Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[Nadaka]

And again, it was less than 24 hours before the law was voted on when it was transformed into a simple expansion of the existing background checks to encompass private sales. That question did not represent the content of the proposed law when the survey was taken. And there will be a lot more people familiar with the proposal in its previous state as a gun ban and "background checks" that were unlimited in the amount of information collected, how long it could be stored, who it could be shared with and for what purpose it could be used. What the bill tried to accomplish, under the guise of a simple expansion of background checks was far different than "the exact same thing", and that is why the ACLU did not approve of it even though they officially endorse the idea that the right to bear arms is not an individual right, but a right of the states to maintain an independent militia.

I thought we were trying to change the subject?

Obama, he's a comedian!

“I know CNN has taken some knocks lately but the fact is, I admire their commitment to covering all sides of the story, just in case one of them happens to be accurate.”

yea and its an accurate assessment too. CNN gave way to much credence to the anti-vaccine crowd by pretending that their opinion was just as valid and well supported as the "opinion" of repeated objective medical research.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

And again, it was less than 24 hours before the law was voted on when it was transformed into a simple expansion of the existing background checks to encompass private sales. That question did not represent the content of the proposed law when the survey was taken. And there will be a lot more people familiar with the proposal in its previous state as a gun ban and "background checks" that were unlimited in the amount of information collected, how long it could be stored, who it could be shared with and for what purpose it could be used. What the bill tried to accomplish, under the guise of a simple expansion of background checks was far different than "the exact same thing", and that is why the ACLU did not approve of it even though they officially endorse the idea that the right to bear arms is not an individual right, but a right of the states to maintain an independent militia.

The wonders of utilizing false equivalency to allow criminals to get guns at gun stores. Feel better about yourself now that you've helped defend the right of violent wife beaters, convicts, and straw purchasers to exercise their second amendment right to rob and murder people as they will all because of an immature and narrow view of how constitutional rights work.

[Nadaka]

And again, it was less than 24 hours before the law was voted on when it was transformed into a simple expansion of the existing background checks to encompass private sales. That question did not represent the content of the proposed law when the survey was taken. And there will be a lot more people familiar with the proposal in its previous state as a gun ban and "background checks" that were unlimited in the amount of information collected, how long it could be stored, who it could be shared with and for what purpose it could be used. What the bill tried to accomplish, under the guise of a simple expansion of background checks was far different than "the exact same thing", and that is why the ACLU did not approve of it even though they officially endorse the idea that the right to bear arms is not an individual right, but a right of the states to maintain an independent militia.

The wonders of utilizing false equivalency to allow criminals to get guns at gun stores. Feel better about yourself now that you've helped defend the right of violent wife beaters, convicts, and straw purchasers to exercise their second amendment right to rob and murder people as they will all because of an immature and narrow view of how constitutional rights work.

How completely ignorant are you? Way to create an emotionally charged strawman with no rational basis in reality and directly contradicted by the facts at hand. That SO improves your position. 

I don't actually oppose universal background checks. If you are going to have a class of people who are not legally allowed to own weapons due to their convictions for violent criminal acts, then background checks are necessary. And they can be done in a way that is effective, relatively convenient,  and does not infringe on legal gun owners privacy and self defense rights.

In fact, I actually emailed my representatives and senators asking them to pass a reasonable universal background check law (and to also NOT pass the AW ban and magazine capacity limits).

[Mictlantecuhtli]

I don't care what your pittance is in return. You still are opposed to a bill which would save lives and improve a terribly open-ended background check system from stopping criminals, sex offenders, wife beaters, straw purchasers and black market arms dealers from being able to buy and distribute such weapons without a care in the goddamn world..

Until you yourself become the victim of this pathetic gun worship culture you'll continue to use your cute false equivalency, and that's nice, but not the real world.

Your opinion =/= Popular opinion. Once again:

I'm gonna bold that for you.
Require criminal background checks for all gun sales [I.e. universal background checks]: 91%

Here's another one you conveniently ignore:

Reinstate and strengthen the assault weapons ban that was in place from 1994 to 2004: 60%

Unless, of course, you continue to think your opinion is superior to popular sentiment. In either of your hyperbole filled cases the popular opinion supports the bill, yep, even the make believe bill you're imagining.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

If something in a democracy has 60-90% support on each and every single provision, I don't give a damn if a wingnut doesn't agree, sorry. The bill specifically wrote out the possibility of a registry. So this hyperbole and false equivalency upsets me since it's making people lose their lives since people have a misguided and ignorant view of how constitutional rights work.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

If something in a democracy has 60-90% support on each and every single provision, I don't give a damn if a wingnut doesn't agree, sorry.

You realise you're on a planet run by humans, right?

A vocal minority is not a majority. Welcome to democracy kiddo.

[Owlbread]

Advocacy of the "asssault weapons ban" (assault weapons being an expression invented by sensationalist media figures) and silence on the issue of handgun ownership is like going after bank robbers and not burglars. How often are the weapons described in the "assault weapons ban" proposals actually used in crimes when compared with handguns?

[Mictlantecuhtli]

Look, I'm tired of this game. Look at popular opinion and quit haggling with me about this 'rights' [of which I doubt anyone could quote the text of the 2nd without looking it up] spiel.

If you're against universal background checks you're against majority opinion.

[Nadaka]

I don't care what your pittance is in return. You still are opposed to a bill which would save lives and improve a terribly open-ended background check system from stopping criminals, sex offenders, wife beaters, straw purchasers and black market arms dealers from being able to buy and distribute such weapons without a care in the goddamn world..

Until you yourself become the victim of this pathetic gun worship culture you'll continue to use your cute false equivalency, and that's nice, but not the real world.

Your opinion =/= Popular opinion. Once again:

I'm gonna bold that for you.
Require criminal background checks for all gun sales [I.e. universal background checks]: 91%

Here's another one you conveniently ignore:

Reinstate and strengthen the assault weapons ban that was in place from 1994 to 2004: 60%

Unless, of course, you continue to think your opinion is superior to popular sentiment. In either of your hyperbole filled cases the popular opinion supports the bill, yep, even the make believe bill you're imagining.

And once again MY OPINION is not the shit you spew in order to demonize me. I support universal background checks if they are done right. And the fact that you have to resort to that kind of action in an argument means that your opinion can not be supported on its merits.

And popular opinion is irrelevant on the issue of rights. At one time it was popular opinion that women shouldn't have the right to vote. But it was still their right, even if it was denied.  It is not popular opinion that Larry Flint should be able to publish filthy pornography, but it IS his right.

You have already lost.

[Owlbread]

Look, I'm tired of this game. Look at popular opinion and quit haggling with me about this 'rights' [of which I doubt anyone could quote the text of the 2nd without looking it up] spiel.

If you're against universal background checks you're against majority opinion.

I'm not talking about background checks, I'm talking about the "assault weapons ban" and its tangible effects on stopping crime. Can you give me figures on how violent crime figures were affected by the ban under Clinton? Why is banning "assault weapons" more important right now than having tighter restrictions on handguns?

[Sirus]

*pops into the thread*

Looks like you folks could use some of these:



*vanishes*

[Dutchling]

*hides the pills and grabs more popcorn*

[Mictlantecuhtli]

Nadaka's best arguement: I'm right, you're wrong, my opinion is all encompassing! Cute. There's a reason your debates never fulfill any goal, mate. Support any position with popular opinion and prove your hyperbole claims of this being akin to a registry system and I'll give you the light of day to discuss your misguided views, otherwise you're stuck in la-la land.

I'm not talking about background checks, I'm talking about the "assault weapons ban" and its tangible effects on stopping crime. Can you give me figures on how violent crime figures were affected by the ban under Clinton? Why is banning "assault weapons" more important right now than having tighter restrictions on handguns?

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

^better indicator, since gun crime typically affects disenfranchised youth. Youth violence index dropped to 25 year lows during the course of the ban.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Another important one. People tend to use them to intimidate and extort and rob people, especially women.

[Owlbread]

I'm very surprised. It seems like a lot of effort to go out and buy some of the weapons described in the ban just to rob somebody, why not just buy a Hi-Point for a hundred dollars or something? I can understand if it's linked to gang violence but surely reasonable background checks/license renewal system could solve that issue without prohibiting the sale completely?

[Mictlantecuhtli]

I'm very surprised. It seems like a lot of effort to go out and buy some of the weapons described in the ban just to rob somebody, why not just buy a Hi-Point for a hundred dollars or something? I can understand if it's linked to gang violence but surely reasonable background checks/license renewal system could solve that issue without prohibiting the sale completely?

That was the goddamn point of the new bill. To improve the background check system and re-implement the previous successful ban of military weaponry.

Of course, you wouldn't know that with the rampant amounts of disinformation thrown out there by right-wingers. I'm considering dropping my Republican title entirely. My party disgusts me to my marrow. Are arms dealers truely more important than even attempting to save lives from gun violence?