(06-16-2013, 10:48 AM)Cynical Ninja Wrote: You sound just as fucking paranoid as the gun nuts.

I'm not paranoid at all. I'm simply stating what I believe to be true. I'm not trying to convince others, I'm not name calling, I'm just posting my opinion/s.

(06-16-2013, 10:51 AM)Duchess Wrote:

(06-16-2013, 10:48 AM)Cynical Ninja Wrote: You sound just as fucking paranoid as the gun nuts.

I'm not paranoid at all. I'm simply stating what I believe to be true. I'm not trying to convince others, I'm not name calling, I'm just posting my opinion/s.

Upthread you expressed your belief that all gun transfers should be subject to background checks, IIRC.

Is it your belief then that crazies with relatively easy access to guns are less trustworthy than our government? Is that why you support expanded background checks even though you distrust the government?

(06-16-2013, 10:35 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: I read the bill when you posted it previously, Six. I read it again recently.

In order for background check requirements to be applied universally to gun transfers, administrative processes would of course be required, like with anything else. I understand from your posts that you object to those processes as being too restrictive and inconvenient to you and yours.

However, it's simply not true that the bill included or necessitated a gun registry in order for universal background checks to be implemented. Federal rules already exist forbidding the government from keeping a record of successful background checks for more than a day. Those same rules apply whether 60% or 90% of gun transfers require background checks. Lawmakers have repeatedly confirmed that they have no intention of creating a gun registry.

So, it's simply fear by some gun owners that the government can't be trusted and could have created a national gun registry with even more names had the universal background checks bill passed. It's a fear that the Fed would break its own rules, commit political suicide and create a national gun registry on the sly for the purpose of raping the US citizenship of its guns. It's a fear of yours not a fact and not a provision/necessity attached to universal background checks (nor the bill that proposed them).

Gun nuts displaying fear and paranoia about their assumptions that are incorrect?

Say it ain't so HOTD, say it ain't so.

(06-16-2013, 11:02 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: Upthread you expressed your belief that all gun transfers should be subject to background checks, IIRC.

Is it your belief then that crazies with relatively easy access to guns are less trustworthy than our government? Is that why you support expanded background checks even though you distrust the government?

I support a ways & means of something that would list the crazies for reference. I don't know what that is or how it could ever be introduced but I am agreeable to that. I don't have a problem with background checks at all, I think it's an important step regardless of how long it takes. There should be a level of difficulty in obtaining a firearm.

Yeah, I believe that crazies are less trustworthy than our government, however, I'm almost certain they are in the same boat.

(06-16-2013, 11:05 AM)Cynical Ninja Wrote: Gun nuts

Why do you keep referring to the people in here as gun nuts?

(06-16-2013, 10:51 AM)Duchess Wrote: I'm not paranoid at all. I'm simply stating what I believe to be true. I'm not trying to convince others, I'm not name calling, I'm just posting my opinion/s.[/i][/size]

Ok riddle me this Batgirl.

You are fearful and and untrustworthy of your government? How does owning an assault weapon allay that fear or rectify that mistrust in any way?

(06-16-2013, 11:11 AM)Cynical Ninja Wrote: You are fearful and and untrustworthy of your government? How does owning an assault weapon allay that fear or rectify that mistrust in any way?

I'm not fearful of our government but I do believe it can't be trusted. That's my opinion.

I don't like that they have the power to ban certain types of guns because those guns were used in the commission of a crime, because those crimes were committed by a relativity small number of people as compared to how many people own and use those guns in a responsible manner. People who play by the rules shouldn't lose their right because of those that don't, that's always been my argument.

(06-16-2013, 11:10 AM)Duchess Wrote: Why do you keep referring to the people in here as gun nuts?

If it looks like a gun nut and quacks like a gun nut chances are you've got a gun nut. Anyone that cares more about their right to have a gun more than the right of innocent people to minimise their chances of being shot is by definition a gun nut. They put guns before lives therefore they are gun nuts.

(06-16-2013, 11:15 AM)Cynical Ninja Wrote: If it looks like a gun nut and quacks like a gun nut chances are you've got a gun nut. Anyone that cares more about their right to have a gun more than the right of innocent people to minimise their chances of being shot is by definition a gun nut. They put guns before lives therefore they are gun nuts.

You're labeling everyone a gun nut who debates/argues their rights...everyone. That's what I am seeing.

(06-16-2013, 11:15 AM)Duchess Wrote: I'm not fearful of our government but I do believe it can't be trusted. That's my opinion.

I don't like that they have the power to ban certain types of guns because those guns were used in the commission of a crime, because those crimes were committed by a relativity small number of people as compared to how many people own and use those guns in a responsible manner. People who play by the rules shouldn't lose their right because of those that don't, that's always been my argument.[/i][/size]

Your government can't be trusted? Why not? How would owning an AK47 rectify that mistrust? You still haven't answered that question.
You go on endlessly about the right of law abiding people to buy assault weapons what about the rights of the innocent victims of gun massacres?
Like HOTD said the first amendment comes first before the second.

(06-16-2013, 11:19 AM)Duchess Wrote: You're labeling everyone a gun nut who debates/argues their rights...everyone. That's what I am seeing.

It's a good point that you bring up. I wonder how F.U. and Six feel about the term? Maybe they'll weigh in; I haven't seen them object to that specifically.

I don't think "gun nut" is offensive, but that's me. It's a term that describes firearms enthusiasts that are deeply entrenched in the gun culture and second amendment rights. I think it's an accurate label for Six and F.U. though I'd use "gun enthusiasts" just because it's also accurate without being critical - more in line with my views and style. But, we're all different, so maybe "gun nut" really is offensive to F.U. and/or Six?

Labels. Where would we be without them? When Six labels all people from California fruits, flakes, or ferries, for example, I'm never offended in any way and typically just have fun with the silly stereotyping. It isn't an accurate label for this Californian, but so what? It's a door opener for response mocking.

Now, if I were a black woman from California and Six called me a darlin monkey fruit, spook flake, coon ferry, or any one of the combination of stereotypical labels that he favors, I might be offended for close to 1 second until my brain kicked into gear and I considered the source, then I'd either have a mocking good time with it or just move on.

Maybe I'm just an ignorant, arrogant woman without a brain in my head, or simply missing the sensitivity gene?

(06-16-2013, 11:19 AM)Duchess Wrote: You're labeling everyone a gun nut who debates/argues their rights...everyone. That's what I am seeing.

Anyone who thinks the right to own guns is more important than innocent human lives is obviously nuts about guns therefore they are gun nuts.

(06-16-2013, 12:11 PM)Cynical Ninja Wrote: Your government can't be trusted? Why not? How would owning an AK47 rectify that mistrust? You still haven't answered that question.
You go on endlessly about the right of law abiding people to buy assault weapons what about the rights of the innocent victims of gun massacres?
Like HOTD said the first amendment comes first before the second.

Why do you sound surprised that I don't see our government as trustworthy when as recently as last week you commented that governments the world over have always "spied" on its citizens?

Yes, I did answer the question - it's not about owning the gun, it's about taking the guns away from those who use them responsibly, it's about those who do the right thing paying for those who don't.

Straight up, I don't give a fuck about the comfort level or feelings of others. It's all about how I feel. So what? I'm actually entitled to be as shallow as I want to be. Who is going to stop me? I don't care about the opinions of those that think that's a shitty attitude. Again, so what?

(06-16-2013, 12:15 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: It's a good point that you bring up. I wonder how F.U. and Six feel about the term? Maybe they'll weigh in; I haven't seen them object to that specifically.

I don't think "gun nut" is offensive, but that's me. It's a term that describes firearms enthusiasts that are deeply entrenched in the gun culture and second amendment rights. I think it's an accurate label for Six and F.U. though I'd use "gun enthusiasts" just because it's also accurate without being critical - more in line with my views and style. But, we're all different, so maybe "gun nut" really is offensive to F.U. and/or Six?

Labels. Where would we be without them? When Six labels all people from California fruits, flakes, or ferries, for example, I'm never offended in any way and typically just have fun with the silly stereotyping. It's a door opener for response mocking.

Now, if I were a black woman from California and Six called me a darlin monkey fruit, spook flake, coon ferry, or any one of the combination of stereotypical labels that he favors, I might be offended for close to 1 second until my brain kicked into gear and I considered the source, then I'd either have a mocking good time with it or just move on.

Maybe I'm just missing the sensitivity gene?

I don't use the term “gun nut” to offend I've already explained my logic in describing someone who is obviously “nuts” about guns as a “gun nut”. When I used to own guns if somebody had described me as a gun nut I would have just laughed it off.

Sixfootersex referred to young black people in the Trayvon Martin thread as “monkeys” and “hood rats” I'm sure he meant no offence by it. I label people all the time in here so if they want to label me they should go for it if you can't take it don't dish it out is my motto.

Oh Jesus Christ. What a crock of shit that is. Bwhahaha!

What Duchess said.

(06-16-2013, 12:30 PM)ramseycat Wrote: What Duchess said.

Tsk Tsk - that will be seen as having your lips firmly attached to my ass.

(06-16-2013, 12:20 PM)Duchess Wrote: Why do you sound surprised that I don't see our government as trustworthy when as recently as last week you commented that governments the world over have always "spied" on its citizens?

Yes, I did answer the question - it's not about owning the gun, it's about taking the guns away from those who use them responsibly, it's about those who do the right thing paying for those who don't.

Straight up, I don't give a fuck about the comfort level or feelings of others. It's all about how I feel. So what? I'm actually entitled to be as shallow as I want to be. Who is going to stop me? I don't care about the opinions of those that think that's a shitty attitude. Again, so what?[/i][/size]

Yeah governments spy on people including their own and always have done even in the so called land of the free. How will owning a gun stop them from doing that?

There used to be an assault weapon ban in the US was there a massive clamour for them when they were banned? If there was it just goes to show you how many gun nuts there are in America.

As for the last part of your post? PMT is a bitch!

(06-16-2013, 12:28 PM)Duchess Wrote:

Oh Jesus Christ. What a crock of shit that is. Bwhahaha!

Elaborate please or shut the fuck up.

(06-16-2013, 12:33 PM)Duchess Wrote:

(06-16-2013, 12:30 PM)ramseycat Wrote: What Duchess said.

Tsk Tsk - that will be seen as having your lips firmly attached to my ass.

No way. That was an insightful and stellar contribution on ramsey's part.

Entirely unpredictable as well.

Ass kissing, pffft!