You'd think that guys like the gun-rights folks, who continually accuse their opponents of lying, would strive to keep it a bit cleaner themselves. But, you'd be wrong. In fact, all their accusations are just a smoke screen. The most mendacious and the best manipulative spinsters are the pro-gun fanatics themselves.The BATFE is demanding the authority to require all of the 8,500 firearm dealers in California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas to report all sales of two or more semiautomatic rifles within five consecutive business days, if the rifles are larger than .22 caliber and use detachable magazines. Yet, under existing law, the bureau has full access to every record of every firearm transaction by every licensed dealer, whether during a bona fide criminal investigation or simply to enforce compliance with record keeping requirements. This reporting scheme would create a registry of owners of many of today’s most popular rifles–firearms owned by millions of Americans for self-defense, hunting and other lawful purposes.
Example:The last sentence in the statement above which describes the dangerous attempt on the government's part to record multiple sales.
If they were a bit more honest, it would have said this:
This reporting scheme would create a registry of owners WHO BOUGHT TWO OR MORE IN A FIVE-DAY PERIOD of many, BUT NOT ALL, of today’s most popular rifles–firearms owned by millions of Americans for self-defense, hunting and other lawful purposes.
But they didn't say that. What they said was designed to give the impression that the government wants to compile a list of ALL gun buyers, which triggers the expected knee-jerk reaction of resistance on the part of the gun owning public.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
The most mendacious and the best manipulative spinsters are the pro-gun fanatics themselves.
ReplyDeleteExample:The last sentence in the statement above which describes the dangerous attempt on the government's part to record multiple sales.
There is not a single mendacious word in the sentence to which you refer. If there is any fucking lying going on here, it's by the pig's genital wart who accused Mr. Dorian of lying in his 100% true sentence.
Here's another fucking lie, from the same fucking liar:
My point is that all the guns used by gangs and every other type of criminal come from the law abiding gun-owning world. They all start out legally manufactured and shipped out to FFL guys.
They fucking do not "all" start out legally manufactured, as has been explained to you before.
Aside from being a pig's genital wart, you are a liar and a hypocrite. Only a supreme effort of will compels me to the politeness to restrain myself from describing you more fully.
Thanks for your colorful comment, Zorroy.
ReplyDeleteThat business about home made guns works like this. Compared to the guns which are legally manufactured and end up in criminal hands, the percentage that is made in clandestine gun shops or by individual criminals in their basements, zip-guns and the like, is so small that it can be ignored.
I say ALL guns start out legally owned, in spite of those few exceptions.
It's sort of the way you and your friends write off the folks, many times children, who accidentally kill themselves with guns. Compared to ALL the guns on the planet Earth, or ALL the stars in the galaxy, the number is insignificant. So we can write off the "accidents."
Same idea. I write off the zip guns.
But when Winston, whom you so dramatically defend, says that the proposed reporting scheme would create a registry of owners, without qualifying that it would be only those who bought two or more in a five-day period, he's spinning the thing a little too much.
That business about home made guns works like this. Compared to the guns which are legally manufactured and end up in criminal hands, the percentage that is made in clandestine gun shops or by individual criminals in their basements, zip-guns and the like, is so small that it can be ignored.
ReplyDeleteFirst, "zip-guns" are not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about high quality, fully capable so-called "assault weapons," more or less indistinguishable from anything put out by Colt, Bushmaster, or any of the other major manufacturers, except for the lack of markings.
Second, and far more importantly, I acknowledge that the percentage is small. It is also indisputably greater than zero percent. Since the falsity of the assertion that "[the guns] all start out legally manufactured and shipped out to FFL guys" is unquestionably, unequivocally established with the finding of a single counterexample, it is demonstrably a lie to argue that "all [guns] start out legally manufactured . . . " when the maker of that assertion knows of the counterexample.
There is a reason for the existence of words and phrases like "most," "almost all," "the vast majority of," etc. That reason is that those words and phrases have a meaning separate and distinct from "all."
You can "write off the zip-guns" if you wish, but that doesn't make them disappear. I mean, there have been tens of thousands of nuclear weapons manufactured. "Only" two were dropped on Japan--a very low percentage. By your "logic," we could say that "all nuclear weapons were kept from harming the Japanese." Is that your contention, genius?
But when Winston, whom you so dramatically defend, says that the proposed reporting scheme would create a registry of owners, without qualifying that it would be only those who bought two or more in a five-day period, he's spinning the thing a little too much.
As for Mr. Dorian's assertion, I repeat that there is not a mendacious word in it. You may think that the details he didn't mention are large enough to constitute a "lie" by omission, but that, obviously, is an entirely subjective opinion on your part. Intelligent, reasonable, sane people should reject that opinion, and we do. Even if that were an intelligent, reasonable, sane opinion, though, a failure to cater to it doesn't constitute dishonesty.
I note the utter absence of "spin" on Mr. Dorian's part.
Sorry it took me so long to get back to this one.
ReplyDeleteYou're absolutely right about the "all" use on my part. I'll watch that.
You're continued support of Dorian is breathtaking. Thanks for offering it.
I couldn't help notice that in your last comment it almost sounded like you were speaking on behalf of a larger group to which you belong.
"Intelligent, reasonable, sane people should reject that opinion, and we do."
I thought you didn't like talk like that?