gun show loophole rant
Quote: Gabes22That, IMO is a very shallow POV to have. There are plenty of people who I do not agree with, who have my respect and vice versa. Come to think about it, if you are going to use disagreeing with somebody as a criteria for not respecting someone or not wanting one's respect, I cannot think of a single person in the world that I agree with on everything including family, friends, colleagues and talking heads on the television or the radio.
This is an excellent point, and I wholeheartedly agree. Liberals are the ones who are supposed to be warm, friendly & tolerant, yet in my experience (and I do realize that personal anecdotes ultimately mean nothing), conservatives are actually the more tolerant ones. In fact, out of all the people I've met in my life, I'd say that religious conservatives have been among the most tolerant of all. Even though I'm technically a secularist, they have always treated me with the utmost respect and have never mocked me for my views. I wish I could say the same about some liberals I've met over the years.
To be fair, there are some liberals whom I greatly respect. Ralph Nader and Camille Paglia are two that come to mind because of their intellectual honesty and their refusal to demagogue their opponents, but they are (sadly) few and far between. That's not to say/imply that there aren't any intolerant conservatives out there—there most certainly are—but they seem to be greatly outnumbered by their liberal counterparts.
Quote: AZDuffman
I would at least respect you if you simply stated, "I don't think anyone should have the freedom to have a gun."
Noooooo, thats what they think, but they would never
actually say it. They wrap it around kids getting killed
and movie theatres getting shot up.
Does anybody really think Bloomberg gives a rip about
fat people in his city? Its all about restricting freedoms.
Start with guns and soda and salt, and pretty soon they
have their grimy paws in everything. The more freedoms
they can restrict, the more they will restrict, until we're
boxed in on every side.
Quote: Beethoven9thThis is an excellent point, and I wholeheartedly agree. Liberals are the ones who are supposed to be warm, friendly & tolerant, yet in my experience (and I do realize that personal anecdotes ultimately mean nothing), conservatives are actually the more tolerant ones. In fact, out of all the people I've met in my life, I'd say that religious conservatives have been among the most tolerant of all. Even though I'm technically a secularist, they have always treated me with the utmost respect and have never mocked me for my views. I wish I could say the same about some liberals I've met over the years.
To be fair, there are some liberals whom I greatly respect. Ralph Nader and Camille Paglia are two that come to mind because of their intellectual honesty and their refusal to demagogue their opponents, but they are (sadly) few and far between. That's not to say/imply that there aren't any intolerant conservatives out there—there most certainly are—but they seem to be greatly outnumbered by their liberal counterparts.
Thank you. I am trying to avoid the whole liberal/conservative thing, but I just want to point out that as a life lesson in general. We are all different people and have different views on all sorts of things. Even the most ardent supporters of the President have to disagree with him on something, and even the most ardent supporters of GWB had to disagree with him on some things. That said, I am a practicing Catholic. Does that mean I agree with 100% of what the Catholic Church teaches or stands for? Heck No! Just because I happen to be a fan of the Green Bay Packers, does that mean I have to like all their players or all the moves the GM makes? Heck No! I think with many things in life there are gray areas and just because you support a cause or an organization or a whatever, it doesn't mean that you agree with 100% of what goes on with that, you just simply agree that one side is more right er less wrong than the other, or it that it suits your lifestyle better.
There are 1000s of different health care options out there, but I have yet to find a single policy that is written specifically to my tastes. Same with auto insurance plans, or checking accounts or credit cards etc. Both sides on the gun issue have some merits and to those merits you have to acknowledge many different lifestyles. For instance, I can see why someone on the West Side of Chicago would want all guns banned, with gang violence at 20 years highs. However, you have to respect the right of the guy in the country who wants to go deer hunting and scare off coyotes that might otherwise attack his dog. Then there is the whole self defense issue as well. There are decent people on both sides, I never having owned a gun, still side on the side of gun ownership, as I don't like the government telling me I cannot own a legal product. Whether I choose to buy it or not is immaterial
Just love their tolerant opinion about abortion in cases of rape or incest !
Quote: Buzzard" I'd say that religious conservatives have been among the most tolerant of all."
Just love their tolerant opinion about abortion in cases of rape or incest !
Since most say it is ok in those cases I tend to agree.
Quote: Buzzard" I'd say that religious conservatives have been among the most tolerant of all."
Just love their tolerant opinion about abortion in cases of rape or incest !
If you come from the perspective of abortion = homicide, there really isn't much room for ambiguity TBQH, but the abortion issue has been debated ad nauseum and noone is going to sway another on that issue.
Quote: Buzzard" I'd say that religious conservatives have been among the most tolerant of all."
Just love their tolerant opinion about abortion in cases of rape or incest !
Actually, the majority of pro-lifers believe in three exceptions: (1) rape, (2) incest, (3) life of the mother.
I know of, admitted on his show last week that he
just found out that 1% of the population pays 40%
of the taxes in this country. And he's honked off
because he's in the 1%.
He JUST found out??? I've been hearing this on
Rush and Hannity and O'Reilly since Clinton was
in office. These Libs really do live in a bubble of
their own creation, the mind boggles. Mahr says
its so bad in Calif he may have to leave the state
and his audience might lose him as a Lib.
I remember when Al Franken wrote a best selling
book about Rush and admitted he had never
listened to his show. Ever. Yet he was expert enough
to write a book about it. Libs are terrified of being
converted from their flimsy views, so they walk around
with the eyes closed and their fingers in their ears.
Femi-nazi's. Ah, for the good old days. When working on a car or a house, I could listen to Reverend Ike.
This is hilarious because Bob here is rending his clothes and gnashing his teeth about Bill Maher and Al Franken living in a bubble but hasn't actually seen the Maher clip or read the Al Franken book. Bob is always wrong, most of the time, it's hilarious.Quote: EvenBobSpeaking of Libs, Bill Mahr, the most outspoken Lib
I know of, admitted on his show last week that he
just found out that 1% of the population pays 40%
of the taxes in this country. And he's honked off
because he's in the 1%.
He JUST found out??? I've been hearing this on
Rush and Hannity and O'Reilly since Clinton was
in office. These Libs really do live in a bubble of
their own creation, the mind boggles. Mahr says
its so bad in Calif he may have to leave the state
and his audience might lose him as a Lib.
I remember when Al Franken wrote a best selling
book about Rush and admitted he had never
listened to his show. Ever. Yet he was expert enough
to write a book about it. Libs are terrified of being
converted from their flimsy views, so they walk around
with the eyes closed and their fingers in their ears.
Quote: s2dbakerThis is hilarious because Bob here is rending his clothes and gnashing his teeth about Bill Maher and Al Franken living in a bubble but hasn't actually seen the Maher clip or read the Al Franken book. Bob is always wrong, most of the time, it's hilarious.
You have to read the Franken book to know Franken later admitted he never listened to Rush? You have to listen to Mahr to hear what he said? Funny, I read it in the news.
Quote: AZDuffmanYou have to read the Franken book to know Franken later admitted he never listened to Rush? You have to listen to Mahr to hear what he said? Funny, I read it in the news.
I saw the Mahr clip and I heard Franken admit on Air
America he never listened to Rush's show.
Now you're just lying. By the way Az, I have read and still possess one of Al Franken's books. I no longer have Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot but I do still have Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them. Do you know why Al Franken titled his book Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot? I do and it has almost nothing to do with Rush Limbaugh which is something you might know if you didn't live in your little conservative bubble echo chamber.Quote: EvenBobI saw the Mahr clip and I heard Franken admit on Air
America he never listened to Rush's show.
Quote: s2dbakerBob is always wrong, most of the time, it's hilarious.
Ummm... He's either always wrong, or he's wrong most of the time. It can't be both.......
Quote: SOOPOOUmmm... He's either always wrong, or he's wrong most of the time. It can't be both.......
Don't underestimate Evenbob.
Poor punctuation usage; my bad. It should be two thoughts:Quote: SOOPOOUmmm... He's either always wrong, or he's wrong most of the time. It can't be both.......
Bob is always wrong. Most of the time, it's hilarious.
-----
I was looking up accidental shootings in the Googles and came across this gem from last Friday. This story didn't mention gun cleaning so I missed it in my post from the other day. "The father was handling a semiautomatic pistol when the gun went off" the story says. The bullet hit his 10 month old in the chest and killed the child immediately. No mention of an angry mob or self-defense, just a dead kid. Lesson learned .. again.
Quote: s2dbaker
Bob is always wrong. Most of the time
How would you know. You consider people
wrong just because they don't agree with you.
And Franken's book about Limbaugh was
primarily bought by Rush fan's, which was
Franken's intention all along. Duh.
Oh no Bob, my assessment of your wrongness comes from the vast history of your posts. Would you like me to dig up the Election 2012 thread? Perhaps I should exhume some of the other threads in which you confidently quoted Rassmussen polling to show that Mitt Romney had a chance to win.Quote: EvenBobHow would you know. You consider people
wrong just because they don't agree with you.
When I see the name EvenBob, I know that what I'm about to read is A) wrong and B) funny ( and not in the way intended by the author ). Here's an example:
"Duh", really Bob, "Duh"? You believe ( I'll assume you believe it since you posted it ) that Al Franken's book, Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot, was purchased primarily by Rush Limbaugh fans.Quote: EvenBobAnd Franken's book about Limbaugh was
primarily bought by Rush fan's, which was
Franken's intention all along. Duh.
You would also have to believe that Rush Limbaugh's fans would willingly fork over cash to Al Franken to find out what Al Franken thinks of the guy of which they are a fan. Let's for a moment assume that you or I am a fan of Howard Stern. Would you buy a book titled Howard Stern is a Sophomoric Jackhole written by Jay Leno? I wouldn't.
Now here's why it's funny, because you believe that Rush Limbaugh's fans are that stupid. Without saying it, you just threw Rush Limbaugh's fans under a short yellow bus. Not only is your statement wrong but it's funny.
Quote: s2dbaker
You would also have to believe that Rush Limbaugh's fans would willingly fork over cash.
Absolutely. They kept it on the best seller list. Liberal's
certainly weren't going to buy a book about somebody
they hated anyway. Franken knew full well Rush fan's
would buy it, he even said so years later. It was an
inside joke on Rush's show 17 years ago that Rush
fan's made the book a hit.
What makes something like that even funnier is that you actually believe it.Quote: EvenBobAbsolutely. They kept it on the best seller list. Liberal's
certainly weren't going to buy a book about somebody
they hated anyway. Franken knew full well Rush fan's
would buy it, he even said so years later. It was an
inside joke on Rush's show 17 years ago that Rush
fan's made the book a hit.
Quote: s2dbakerPoor punctuation usage; my bad. It should be two thoughts:
Bob is always wrong. Most of the time, it's hilarious.
-----
I was looking up accidental shootings in the Googles and came across this gem from last Friday. This story didn't mention gun cleaning so I missed it in my post from the other day. "The father was handling a semiautomatic pistol when the gun went off" the story says. The bullet hit his 10 month old in the chest and killed the child immediately. No mention of an angry mob or self-defense, just a dead kid. Lesson learned .. again.
So what are you saying, that we should ban people having children?
Not at all. I'm in favor of killing children accidentally. That will mean fewer of them on planes. Besides, wasn't it Thomas Jefferson who said that the Tree of Liberty must be watered with the blood of infants from time to time? Good thing that "from time to time" doesn't happen very often. I'll wait until another child is executed accidentally before I post here again. It should be a very long time.Quote: AZDuffmanSo what are you saying, that we should ban people having children?
Quote: s2dbakerNot at all. I'm in favor of killing children accidentally. That will mean fewer of them on planes. Besides, wasn't it Thomas Jefferson who said that the Tree of Liberty must be watered with the blood of infants from time to time? Good thing that "from time to time" doesn't happen very often. I'll wait until another child is executed accidentally before I post here again. It should be a very long time.
Well I am glad that is the case. Be size from the tone of your post it sounded as though you are the type of person who wants to outlaw anything that might cause an accidental death, anywhere, anytime. Since that is impossible without restricting personal freedom one must accept that accidents happen and personal responsibility, not ever more restrictive laws, are the answer.
I might suggest you reconsider your word usage as I do not believe you can "accidentally" execute someone.
Quote: s2dbakerNot at all. I'm in favor of killing children accidentally. That will mean fewer of them on planes. Besides, wasn't it Thomas Jefferson who said that the Tree of Liberty must be watered with the blood of infants from time to time? Good thing that "from time to time" doesn't happen very often. I'll wait until another child is executed accidentally before I post here again. It should be a very long time.
TROLL ALERT
If you have nothing to add, STFU.
If you have a legitimate point, (if you need help deciding: you will not) then share it.
Yep, accidents happen, but let's not have *any* regulation, to the other extreme. Cars with no seat belts or safety regulations. No speed limits. Abortions up until the 9th month, because the mother owns the child, after all while they are in their body.
The child has a right to a life, believe it or not, no matter what idiots the parents are, even after they are born. So you put laws in place to try to prevent these things, like putting abusive parents in jail, or putting the legal age for drinking at some age above teenage hood, or heaven forbid, putting a law in place to prevent gun cleaning in front of a child. No! You're taking away my rights! I can't clean my gun in front of a child! I have to tell him or her to leave the room! But my personal liberties are thwarted...
Laws hopefully are enacted that respect one's person's rights YET protect society, especially children from their stupid parents.
Quote: boymimboIt would be a great responsibility to have, except some parents are just too stupid, which is why there should be laws to protect children.
No matter what you cannot outlaw stupidity. Look at all the things we can no longer easily buy because of a few stupid people. Lawn darts, buckeye balls, lye, on and on.
I might wonder how "accidental" this death really was. If it wasn't for the gun the kid might have died of SIDS. Or "fell."
Quote: treetopbuddywhat about 5 gallon buckets? The children, the poor children!
Laugh all you want but the Feds once considered a reg to make them leak to prevent kids drowning.
Quote: treetopbuddyYes, I have a national leaking bucket distributorship, sales sucks, but who cares it's about the children.
Have you considered raising your prices? Per Obama higher costs help business.
Genius! Thank you.Quote: AZDuffmanHave you considered raising your prices? Per Obama higher costs help business.
Quote: s2dbakerWhat makes something like that even funnier is that you actually believe it.
There's no 'belief' involved. Were you alive in the
90's, were you paying attention to this then?
Rush was a huge polarizing figure, unlike
the institution he is now. Franken admitted he
put the Limbaugh name in the title because he
knew conservatives would buy the book. Try
paying more attention to current events in the
future.
Quote: boymimboSo you put laws in place to try to prevent these things, like putting abusive parents in jail, or putting the legal age for drinking at some age above teenage hood...
I understand what you're saying, but I must point out that abusive parents (not good parents) are the ones targeted. Likewise, we should punish criminals, not law-abiding citizens who have guns. As for the drinking analogy, we do in fact already have a legal age for purchasing firearms.
Every time you insist that is true, I laugh at you.Quote: EvenBobThere's no 'belief' involved. Were you alive in the
90's, were you paying attention to this then?
Rush was a huge polarizing figure, unlike
the institution he is now. Franken admitted he
put the Limbaugh name in the title because he
knew conservatives would buy the book. Try
paying more attention to current events in the
future.
Quote: s2dbakerEvery time you insist that is true, I laugh at you.
My god, ignorance is truly bliss, thanks for proving
it yet again. And with that, you're long overdue to
go on my blocked list. Buh Bye...
Enjoy your conservitard echo chamber.Quote: EvenBobMy god, ignorance is truly bliss, thanks for proving
it yet again. And with that, you're long overdue to
go on my blocked list. Buh Bye...
To point out that the death was not accidental is a little bit ridiculous. Believe it or not, there are plenty of people with IQs below 100, who are actually stupid, or too tired to think, or fail in common sense.
Yes, the law that requires that fences around pools as proven to be ineffective and dangerous in itself not to mention an assault on liberty. Parents are less vigilant with a pool fence. Sadly gates are left open, children crawl under fences, climb over, through, etc....had friends in Phoenix with toddlers that would not put in a pool fence for the aforementioned reasons. Virtually all drownings in Phoenix were in pools with fences.Quote: boymimboThere are plenty of laws in place in order to outlaw stupidity. One law in place is to put fences around pools (speaking of drowning in buckets). Is that a dumb law?
To point out that the death was not accidental is a little bit ridiculous. Believe it or not, there are plenty of people with IQs below 100, who are actually stupid, or too tired to think, or fail in common sense.
Quote: treetopbuddyParents are less vigilant with a pool fence.
That's why you electrify it.
Quote: boymimboThere are plenty of laws in place in order to outlaw stupidity. One law in place is to put fences around pools (speaking of drowning in buckets). Is that a dumb law?
Besides a law, it is a condition of liability insurance. Not sure what is has to do with anything.
Quote:To point out that the death was not accidental is a little bit ridiculous.
Why? Because you just assume some guy *had* to be playing irresponsibly with his gun, and it isn't possible that he just used the excuse of an accident to get away with murder?
Quote:Believe it or not, there are plenty of people with IQs below 100, who are actually stupid, or too tired to think, or fail in common sense.
Yes, and they are the type who believe it without question when they read someone was cleaning a gun and it went off; or that a socialized health care program will not cost an order of several times projected cost despite that is what happens to every similar program; or that the a hurricane during hurricane season is the result of global warming. And they are the first who are willing to trade freedom for an illusion of security.
The more intelligent in society look at things and use reason, they ask what the chances of say a person who knows how to clean a gun will not know to clear it first. Such odds are very low. And if there is a gunshot that is truly accidental, well the person who causes the accident will have to face charges for their foolishness. But why is that a reason for more gun laws? Why take away someone's rights because someone else acted foolish?
+1Quote: rxwineThat's why you electrify it.
Quote:The problem for gun rights advocates is that, if you look at the language and custom at the time the Second Amendment was written, laws like the Militia Act of 1792 pop up. It required men between the ages of 18 and 45 to register themselves for militia service, and specified they have certain weapons such as a "good rifle." Similarly, a report from Philadelphia in 1823 showed that there were 12,678 rifles in private hands, indicating some records of who owned what
here
Quote: rxwineI think we'll have to go with registration: Looks constitutionally supported to me. The Constitution doesn't care about worries about gun confiscation. Not our problem, so don't even bring it up.
here
It's cute when liberals try to play at originalism, but the piss poor effort given here doesn't make it very fun. Militia service card noting if the person has a gun? YEAH, THAT SEALS THE DEAL.
Anyway, what does registration do other than target people you don't like? Aren't you canadian? Are you aware that the Canadian handgun registry (started in 1934) has been used to solve ZERO crimes as of 2010?
Let's waste some time and money and do that here!
Quote: rxwineI think we'll have to go with registration: Looks constitutionally supported to me. The Constitution doesn't care about worries about gun confiscation. Not our problem, so don't even bring it up.
Yeah, because heaven knows the Bloods and Crips will register the guns they carry!
Meanwhile a person without a gun still found a way to commit suicide and caused a seven-alarm fire! Perhaps it is time we banned natural gas! Or at least force people with it to register and post their names in the newspaper?
When natural gas becomes a product primarily designed for the purpose of killing another person then I'll be right on board with that. In the mean time, since you support regulating guns in a similar way that natural gas is regulated, how about starting with requiring gun manufacturers to provide a trigger lock device with each gun. Also, and I speak from my own recent experience, if you convert from oil to natural gas, there has to be an inspection done before the plumber is allowed to hook up the line. So I guess that you are now in favor of some kind of government oversight before someone is allowed to purchase a weapon. If a newspaper wants to use a FOIA request to publish in their paper who has natural gas then I'm really okay with that. You really need to pick your arguments better.Quote: AZDuffmanYeah, because heaven knows the Bloods and Crips will register the guns they carry!
Meanwhile a person without a gun still found a way to commit suicide and caused a seven-alarm fire! Perhaps it is time we banned natural gas! Or at least force people with it to register and post their names in the newspaper?
