arma virumque cano (et alia)
Laci, Gun control advocates had an opportunity to come to a compromise which could have resulted in an expansion of background checks on private sales. However, exhibiting uncompromising behavior, much like that you attribute to gun advocates, it was never taken seriously and the opportunity died an almost unnoticed death.
I would really like to know if you found any support for this bill from your side in those 20 articles you read.
I told you several times already, I found no mention of it one way or the other. Are you getting like Anonymous now?
Mikeb, we discussed Coburn's bill here. You did your usual thing of copying and pasting a portion of an article--from the Huffington Post, if memory serves.
Oh, when you said you didn’t see any mention either way, I thought you were talking about mention of who killed the bill. But you are saying you didn’t see any support for this background check bill from those who typically endorse gun control. I haven’t found any either, so we’re on the same page. So we know that one gun control organization, CSGV, expressly came out against this bill to expand background checks, and the others didn’t endorse it or were silent.
Which is why we should run background checks on...People.Before they can buy guns. Or knives. Or baseball bats. Or gasoline. Or fertilizer. Or bikini tops, etc."Bites the dust"? Clearly not, idiot.
Guns are more lethal than all the other thing that COULD also be use as weapons. But you knew that, you were just playing dumb again. It doesn't become you, Kurt. I've told you that before but it seems much of your argument depends on this attempt as disingenuous ignorance. Why is that? You realize it is a type of dishonesty.
Sure, guns are easier to kill with than those other items in most situations, something I've never denied. Even the "lying by omission" you seem to be accusing me of is a bit dubious, don't you think, since it's hardly likely that anyone is unaware of that fact?But guess what--the same factors that make guns easier to kill with than bikini tops and the rest also make them easier to live with in a life-or-death self-defense situation.
Kurt, if you agree with the reason for treating guns differently than other objects which COULD be used for killing, why do you persist with the silly "guns don't kill people" nonsense. If you were consistent you'd stay away from this one entirely. But it seems even you, with your superior command of the glib put-down can't resist being swept away with the NRA talking points.
Kurt, if you agree with the reason for treating guns differently than other objects which COULD be used for killing . . . I don't remember making such a concession. I am, after all, not an idiot.
Kurt: "Sure, guns are easier to kill with than those other items in most situations, something I've never denied."Me: "Kurt, if you agree with the reason for treating guns differently than other objects which COULD be used for killing"Kurt: "I don't remember making such a concession. I am, after all, not an idiot."That makes you another double-talking, flim-flam, lying pro-gun fanatic who thinks honesty and integrity in the argument are optional.
He admitted guns are easier to kill with.He did not admit that it was a reason to treat them differently from other objects.Instead, he noted that this ease of use makes them easier to use in self defense than any other improvised weapons.Of course, you understood this, bu you didn't want to address his point when you could just lie about him and call him names.
An anonymous Kurt defender. What a hoot.
Guess that means you'll keep scoffing and falsely accusing him rather than address what Kurt said?Typical.
Or perhaps we shouldn't put burdens on rights.
No right is without it's limitations greg.
That's the favorite saying of gun control freaks. Name a right that you care about, and let's discuss limiting it.
"No right is without it's limitations"A factual statement.Freedom of speech. The Supreme Court has set limitations on it.
Saying it has limitations doesn’t mean you can limit it any way you want. It is a right and requires some level of scrutiny and is the burden of those looking to restrict the right to justify.
Good choice: freedom of speech. So do you favor licensing for speaking? Will you restrict who can cross state lines and speak? Will speeches be limited to a specified number of words? Will subjects be banned? Must you pay a tax and get a license if you speak above a certain number of words per minute?As a matter of fact, the restrictions on speech are mostly rules against telling lies about private citizens--something that is done all too often here. Other than that, freedom of speech is wide open. I'll accept the same level of restrictions on guns.
I'm not saying we should limit the 2nd amendment anyway I, or anyone else wants. Some limitations would be constitutional, some would not. The Supreme Court has not included gun accessories as a right, yet, Greg and other gun loons think/say they are. They are just plain wrong.
What you call accessories are the parts of the gun. It's the equivalent of saying that you have a right to speak, but you can't use a computer to do it. If you take away the tools needed to exercise a right, that right has been violated.
OMG! Back to the "I have a right to a PC because it is a tool of the 1st amendment. Laughable. You asked to name another right that has limitations and I did. Then you make some ludicrous comparison to a gun vs vocal cords. That kind of stupidity is not worth discussion.
You have a right to any computer you can afford. The fact that you deny that shows how much you either enjoy being controlled or controlling others.
...and then not ban any guns?No, it seems you guys won't be sticking to your stupid cliche when it comes time to blame the gun, magazine, pistol grip, etc.