Mock

(07-05-2015, 01:23 PM)F.U. Dont ask again Wrote: [ -> ]Not a place of fear, just a place with eyes wide open.

We will need to agree to disagree on that one.

Trust the Gov, they will NEVER lie to you. Said No Native American ever.

(07-05-2015, 12:52 PM)F.U. Dont ask again Wrote: [ -> ]Polls are not accurate . You can get any answer you want depending on where you take that poll. Lets use sports. Wanna hear that Green Bay is the best team, take that poll in Wisconsin. Raiders? California. Its that simple

It's not that simple F.U.

There are professional polling and survey takers that have no horse in the race and that's why they're used.

But, I agree with you that people can manipulate most anything, obviously. That's why it's important to consider the source.

What point were you trying to make in regards to the specific poll cited anyway? You don't believe the poll that indicates 70% of people in the US mistakenly believe that there exists a federal gun registry? Well, Cars obviously was mistaken about that. Duchess too. It's not hard for me to believe that they're in the majority of the population when it comes to that belief.

(07-05-2015, 01:25 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-05-2015, 01:23 PM)F.U. Dont ask again Wrote: [ -> ]Not a place of fear, just a place with eyes wide open.

We will need to agree to disagree on that one.

I will agree to disagree with FU on that one too.

I'm so sick of 2^nd Amendment purists and their fearful grip on that particular amendment to the constitution. How many amendments have followed? How many federal laws have changed since then for the betterment of society?

I have NO doubt that our founding fathers (and those that wrote the second amendment) would look at the state of guns (and the educated ESTIMATES around the number of guns in the United States today) and think..."WTF"? Kind of like Duchess...

(07-05-2015, 01:31 PM)F.U. Dont ask again Wrote: [ -> ]Trust the Gov, they will NEVER lie to you. Said No Native American ever.

You sound like you've been hitting the peace pipe, filled with crack.

No one is suggesting that the government never lies and should be trusted without question.

Laws and regulations should and sometimes do have checks, balances and stipulations in regards to monitoring and reporting overreach.

I think you sound uninformed, paranoid, and deflective. I understand that you think I sound naive or gullible. I can certainly live with that.

I was just making a comment about polls in general HotD.


Well its ben fun but its time for me to go serve some beer to some drunks. Have a great sunday all and remember, buy it cheap and stock it deep. I'm out, peace.

All I see is an image that could serve as an advert for the hard core gun control advocates who insist that all gun enthusiasts are nutty, cartoonish, extremists.

It's too bad that responsible and more rational gun enthusiasts often get a bad rap by association.

First, you require everyone to register for permits to acquire and to keep guns. Then, you stop giving out those permits. Then your gov't has all the guns, and your people can't stop you. Similar to Germany in 1938 when they rescinded already in place gun restrictions only for members of the Nazi party.

The US gov't infringes on the Bill of Rights every day. The best deterrent of them throwing it out completely is the second amendment. I don't even own a gun, but I believe strongly in the right for Americans to have one. It's awful when a kid accidentally harms themselves, it's tragic when a criminal murders a dozen innocent people. The only thing worse is an unchecked government capable of murdering millions. I think if you asked the founding fathers about the current state of the U.S., their first comment would be: "The PATRIOT act?!?"

(07-05-2015, 11:27 AM)F.U. Dont ask again Wrote: [ -> ]I am OK with background checks myself. After all when doing so the buyer is only checked out, not the firearm. All we tell them is long gun or handgun. No ser #'s are given nor type of gun. SO the DG checks are no big deal.

This is a significant turn-around from the last time we had exchanges in regards to Universal Background Checks and you argued they created too many "hoops" and "costs" for gun owners, even after I addressed those supposed "hoops" and "costs".

You said in your experience, they just wouldn't work. And then went on about them making it easier for big brother to disarm you.

I'm glad to see you've changed your position and now support background checks for private transactions (though family member transfers should not be exempt, for obvious common sense reasons).

Your reason for opposing safe storage laws then was "cost" and "hoops" to gun owners, and you suggested focusing on gun theft instead. Now your argument against safe storage mandates is "slippery slope". Maybe by the end of the year, you'll be on board with that one too.

(Ref: pages 103, 104 --> of this thread)

(07-05-2015, 08:25 PM)Duchess Wrote: [ -> ]

FU, would you consider yourself a gun fanatic?

NO

(07-05-2015, 11:27 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-05-2015, 11:27 AM)F.U. Dont ask again Wrote: [ -> ]I am OK with background checks myself. After all when doing so the buyer is only checked out, not the firearm. All we tell them is long gun or handgun. No ser #'s are given nor type of gun. SO the DG checks are no big deal.

This is a significant turn-around from the last time we had exchanges in regards to Universal Background Checks and you argued they created too many "hoops" and "costs" for gun owners, even after I addressed those supposed "hoops" and "costs".

You said in your experience, they just wouldn't work. And then went on about them making it easier for big brother to disarm you.

I'm glad to see you've changed your position and now support background checks for private transactions (though family member transfers should not be exempt, for obvious common sense reasons).

Your reason for opposing safe storage laws then was "cost" and "hoops" to gun owners, and you suggested focusing on gun theft instead. Now your argument against safe storage mandates is "slippery slope". Maybe by the end of the year, you'll be on board with that one too.

(Ref: pages 103, 104 --> of this thread)

I am willing to ben a little HotD. Now if the anti gunners would do the same we could get somewhere. I still think there are a lot of hoops that really are not needed, However those hoops will put $$$ in my pocket in the end. I am not willing to bend on the family member transfers though. And what one person sees as common sense storage another sees as overkill. I just don't see where a government has the right to tell anyone how anything needs to be stored. Whats next. all those deadly autos must be stored in a garage, just a example, don't freak out and give me the no comparison BS.

(07-05-2015, 11:25 PM)Cutz Wrote: [ -> ]First, you require everyone to register for permits to acquire and to keep guns. Then, you stop giving out those permits. Then your gov't has all the guns, and your people can't stop you. Similar to Germany in 1938 when they rescinded already in place gun restrictions only for members of the Nazi party.

The US gov't infringes on the Bill of Rights every day. The best deterrent of them throwing it out completely is the second amendment. I don't even own a gun, but I believe strongly in the right for Americans to have one. It's awful when a kid accidentally harms themselves, it's tragic when a criminal murders a dozen innocent people. The only thing worse is an unchecked government capable of murdering millions. I think if you asked the founding fathers about the current state of the U.S., their first comment would be: "The PATRIOT act?!?"

Well, I think you may be the first of those who've invoked Godwin's Law in this thread who at least did not make the false claim that Hitler initiated gun control and took all the guns away from the Jews.

As far as the second amendment goes, I too respect it, in full. That includes the "well regulated" part. Even if one is so inclined as to compare the U.S. government today to 1938 Nazi Germany in order to oppose gun registration, it's an irrational excuse to automatically reject attempts at better control/safety (regulation).

The U.S. government has expressly outlawed a federal registry and there are tons of pro-gunners in the government and the population supporting the second amendment. A federal gun registry leading to confiscation is not a direct nor logical outcome of universal background checks (and even less so in regards to safe storage laws).

I believe you've previously expressed support for both universal checks and safe storage laws upthread, so I'm not suggesting that you're among the irrational Cutz, just jumping off your post.

(The Patriot Act was essentially repealed last month.)

(07-06-2015, 01:01 AM)F.U. Dont ask again Wrote: [ -> ]I am willing to ben a little HotD. Now if the anti gunners would do the same we could get somewhere. I still think there are a lot of hoops that really are not needed, However those hoops will put $$$ in my pocket in the end. I am not willing to bend on the family member transfers though. And what one person sees as common sense storage another sees as overkill. I just don't see where a government has the right to tell anyone how anything needs to be stored. Whats next. all those deadly autos must be stored in a garage, just a example, don't freak out and give me the no comparison BS.

I'm not one to freak out.

But, I'll certainly object to bullshit deflective comparisons when I'm so inclined.

Anyway, by "anti-gunners" I assume you mean anyone who supports gun safety/control? Doesn't really matter.

Your claim that anti-gunners won't compromise holds absolutely no water whatsoever.

Gun control advocates dropped all attempts to ban certain gun types and clip/round limitations in hopes of at least getting universal background checks passed. And still, the pro-gun zealots blocked the passage of that bill into law, despite the fact that it was supported by 90% of the population (including rational gun owners). I've read the bill several times, so I know that it did not include objectionable riders.

(07-06-2015, 01:32 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ](The Patriot Act was essentially repealed last month.)

No, parts of the Patriot act expired last month. However, the next day, The USA Freedom Act restored many of the expired parts.

The major change was that the NSA can no longer continue it's massive phone data collection program.

(07-06-2015, 01:49 AM)Cutz Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-06-2015, 01:32 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ](The Patriot Act was essentially repealed last month.)

No, parts of the Patriot act expired last month. However, the next day, The USA Freedom Act restored many of the expired parts.

The major change was that the NSA can no longer continue it's massive phone data collection program.

That's true.

I assumed the parts you figured the founding fathers would object to was related to the monitoring of citizen's private data without probable cause.

If you meant the whole of the Act, I stand corrected.

No HotD the anti gunners don't want to compromise. They want to take take take and if that taking requires them to do it in baby steps instead of strides that is what they will do. I don't consider it compromising when all they did was say , we wont go after magazine capacity's or types of firearms . . . this time. If they really want to compromise make it a give and take. Give us something like, lets say, dropping the BS AOW or NFA paperwork and fee requirements. I mean after all everyone will be checked out now so the type of firearm shouldn't matter anymore. Or give us a nationwide stand your ground law. Or a nation wide constitutional carry law. Give us something. Its only a compromise when both sides get something in return.

(07-05-2015, 08:09 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]All I see is an image that could serve as an advert for the hard core gun control advocates who insist that all gun enthusiasts are nutty, cartoonish, extremists.

It's too bad that responsible and more rational gun enthusiasts often get a bad rap by association.

Why thank you HotD. Once again your comments make me start my day with a laugh.
nutty, cartoonish, extremists