Times like these...

[Lurikeen]

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The claim isn't that they are advocating arming criminals and lunatics, but that they are resisting the implementation of barriers against that.

You mean more barriers, since there is no resisting the current laws if one wants to legally own a firearm. Let's be clear here.

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

In some states NICS is the only form of background check and does not apply to sales between private individuals, creating a massive private sale loophole. (Ie, one gun nut to another). That the system works is a patent falsehood.

Yes, let's grab an exception to the rule (which is fastly changing in many states where private sales are concerned) and then run around like chicken little and declare the "sky is falling" (i.e. "That the system works is a patent falsehood.") [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] BTW, I told you about NICS being the only check in some states, along with some other facts, in my earlier post. Looks like you didn't read it after all.

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Everyone here in Northern California knows what a joke it is to get around our laws; you just go to Nevada or buy from a private party.

Generalize from the particular much, and then jump to conclusions? [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

What you probably should state is that you know some people who "get around" California gun control laws. Then ask yourself so what? You're actually making my point for me. That is, more regulations aren't the answer, your example is a case in point. However, your anecdote is not compelling when claiming the system is failing. Nice attempt, though.

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I don't find this reasoning compelling.

Not surprising.

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

In the 1700's, there was far more parity between an armed populace and the federal government.

An irrelevant point to the constitutionality of owning a firearm. However, the answer isn't to limit gun ownership to create a civilian population which can't protect itself from government.

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

If you think a bunch of obese rednecks with firearms will ever be the only thing standing between the most sophisticated military machine that has ever existed, and tyranny, I don't think you're being realistic.

Silly ad hominem which is also irrelevant to the point of the constitutionality of gun ownership.

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

If a tyrannical government ever rises against the people in the USA, it will be silent and nonviolent, and due to voter apathy...

That very well may be the case, but ignores the historical background of why the framers of the constitution instituted the right of a citizen soldiery (aka "militia") and private gun ownership.

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

If you really cared about keeping the government in line,....

More silly ad hominem which isn't relevant to the discussion at hand.

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Also note I don't even want to take your guns away.

In fact, you do. You want to impose further limits upon gun sales and that certainly has the potential of "taking my guns away."

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

In spite of your slippery slope fallacy,

There was no "slippery slope fallacy" offered by me. However, you are doing pretty good with the fallacious reasoning here, so I don't trust that you could recognize a "slippery slope" even if you slid down one all the way to the bottom of it.

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

What I'm in favor of wouldn't even affect you, and you wouldn't care if you weren't a radical.

One of the most dangerous types of liberals are those who don't recognize they are liberals. You obviously have some knowledge, but you lack an essential understanding of why a conservative would not want additional regulations. In fact, only a liberal would call for additional regulations as you are doing.

Thanks for the conversation. Yours is the last word.

EDIT: Oh, and calling me a "radical" isn't terribly convincing that you aren't a liberal.