of faggot. better cover your butthole sonnnnn

[Adam Lambert]

:lol OP
:lol SJW faggot

awwww how cute the peanut gallery chimed in

get outta this thread faggot, youre embarrassing the others. no one wants you speaking for them

[Wild Cobra]

i guarantee you every single gun owner who shits his panties over registries is this type of gun owner

People are skeptical about gun registry for valid reasons.

Should the public records be released to everyone, gun owners are now increased targets for theft when they are away from home.

What about the right of the people to be secure in their person, papers, and effects?

Why does the left love to trample on the constitution?

[Adam Lambert]

OP stated a registry is just a list, and people shouldn't fear a list. So I just wanted clarity on his/her stance on a Muslim registry.

doesnt really bother me. id question its accuracy since muslimness isnt really quantifiable. thats why itll never happen.

did that fuck up your argument? sowwy

[Adam Lambert]

OK...sorry didn't get the sarcasm. OP eventually shit backwards when pressed and said he wasn't actually advocating a list. He just got stood up tonight and wasn't getting his shit packed on schedule and decided to come in here and get his ass packed digitally.

look at this faggot describing his fantasies in graphic detail.
:lol :lol :lol :lol :lol

damn bro, you repressed

[Adam Lambert]

No, it's for you. Bend over, I'll show you my gun.

seen it.

https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/small-pistol-1518952.jpg

[Wild Cobra]

tbh why is it that gun owners

1 - constantly talk about their guns
2 - constantly post pictures of themselves with their guns on facebook
3 - drive around with ak47 dont tread on me stickers on their pickups
4 - revolve their entire identity around owning guns

but...
shit their panties about any talk of a gun registry?

Why do people talk about anything they like? Why do people post pictures of anything?

Do you never talk about the things you like, or never take pictures to share?

Why are you so ignorant as to claim a person's identity revolves around a single item?

Are you using Psychological Projection? Are you really that pathetic, that you think others are as pathetic?

[Adam Lambert]

Why do people talk about anything they like? Why do people post pictures of anything?

Do you never talk about the things you like, or never take pictures to share?

Why are you so ignorant as to claim a person's identity revolves around a single item?

Are you using Psychological Projection? Are you really that pathetic, that you think others are as pathetic?

its perfectly okay to do all of those things i listed. what makes no sense is when those same people shit their panties over the gubmint knowing they own guns.

does that make sense to you or do i need to spend a few hours with rosetta stone's retard series to better speak on your level

[DMC]

its perfectly okay to do all of those things i listed. what makes no sense is when those same people shit their panties over the gubmint knowing they own guns.

does that make sense to you or do i need to spend a few hours with rosetta stone's retard series to better speak on your level

So do you defend freedom of speech?

Do you then think it should be OK for the gubmint to know and record everything you say?

Like speech, the precursor to infringement is tracking. Once tracking is established, specificity can ensue and from there oppression.

[Adam Lambert]

Only a closet homosexual creates a homosexual alt

bro everybody knows axl smokes pole.

the elton john obsession. the broadway musical nature of the use your illusion period. the faux machism. the years of creative hiatus.

that dude is a bigger fag than boy george and everyone knows it. so who has the closet homo alt again?

[Adam Lambert]

So do you defend freedom of speech?

Do you then think it should be OK for the gubmint to know and record everything you say?

Like speech, the precursor to infringement is tracking. Once tracking is established, specificity can ensue and from there oppression.

i wouldnt bitch and moan about the feds knowing everything i say if i posted everything i say to a public social media site

[Wild Cobra]

its perfectly okay to do all of those things i listed. what makes no sense is when those same people shit their panties over the gubmint knowing they own guns.

does that make sense to you or do i need to spend a few hours with rosetta stone's retard series to better speak on your level

I see...

You are a stupid troll.

[DMC]

i wouldnt bitch and moan about the feds knowing everything i say if i posted everything i say to a public social media site

Ok, if I post the SN of my gun on a social media site I'm OK with someone writing it down. There's a difference in giving your information away and having it forcibly taken from you. If you don't know that difference you're likely not old enough to have that knowledge but if you live long enough you will.

Would you vote to repeal the Firearm Owners Protection Act that made a national gun registry unlawful? Because I'm all for repealing it.

[Adam Lambert]

I see...

You are a stupid troll.

*gives up, can't hang

[Adam Lambert]

Ok, if I post the SN of my gun on a social media site I'm OK with someone writing it down. There's a difference in giving your information away and having it forcibly taken from you. If you don't know that difference you're likely not old enough to have that knowledge but if you live long enough you will.

Would you vote to repeal the Firearm Owners Protection Act that made a national gun registry unlawful? Because I'm all for repealing it.

its not forcibly taken. you dont have to register as a gun owner if you choose not to own a gun

id have to read up more on the fopa. like i said im mocking hypocrisy not arguing for a registry

[DMC]

its not forcibly taken. you dont have to register as a gun owner if you choose not to own a gun

id have to read up more on the fopa. like i said im mocking hypocrisy not arguing for a registry

It's not hypocrisy. It's stupid to show your guns with SN in clear view, but it's not the same as having a national gun registry. Compare it to showing a picture of your kid and being against forced photos of your kid being sent to the federal government. Choice is always different than force. There's no hypocrisy in that. You can offer up your DNA sequence online and yet be against a national DNA registry.

[rasuo214]

doesnt really bother me. id question its accuracy since muslimness isnt really quantifiable. thats why itll never happen.

did that fuck up your argument? sowwy

Nope, especially since you felt the need to add the last line.

[Adam Lambert]

It's not hypocrisy. It's stupid to show your guns with SN in clear view, but it's not the same as having a national gun registry. Compare it to showing a picture of your kid and being against forced photos of your kid being sent to the federal government. Choice is always different than force. There's no hypocrisy in that. You can offer up your DNA sequence online and yet be against a national DNA registry.

you are crediting these people with a nuanced opinion on the topic that they are intellectually incapable of having

these are very dumb people who build an identity around guns because they have nothing else to talk about. they dont oppose a registry because of their belief in choice of disclosure, they oppose it because the other dumbfucks on ar15.com and the people they follow on facebook and twitter oppose it because the nra opposes it because theyre trying to sell more guns.

[DMC]

you are crediting these people with a nuanced opinion on the topic that they are intellectually incapable of having

You're painting all of them with a broad brush of ignorance. If the opinion is valid, then their stance isn't hypocrisy. You don't know them all personally so you cannot say what they know and don't know.


these are very dumb people who build an identity around guns because they have nothing else to talk about. they dont oppose a registry because of their belief in choice of disclosure, they oppose it because the other dumbfucks on ar15.com oppose it because the nra opposes it because theyre trying to sell more guns.
That's a pretty closed minded approach. I understand it makes dealing with the unknown easier for lazy people but it always ends up being wrong.

It's opposed for reasons you don't understand because, as you admitted, you know nothing about the FOPA. Educate yourself first. Pass judgement second.

A person doesn't need to know the history of the BoR to believe in the freedom of the press, or due process. Some of these things are intuitive.

[Adam Lambert]

You're painting all of them with a broad brush of ignorance. If the opinion is valid, then their stance isn't hypocrisy. You don't know them all personally so you cannot say what they know and don't know.

That's a pretty closed minded approach. I understand it makes dealing with the unknown easier for lazy people but it always ends up being wrong.

lol this holier than thou bullshit

ill be sure to save this post and quote it every time you paint the libtards with a broad brush. i bet you seriously think youre better than that

[Rust Cohle]

lol see? this faggot says im the triggered one

btw, im honored to be the first poster in this forum to ever stereotype people with certain beliefs for the purpose of making fun of them

this could be a turning point in internet discussion forums as we know them
:lmao :lmao :lmao:lmao

[DMC]

lol this holier than thou bullshit

ill be sure to save this post and quote it every time you paint the libtards with a broad brush. i bet you seriously think youre better than that

I haven't called the libs hypocrites for believing what they believe. You're just railing against something you've admitted you haven't even tried to understand. You're basically what you're accusing them of being, ignorant of your cause, and ironically that makes you a hypocrite, or hypercrite, whichever since you seem to be tilting a bit.

[HI-FI]

Yes, it's called the obituaries.
:lol

[Xevious]

tbh why is it that gun owners

1 - constantly talk about their guns
2 - constantly post pictures of themselves with their guns on facebook
3 - drive around with ak47 dont tread on me stickers on their pickups
4 - revolve their entire identity around owning guns

but...
shit their panties about any talk of a gun registry?

1 - I don't
2 - I don't
3 - I don't
4 - I don't

And I suspect most gun owners are like me. The ones you're referring to are the redneck minority.

[pgardn]

So do you defend freedom of speech?

Do you then think it should be OK for the gubmint to know and record everything you say?

Like speech, the precursor to infringement is tracking. Once tracking is established, specificity can ensue and from there oppression.

Omg...

Do you own a vehicle that is registered? Do you own a home? A boat with a motor?
This is absolutely the worst practical argument ever.

[pgardn]

tbh why is it that gun owners

1 - constantly talk about their guns
2 - constantly post pictures of themselves with their guns on facebook
3 - drive around with ak47 dont tread on me stickers on their pickups
4 - revolve their entire identity around owning guns

but...
shit their panties about any talk of a gun registry?

People do this with cars as well. But they don't shit when registered. And not all gun owners mind a registry and strict classes for any sort of ownership.

[CosmicCowboy]

People do this with cars as well. But they don't shit when registered. And not all gun owners mind a registry and strict classes for any sort of ownership.

I will ask you the question since you seem to support it.

What does the registration of legal guns and gun owners accomplish?

What could it be used for?

[TheSanityAnnex]

Omg...

Do you own a vehicle that is registered? Do you own a home? A boat with a motor?
This is absolutely the worst practical argument ever.
Omg...

Bill of Rights

[DMC]

Omg...

Do you own a vehicle that is registered? Do you own a home? A boat with a motor?
This is absolutely the worst practical argument ever.

Because the Bill of Rights addresses all of those things you just mentioned, no? Exactly, don't be an idiot.

[Bender]

I've owned guns most of my adult life:

1. I don't talk about them much
2. I'm not on Fb or any other social crap
3. I don't have any stickers on any of my vehicles, and I don't own a pickup
4. ... not me...

[spurraider21]

Like speech, the precursor to infringement is tracking. Once tracking is established, specificity can ensue and from there oppression.sounds like a solid argument against having a muslim registry

[spurraider21]

i dont think the bill of rights protects against the government tracking who owns what guns

the bill of rights has freedom of press, but you still need press credentials.

[CosmicCowboy]

Someone that supports it still needs to explain why it's needed and how it should be used.

*crickets*

[Bender]

any kind of registration list would only affect law-abiding gun owners, anybody that thinks differently isn't too smart.

[DMC]

sounds like a solid argument against having a muslim registry

The idea of a registry based on religion is so Orwellian that it merits no real discussion. It will fall by the wayside just like the swamp, the wall and locking her up.

[DMC]

i dont think the bill of rights protects against the government tracking who owns what guns

the bill of rights has freedom of press, but you still need press credentials.

The FOPA does. Do you want to repeal it?

[spurraider21]

The idea of a registry based on religion is so Orwellian that it merits no real discussion. It will fall by the wayside just like the swamp, the wall and locking her up.agreed

[spurraider21]

The FOPA does. Do you want to repeal it?the FOPA is not the bill of rights, which is what you and TSA immediately brought up. the FOPA can easily be repealed in full or in part. i have no issue with repealing the registry prohibition

[DMC]

the FOPA is not the bill of rights, which is what you and TSA immediately brought up. the FOPA can easily be repealed in full or in part. i have no issue with repealing the registry prohibition

Come on Philo, context. Jesus Christ.

The 1st and 2nd Amendments are in the BoR and mention freedom of speech and right to keep and bear arms. Nothing mentions right to drive a car, own a house, a boat..

No one said the BoR prohibits a registry, but "infringed upon" means just that, and the precursor to infringement is tracking. Do I have to keep saying that and if so are you going to red herring more stupid fucking Muslim tears over it?

Do you want to repeal the FOPA? Have you read it? It was enacted as a 2nd Amendment protection concern.

[spurraider21]

Come on Philo, context. Jesus Christ.

The 1st and 2nd Amendments are in the BoR and mention freedom of speech and right to keep and bear arms. Nothing mentions right to drive a car, own a house, a boat..
i'm aware


No one said the BoR prohibits a registry, but "infringed upon" means just that, and the precursor to infringement is tracking.
i think this is where we disagree, i think its a reach. its a slippery slope argument.


Do I have to keep saying that and if so are you going to red herring more stupid fucking Muslim tears over it?
sorry


Do you want to repeal the FOPA? Have you read it? It was enacted as a 2nd Amendment protection concern.
like i said above, it can be repealed in full or in part with simple legislation. i have no issue with repealing the registry prohibition

[CosmicCowboy]

Someone that supports it still needs to explain why it's needed and how it should be used.

*crickets*

[TheSanityAnnex]

the FOPA is not the bill of rights, which is what you and TSA immediately brought up.
Does it really need to be explained to you why it was brought up in response to pgardn's post or are just playing stupid?

[spurraider21]

Does it really need to be explained to you why it was brought up in response to pgardn's post or are just playing stupid?he brought up things like cars, which aren't covered in the bill of rights. i understood what you meant. what i'm saying is the bill of rights doesn't have anything against a registry of guns

[pgardn]

Because the Bill of Rights addresses all of those things you just mentioned, no? Exactly, don't be an idiot.

Well then by God you need to protest and don't let them follow you by using your boat registration.

Dont be a dolt, it's very practical practice to register people and their things. God forbid cops call in your license number when you run over a libtard and track you down.

[pgardn]

Does it really need to be explained to you why it was brought up in response to pgardn's post or are just playing stupid?

And it's an absolutely pitiful response.

[pgardn]

Someone that supports it still needs to explain why it's needed and how it should be used.

*crickets*

So why boats? Why cars? Why Homesteads?

And then explain this to SA and run DMC.

[pgardn]

I will ask you the question since you seem to support it.

What does the registration of legal guns and gun owners accomplish?

What could it be used for?

If a gun registered to you shot a libtard due to government intervention? Then the police could ask you why you gave it to SA.

[CosmicCowboy]

If a gun registered to you shot a libtard due to government intervention? Then the police could ask you why you gave it to SA.

That response is just dumb as shit.


Seriously, support your position. How is a registry of legal gun owners going to be used?

[DMC]

i'm aware


i think this is where we disagree, i think its a reach. its a slippery slope argument.

No it's not. You felt it applied to muslims but not to our constitutional rights?


sorry


like i said above, it can be repealed in full or in part with simple legislation. i have no issue with repealing the registry prohibition

Of course it can be. I didn't ask if you had a problem with it. Do you want to repeal FOPA, yes or no? Why so non-committal?

[DMC]

So why boats? Why cars? Why Homesteads?

And then explain this to SA and run DMC.

Boats, cars, homesteads... to gather a tax for for roads, bridges, schools, lakes and such. It's only a tax. For guns, it would be to track gun owners. You pay the sales tax when you buy a gun. Do you register your television?

[TheSanityAnnex]

So why boats? Why cars? Why Homesteads?

And then explain this to SA and run DMC.
Are any of those rights protected by the Constitution?

[ElNono]

he brought up things like cars, which aren't covered in the bill of rights. i understood what you meant. what i'm saying is the bill of rights doesn't have anything against a registry of guns

Not only that but there's SCOTUS precedent that regulation of firearms is perfectly permissible, within certain bounds.

As of CC's question of why, there's reasonable reasons I can think up, like a court being able to determine if new, mentally unstable individuals owns firearms, etc.

I mean, that doesn't mean I endorse it or think it's a good idea.

I'm also unaware if the legality of such registries were ever challenged in court prior to FOPA.

[spurraider21]

Boats, cars, homesteads... to gather a tax for for roads, bridges, schools, lakes and such. It's only a tax. For guns, it would be to track gun owners. You pay the sales tax when you buy a gun. Do you register your television?why wouldn't a registration for guns just be a tax for roads, bridges, or schools? why do you assume cars are taxed for roads and not to track car owners?

[spurraider21]

Are any of those rights protected by the Constitution?is the right to not have your gun registered protected by the Constitution?

[pgardn]

Boats, cars, homesteads... to gather a tax for for roads, bridges, schools, lakes and such. It's only a tax. For guns, it would be to track gun owners. You pay the sales tax when you buy a gun. Do you register your television?

Bs.

Thats only part of it. It is used for title reasons as well. They have frkn lawsuits about how far your homestead extends.

And like it or not, this is a way law enforcement finds out about your background before they approach your car. You don't think police should have an idea as to your criminal background when approaching your car? Warrants for your arrest? Law enforcement has no right to know the residence of a serial murderer?
when the cops find a car abandoned after an accident tough luck?

[spurraider21]

No it's not. You felt it applied to muslims but not to our constitutional rights?


Of course it can be. I didn't ask if you had a problem with it. Do you want to repeal FOPA, yes or no? Why so non-committal?i didnt chime in because i had strong opinions. people started yammering on about the constitution and i'm pointing out it does nothing to prohibit a registry. my opinion on whether or not we should have a registry or why is irrelevant to that conversation. when i put more thought into it and have my own opinion, i'll be sure to let you know

[DMC]

So presume for argument's sake that a gun registry was enacted.

John Smith purchases a firearm and through purchase it becomes registered to John Smith.

Here are some scenarios of what could take place to bring the registry into use:

1. John Smith is arrested with a firearm that's registered to John Smith|Alternative is that John Smith is arrested with a firearm that isn't registered to anyone.
2. John Smith's firearm is stolen and used in a crime. The criminal is apprehended and the firearm recovered. It is traced to John Smith.|Alternative is that it's traced to no one or it's reported stolen by the owner who gave the SN to the police and is then traced to John Smith.
3. John Smith loses the firearm and it's found by a kid who shoots himself in the head. The firearm is traced to John Smith.|Alternative is that the firearm isn't traced to anyone and the dead kid remains dead but John Smith avoids repercussion. John Smith could have also reported the firearm as missing or stolen and then it's traced to John Smith.
4. John Smith sells his firearm to a friend who then has to register it to himself|Alternative is John Smith sells his firearm to a friend who doesn't have to register it. Either way, John Smith's friend now has a firearm.
5. John Smith has a TRO issued on him by a former spouse or lover. John Smith's firearms are registered and so each is confiscated and John Smith is shown a list of firearms that should be in his possession by the local law enforcement.|Alternative is that the same TRO is issued and the local law enforcement goes to John Smith's home and removes his firearms. He could have hidden some which would make him a criminal. He also could have simply not registered a firearm purchased from a friend and been in the same predicament. In both cases John Smith still has a firearm and is still a criminal for the same reasons, unlawful possession of a firearm which is a felony and that makes John Smith no longer eligible to ever own a firearm.

Which scenario makes it better to have the registry than to not have it?

6. Because 50 people are gunned down in a high school by people who have unregistered firearms, executive order creates a situation where firearms are going to be confiscated. John Smith has 5 guns but they are all registered because John Smith is a law abiding citizen. The BATF shows up at John's home and under force, takes all of his firearms for his own good and the good of the people around him because the POTUS declared it cannot happen again.

Alternative is that the POTUS wants to ban guns but even executive order cannot determine who has a firearm and who doesn't. There's no list to use to know which address has which weapons. So instead of executive order, the POTUS tries to push gun control through the house and senate and it gets neutered into a magazine capacity and evil feature ban that acts as a placebo for the gun and law ignorant while at the same time not actually doing anything to control guns.

[spurraider21]

if registry costs are $100 we can use that money for roads, bridges, and schools

[DMC]

i didnt chime in because i had strong opinions. people started yammering on about the constitution and i'm pointing out it does nothing to prohibit a registry. my opinion on whether or not we should have a registry or why is irrelevant to that conversation. when i put more thought into it and have my own opinion, i'll be sure to let you know

Did they yammer to you personally or did you just interject because you're so intelligent?

[spurraider21]

Did they yammer to you personally or did you just interject because you're so intelligent?the latter

[DMC]

if registry costs are $100 we can use that money for roads, bridges, and schools

Same with your 1st amendment rights. Any money collected from the sale of your personal freedoms can be used for the common good, right Napoleon? Or is it Snowball?

[pgardn]

if registry costs are $100 we can use that money for roads, bridges, and schools


How about used for emergency rooms, specifically trauma centers for gunshot wounds.

[DMC]

How about used for emergency rooms, specifically trauma centers for gunshot wounds.

Then a speaking tax that can be used for the same type of triage center for people who recklessly run their suck.

[spurraider21]

Same with your 1st amendment rights. Any money collected from the sale of your personal freedoms can be used for the common good, right Napoleon? Or is it Snowball?we should ban sales tax on guns

[pgardn]

Then a speaking tax that can be used for the same type of triage center for people who recklessly run their suck.

How about a typing tax for those with excessively active fingers.

I cant hear you...

[DMC]

How about a typing tax for those with excessively active fingers.

I cant hear you...

The BJS National Crime Victimization
Survey (NCVS) data for 1993-97 show
that of the 19.2 million incidents of
nonfatal violent crime, excluding simple
assault --
* 28% were committed with a firearm
* 4% were committed with a firearm and resulted in injury
* less than 1% resulted in gunshot wounds.

Yeah, idiot. We need a trauma ward for the 1%.

[ElNono]

I'm actually curious to hear what was the historical argument for including the ban of registry in FOPA (which obviously existed prior). Was it mere paranoia or was there some specific case...

[DMC]

we should ban sales tax on guns

"We"...

Lives in California....

[spurraider21]

"We"...

Lives in California....again, whether or not having a registry and collecting fees is a good or bad thing, just saying "muh bill of rights" doesn't protect against it. that's all im saying

[pgardn]

The BJS National Crime Victimization
Survey (NCVS) data for 1993-97 show
that of the 19.2 million incidents of
nonfatal violent crime, excluding simple
assault --
* 28% were committed with a firearm
* 4% were committed with a firearm and resulted in injury
* less than 1% resulted in gunshot wounds.

Yeah, idiot. We need a trauma ward for the 1%.

Yeah but the 1% have very expensive tastes. Bowels and kidneys are expensive organs to repair if the projectile meets them.


And maybe we can the rest of $ for the victims of criminals we never catch because they have no registered car, license, or homestead.

[DMC]

I'm actually curious to hear what was the historical argument for including the ban of registry in FOPA (which obviously existed prior). Was it mere paranoia or was there some specific case...

It can be traced back to partisan influence in government offices specifically the ATF, to push political agenda by harassing FFLs. It stems from that. The Gun Control Act was far reaching and created a situation where gun rights were being infringed upon through the blockage of commerce via rampant inspections and confiscations of records due to loopholes.

[DMC]

Yeah but the 1% have very expensive tastes. Bowels and kidneys are expensive organs to repair if the projectile meets them.


And maybe we can the rest of $ for the victims of criminals we never catch because they have no registered car, license, or homestead.
Or because you disarmed the population and so the criminal is free to conduct business at his leisure.

[DMC]

again, whether or not having a registry and collecting fees is a good or bad thing, just saying "muh bill of rights" doesn't protect against it. that's all im saying

And that's not what was said, Philo. I've told you twice already. BoR was the difference between the gun debate and the house, car and boat analogy. Goddamn get with it.

[spurraider21]

And that's not what was said, Philo. I've told you twice already. BoR was the difference between the gun debate and the house, car and boat analogy. Goddamn get with it.and it's irrelevant in all accounts when we're talking about registries. whether its about guns or hello kitty pajamas

[pgardn]

Or because you disarmed the population and so the criminal is free to conduct business at his leisure.Who said anything about disarming?I thought this was all about registering?You are pissed the law can find out where you live because of taxes. Right?

And I am the idiot...
You sir, are a cashew.

[ElNono]

It can be traced back to partisan influence in government offices specifically the ATF, to push political agenda by harassing FFLs. It stems from that. The Gun Control Act was far reaching and created a situation where gun rights were being infringed upon through the blockage of commerce via rampant inspections and confiscations of records due to loopholes.

Thanks. Sorry if it derailed from the convo here. I'm way more interested in the legal/historical aspect than actual guns.

Again, I'm curious if there was some sort of staple case back then that even explored the legal question. Not going to bother you with that, I can look it up after vacations.

Another angle from the legal/historical perspective is that slaves were denied the right, IIRC.

[DMC]

Who said anything about disarming?I thought this was all about registering?You are pissed the law can find out where you live because of taxes. Right?

And I am the idiot...
You sir, are a cashew.

You'd love to give the federal government the lever to simply remove all resistance against tyranny. Just ask the Soviets, Jews, Chinese, Ugandans, Armenians and a few others who have surrendered their guns, after registry of course, and systematically be slaughtered, as they were now defenseless, about precursors.

This kind of thing is why the 2nd Amendment was written in the first place with the statement "shall not be infringed upon". I'm not surprised you cannot recognize a precursor, but don't get all itchy because I can. It's amazing that some of you who think your representative who vows to defend the constitution should only defend parts you like.

[DMC]

and it's irrelevant in all accounts when we're talking about registries. whether its about guns or hello kitty pajamas

And only a person ignorant of the ramifications would equate the two.

[CosmicCowboy]

I will ask you the question since you seem to support it.

What does the registration of legal guns and gun owners accomplish?

What could it be used for?
I'm still waiting.

*crickets*

[ElNono]

I did answer that, tbh

[CosmicCowboy]

Not only that but there's SCOTUS precedent that regulation of firearms is perfectly permissible, within certain bounds.

As of CC's question of why, there's reasonable reasons I can think up, like a court being able to determine if new, mentally unstable individuals owns firearms, etc.

I mean, that doesn't mean I endorse it or think it's a good idea.

I'm also unaware if the legality of such registries were ever challenged in court prior to FOPA.

There are already background checks in place for legal gun purchases.

[ElNono]

And only a person ignorant of the ramifications would equate the two.

Alleged ramifications anyways. There's counter examples (i.e.:post-war Japan) that are just as valid. But comparisons like that are difficult due to the obvious cultural differences.

[ElNono]

There are already background checks in place for legal gun purchases.

But people don't always buy a gun AFTER being ill...

[spurraider21]

And only a person ignorant of the ramifications would equate the two.thats fine. my point was and is about the legality/constitutionality of it

[DMC]

thats fine. my point was and is about the legality/constitutionality of it
In a vacuum.

[pgardn]

You'd love to give the federal government the lever to simply remove all resistance against tyranny. Just ask the Soviets, Jews, Chinese, Ugandans, Armenians and a few others who have surrendered their guns, after registry of course, and systematically be slaughtered, as they were now defenseless, about precursors.

This kind of thing is why the 2nd Amendment was written in the first place with the statement "shall not be infringed upon". I'm not surprised you cannot recognize a precursor, but don't get all itchy because I can. It's amazing that some of you who think your representative who vows to defend the constitution should only defend parts you like.

Nope.

Im just more frightened of the problems that would be caused by NOT having to register anything to anyone.
Hell, why even let any organizing entity know individuals even exist?

There are very real practical reasons for having lists in organized societies.
3 million people voted illegally, we gotta find out who these folks are.
Oh, we can't.

Laws are always set against practical concerns. This is nothing new. The paranoia surrounding the government rounding up weapons happens to be a very very remote possibility to me. I just don't take it seriously. I do however, like all the deer meat I get, so that would piss me off. It's not practical for me to worry about it though.

But I get it. Some people really do believe 3 million people voted illegally. So they don't think like I do. They are afraid of snakes, I like them, I get it.

[ElNono]

I don't know about that, pgardn... for example, even if, arguendo, the secret (or not so secret) no fly list is legally permissible and desirable, the inability to challenge your inclusion or even verify your inclusion appears to be a flagrant violation of due process. And even if it is, sometimes it takes decades to legally turn over stuff like that.

[DMC]

Nope.

Im just more frightened of the problems that would be caused by NOT having to register anything to anyone.
Hell, why even let any organizing entity know individuals even exist?

Which is why the founding fathers didn't specify what you just said, bifurcation man.


There are very real practical reasons for having lists in organized societies.
3 million people voted illegally, we gotta find out who these folks are.
Oh, we can't.

I don't want locks on my bedroom door, ergo I think all locks are bad.


Laws are always set against practical concerns. This is nothing new. The paranoia surrounding the government rounding up weapons happens to be a very very remote possibility to me. I just don't take it seriously. I do however, like all the deer meat I get, so that would piss me off. It's not practical for me to worry about it though.

The paranoia is real. The odds of it actually ever happening seem to increase as things like registries develop. What makes it a remote possibility? Because you don't think of it? Or because of the constitution?


But I get it. Some people really do believe 3 million people voted illegally. So they don't think like I do. They are afraid of snakes, I like them, I get it.
You just arbitrarily decide what you want to accept based on which way you lean already since you have no compelling evidence either way. Its something you introduced then said you don't believe it.

[pgardn]

I don't know about that, pgardn... for example, even if, arguendo, the secret (or not so secret) no fly list is legally permissible and desirable, the inability to challenge your inclusion or even verify your inclusion appears to be a flagrant violation of due process. And even if it is, sometimes it takes decades to legally turn over stuff like that.

This is the key:

Laws are always set against practical concerns.

Maybe I should have stated the word practical with something more strongly worded.
Some lists are necessary. Voting lists are very practical. I would not dare set voting lists against no fly lists. This slippery slope stuff often is used for purposes of creating paranoia IMO.

And I stated nothing about the ability of the individual to find out if they are indeed listed. I can't think of near as many cases in which an individual should NOT be allowed to find out if they are apart of a list. It seems reasonable that in the vast majority of the many lists we make people should be able to find out if they ARE on them.

[DMC]

This is the key:

Laws are always set against practical concerns.

Maybe I should have stated the word practical with something more strongly worded.
Some lists are necessary. Voting lists are very practical. I would not dare set voting lists against no fly lists. This slippery slope stuff often is used for purposes of creating paranoia IMO.

And I stated nothing about the ability of the individual to find out if they are indeed listed. I can't think of near as many cases in which an individual should NOT be allowed to find out if they are apart of a list. It seems reasonable that in the vast majority of the many lists we make people should be able to find out if they ARE on them.
Finding out goes against the purpose, to apprehend someone. If you know, you'll go elsewhere.

It's not an argument that any list is bad. It's an argument that gun registries are bad. I'm all for voter registration and ID's and all forms of that shit. I have TSA precheck clearance because of all the personal information the feds have on me that I gave them. I don't care if they know what guns I own, personally. That's on a micro-scale. On a larger scale, it matters because it signals something. A list means something. You need a voter list to know who's voting to prevent someone from voting illegally. Why do you need a gun registry?

[pgardn]

Which is why the founding fathers didn't specify what you just said, bifurcation man.

I don't want locks on my bedroom door, ergo I think all locks are bad.

That is NOT what was stated.

The paranoia is real. The odds of it actually ever happening seem to increase as things like registries develop. What makes it a remote possibility? Because you don't think of it? Or because of the constitution?

Registries develop? What? Lists have always been around. We find lists that are 10,000 years old? If you mean the advent of lists becoming digital making it more efficient that's more valid. But they still have incredibly important uses in a heavily populated world. Case in point, vaccines.... Oh come right in, we don't need to quarantine you? We may need more.

You just arbitrarily decide what you want to accept based on which way you lean already since you have no compelling evidence either way. Its something you introduced then said you don't believe it.

What?

Guns are frkn everywhere in this country. Is this not the case? How do you possibly retrieve them at this point in time?

[mingus]

It's a fetish in a way, tied to their "masculinity" in a lot of cases IMO. If they don't have one attached at the hip they suffer from impotency & have weird ideas, like wishing their spouses/SOs would pound them in the ass w/ a 14-inch strap-on.

In other cases, I suppose it makes them feel more important. Buying a gun & showing it to everyone doesn't make them any more of a target for anything (eg. robbery, burglary), it just gives them an idea to think about that tells them that when/if by small chance one day, maybe, their miserable, boring & unsatisfying life turns into a Die Hard movie, they can be John McClane.

Then you got the paranoid nutcases who live their lives in fear of getting mugged or robbed, or that the govt. is after them (think John Nash from A Beautiful Mind, except w/ half the IQ).

Then you got the hunters, whose gun enthusiasm is tied to that. And I respect that. I like hunting for both its social interaction &/or competitiveness. If having big gun collection that you like to show off enhances that, then that's cool. I totally see that & I'm fine w/ that...However, it stops being fine when your fat, old cowboy hat wearing ass can't climb into a blind w/o getting short of breath or w/o risking re-braking the knee you broke when you were the 3rd string QB on your High School JV football team. At that point, you need to quit living in the past & hang up your guns, cowboy hat & boots & find a more suitable hobby, like sitting on a park bench people watching, eyeballing MILFS that give your old worm a small, fleeting tingle.

Then you got the target/range guys, who only seem to got to the range to use their gun & do so at a high frequency. They They don't have a hunting permit, don't own a ranch, don't have a friend w/ a ranch, but just really like shooting targets, & it is basically a continuation of an unhealthy childhood/adolescent preoccupation w/ Duck Hunter. They keep score, & they even go home & jerk off into a sock like they did back then, since, if they have one at the time, their SO probably has either generalized dick phobia, or is gold-digging whore with specific dick phobia & is out somewhere taking jizz shots on her tits by some other more socially adept dude.

Then you got the guys who buy a gun & hide it somewhere, talking it out to shoot at shit every one & a while to let off some steam, knowing that's prolly all the usage it'll ever get, realistically.

Then you got the gangstas, natcos, thugs, anti-social deviants etc. who pretty much need to pack, or so they feel they need to.

I'm pretty much in the 2nd to last camp. A lot of people stick their feet in s couple groups. Me, I'll go to friends' ranches & bring my pistol (.45) along to shoot rabbits or possums or a beer bottle or some shit on rare/special occasions, but otherwise the thing is collecting dust.

Gun owners fall under a pretty big umbrella. Seems there's a pretty sizable number of 'em based on my experience who have an unhealthy relationship w/ guns & should see a psychologist/psychiatrist & not a gun-dealer for w/e insecurity or problem they have & that they're trying to hide/compensate for/run from (eg. micropenis, feminine traits, erectile issues, fear of growing fat, old & frail, schizophrenia etc.)

I respect the 2nd Amendment, there's integrity behind it & I like it pretty much how it's applied today (except for a few but still important exceptions). Needs some work, but overall keep it pretty much the same.

Still though I LMAO when I see all the dumbshits riding the dignified activism's coattails, hoping to blend in, but actually sticking out like the obvious, eternally confused loony dunces they are. It dilutes the activism. Half the damn gun rights activists & supporters is made up of clowns, circus acts. It's amazing to me how Republicans have been able aggregate so much support--which like I said I'm in full-support of--for 2nd Amendment activism from these dumpsters. But I guess you take wherever you can take from in politics, dumpster dive if you have too. It's flies attracted to fudge cake though, & way more hyped up as legit activism when it's actually a lot phony activism.

[pgardn]

Finding out goes against the purpose, to apprehend someone. If you know, you'll go elsewhere.

It's not an argument that any list is bad. It's an argument that gun registries are bad. I'm all for voter registration and ID's and all forms of that shit. I have TSA precheck clearance because of all the personal information the feds have on me that I gave them. I don't care if they know what guns I own, personally. That's on a micro-scale. On a larger scale, it matters because it signals something. A list means something. You need a voter list to know who's voting to prevent someone from voting illegally. Why do you need a gun registry?

Oh it started off as lists are bad. Once the constitution was invoked and the "this could happen" start. The overused slippery slope. My argument stands soundly. We keep lists because they can be very practical for the functionality of a society.

As for guns my reason given to CC was mostly in jest. I would think we would want lists of military weapons made that can kill lots of people at once. But apparently that line has become blurred.

[ElNono]

This is the key:

Laws are always set against practical concerns.

Maybe I should have stated the word practical with something more strongly worded.
Some lists are necessary. Voting lists are very practical. I would not dare set voting lists against no fly lists. This slippery slope stuff often is used for purposes of creating paranoia IMO.

And I stated nothing about the ability of the individual to find out if they are indeed listed. I can't think of near as many cases in which an individual should NOT be allowed to find out if they are apart of a list. It seems reasonable that in the vast majority of the many lists we make people should be able to find out if they ARE on them.

My point is that something might be practical, but when dealing with rights, they deserve a higher level of scrutiny.

I'm not really on any side of the fence on this particular case, I don't particularly think a registry would be the begginning of tyrannical era, but I do also understand that in this country, culturally, it does bring a relatively high level of paranoia. We could argue whether that's 'right' or 'wrong', but bottom line, I think it's a realistic characterization.

[pgardn]

My point is that something might be practical, but when dealing with rights, they deserve a higher level of scrutiny.

I'm not really on any side of the fence on this particular case, I don't particularly think a registry would be the begginning of tyrannical era, but I do also understand that in this country, culturally, it does bring a relatively high level of paranoia. We could argue whether that's 'right' or 'wrong', but bottom line, I think it's a realistic characterization.

Sure.

But the practicality/ safety for a society is always weighed against the rights of the individual. This is a terribly old theme.

Right now, in Texas, people do not have to give information about the vaccines children are given to any state health agency. They can however, choose to be on a list. (And public schools require parents waive the responsibility of telling the school in order to get into the school; so the PUBLIC school does not know for sure) IMO this is not good for the society. We need to know what vaccines children are given so they don't possibly infect others (who we also may not know about) Yet I do understand giving out medical facts about yourself and insurance concerns.

Its the same theme. My use of the word practical was lazy.

[Th'Pusher]

"Guns" in a thread title equals click bait tbh. Too many emotional men just can help but respond.

:lol Adam Lambert

[Rust Cohle]

"Guns" in a thread title equals click bait tbh. Too many emotional men just can help but respond.

:lol Adam Lambert
just precious snowflakes being triggered when someone dares threaten "muh guns"

[DMC]

Oh it started off as lists are bad. Once the constitution was invoked and the "this could happen" start. The overused slippery slope. My argument stands soundly. We keep lists because they can be very practical for the functionality of a society.

As for guns my reason given to CC was mostly in jest. I would think we would want lists of military weapons made that can kill lots of people at once. But apparently that line has become blurred.

No it didn't. It's about a national firearm registry, not lists in general. Your argument never stood. If you need to move to the absurd ends to try to have a point, you really don't have one.

[Th'Pusher]

just precious snowflakes being triggered when someone dares threaten "muh guns"

Has "shall not be infringed" ever not been dropped in a thread with guns in the title?

I know I read it in this gem, but don't remember who dropped it. Had to have been TSA.

[pgardn]

Boats, cars, homesteads... to gather a tax for for roads, bridges, schools, lakes and such. It's only a tax. For guns, it would be to track gun owners. You pay the sales tax when you buy a gun. Do you register your television?

This is BS.

I applied another group of lists which we used to track people and you deflected it.
It has a point. You just don't get it.

Why does the CDC want to track guns and why are they not allowed to?

[pgardn]

No it didn't. It's about a national firearm registry, not lists in general. Your argument never stood. If you need to move to the absurd ends to try to have a point, you really don't have one.

I don't have a point because you don't get my point.

[DMC]

I don't have a point because you don't get my point.

A few of you are not considering the fact that these things don't happen in a vacuum (space notwithstanding). You still haven't said how it would be used.

[DMC]

This is BS.

I applied another group of lists which we used to track people and you deflected it.
It has a point. You just don't get it.

Why does the CDC want to track guns and why are they not allowed to?
It's not about tracking people. It's about tracking which people have guns. You keep getting away from the gun aspect of the argument as if I am arguing for privacy rights.

The CDC thing is a red herring, has nothing to do with a national gun registry.

[ElNono]

Even if the argument is that the only reason would be as a tool to aid confiscation, the latter is already happening (Felons, court-ordered, etc).

I think the inherent issue here eventually boils down to the fairly typical conservative distrust that government won't abuse the power. Which is why I said there's really a cultural barrier here, and why what worked in other places will probably not apply here.

[DMC]

Even if the argument is that the only reason would be as a tool to aid confiscation, the latter is already happening (Felons, court-ordered, etc).

I think the inherent issue here eventually boils down to the fairly typical conservative distrust that government won't abuse the power. Which is why I said there's really a cultural barrier here, and why what worked in other places will probably not apply here.

It's why the 2nd Amendment exists. I find it odd that the left thinks the police are militant against minorities yet trusts the federal government won't kill them all at the first sign of civil unrest.

[ElNono]

It's why the 2nd Amendment exists. I find it odd that the left thinks the police are militant against minorities yet trusts the federal government won't kill them all at the first sign of civil unrest.

Thats one opinion, but the actual meaning of the 2nd amendment, and it's extent has been debated publicly and in court for many many decades. It doesn't help that the wording is fairly abstract, the founding fathers are dead, that England isn't looking over our shoulders anymore, and as noble as it sounds, it's a right that didn't apply to second-class citizens.

But I do know a lot of people feel the way you do, and I think that's really what this boils down to. Instead of discussing corner cases, like what good will it do?, we can probably head straight to the elephant in the room.

[ElNono]

Here's the shortcut version: do you trust the federal government with that list?

Go.

[spurraider21]

Thats one opinion, but the actual meaning of the 2nd amendment, and it's extent has been debated publicly and in court for many many decades.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NW4vVglMjS8

[CosmicCowboy]

Oh it started off as lists are bad. Once the constitution was invoked and the "this could happen" start. The overused slippery slope. My argument stands soundly. We keep lists because they can be very practical for the functionality of a society.

As for guns my reason given to CC was mostly in jest. I would think we would want lists of military weapons made that can kill lots of people at once. But apparently that line has become blurred.

Again, what purpose would that list serve? Say a crime is committed and the police forensics show the bullet was a 5.56. What good does a list of 6 million law abiding citizens that own guns that shoot 5.56's do?

Same thing with a 9mm diameter bullet in forensics....do you start going down the list of the millions that own a 9mm? and oops...it could have been a .357 or a 38 special? They are all basically the same bullet going down rnge...I have a three screw ruger that shoots all three...what good does it do to know that 20 million law abiding people own guns that shoot that size bullet?

[Spurminator]

Again, what purpose would that list serve? Say a crime is committed and the police forensics show the bullet was a 5.56. What good does a list of 6 million law abiding citizens that own guns that shoot 5.56's do?

Same thing with a 9mm diameter bullet in forensics....do you start going down the list of the millions that own a 9mm? and oops...it could have been a .357 or a 38 special? They are all basically the same bullet going down rnge...I have a three screw ruger that shoots all three...what good does it do to know that 20 million law abiding people own guns that shoot that size bullet?

Fundamentally you're asking how law enforcement would use a registry to find criminals, but I'm not sure the goal of a registry would be to aid in law enforcement after the fact. Whatever system they decide on, the goal should be to reduce the ability of criminals to get the guns in the first place.

[pgardn]

Again, what purpose would that list serve? Say a crime is committed and the police forensics show the bullet was a 5.56. What good does a list of 6 million law abiding citizens that own guns that shoot 5.56's do?

Same thing with a 9mm diameter bullet in forensics....do you start going down the list of the millions that own a 9mm? and oops...it could have been a .357 or a 38 special? They are all basically the same bullet going down rnge...I have a three screw ruger that shoots all three...what good does it do to know that 20 million law abiding people own guns that shoot that size bullet?

Have gun accidents and violence become a public safety concern in your opinion?

[pgardn]

The BJS National Crime Victimization
Survey (NCVS) data for 1993-97 show
that of the 19.2 million incidents of
nonfatal violent crime, excluding simple
assault --
* 28% were committed with a firearm
* 4% were committed with a firearm and resulted in injury
* less than 1% resulted in gunshot wounds.

Yeah, idiot. We need a trauma ward for the 1%.

Here is some help.

Why is the above pretty much crap as reliable data?

[Adam Lambert]

It's why the 2nd Amendment exists. I find it odd that the left thinks the police are militant against minorities yet trusts the federal government won't kill them all at the first sign of civil unrest.


Again, what purpose would that list serve? Say a crime is committed and the police forensics show the bullet was a 5.56. What good does a list of 6 million law abiding citizens that own guns that shoot 5.56's do?

Same thing with a 9mm diameter bullet in forensics....do you start going down the list of the millions that own a 9mm? and oops...it could have been a .357 or a 38 special? They are all basically the same bullet going down rnge...I have a three screw ruger that shoots all three...what good does it do to know that 20 million law abiding people own guns that shoot that size bullet?

you guys be sure to tickle the nra's nut sac when you go down on them, i hear they like it when you do that
*choke* *gag*

[I. Hustle]

you guys be sure to tickle the nra's nut sac when you go down on them, i hear they like it when you do that
*choke* *gag*

Just curious, because I am not going to read through all that crap, are you against gun ownership or just against owners not registering? Just a question. I'll hang up now and let you answer.

[CosmicCowboy]

Have gun accidents and violence become a public safety concern in your opinion?

How does gun registry solve either issue?

Be specific.

[CosmicCowboy]

Fundamentally you're asking how law enforcement would use a registry to find criminals, but I'm not sure the goal of a registry would be to aid in law enforcement after the fact. Whatever system they decide on, the goal should be to reduce the ability of criminals to get the guns in the first place.

Law abiding citizens are already going through the check before they buy guns.

criminals are going to be criminals. if they are willing to murder someone which is clearly against the law a gun registration law won't stop them.

[Spurminator]

It's about controlling access. Nothing is going to stop crime 100%.

[CosmicCowboy]

It's about controlling access. Nothing is going to stop crime 100%.

We already control access. The issue is a registry.

[clambake]

Law abiding citizens are already going through the check before they buy guns.

criminals are going to be criminals. if they are willing to murder someone which is clearly against the law a gun registration law won't stop them.

pretty simple. what is wrong with people.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Law abiding citizens are already going through the check before they buy guns.

criminals are going to be criminals. if they are willing to murder someone which is clearly against the law a gun registration law won't stop them.

Have to love regurgitation of NRA rhetoric. If only it was so simple to divide the world into black and white, citizen and criminal.

[clambake]

oh....and having several legally registered guns makes it easy to hide the illegal guns.

[CosmicCowboy]

Have to love regurgitation of NRA rhetoric. If only it was so simple to divide the world into black and white, citizen and criminal.

Love the faggoty regurgitation of Boutons level logic.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Love the faggoty regurgitation of Boutons level logic.

So you have nothing so instead go for this tactic of baseless insult. Not surprising considering you are not even thinking for yourself.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Here's the shortcut version: do you trust the federal government with that list?

Go.
The list will be abused.

Already happening in CA.

http://www.guns.com/2015/11/20/attorney-argues-ca-mans-seized-541-gun-collection-is-legal/

[spurraider21]

off topic

how will ownership of handguns protect you from federal government tyranny?

[CosmicCowboy]

So you have nothing so instead go for this tactic of baseless insult. Not surprising considering you are not even thinking for yourself.

:lol

Coming from the faggot who can't answer the simple question...what is the practical purpose of a gun registry?

[Spurminator]

We already control access. The issue is a registry.

We don't control access sufficiently.

[Chucho]

So you have nothing so instead go for this tactic of baseless insult. Not surprising considering you are not even thinking for yourself.

He insulted one of your typical posts where you brush off someone dismissively with your tropical nothingness you are so convinced is sage and it isnt, its just more comprehensible Boots garbage like this post. Fuzz, get over yourself. You add nothing and you simply arent intelligent no matter what your mail-correspondence vocabulary tells you.

[CosmicCowboy]

We don't control access sufficiently.

How does a registry control access?

[CosmicCowboy]

of course, the discussion is academic. We know shit isn't gonna happen on gun control for at least 4 more years. Damn, we are gonna get tired of winning!

[Spurminator]

How does a registry control access?
Any unregistered firearm can be confiscated in a routine stop. People who commit violent crimes can have registered guns confiscated. It's an additional consideration when you're trading or selling guns. Probably a number of other reasons.

[spurraider21]

of course, the discussion is academic. We know shit isn't gonna happen on gun control for at least 4 more years. Damn, we are gonna get tired of winning!yeah very academic. i'm right on the issue because the candidate i said i dont like won the election

[DMC]

you guys be sure to tickle the nra's nut sac when you go down on them, i hear they like it when you do that
*choke* *gag*

I'm not a member of the NRA. You think every dissenting opinion can be categorized into some evil group?

[DMC]

yeah very academic. i'm right on the issue because the candidate i said i dont like won the election

You'll never have to worry about that, since you've never taken a stance on anything.

[DMC]

off topic

how will ownership of handguns protect you from federal government tyranny?

Start a new thread.

[spurraider21]

You'll never have to worry about that, since you've never taken a stance on anything.
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/ee/e7/dc/eee7dcf9682710ad0a3875718352e5cf.gif

[DMC]

Arm a prison population and see how they deal with abuse from guards. That should tell you something.

[pgardn]

How does gun registry solve either issue?

Be specific.

If we knew the number of guns in households and businesses we might be able to say something meaningful about claims that guns do or do not lower crime rates in specific areas. This is something everyone wants to know about and the data is absolute crap right now.

Thats why this board can choose any preferred "study" they want to prove what they want about guns. But we know the NRA is scared to death of the CDC. And it took this long... We have already had this discussion.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

He insulted one of your typical posts where you brush off someone dismissively with your tropical nothingness you are so convinced is sage and it isnt, its just more comprehensible Boots garbage like this post. Fuzz, get over yourself. You add nothing and you simply arent intelligent no matter what your mail-correspondence vocabulary tells you.

Outside of recognizing that he had nothing but an insult is the only thing you have right here.

The criminal/citizen rhetoric is NRA propaganda. They spout it in their mailers and meetings. Do you address this? Nope you just double down on more baseless insults.

Sorry that my use of multisyllables bothers you. Intelligent people actually try to show that I don't use the terms correctly or something of that nature. You aren't even able to do that.

Speaking of diction? Tropical nothingness? What sort of gibberish is that?

As for getting over myself? Please point to the part where I make it about me. I see you making it about me. I was talking about NRA rhetoric. I think it is you that needs to get over me. You get caught up in my diction and intercede into every discussion I have. It's typical of people that I have made feel stupid in the past.

It's not me though that is at issue here for all of your attempts to make it so. It's you and your insecurity.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:lol

Coming from the faggot who can't answer the simple question...what is the practical purpose of a gun registry?

Research.

You can track guns and their impact on public health. Researchers have been asking for it for decades at this point. You seem extremely ignorant on the topic if you don't even know that.

Now what that has to do with you spouting NRA rhetoric mindlessly is beyond me. You can keep calling me gay if it makes you feel better but regurgitating propaganda is indicative of someone that doesn't think for themselves.

Insults without basis don't bother me. I'm not that insecure, fattie.

[ElNono]

The list will be abused.

Already happening in CA.

http://www.guns.com/2015/11/20/attorney-argues-ca-mans-seized-541-gun-collection-is-legal/

That's exactly why you would want such a list, IMO. I don't see any 'abuse' there.

[ElNono]

That's not to say it wouldn't be abused though. Like I said, ultimately you can trace the answer of this to very cultural/political criteria, which is what really makes this a wedge issue.

[SpursforSix]

You know who else had a list? Hitler.

[SpursforSix]

Or was it Schindler.

[ElNono]

You know who else had a list? Hitler.

Your mom probably did too. True story.

[pgardn]

Frankly it's nice to know both the left and right are wary of what can be done with lists and take it seriously. Cross issues like this give me faith in this country.

*cue National Anthem*

hah, no one knows if we are standing, sitting, kneeling, or belching.

[SpursforSix]

Your mom probably did too. True story.

It says "little peepee" by your name.

[ElNono]

It says "little peepee" by your name.

Good comeback, tbh

[DMC]

Outside of recognizing that he had nothing but an insult is the only thing you have right here.

The criminal/citizen rhetoric is NRA propaganda. They spout it in their mailers and meetings. Do you address this? Nope you just double down on more baseless insults.

Sorry that my use of multisyllables bothers you. Intelligent people actually try to show that I don't use the terms correctly or something of that nature. You aren't even able to do that.

Speaking of diction? Tropical nothingness? What sort of gibberish is that?

As for getting over myself? Please point to the part where I make it about me. I see you making it about me. I was talking about NRA rhetoric. I think it is you that needs to get over me. You get caught up in my diction and intercede into every discussion I have. It's typical of people that I have made feel stupid in the past.

It's not me though that is at issue here for all of your attempts to make it so. It's you and your insecurity.

You talk a lot and never say anything. All you had to say was "I know you are, what am I?"

[DMC]

Research.

You can track guns and their impact on public health. Researchers have been asking for it for decades at this point. You seem extremely ignorant on the topic if you don't even know that.

Now what that has to do with you spouting NRA rhetoric mindlessly is beyond me. You can keep calling me gay if it makes you feel better but regurgitating propaganda is indicative of someone that doesn't think for themselves.

Insults without basis don't bother me. I'm not that insecure, fattie.

Why does it matter? What's the next step either way?

[Adam Lambert]

Just curious, because I am not going to read through all that crap, are you against gun ownership or just against owners not registering? Just a question. I'll hang up now and let you answer.

neither, I'm pro pointing out the dumbfuckiness of making sure everyone knows you own guns while also being scared the govt is going to kick down your door to take them if they know you have them

[DMC]

neither, I'm pro pointing out the dumbfuckiness of making sure everyone knows you own guns while also being scared the govt is going to kick down your door to take them if they know you have them

How's that different from advertising who you're supporting but wanting privacy in the voting booth?

[pgardn]

Why does it matter? What's the next step either way?

So maybe we can say in areas with a high % of legal gun ownership there really is a correlation with low crime rates as compared to a very similar area in a state where guns are illegal to possess in that area.That private ownership does very likely prevent crimes. Now do you want the next step after that...

[CosmicCowboy]

neither, I'm pro pointing out the dumbfuckiness of making sure everyone knows you own guns while also being scared the govt is going to kick down your door to take them if they know you have them

Sooooo kind of like people like you that act like flaming faggots and then wonder why people call them a faggot?

[boutons_deux]

Cheesecake fattery refused service to armed cops

[DMC]

So maybe we can say in areas with a high % of legal gun ownership there really is a correlation with low crime rates as compared to a very similar area in a state where guns are illegal to possess in that area.That private ownership does very likely prevent crimes. Now do you want the next step after that...

That's what I wanted in the first place. What are you going to do with that information? It does nothing for the individual, it's only a talking point for the left. With all the sensitivity against words these days, the 1st Amendment is up next. Maybe the CDC should do a study to see if barring certain types of speech affects hate crime stats in certain areas by tracking who says what and seeing if aggressive, offensive statements like "Make American Great Again" should be banned.

[DMC]

Cheesecake fattery refused service to armed cops
Corrections officers, not cops.

[pgardn]

That's what I wanted in the first place. What are you going to do with that information? It does nothing for the individual, it's only a talking point for the left. With all the sensitivity against words these days, the 1st Amendment is up next. Maybe the CDC should do a study to see if barring certain types of speech affects hate crime stats in certain areas by tracking who says what and seeing if aggressive, offensive statements like "Make American Great Again" should be banned.

Sure thing. You got led along like a puppy as we have already discussed this in another thread when people put up their particular "studies" like your pile o crap and claim validity. You don't trust the CDC. They do get things wrong so F their knowledge of proper statistical studies. So keep putting up your laughable stats. And the left will counter with theirs.

Public safety is not a concern for you. You belittle it with ridiculous examples.
Gun accidents/violence is unimportant in this country. It's an unimportant issue.
You don't want data. You don't want studies, it's clear.

[DMC]

Sure thing. You got led along like a puppy as we have already discussed this in another thread when people put up their particular "studies" like your pile o crap and claim validity. You don't trust the CDC. They do get things wrong so F their knowledge of proper statistical studies. So keep putting up your laughable stats. And the left will counter with theirs.

Public safety is not a concern for you. You belittle it with ridiculous examples.
Gun accidents/violence is unimportant in this country. It's an unimportant issue.
You don't want data. You don't want studies, it's clear.

How many different ways can you be asked what will be done about any of it? You keep saying how trustworthy the CDC is, how important information gathering is, the importance of public safety yet you've still not answered the simple question: then what?

Until you can show why the information is needed and how it will be used, you don't have an argument. If it's just so you can have talking points, I'm not for repealing laws just to satisfy that.

[pgardn]

How many different ways can you be asked what will be done about any of it? You keep saying how trustworthy the CDC is, how important information gathering is, the importance of public safety yet you've still not answered the simple question: then what?

Until you can show why the information is needed and how it will be used, you don't have an argument. If it's just so you can have talking points, I'm not for repealing laws just to satisfy that.

You are being especially thick on this one since you stepped in it.


So you don't think better information concerning gun accidents and crimes is important. Some people do. I can't help it if you don't get the importance of having actual data vs. the crap you put up. You don't want better data. Some people do.

So forget about putting it to the legislature of government to decide if the information is important enough to consider whether laws should be adjusted or left alone. They now have better information. But it's not necessary in your view. It is actually possible high gun ownership areas do have less crime. There may be some interesting correlations that might suggest apportionment of law enforcement. But we won't ever know. Done.

[DMC]

You are being especially thick on this one since you stepped in it.


So you don't think better information concerning gun accidents and crimes is important. Some people do. I can't help it if you don't get the importance of having actual data vs. the crap you put up. You don't want better data. Some people do.

You are using argument by repetition. You keep saying it's important but you haven't established just why it's important, other than talking points for forums and political debates. What will change based on the information? Of course you'll just repeat the same "it's important" line without specifying.


So forget about putting it to the legislature of government to decide if the information is important enough to consider whether laws should be adjusted or left alone. They now have better information. But it's not necessary in your view. It is actually possible high gun ownership areas do have less crime. There may be some interesting correlations that might suggest apportionment of law enforcement. But we won't ever know. Done.
Assume they have less crime. What is the next step? Assume they don't have less crime. What is the next step? Information is useless if it doesn't guide actions.

You don't need civilian gun ownership data to show policing needs. The populace isn't a policing agency so using crime statistics tied to gun ownership to staff police forces seems like an idea you struggled to pull from your ass.

[mingus]

Here's what you do: focus resources toward figuring out how to solve all that other shit instead of focusing on "teh evil guns." Mental illness, poverty, shitty cultural values, low education, high unemployment.

Why are liberals still on this shit? This is one of those issues which, if they'd had a better gameplan for (one that didn't idiotically focus on/scapegoat the "inherent" evils a physical object rather than on the many & interweaving factors that produce criminals), they probably would've won the election.

[pgardn]

You are being especially thick on this one since you stepped in it.


So you don't think better information concerning gun accidents and crimes is important. Some people do. I can't help it if you don't get the importance of having actual data vs. the crap you put up. You don't want better data. Some people do.

So forget about putting it to the legislature of government to decide if the information is important enough to consider whether laws should be adjusted or left alone. They now have better information. But it's not necessary in your view. It is actually possible high gun ownership areas do have less crime. There may be some interesting correlations that might suggest apportionment of law enforcement. But we won't ever know. Done.

For the love of God Read again. And it's total BS you assuming we can't use better information for policing needs. That's absolutely retarded. We might not even know a problem exists in certain areas with the crap statistics we have. Do you think a guy limping into the hospital in the middle of the night gets a report written up that is sent to the CDC? It lies there in the hospital or reported to the police which DO NOT HAVE THE CAPABILITIES of good analysis. File that, next. And absolutely nothing is known about ownership in that particular area.

And if you can't go beyond this I can't hep you. You seriously can't think of any more remedies than I have ALREADY mentioned. And if I have to go into Why police are specifically placed... And you do understand that allowing gun ownership or some other carry law could possibly prevent gun violence? Do I need to explain why this might be as well or do you need the NRA to do it for you?

Lets assume the CDC suggests vaccination and the rate of the disease goes down like polio. What's the next step? Really? What's the next step?

How about keep the law intact or keep that police presence if it brings gun related crime down?
Holy shit.. Why do YOU think the CDC wants to be involved in data concerning gun deaths etc... Why do we need the CDC at all, how exactly do they act to prevent a public health problem? Why don't you go through it in your head before typing.


Thick.

Very thick.

Or you like playing do nothing games because doing SOMETHING needs explaining which you can't handle. It is also possible some sort of list will accomplish nothing. But at least I can see the reasoning behind the argument for keeping track and having data.

[DMC]

For the love of God Read again. And it's total BS you assuming we can't use better information for policing needs. That's absolutely retarded. We might not even know a problem exists in certain areas with the crap statistics we have. Do you think a guy limping into the hospital in the middle of the night gets a report written up that is sent to the CDC? It lies there in the hospital or reported to the police which DO NOT HAVE THE CAPABILITIES of good analysis. File that, next. And absolutely nothing is known about ownership in that particular area.

And if you can't go beyond this I can't hep you. You seriously can't think of any more remedies than I have ALREADY mentioned. And if I have to go into Why police are specifically placed... And you do understand that allowing gun ownership or some other carry law could possibly prevent gun violence? Do I need to explain why this might be as well or do you need the NRA to do it for you?

Lets assume the CDC suggests vaccination and the rate of the disease goes down like polio. What's the next step? Really? What's the next step?

How about keep the law intact or keep that police presence if it brings gun related crime down?
Holy shit.. Why do YOU think the CDC wants to be involved in data concerning gun deaths etc... Why do we need the CDC at all, how exactly do they act to prevent a public health problem? Why don't you go through it in your head before typing.


Thick.

Very thick.

Or you like playing do nothing games because doing SOMETHING needs explaining which you can't handle. It is also possible some sort of list will accomplish nothing. But at least I can see the reasoning behind the argument for keeping track and having data.

As I suspected; your only suggestion to allow people their 2nd Amendment rights by "need". That's been covered already.

You spent a lot of time talking about how this information is important. All you could offer as a corrective measure using that information is allowing people the right that they already are supposed to have and that most states have already.

You basically have no idea why you want a national gun registry. Somehow you think it will make you feel safer.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The CDC is answerable from everything to the press to the president.

DMC doesn't seem to understand the nature of US democracy and checks and balance. He apparently thinks that the gun industry who has no such inhibitions is the best way to set policy.

[SpursforSix]

The CDC is answerable from everything to the press to the president.

DMC doesn't seem to understand the nature of US democracy and checks and balance. He apparently thinks that the gun industry who has no such inhibitions is the best way to set policy.

How is that any different from BigPharma, BigAg, or BigTech setting policy for their respective industries?

[SpursforSix]

Not to mention BigFinance

[FuzzyLumpkins]

How is that any different from BigPharma, BigAg, or BigTech setting policy for their respective industries?

It's not much different at all. That is a problem don't you think?

All hail oru corporate overlords is the answer?

I just find the delusional american who identifies with the 8 figure executive type yet have a mortgage many multiples of their annual income to be hilarious. Renters are even better

I was actually hoping that Trump might be different. Then I saw his pending appointments.

[SpursforSix]

It's not much different at all. That is a problem don't you think?

All hail oru corporate overlords is the answer?

I just find the delusional american who identifies with the 8 figure executive type yet have a mortgage many multiples of their annual income to be hilarious. Renters are even better

I was actually hoping that Trump might be different. Then I saw his pending appointments.

I do think it's a problem. I think the pharmacy and agriculture industry cause tens of thousands more deaths per year than guns. I wish there was the same public and media outrage focused on those.

[DMC]

The CDC is answerable from everything to the press to the president.

DMC doesn't seem to understand the nature of US democracy and checks and balance. He apparently thinks that the gun industry who has no such inhibitions is the best way to set policy.

Says he blocked me.

Still wants to discuss me.

CDC... as if guns are a disease, start off with the answer and are trying to find the question: Guns are bad... how do we prove it? Compares it to cancer or other disease. Presumes guns cause deaths like cancer causes deaths. Removes the human element from the gun discussion. There's already research regarding the human aspect.

Left's last bastion of hope against the 2nd Amendment, to use the science approach.

[DMC]

I do think it's a problem. I think the pharmacy and agriculture industry cause tens of thousands more deaths per year than guns. I wish there was the same public and media outrage focused on those.

There are 2x more gun related suicides per year than gun related murders. CDC needs to study suicides. You should be forced to tell the federal government when you are feeling suicidal. In fact, they need to have chemical monitors implanted in our brains that indicate when we are feeling suicidal. That would save 2x a many lives as the murders using guns angle.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I do think it's a problem. I think the pharmacy and agriculture industry cause tens of thousands more deaths per year than guns. I wish there was the same public and media outrage focused on those.

Hey I despise the hegemony of the AMA as much as anyone. The health care lobby gets a ton of attention particularly in light of Obamacare over the past decade or so. As for Agriculture there is a ton of attention right now on Trump's picking an Ag Secretary.

The reason why their is disproportionate coverage is because the NRA has public rallies across the country, takes out TV spots year round, and similar public exposures to combat anything that might hurt their sales be it right wrong or indifferent.

[DMC]

Hey I despise the hegemony of the AMA as much as anyone. The health care lobby gets a ton of attention particularly in light of Obamacare over the past decade or so. As for Agriculture there is a ton of attention right now on Trump's picking an Ag Secretary.

The reason why their is disproportionate coverage is because the NRA has public rallies across the country, takes out TV spots year round, and similar public exposures to combat anything that might hurt their sales be it right wrong or indifferent.
For Fuzzy (https://www.sadtrombone.com/?********=true)

[FuzzyLumpkins]

DMC, you sure aren't too bright.

If you want to engage me in conversation then come up with something worthwhile that someone else will engage in and I will participate. I'm not reading your shit directed at me. Deal with it, dim.

[DMC]

^It still talks to me after saying it has ignored me. It doesn't understand the concept of "ignore".

[CosmicCowboy]

Fuzzy and boutons could be twins. Just part of the spurstalk entertainment of butthurt liberals.

[mookie2001]

They also remodel their fucking kitchens whenever their wives decide it's time to. (Remodel the fucking kitchen)

[Stevie Johnson]

OP doesn't want to admit it but he sucks cocks

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Fuzzy and boutons could be twins. Just part of the spurstalk entertainment of butthurt liberals.

:lol So says the Hastert victim blamer.

[Axl Rose]

:lol So says the Hastert victim blamer.
Grow a bigger one

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Grow a bigger one

Right after you get off my jock, fascist.

[Axl Rose]

Right after you get off my jock, fascist.
Shameful to be that small and angry. Accept your inferiority liberal.

btw, fascist just sounds sexy. Times are changing

[DMC]

Shameful to be that small and angry. Accept your inferiority liberal.

btw, fascist just sounds sexy. Times are changing

It wanted me to indulge it in pseudo genetics theory as if I have nothing better to do than argue against Wiki as a professional geneticist.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Shameful to be that small and angry. Accept your inferiority liberal.

btw, fascist just sounds sexy. Times are changing

You hope I am angry.

You embrace a reviled historical loser.

Not surprising considering the source.

[DMC]

Wonder if Fuzzy still has that old pistol? That's his total experience with firearms so he thinks he can debate his way into understanding through Wiki runs and Google gathering.

[DMC]

You hope I am angry.

You embrace a reviled historical loser.

Not surprising considering the source.

lol

Hillary lost 3 times already. Trump ran once, for any public office, and won at the highest level but somehow he's a historical loser. Fuzzy logic.

[boutons_deux]

As Inauguration Approaches, NRATV Says Dissent Against Trump Is An "Assault" On The Constitution

Ostensibly a news organization, the National Rifle Association’s NRATV is actually a pro-Trump propaganda effort that routinely labels

protected-speech reporting on the president-elect as a plot to destroy the United States, “anti-patriotic,” and an “assault against freedom and the Constitution.”
NRATV, a rebranding of NRA News, launched in October with the stated mission (https://www.nratv.com/) of providing “the most comprehensive video coverage of Second Amendment issues, events and culture anywhere in the world.”

It brought on conservative radio's Grant Stinchfield (http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/10/28/host-nras-new-pro-trump-show-blame-minorities-gun-violence/214182) to serve as a host, interjecting live hourly updates into a 24-hour video feed featuring archived material and other live programing. His initial updates, which signaled the NRA’s efforts to elect Trump (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/nra-trump-endorsement-223422) as president, quickly took on an anti-democratic tone.

During an October 26 broadcast (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTR60elz01c), Stinchfield warned viewers about “the mainstream media’s assault against freedom and the Constitution” that “played out every night on the airwaves of America.”
Just how was the “mainstream media” assaulting the Constitution? According to NRATV, it was by reporting on numerous allegations of sexual assault (http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/10/all-the-women-accusing-trump-of-rape-sexual-assault.html) and harassment (http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/10/all-the-women-accusing-trump-of-rape-sexual-assault.html) against Trump instead of “important topics we need to be talking about, like save the Second Amendment.”

As Stinchfield -- citing a report by Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly on allegations against Trump -- explained, “Overwhelmingly biased attacks against Donald Trump” were being “cloaked as real news”:

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/12/26/inauguration-approaches-nratv-says-dissent-against-trump-assault-constitution/214895?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+MediaMattersForAmerica-CountyFair+%28Media+Matters+for+America+-+Blog%29

Amusing that Ms of you sicko gun fellators agree with NRATV, Fox lies, Limbaugh, etc.

Protesting, blocking Don The Con is the pure patriotism.

[Th'Pusher]

lol

Hillary lost 3 times already. Trump ran once, for any public office, and won at the highest level but somehow he's a historical loser. Fuzzy logic.

I'm pretty sure he's referring to hitler, tbh. Now start telling us why hitler was a winner. Go.

[pgardn]

As I suspected; your only suggestion to allow people their 2nd Amendment rights by "need". That's been covered already.

You spent a lot of time talking about how this information is important. All you could offer as a corrective measure using that information is allowing people the right that they already are supposed to have and that most states have already.

You basically have no idea why you want a national gun registry. Somehow you think it will make you feel safer.

This is just basically giving up. I told you specifically why it might be useful.
You have no real argument whatsoever anymore.
And you know this.

[DMC]

This is just basically giving up. I told you specifically why it might be useful.
You have no real argument whatsoever anymore.
And you know this.

1. Allocating police resources by gun ownership :lol
2. Talking points for the left :lol

It took you how many pages to actually concoct those two worthless offerings? Police resources are allocated by funding and need, which is crime, not gun ownership. Knowing who bought the gun doesn't tell you where that person currently lives, in what regions the guns are or anything else. It's just a precursor step to salve the left gunphobia.

[DMC]

Just wait until your social media offerings are filtered to avoid "fake news". Wait until the new protocol surfaces that requires IPs and anyone owning a domain to police the content for "truth". Left started the fire with the 2nd Amendment, now the 1st is going to be attacked in the name of safety.

[Th'Pusher]

Just wait until your social media offerings are filtered to avoid "fake news". Wait until the new protocol surfaces that requires IPs and anyone owning a domain to police the content for "truth". Left started the fire with the 2nd Amendment, now the 1st is going to be attacked in the name of safety.

Stop being such a pussy.

[pgardn]

1. Allocating police resources by gun ownership :lol
2. Talking points for the left :lol

It took you how many pages to actually concoct those two worthless offerings? Police resources are allocated by funding and need, which is crime, not gun ownership. Knowing who bought the gun doesn't tell you where that person currently lives, in what regions the guns are or anything else. It's just a precursor step to salve the left gunphobia.

It took you pages to even begin to fathom reasons you never considered . You were led around like a little dog. I fed you bits and pieces to allow you to find the obvious.

And yeah I have a huge gun phobia. I live in Texas you fool. I can't think of a friend who does NOT OWN A GUN. But they are not NRA lapdogs like you are. I love the outdoors and spend tons of vacation time WITH gun owners. And I personally find guns fascinating. There were no less than 3 guns bought for kids this xmas (for hunting) and time spent explaining safety and dates for practice set.

You ability to catch on is severely lacking.

[DMC]

It took you pages to even begin to fathom reasons you never considered . You were led around like a little dog. I fed you bits and pieces to allow you to find the obvious.

And yeah I have a huge gun phobia. I live in Texas you fool. I can't think of a friend who does NOT OWN A GUN. But they are not NRA lapdogs like you are. I love the outdoors and spend tons of vacation time WITH gun owners. And I personally find guns fascinating. There were no less than 3 guns bought for kids this xmas (for hunting) and time spent explaining safety and dates for practice set.

You ability to catch on is severely lacking.

Still waiting for a legit reason for gun registry.

[CosmicCowboy]

They also remodel their fucking kitchens whenever their wives decide it's time to. (Remodel the fucking kitchen)

not sure I understand this.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I'm pretty sure he's referring to hitler, tbh. Now start telling us why hitler was a winner. Go.

Yup, DMC's critical thinking is on display. The fixation on Hillary is interesting if not surprising. Mommy issues maybe?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

It took you pages to even begin to fathom reasons you never considered . You were led around like a little dog. I fed you bits and pieces to allow you to find the obvious.

And yeah I have a huge gun phobia. I live in Texas you fool. I can't think of a friend who does NOT OWN A GUN. But they are not NRA lapdogs like you are. I love the outdoors and spend tons of vacation time WITH gun owners. And I personally find guns fascinating. There were no less than 3 guns bought for kids this xmas (for hunting) and time spent explaining safety and dates for practice set.

You ability to catch on is severely lacking.

He never rebuts what you say. He used smilies to tell you he laughs at you and then dismissed you as leftist. He is not arguing honestly. It's how he rolls. Instead he tries to dominate a conversation like a dog marking its territory. If anything it underscores that he knows he it's a loser. When he thinks he can win he argues on merit. When he doesn't he does this. Intellectual cowardice is what it is.

You named several public health and safety initiatives and are hardly exhaustive. Then of course there are things that will arise out of the study that are not anticipated. The 2nd amendment is not going away so there fearmongering is baseless.

He has nothing worthwhile in response.

[boutons_deux]

.... conned YET AGAIN by NRA/GunIndustry fake paranoia

http://www.truthdig.com/images/made/images/cartoonuploads/[email protected]

[DMC]

He never rebuts what you say. He used smilies to tell you he laughs at you and then dismissed you as leftist. He is not arguing honestly. It's how he rolls. Instead he tries to dominate a conversation like a dog marking its territory. If anything it underscores that he knows he it's a loser. When he thinks he can win he argues on merit. When he doesn't he does this. Intellectual cowardice is what it is.

You named several public health and safety initiatives and are hardly exhaustive. Then of course there are things that will arise out of the study that are not anticipated. The 2nd amendment is not going away so there fearmongering is baseless.

He has nothing worthwhile in response.

Similes. If you're going to act smart at least don't look like an idiot doing it.

:lol "on ignore"
:lol keeps responding and talking about me
:lol rent free

[boutons_deux]

Gun supporter who calls guns 'toys' is promptly shot by toddler son from backseat of car (http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/3/9/1498664/-Gun-supporter-who-calls-guns-toys-is-promptly-shot-by-toddler-son-from-backseat-of-car)

http://images.dailykos.com/images/221798/story_image/JamieGill.jpg?1457543798

Her Facebook account is an ode to right-wing political opinions, Second Amendment rights, and anti-immigrant/racist type meme activity. She also thinks Bernie Sanders is a socialist. Yesterday, on her way to see about a horse (she has a passion for horses), one of her—maybe her husband’s—guns found its way into her four-year-old son’s hands. (http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local/mother-accidentally-shot-son-after-posting-he-gets/nqgry/)


Putnam deputies found a truck and a horse trailer just after 3 p.m. in the middle of travel lanes on Highway 20 near Rowland Avenue.

They found 31-year-old Jamie Gilt in the front seat with a bullet wound. Police said Gilt's 4-year-old son shot his mother through the back of her seat as she was driving.

She was taken to UF Health and is in stable condition, according to deputies.


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/3/9/1498664/-Gun-supporter-who-calls-guns-toys-is-promptly-shot-by-toddler-son-from-backseat-of-car

[TheSanityAnnex]

:lol recycling stories from March

[boutons_deux]

:lol recycling stories from March

they never grow old.

[pgardn]

1. Allocating police resources by gun ownership :lol
2. Talking points for the left :lol

It took you how many pages to actually concoct those two worthless offerings? Police resources are allocated by funding and need, which is crime, not gun ownership. Knowing who bought the gun doesn't tell you where that person currently lives, in what regions the guns are or anything else. It's just a precursor step to salve the left gunphobia.

The emoticons come out. You got nothing left.

Two. You fckn can't see more than two.... You want me to list everything WE would like to study that requires some stats on where guns are? Really? You need help old man. You are now reconstructing the argument conveniently leaving out points that I already brought forth.

Do you think gun violence, crime, accidents is important enough to have good data on? (not your shit surveysYeah, im that crazy leftist Texan that wants guns eliminated...Not)
If its not, why does the CDC think knowing where guns are located IS important?

You really either have no fkn clue, or have lost your case in a most embarrassing fashion. At least you should be embarrassed.

[CosmicCowboy]

The emoticons come out. You got nothing left.

Two. You fckn can't see more than two.... You want me to list everything WE would like to study that requires some stats on where guns are? Really? You need help old man. You are now reconstructing the argument conveniently leaving out points that I already brought forth.

Do you think gun violence, crime, accidents is important enough to have good data on? (not your shit surveysYeah, im that crazy leftist Texan that wants guns eliminated...Not)
If its not, why does the CDC think knowing where guns are located IS important?

You really either have no fkn clue, or have lost your case in a most embarrassing fashion. At least you should be embarrassed.

The only relevant stats you might gain from registered gun owners is accidents by registered gun owners....and....duh...you get that information already when there is an accident with a legal gun owner. same with gun violence and crime....FBI already gets those statistics.

[pgardn]

The only relevant stats you might gain from registered gun owners is accidents by registered gun owners....and....duh...you get that information already when there is an accident with a legal gun owner. same with gun violence and crime....FBI already gets those statistics.

So you believe the statistics concerning gun related crimes, accidents, etc... are good enough? We know what's going with what is a public health concern for others. Why does the CDC want more stats? They do work not only gathering gun stats but crunching them and assessing validity. The FBI does not. The FBI is not tasked with this. In fact the CDC has been asked to run better studies to which it replies it cannot. Can you explain this void in good numbers which allows Boots and DMC to put up whatever survey they feel makes their point?

We got really good numbers on a much larger health concern, car injuries and accidents. Wonder why?

[boutons_deux]

News from NRA/GunIndustry fantasyland

Florida’s ‘stand your ground’ law increased homicides by 31 percent — and now they want to expand it

Gun homicides have jumped in Florida by more than 30 percent in the decade since lawmakers passed the “stand your ground” self-defense law.Florida was the first state to pass the law, which allows deadly force if a person believes they faces great bodily harm, and a recent study found an “abrupt and sustained” increase in the state’s homicide rate since then

monthly rate of homicides by firearm had increased by 31.6 percent since the law was enacted in 2005.

“It’s not surprising because when you lessen the standard for self-defense you create more opportunity for the use of deadly force,”

“When you have more opportunity for the use of deadly force you are going to have more fatalities. It’s pretty much guaranteed.”

Florida’s crime rate has been dropping, with few exceptions, since the law was passed — but that trend began a decade earlier, in 1995.

Baxley would like to expand the law by requiring prosecutors to prove the law does not apply in individual cases.

“The stand your ground law has been and will remain a political statement about the constitutional right to bear arms,” Rose said.

“It creates misunderstandings and a more dangerous environment on the streets of Florida.”

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/12/floridas-stand-your-ground-law-increased-homicides-by-31-percent-and-now-they-want-to-expand-it/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story% 29

[CosmicCowboy]

So you believe the statistics concerning gun related crimes, accidents, etc... are good enough? We know what's going with what is a public health concern for others. Why does the CDC want more stats? They do work not only gathering gun stats but crunching them and assessing validity. The FBI does not. The FBI is not tasked with this. In fact the CDC has been asked to run better studies to which it replies it cannot. Can you explain this void in good numbers which allows Boots and DMC to put up whatever survey they feel makes their point?

We got really good numbers on a much larger health concern, car injuries and accidents. Wonder why?

What the fuck is the Center For Disease Control doing getting into the politics of gun control?

And how much have those "statistics" on car accidents reduced car accidents?

The answer is ZERO.

[CosmicCowboy]

News from NRA/GunIndustry fantasyland

Florida’s ‘stand your ground’ law increased homicides by 31 percent — and now they want to expand it

Gun homicides have jumped in Florida by more than 30 percent in the decade since lawmakers passed the “stand your ground” self-defense law.Florida was the first state to pass the law, which allows deadly force if a person believes they faces great bodily harm, and a recent study found an “abrupt and sustained” increase in the state’s homicide rate since then

monthly rate of homicides by firearm had increased by 31.6 percent since the law was enacted in 2005.

“It’s not surprising because when you lessen the standard for self-defense you create more opportunity for the use of deadly force,”

“When you have more opportunity for the use of deadly force you are going to have more fatalities. It’s pretty much guaranteed.”

Florida’s crime rate has been dropping, with few exceptions, since the law was passed — but that trend began a decade earlier, in 1995.

Baxley would like to expand the law by requiring prosecutors to prove the law does not apply in individual cases.

“The stand your ground law has been and will remain a political statement about the constitutional right to bear arms,” Rose said.

“It creates misunderstandings and a more dangerous environment on the streets of Florida.”

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/12/floridas-stand-your-ground-law-increased-homicides-by-31-percent-and-now-they-want-to-expand-it/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story% 29



:lmao

ZERO proven cause and effect in your libtard story.

The Orange crop has also failed five times in Florida since that law was passed. Damn law cause orange juice to be more expensive!!!!

[pgardn]

What the fuck is the Center For Disease Control doing getting into the politics of gun control?

And how much have those "statistics" on car accidents reduced car accidents?

The answer is ZERO.

They are tasked with public health. Why do they gather car statistics? You do realize that the names of different agencies do NOT describe everything they are tasked with? The politics? They have been asked by members of congress to gather numbers. But no funding. You see, when Congrees does debate this because of a Sandyhook or whatever, it is made clear they do not have accurate information. Both sides of the aisle know this.

[CosmicCowboy]

They are tasked with public health. Why do they gather car statistics? You do realize that the names of different agencies do NOT describe everything they are tasked with? The politics? They have been asked by members of congress to gather numbers. But no funding. You see, when Congrees does debate this because of a Sandyhook or whatever, it is made clear they do not have accurate information. Both sides of the aisle know this.

If the majority of members in Congress thought it was important they would fund it. Obviously it isn't a priority for them either.

[pgardn]

If the majority of members in Congress thought it was important they would fund it. Obviously it isn't a priority for them either.

Yes of course it is not.
The NRA tells them it's not.

[CosmicCowboy]

Yes of course it is not.
The NRA tells them it's not.

Well there ya go. Democracy in action. Let the whining begin.

[pgardn]

Well there ya go. Democracy in action. Let the whining begin.

Yep.

Drain the Swamp. Donald will F all those lobbyists. Should be interesting. No. actually it won't.

[pgardn]

Well there ya go. Democracy in action. Let the whining begin.

And congrats for finally getting it.

[DMC]

They are tasked with public health. Why do they gather car statistics? You do realize that the names of different agencies do NOT describe everything they are tasked with? The politics? They have been asked by members of congress to gather numbers. But no funding. You see, when Congrees does debate this because of a Sandyhook or whatever, it is made clear they do not have accurate information. Both sides of the aisle know this.

This is what happens when you show your hand early on. The CDC has been down the gun control road before and this is why they have been restricted from doing so again. Guns aren't diseases, they aren't killers. People kill. The CDC can study the living conditions, cultural and economic factors that affect the murder stats. They won't publish the truth though, it's not politically correct. Instead, go after people who are exercising their constitutional rights and treat them like criminals. Make it so that, if an otherwise legal gun owner doesn't register, he's now a criminal. What other right get's monitored to see who's using it? Other rights get monitored to see who's being denied that right.

You really like to wave your hands around and talk about how important gun registry would be because the stats are important. You cannot say how they are important though, just that they are. I think you've already realized you don't have a case here and so you're just stalling. Else you'd make a numbered list of the reasons gun registry is important, other than just saying it's important or "police allocation" and "talking points on forums".