Common sense question regarding gun control

[Billy the Great Khan]

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 ACCOUNTABLE TO YOU?

YOUR PREMISE IS ILLOGICAL AND IRRATIONAL.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of just what Power is. A gun doesn't give the State or its Agents power. They have power that is innate to them being Agents of the State. A gun is a tool that they use to enforce that power.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

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/

But not at gun shows, so referring to a "gun show loophole" is just asinine; unless you have proof of this occurring.

 

[Leonthecat]

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

kaz lexicon;
Boy = Any male whom he is losing the debate to, that he wishes to intimidate with a patronizing tone.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

kaz lexicon;
Boy = Any male whom he is losing the debate to, that he wishes to intimidate with a patronizing tone.

Ma'am = Any male whom is unable to support their FEELINGS and wishes to use it in an attempt to project his own feelings of inadequacy.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

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.

whatever makes you feel better about your insecure masculinity. your problem is that you're a koolaid swallowing prole who believes that government is better than the citizen. it's the exact opposite of how the founders created a free nation. have fun with that.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
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

I started the conversation, you imbecile! All you've done here is double down on your irrational tactic of trying to replace the original discussion points with your own...thereby avoiding a simple acknowledgement that your opposition to the OP has no logical or true factual bearing. As I previously stated, chronology of the posts will always be your undoing. Carry on.

 

[Taichiliberal]

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 ?

My, but you intellectually impotent gunners are not very original, are you? I'm not "deflecting" anything, you fool. I CREATED THE CONTENT AND CONTEXT OF THIS THREAD. Your problem is that when you gave your response, I merely applied rational logic to it, which evidently you are incapable/unwilling to deal with.

Let me dumb it down for you: BY YOUR OWN STATEMENTS, you are entrusting to people who are NOT accountable to you to have a possession of a deadly weapon, hoping that they are not mentally/emotionally disturbed or criminals, and that they will ONLY use that weapon for home/self defense.

And yet

you DO NOT TRUST people who are accountable to you via a civil service job to have possession of a deadly weapon and use said weapon ONLY to defend YOU and your property against crime. So you require proof that they are not mentally unhinged or have a criminal background/association.

So ask yourself, my willfully ignorant friend.....what's to stop the civilian from suddenly revealing a criminal background/associations and committing a crime or committing some heinous act of violence based on mental delusions/insanity? Nothing, you say? Well, if they had a previous HISTORY of such, a background check would have PREVENTED THEM from getting that gun.

Just like a background check keeps shady characters/mentally disturbed folks from becoming cops on the beat.

I made short work of Abatis, as his silly ass premises has no bearing on what I'm stating here (and have in various forms on this thread) in other posts. Read them, or in your case, hide like a coward from them. There is NOTHING in the Constitution that prevents a background check, as this gentleman tells you in no uncertain terms http://www.forwardprogressives.com/dear-gun-nuts/

So do your usual stubborn regurgitation, NOVA...it's all you've got. The rational, objective readers see your folly. Carry on.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
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 ACCOUNTABLE TO YOU?

YOUR PREMISE IS ILLOGICAL AND IRRATIONAL.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of just what Power is. A gun doesn't give the State or its Agents power. They have power that is innate to them being Agents of the State. A gun is a tool that they use to enforce that power.

Parroting your BS while ignoring how I deconstruct it does not justify your stance. Nor is stating a moot point, or your silly revisionism. You can't get pass the FACT that by YOUR OWN WORDS YOU want the "agent of the state" to be background checked before being made a law enforcement officer, of which CARRYING A GUN IS A PIVOTAL TOOL IN ENFORCING THE LAW AND PROTECTING THE CITIZENRY AND KEEP ING THE PEACE....the power of life and death....but yet you do not want an average citizen to undergo a similar background check to have the SAME GUN with the SAME POWER OF LIFE AND DEATH. This means that YOU are entrusting that ALL CITIZENS are not going to use that gun for criminal purposes or to perpetrate an act of violence based on mental delusions/insanity, but you DO NOT give that trust to law enforcement officers. One is accountable to you, the other is not. Only a fool would try to say this "logic" of yours is rational.

Your stubbornness borders on the insipid.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
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....

Taichiliberal responds: Only in your willfully ignorant, insipidly stubborn and intellectually impotent mind.

I certainly DID NOT say we vet potential policeman because of guns

Taichiliberal responds: I didn't say you did, I'M TELLING YOU THAT IS PART OF THE PROCESS BEFORE THEY GET THE GUN. LEARN TO READ AND STOP LYING ABOUT WHAT HAS TRANSPIRED, AS THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE POST IS YOUR FOIL

....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

Taichiliberal responds: No shit sherlock, BACKGROUND IS PART OF THE CHECK, WHICH IN TURN DETERMINES IF THAT APPLICANT SHOULD BE GIVEN THAT GUN TO WALK A BEAT, much less become any part of law enforcement. You cannot separate this, and you look k stupid trying to do so.

......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.....

Taichiliberal responds: Newsflash for you, jackass....the gun is PIVOTAL IN LAW ENFORCEMENT....THE POWER OF LIFE AND DEATH GIVEN TO LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS IS THE ULTIMATE DETERRENT/STOPPAGE TO CRIME. You can be part of law enforcement but NOT pass the background check and various tests to carry a weapon on the street. A simple background check not only helps determine this, but can knock a candidate out of the running from the get go. A matter of fact and history that all your denial and revisionist clap-trap won't change.

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........

Taichiliberal responds: What are you, on a "moot point" soap box? you're such the intellectual coward or just plain stupid not to concede to your error.

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....

Taichiliberal responds: Really? Because according to your "logic", YOU are NOT accountable to me or the federal gov't in any shape form or fashion when you want that gun....and that includes a simple background check that could prevent you from committing a GUN crime or some mentally unhinged act of GUN violence if you were so inclined by PREVENTING YOU FROM GETTING THAT GUN. You can't have it both ways, genius.

Sorry Charlie, you lose again.

Once again, folks....Nova proves to be one of the dumbest conservative SOB's on these threads!

 

[Taichiliberal]

Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
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.

whatever makes you feel better about your insecure masculinity. your problem is that you're a koolaid swallowing prole who believes that government is better than the citizen. it's the exact opposite of how the founders created a free nation. have fun with that.

Man, STFU with all that oather/threeper/fibbertarian/neocon/teabagger BS. YOU sure as hell are going to collect that Social Security check, use the food, water, hospital, highway, etc. that under federal law endeavors to ensure you quality and safety. So you're not fooling anyone.

Bottom line: background checks help keep guns out of the hands of the mentally defective and criminals. A matter of fact, a matter of history. They are Constitutionally sound, as determined in the Heller case. You don't like it, LEAVE...because no one will stop you and you don't like paying taxes anyway. Don't let the door hit ya where the good Lord split ya!

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Man, STFU with all that oather/threeper/fibbertarian/neocon/teabagger BS. YOU sure as hell are going to collect that Social Security check, use the food, water, hospital, highway, etc. that under federal law endeavors to ensure you quality and safety. So you're not fooling anyone.

Bottom line: background checks help keep guns out of the hands of the mentally defective and criminals. A matter of fact, a matter of history. They are Constitutionally sound, as determined in the Heller case. You don't like it, LEAVE...because no one will stop you and you don't like paying taxes anyway. Don't let the door hit ya where the good Lord split ya!

no matter how you dress shit up or ignore the facts and history you don't like, you are still plain wrong. end of story.

 

[NOVA]

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 ?

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.

My, but you intellectually impotent gunners are not very original, are you? I'm not "deflecting" anything, you fool. I CREATED THE CONTENT AND CONTEXT OF THIS THREAD. Your problem is that when you gave your response, I merely applied rational logic to it, which evidently you are incapable/unwilling to deal with.

Let me dumb it down for you: BY YOUR OWN STATEMENTS, you are entrusting to people who are NOT accountable to you to have a possession of a deadly weapon, hoping that they are not mentally/emotionally disturbed or criminals, and that they will ONLY use that weapon for home/self defense.

And yet

you DO NOT TRUST people who are accountable to you via a civil service job to have possession of a deadly weapon and use said weapon ONLY to defend YOU and your property against crime. So you require proof that they are not mentally unhinged or have a criminal background/association.

So ask yourself, my willfully ignorant friend.....what's to stop the civilian from suddenly revealing a criminal background/associations and committing a crime or committing some heinous act of violence based on mental delusions/insanity? Nothing, you say? Well, if they had a previous HISTORY of such, a background check would have PREVENTED THEM from getting that gun.

Just like a background check keeps shady characters/mentally disturbed folks from becoming cops on the beat.

I made short work of Abatis, as his silly ass premises has no bearing on what I'm stating here (and have in various forms on this thread) in other posts. Read them, or in your case, hide like a coward from them. There is NOTHING in the Constitution that prevents a background check, as this gentleman tells you in no uncertain terms http://www.forwardprogressives.com/dear-gun-nuts/

So do your usual stubborn regurgitation, NOVA...it's all you've got. The rational, objective readers see your folly. Carry on.

Your reading comprehension is just about none existent....I'll not waste any more time on an arrogant ass like you.....you've been schooled in this thread by just about everyone....
just take it like a man.......I, personally, entrust no one with anything....the 2nd amendment is simple enough to understand.....self defense is an inalienable right to every human
on the planet....we have instituted regulations as stated in US Code 922....do background checks, vet civil employees, etc. etc......

We just don't possess that magic to glean who will someday have the ulterior motive to do something illegal, that you imagine we should have.....

Now, fool, fuck off and stop boring us with your bullshit. CLASS DISMISSED.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Your reading comprehension is just about none existent....I'll not waste any more time on an arrogant ass like you.....you've been schooled in this thread by just about everyone....
just take it like a man.......I, personally, entrust no one with anything....the 2nd amendment is simple enough to understand.....self defense is an inalienable right to every human
on the planet....we have instituted regulations as stated in US Code 922....do background checks, vet civil employees, etc. etc......

We just don't possess that magic to glean who will someday have the ulterior motive to do something illegal, that you imagine we should have.....

Now, fool, fuck off and stop boring us with your bullshit. CLASS DISMISSED.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
Man, STFU with all that oather/threeper/fibbertarian/neocon/teabagger BS. YOU sure as hell are going to collect that Social Security check, use the food, water, hospital, highway, etc. that under federal law endeavors to ensure you quality and safety. So you're not fooling anyone.

Bottom line: background checks help keep guns out of the hands of the mentally defective and criminals. A matter of fact, a matter of history. They are Constitutionally sound, as determined in the Heller case. You don't like it, LEAVE...because no one will stop you and you don't like paying taxes anyway. Don't let the door hit ya where the good Lord split ya!

no matter how you dress shit up or ignore the facts and history you don't like, you are still plain wrong. end of story.

Notice how this dumb oather cannot logically or factually back up what he asserts or disprove anything I previously posted. Like the intellectual coward he is, STY just flusters and fumes like a petulant child. the chronology of the posts will ALWAYS be his undoing.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Your reading comprehension is just about none existent....I'll not waste any more time on an arrogant ass like you.....you've been schooled in this thread by just about everyone....
just take it like a man.......I, personally, entrust no one with anything....the 2nd amendment is simple enough to understand.....self defense is an inalienable right to every human
on the planet....we have instituted regulations as stated in US Code 922....do background checks, vet civil employees, etc. etc......

We just don't possess that magic to glean who will someday have the ulterior motive to do something illegal, that you imagine we should have.....

Now, fool, fuck off and stop boring us with your bullshit. CLASS DISMISSED.

Nova has got to me one of the most intellectually impotent neocon/teabagger/fibbertarian clowns on these boards! All he does is repeat past exchanges and offers NOTHING NEW but his OPINION while IGNORING ANY AND ALL FACTS THAT CONTRADICT HIM. The chronology of the posts will always be NOVA's undoing. I just can't help letting the little dope humiliate himself time and again (God forgive me).

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Notice how this dumb oather cannot logically or factually back up what he asserts or disprove anything I previously posted. Like the intellectual coward he is, STY just flusters and fumes like a petulant child. the chronology of the posts will ALWAYS be his undoing.

hey idiot, EVERYONE debunked your stupid shit on here. it's YOU who refuse to see your own stupidity.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
Notice how this dumb oather cannot logically or factually back up what he asserts or disprove anything I previously posted. Like the intellectual coward he is, STY just flusters and fumes like a petulant child. the chronology of the posts will ALWAYS be his undoing.

hey idiot, EVERYONE debunked your stupid shit on here. it's YOU who refuse to see your own stupidity.

really? Because the chronology of the posts shows "everyone" that thinks like you essentially parroting the same tired lines which when LOGICALLY and FACTUALLY CHALLENGED by me, they CANNOT SUPPORT THEIR CONTENTIONS. So they either fade away or pretend nothing has previously transpired and blather on the same line. Your self delusion and intellectual impotence is self evident, STY. Maybe if you got you stop looking in the mirror for confirmation and try some critical thinking and honest, comprehensive research, you'd have more than this current retort. But sadly, I don't think you're capable or willing. Whatever. Take your act to Oregon...you got a couple of jokers left that will welcome you with open (or handcuffed) arms.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Any time Chachi resorts to using the ole "chronology" defense, everyone can be pretty sure he's desperate.

 

[NOVA]

Any time Chachi resorts to using the ole "chronology" defense, everyone can be pretty sure he's desperate.

Poor Chachi.....gives us the one song concert, has his one trick pony perform over and over....

Well, I guess the 'chronology of the posts' shows that.....

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Poor Chachi.....gives us the one song concert, has his one trick pony perform over and over....

Well, I guess the 'chronology of the posts' shows that.....

LOL