Gun Control III - the Gunnening

[Telconi]

Most sales at a gun show already require a background check, as most gun show sellers are FFL's. Over the internet any sale that crosses state lines would immediately require a background check and have to go through an FFL.

So what you're saying is that the bill gave guns owners a bunch of stuff that they want for very little in return.

Why don't you support it then?

What did gun owners gain?

[Valgora]

Actually it's more like:
Gun control advocates ignore any logical and rational idea that would help prevent mass shootings because it doesn't involve banning firearms or taking away people's rights.

How many gun control advocates have shot people?

How many gun advocates have shot people?

What a stupid question, because the answer is obvious. More gun advocates have shot people. Why? If you own a gun and defend yourself or your home, you've probably shot someone to do that.

[Fartsniffage]

It wasn't a bill mandating UBCs. Just checks at gun shows and on internet sales. Transfers between friends and family are unaffected. Sticking an advert on the notice board at work or church? Not affected. Selling to a guy you met in the pub? Not affected.

Which is UBC's in everything but name. Given how the gun show "loophole" was a previous compromise it would only be a few years before the Dems started attacking the friends and family loophole and then we're left with nothing to show for it because we didn't gain really anything from Manchin-Toomey.

96% of the American people support UBCs. You're fighting against the tide and you dismiss a bill that offered genuine compromise while bleating that gun control types never offer you guys anything.

[Chernoslavia]

Given you count people who have other people cash their checks as crazy I don't think we should really take your advice on this topic.

But I don't.

But that bill was better then nothing.

You told me on the parkland thread that anyone receiving disability means they’re insane or incompetent and thus need their guns taken away.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

But I don't.

But that bill was better then nothing.

I think that's where we disagree.

You see stripping people of their rights for almost no discernible effect as "better than nothing". We see it as far, far worse than nothing.

Better than just letting any crazy person walk around with a gun.

But I don't.

But that bill was better then nothing.

Ummm, no, you harming my rights with no gain is not better than you not harming my rights for no gain.

Do you get money from the government for a disability? If not your rights where not harmed.

[The Black Forrest]

How many gun control advocates have shot people?

How many gun advocates have shot people?

What a stupid question, because the answer is obvious. More gun advocates have shot people. Why? If you own a gun and defend yourself or your home, you've probably shot someone to do that.

Says the person who argues with "logical and rational"

But to add on.

What percentage of the shootings were in self defense?

[Fartsniffage]

So what you're saying is that the bill gave guns owners a bunch of stuff that they want for very little in return.

Why don't you support it then?

What did gun owners gain?

viewtopic.php?p=33725949#p33725949

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

But I don't.

But that bill was better then nothing.

You told me on the parkland thread that anyone receiving disability means they’re insane or incompetent and thus need their guns taken away.

Fam, I have never advocated for guns to be taken away.

Ever.

[Chernoslavia]

Which is UBC's in everything but name. Given how the gun show "loophole" was a previous compromise it would only be a few years before the Dems started attacking the friends and family loophole and then we're left with nothing to show for it because we didn't gain really anything from Manchin-Toomey.

96% of the American people support UBCs. You're fighting against the tide and you dismiss a bill that offered genuine compromise while bleating that gun control types never offer you guys anything.

Once again, I call bullshit.

[Fartsniffage]

96% of the American people support UBCs. You're fighting against the tide and you dismiss a bill that offered genuine compromise while bleating that gun control types never offer you guys anything.

Once again, I call bullshit.

On what?

[Chernoslavia]

You told me on the parkland thread that anyone receiving disability means they’re insane or incompetent and thus need their guns taken away.

Fam, I have never advocated for guns to be taken away.

Ever.

Then why were you arguing against those opposing such measures?

[Telconi]

What did gun owners gain?

viewtopic.php?p=33725949#p33725949

So, nothing...

Which is UBC's in everything but name. Given how the gun show "loophole" was a previous compromise it would only be a few years before the Dems started attacking the friends and family loophole and then we're left with nothing to show for it because we didn't gain really anything from Manchin-Toomey.

96% of the American people support UBCs. You're fighting against the tide and you dismiss a bill that offered genuine compromise while bleating that gun control types never offer you guys anything.

I support UBCs, doesn't mean I can't extort everything I can out of them.

[Chernoslavia]

Once again, I call bullshit.

On what?

On your 96 nonsense. And please stop saying compromise because that is the last thing we’ll ever do. Screw compromise!

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Fam, I have never advocated for guns to be taken away.

Ever.

Then why were you arguing against those opposing such measures?

Why are you making a false dilemma fallacy?

[Fartsniffage]

I support UBCs, doesn't mean I can't extort everything I can out of them.

*shrug* At some point there will be a Democrat controlled government and it will simply be imposed on you.

[Spirit of Hope]

Most sales at a gun show already require a background check, as most gun show sellers are FFL's. Over the internet any sale that crosses state lines would immediately require a background check and have to go through an FFL.

So what you're saying is that the bill gave guns owners a bunch of stuff that they want for very little in return.

Why don't you support it then?

It gave gun owners almost nothing, no gun registry is already illegal. Military members able to buy in their home state is nice, but since they can already buy where based, and spend most of their time where are based, it isn't a huge deal. You don't really really need a liability shield if you are selling to a person who passed a background check. A reduction in waiting time is nice, but NICS is already almost instantaneous, it again effects a small number of people. Increased funding for NICS is nice, but the major issue with it is data in, and some political baggage. A study on gun violence would be nice, but some gun advocates would see it as a negative. All to require background checks on things that already require background checks.

I wouldn't appose it, but it just doesn't really do anything new or substantial. I would much rather see something like a gun restraining order at the federal level, put bump stocks (and similar items) on the NFA, repeal of hughes and reduction in restrictions on silencers.

Define crazy people and how we stop selling guns to them. We already have a background check system in place, though it has some issues with proper data not being put into it and with law enforcement not using the tools at their disposal with regards to it. If you want universal back ground checks, make the system we have open to the public, work on making sure the proper data is reported, and have law enforcement use the tools at their disposal.

People who have a severe mental illness that need medication for.

My problem here is, just saying need medication for a mental illness hits a lot of people who pose no danger, ADD and ADHD medication is honestly over used, and their are a lot of people who are very stable on low level drugs who I don't feel should be restricted. Severe mental illness is just a term, it would again need to have some backing definition, say "danger to self or others". Restricting based on that I would be ok with, the problem just becomes figuring out who meets that criteria and getting them flagged.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Which is UBC's in everything but name. Given how the gun show "loophole" was a previous compromise it would only be a few years before the Dems started attacking the friends and family loophole and then we're left with nothing to show for it because we didn't gain really anything from Manchin-Toomey.

96% of the American people support UBCs. You're fighting against the tide and you dismiss a bill that offered genuine compromise while bleating that gun control types never offer you guys anything.

Yes, I am fighting against the tide. Thankfully the people who support those ideas don't rank it very highly on their priorities.

Because it didn't offer us anything substantial. What would I, WRA, have gained from Manchin-Toomey? Registries are already banned, I already can't be held liable for what someone does with something I sell them, very few people would be impacted by the military personnel bit and I'm not one of them, the wait time on a NICS delay isn't something that I nor anyone I know has any problem with.

So we get NICS funding and a small provision that will impact maybe a couple tens of thousands of people in a group I'm not even a part of. Woo. Not reason enough for me to support it.

[Fartsniffage]

On what?

On your 96 nonsense. And please stop saying compromise because that is the last thing we’ll ever do. Screw compromise!

The poll was quoted multiple times in the previous thread. It's not my fault you can't read.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

On what?

On your 96 nonsense. And please stop saying compromise because that is the last thing we’ll ever do. Screw compromise!

>AD INFINITUM

[The South Falls]

On your 96 nonsense. And please stop saying compromise because that is the last thing we’ll ever do. Screw compromise!

>AD INFINITUM

It's never going to stop. As long as the NRA exists. And people with AR-15s exist. In 2118, we'll be arguing about high powered laser gun bans.

[Valgora]

What a stupid question, because the answer is obvious. More gun advocates have shot people. Why? If you own a gun and defend yourself or your home, you've probably shot someone to do that.

Says the person who argues with "logical and rational"

But to add on.

What percentage of the shootings were in self defense?

So... me pointing out that your question was stupid (it was also probably a loaded question) because it doesn't realize that self defense would cause a certain group to shoot more people doesn't make my arguments logical and rational?

[Chernoslavia]

On your 96 nonsense. And please stop saying compromise because that is the last thing we’ll ever do. Screw compromise!

The poll was quoted multiple times in the previous thread. It's not my fault you can't read.

The poll wasn’t anywhere near 96 percent of Americans! You don’t seem to realize how many people that is. Your poll doesn’t prove jack.

[Fartsniffage]

The poll was quoted multiple times in the previous thread. It's not my fault you can't read.

The poll wasn’t anywhere near 96 percent of Americans!

It wasn't?

[Telconi]

I support UBCs, doesn't mean I can't extort everything I can out of them.

*shrug* At some point there will be a Democrat controlled government and it will simply be imposed on you.

Perhaps, Hopefully they take long enough I at least get to watch my kid grow up.

[Fartsniffage]

*shrug* At some point there will be a Democrat controlled government and it will simply be imposed on you.

Perhaps, Hopefully they take long enough I at least get to watch my kid grow up.

Universal background checks would kill you?