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.

[Lune]

Nearly everything you say is based on the notion that strengthening our currently inadequate regulations regarding firearm purchase for criminals and mentally ill is part of some liberal scheme to eventually take your guns away. As long as you keep making that paranoid, unfounded connection, you're not addressing my argument. The fact that I don't have a strict constructionist view of the Constitution, and you apparently do, doesn't change that.

[Pokesan]

guess we're giving patriam a free pass to spew all the hateful garbage he wants about any race, based on him being not-white. well done!

[Patriam1066]

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

guess we're giving patriam a free pass to spew all the hateful garbage he wants about any race, based on him being not-white. well done!

I don't hate anyone. I just have eyes and ears. They give me sensory inputs. I can read charts about statistics.

White rednecks are not violent. White America has the homicide rate of Belgium. I'm sorry that that offends you. I really am.

I'm done with this argument though. I do think there should be background checks for gun ownership. I just despise political correctness. You guys say redneck this redneck that and become apoplectic when someone calls you on being racist. And yet I do the same thing, but directed towards nonwhites, and somehow I'm racist. Either we both are or I'm not. Pick one

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

Lol @ iruinedmypants getting triggered.

Progressive stacked.

[Orruar]

Originally Posted by Patriam1066 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

White rednecks are not violent. White America has the homicide rate of Belgium. I'm sorry that that offends you. I really am.

That's a really interesting point and I was surprised when I first looked into the data and found that the non-hispanic white gun homicide rate in the US matches what we see in most of northern europe, and not too much higher than parts of europe where guns are heavily restricted (UK, France). Our higher overall gun homicide rate is heavily impacted by blacks and hispanics, but even those groups in the US have homicide rates near the average for the countries from which they come. It indicates that perhaps the US is not some crazy land where guns grow on trees and everyone is shooting each other at the drop of a hat.

Of course, this kind of data is utterly maddening to liberals, since it combines a temperance of anti-gun hysteria with very noticeable differences in outcome based on race, so it's difficult to discuss this topic with them. Still, if one wishes to seek truth, we cannot ignore what are perhaps uncomfortable data. I'm becoming more and more convinced that social and cultural norms are intertwined with biology, and that we see similar levels of violence in genetically similar people who live in different societies because one's beliefs are shaped in innumerable and subtle ways by their genetics.

[Pokesan]

cool another politics thread devolved into yelling about how bad black people are!

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

I'm becoming more and more convinced that social and cultural norms are intertwined with biology, and that we see similar levels of violence in genetically similar people who live in different societies because one's beliefs are shaped in innumerable and subtle ways by their genetics.

oh hey guys just offering my theory that black people are genetically predisposed to violent behavior! this is not racist how can "liberals" think im racist lol silly "liberals"

[Lune]

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

Gun owners don't have to over power the government. They just have stay resolute to their peaceful values and when images of the government slaughtering them shows up you will see how quickly the people turn on the government.

I'm not against gun ownership.

I swear it's like the only point you people know how to argue against is some caricatured anti-gun liberal extremist stance, which you'll go through great lengths to distill from what I say.

Strengthening regulations for gun purchases, including a universal background check in order to make it more difficult for criminals and mentally ill to obtain guns and close the private purchase loophole, does not equal Adolf Hussein Obama taking all your guns away. Do you all have criminal records? Is that why you're so adamant about this?

[Orruar]

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

oh hey guys just offering my theory that black people are genetically predisposed to violent behavior! this is not racist how can "liberals" think im racist lol silly "liberals"

Genetics can affect skin color, muscle composition, bone density, bone shape, bone size, jaw shape, skull shape, blood cell shape, blood composition, eye color, hair color, hair proliferation, size of genitalia, hormonal balance, and most important to this conversation, brain size, brain structure, and IQ. But oh no, to suggest that behavior, which is wholly a function of the human brain (unless you're a dualist), could possibly be influenced by genetics, that's just crazy talk! How does one so effortlessly ignore objective reality?

[Pokesan]

literally phrenology

kill yourself orruar