Common sense question regarding gun control

[kaz]

Swine.

fag

 

[Leonthecat]

fag

Child.

 

[kaz]

Child.

I see what you're saying. Um. when is your boyfriend going to come defend you again?

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

Why are all our boots so fucking useless?

 

[Rune]

Exactly. I don't understand the rules for when we can and can't say "thanks," but I was trying to

Some folks have their thanks/Groan organs removed.
Also if you have not cleared a page since a post was made you can't thank it yet.

 

[Leonthecat]

I see what you're saying. Um. when is your boyfriend going to come defend you again?

You are gay, aren't you.

 

[Rune]

You are gay, aren't you.

Tends to be the case with homophobes

 

[Leonthecat]

Tends to be the case with homophobes

He has tipped his hand here more than once.

 

[Taichiliberal]

People have been driving without a valid license forever on private land....farmers kids drive some from the ripe old age of 8 or 10......
The law concerns WHERE you can drive.

Farm equipment driven on private property with the consent of the owner is NOT the same as driving a passenger or transport vehicle on PUBLIC roads and highways. Again, Care to answer the OP or are you just going to dodge and blow smoke?

 

[Taichiliberal]

While acting as such an agent of the state is absolutely NOT a citizen. Your premise is fundamentally flawed.

Stop and think it through: you are saying that YOU the citizen who's taxes pay the "agent of the state" want them to be vetted in order to use a primary law enforcement tool....a gun...which gives them the power of life and death. That implies a distrust of that potential agents ability to use that weapon properly or not have ulterior motives to use it.

And yet:

You advocate a complete trust of the general citizenry to have the same weapon in their possession ON THE ASSUMPTION that they will behave properly and not have ulterior motives BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT AGENTS OF THE STATE AND THEREFORE UNACCOUNTABLE TO YOU?

YOUR PREMISE IS ILLOGICAL AND IRRATIONAL.

 

[Taichiliberal]

You question has been answered in various places throughout the thread.....

ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS GO THROUGH BACKGROUND CHECKS....to get the job of being a law enforcement officer, not specifically to carry a weapon.....
No law says all cops have to be armed and some are not armed at all times...but its safe to assume that here in the US, they are armed, for their protection, no yours.....

There are BG checks for all sorts of jobs none for other jobs....carrying a gun is irrelevant....but being a cop REQUIRES your carrying a gun under certain circumstances and that
requirement means you will be taught gun operation, gun safety, and learn when you are allowed to use it....and if you have the temperament to deal with stress of law enforcement.
Walmart may require a BG check on people to see if they might steal, or have the wrong personally to deal with customers.....

That parroted mantra has been refuted and disproved by me on this thread by everyone who has posted it. Put it simply: you are saying that YOU the citizen who's taxes pay the "agent of the state" want them to be vetted in order to use a primary law enforcement tool....a gun...which gives them the power of life and death. That implies a distrust of that potential agents ability to use that weapon properly or not have ulterior motives to use it.

And yet:

You advocate a complete trust of the general citizenry to have the same weapon in their possession ON THE ASSUMPTION that they will behave properly and not have ulterior motives BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT AGENTS OF THE STATE AND THEREFORE ACCOUNTABLE TO YOU?

YOUR PREMISE IS ILLOGICAL AND IRRATIONAL.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
Where the hell have you been for the last few years? Here, for your education: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...fairly-modest/

LMAO.
When was the last gun show you went to?
There is no gun show loop hole.
Go to a gun show and try to buy a gun.

Obviously, you didn't read the article. See chuckles, what you believe and what actually exists are two different things. Here, let me dumb it down for you: Experts warn that the phrase "gun show loophole" is imprecise at best. But people do buy guns without having to undergo background checks.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...fact-sheet-3-things-know-about-gun-show-loop/

 

[Taichiliberal]

Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
Catch what you just said.....the people you want to enforce the law are LESS QUALIFIED than some schmoe off the corner! So a background check and training is necessary to enforce the law with a gun and to make sure that the officer isn't mentally unhinged or has a criminal background/associates....but any joker off the streets with NO training or vetting is MORE trusted to carry a gun.... a gun that they may want to use in some vigilante style...by YOU?

Man, your convoluted logic knows no bounds!

I see you are incapable of the concept that free citizens are more capable than agents of the state. Why do you hate your fellow citizens?

Translation: STY was caught by the sheer irrationality and convoluted nature of his "logic", but not having the intellectual honesty and courage to concede to his error, he resorts to repeating disproved accusations and then does the equivalent of jingoistic blather.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
You're dodging the question and the FACTS put forth in the OP but putting forth this absurd and ignorant question. Please give an answer to the question and spare us all the smoke screen.

Liberal: Can government require classes to exercise your second amendment rights? yes, of course

Kaz: Can government require classes to exercise your first amendment rights then?

You: WTF does that have to do with it? Duh, dar, drool

See folks, when faced with a fact based, logical challenge to their rhetoric that they can't disprove or refute, intellectual cowards like Kaz merely INVENT their own conversation in order to try and convince themselves and the reader they are right. Pity that the chronology of the posts will always be the undoing of folk like Kaz.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post

My response to Hulagu Khan:

Agents of the state are citizens, you know. And since the GUN is an inanimate object subject to use by it's holder, the STATE (that's you and I) requires that it's law enforcement folk go through background checks before given license to enforce the law with it.

Now you claim no citizen has "power".....that is patently WRONG, as we have the power to elect and guide our gov't. Also, as you gunners so ardently point out, since having a gun is a "right" as is the "right" to self defense, then it should behoove our fellow citizens that have these weapons to pass a background check....helps to lower criminal and abhorrent behavior, as our law enforcement people figured out LONG time ago...and subsequently YOU agree with (directly or indirectly).

My response to you, not while acting as an arm of the state. They are then exercising powers, not rights.

Which STILL doesn't alter the fact that by your "logic" you are intrusting the general population to behave and not have ulterior motives in purchasing a gun, but you request that of the people accountable to you get vetted? You realize how absurd that sounds

 

[Taichiliberal]

I can't think of any voice on the gun rights side that oppose the longstanding federal 922(g) prohibitions on felons, mental defectives, illegal aliens, drug addicts, etc. acquiring and possessing guns and ammo. Who and where are these mystical "'gunners' (folk who are against ANY type of Federal regulations regarding weapons in the USA)....." that you hear in your ears?

Your OP was directed to them, for them to explain themselves no?

Are there any here on JPP?

As I said, a hyperbolic, false premise is not a good opening for a "common sense" discussion.



To me the question is nonsensical because the vast majority of gun rights people accept 922(g) "type of Federal regulations regarding weapons in the USA" so your imagined, contrived opponent, who you demand defend themselves, exists only as a strawman. . .

As far as the few that might exist out in the hinterlands go, are they really of any importance?

To what degree are they driving the gun rights agenda?

Seems like you are the only person paying attention to them.

As you said, you can't think...you just ignore what you can't answer and then blow smoke with your own version of laws and reality. FYI; http://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...n-regarding-gun-control&p=1535314#post1535314

 

[kaz]

See folks, when faced with a fact based, logical challenge to their rhetoric that they can't disprove or refute, intellectual cowards like Kaz merely INVENT their own conversation in order to try and convince themselves and the reader they are right. Pity that the chronology of the posts will always be the undoing of folk like Kaz.

That is what the conversation was, deflection boy. It's what you do when you can't address the point

 

[NOVA]

That parroted mantra has been refuted and disproved by me on this thread by everyone who has posted it. Put it simply: you are saying that YOU the citizen who's taxes pay the "agent of the state" want them to be vetted in order to use a primary law enforcement tool....a gun...which gives them the power of life and death. That implies a distrust of that potential agents ability to use that weapon properly or not have ulterior motives to use it.

And yet:

You advocate a complete trust of the general citizenry to have the same weapon in their possession ON THE ASSUMPTION that they will behave properly and not have ulterior motives BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT AGENTS OF THE STATE AND THEREFORE ACCOUNTABLE TO YOU?

YOUR PREMISE IS ILLOGICAL AND IRRATIONAL.

YOU have disproved nothing and making that claim won't make it so....

I certainly DID NOT say we vet potential policeman because of guns....we vet applicants for their intelligence, common sense, temperament, physical abilities, honesty, and
background.....along with host of other attributes necessary to perform the job......the gun is just a tool like any other whose use in some cases becomes necessary to protect not only the public but in many cases the cops themselves......its only your own narrow-mindedness that makes you believe that their being armed is the be all and end all for the vetting and demanding
qualifications to be a cop.....

I advocate the rights of all citizens that are spelled out in the Constitution, especially in the Bill Of Rights....and that includes our right to be armed and governments direct directive to
not infringe on that right.....it is inalienable, not given by government...

That, by no means, does not mean we are allowed to abuse that right by using a weapon in an illegal manner........

The general citizenry is accountable to the general citizenry through the use of our law enforcement, and our courts .... in that light, I am accountable to you and you to me....

Sorry Charlie, you lose again.

 

[NOVA]

As you said, you can't think...you just ignore what you can't answer and then blow smoke with your own version of laws and reality.

Abatis just kicked your ass and your the one that didn't post anything to refute him......if anyone is blowing smoke its you, as you invariably do when you been schooled....

 

[NOVA]

Which STILL doesn't alter the fact that by your "logic" you are intrusting the general population to behave and not have ulterior motives in purchasing a gun, but you request that of the people accountable to you get vetted? You realize how absurd that sounds

What is really absurd is your deflection.....

We entrust everyone in our population with various things, that may used in a careless manner or used to commit some crime.....do we 'vet' everyone ?....whats your point ?

We have no way of knowing who may or may not have ulterior motives in the use of anything....whether its a gun, a ladder, or car.....but we do enact and enforce rules to aid us.

We don't allow guns in the hands of all those mentioned by Abatis in US Code 922 or allow cars to be driven by 10 year olds on public highways, or allow folks to remove

your tonsils without being MD.....etc., etc,.....get it Moonbeam ?