Ask Me Help Desk

Ask Me Help Desk (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/forum.php)
-   Current Events (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/forumdisplay.php?f=486)
-   -   It's come to this 2.1 (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showthread.php?t=777098)

  • Feb 1, 2014, 09:44 AM
    excon
    Hello again, Steve:
    Quote:

    It's hilarious, nothing like an anti gun lib
    I'm for a universal background check. To YOU, I spose, that makes me anti gun too. But, like Wendy, I'm a westerner. I grew up in a gun culture. I have marksmanship medals from my time in the military.. I LOVE guns. If it weren't for certain circumstances, I'd have a gun TODAY.

    What's hilarious, is your refusal to support a universal background check. That would PREVENT people like me from getting guns. But, noooooo... You think that if you made it IMPOSSIBLE for me to buy guns at a shop OR a gun show, you believe I'd just waltz on down to the hood and buy one from my fellow criminals..

    But, lo and behold, I'm OLD, WHITE, and I DON'T have tattoos.. If I wandered down to the hood to buy a gun with CASH in my hand, I'm gonna get my little white, excon a$$ shot off. There are MILLIONS of people like me. Seems like you'd WANNA stop us from getting guns... But, nahhhhh.. You don't. I thought you didn't LIKE criminals...

    excon
  • Feb 1, 2014, 09:55 AM
    talaniman
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by speechlesstx View Post
    Offends? It's hilarious, nothing like an anti gun lib trying to look like a bada$$ to get votes. It's like Dukakis in a tank.

    Sarah was hilarious too (still is!! )! 90% of Americans support gun safety/control, but 10% are holding it up. What's wrong with that picture?
  • Feb 2, 2014, 06:28 AM
    speechlesstx
    A) we already have background checks and B) I pay no attention to stats pulled out of your arse and C) Texans pay no attention to fakes like Wendy Davis.
  • Feb 2, 2014, 06:57 AM
    excon
    Hello again, Steve:

    I don't mind arguing with you over what the FACTS on the ground MEAN. But, it's difficult to argue with you when you DENY the facts on the ground..

    Fact #1. There are NO universal background checks. I can buy a gun at a gun show WITHOUT going through a background check.. That's just so.

    Fact #2. Apparently, you think I'm the ONLY old, white, tattooless, exconvict in the land, who have NO contacts with the criminal underground.. That's so, too.

    Fact #3. If Texans didn't care about Wendy, WHY, oh WHY would you post about her and spend so much time putting her down? Oh, you care... You REALLY care, cause she's gonna WIN.

    excon
  • Feb 2, 2014, 12:06 PM
    cdad
    Fact #1 is incorrect. Can you explain what your trying to talk about?
  • Feb 2, 2014, 12:38 PM
    talaniman
    'Universal background check:' What does it mean? - CNN.com

    Just how many gun purchases don't require federal background checks, and how does that happen?

    Quote:

    Forty percent of all firearms purchased in the United States are sold without background checks because the guns aren't purchased from a federally licensed firearms dealer, Nichols said.
    Rather, those weapons are bought at gun shows, on street corners, over the Internet or from friends or neighbors, Nichols said.
    If you're criminal, you give a non criminal a few bucks and they buy a gun. Or 20, or a hundred. The bigger question is in light of the evidence of major shootings being done with guns purchased legally how do you stop crazy people from getting them? Or a gang banger with no record?

    For many though background checks are NOT universal,
    Quote:

    "We don't know what (is the) percentage at gun shows. It may be 10%," Keene said. "It's not such a loophole at gun shows. But it's like if you sell me your shotgun, that's a private transaction. Just as if I sell you a car, I don't have a dealer's license."
    Ten states and the District of Columbia have their own laws requiring background checks for any firearm sold at a gun show, Nichols said.
    Six more states require background checks for gun-show sales of handguns, but not for rifles or shotguns, Nichols said.
    In total, 16 states and the District of Columbia require background checks on handguns sold at gun shows, Nichols said.
    These states that close loopholes, however, provide exemptions for gun transfers between immediate family members and between licensed dealers, Nichols said.
  • Feb 2, 2014, 02:24 PM
    cdad
    Wow. Somebody needs to fact check better if they are going to write a reputable article on such a hot button issue. It is Illegal to buy a gun over the internet as if it were a private sale. All guns sold over the internet that are not subject to private sale must go through a FFL of some kind unless you have a license yourself to own the gun like under the rules of CC&R.
  • Feb 2, 2014, 02:50 PM
    talaniman
    Buying a Ton of Guns on the Internet Is Cheap, Legal, and Shockingly Easy

    GunAuction.com - How To Buy a Gun Online by Manny DelaCruz

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/17/us...d%253Dall&_r=0

    Did my home work. There are obviously holes in the law that need closing.
  • Feb 2, 2014, 04:57 PM
    paraclete
    You can't close loopholes in the law, Tal the Republicans are agin it. They's like their loopholes in the tax law, in the gun laws. where do you think these loopholes came from?
  • Feb 2, 2014, 05:10 PM
    cdad
    Nope Tal. Looks like you get an F on your homework. Sure you can buy a gun through internet sales. But dont be mistaken. That gun is going to come with a background check. To do otherwise would be highly illegal. The gun unless sold through private sale will pass through a FFL holder.

    I stand by what I said earlier. Now what loophole are you talking about ?
  • Feb 2, 2014, 09:03 PM
    talaniman
    Well Dad the way I see it, ordinary law abiding citizens aren't the problem. It's the criminals and crazies that are. You may go to an FFL guy, but they never do. But we seem to be always talking about undiagnosed or fall under the radar psychopathic nut cases who buy guns LEGALLY. Then kill people. There is a hole in the law somewhere.

    What's your solution? Since you deny any criminals (or crazy) can get guns at will from many sources.
  • Feb 2, 2014, 09:39 PM
    paraclete
    Tal you know the solution as well as I do, you have to remove the access to guns to all but essential services and licenced shooters but you also have to vet the licenced shooters so that their guns are kept in a safe place, proper gun storage and limit the number of weapons they possess. If you get a drivers licence you don't just get it forever and it should be the same for a gun licence. You should have a special licence for high powered weapons and have to show justification why you should own it, You also have to remove the access to certain weapons. I know it is a cultural thing, a macho thing, but surely community safety is more important than gun ownership for the sake of gun ownership
  • Feb 3, 2014, 04:16 AM
    cdad
    Clete, For the most part here in America if you get a drivers license it is for a lifetime so long as you pay the renewal fees and dont do anything that takes it away.

    Restricting ownership means restricting choice. So your trying to say no one should be a collector because it is too many guns. Many guns under ownership are parts of personal collections and never fired. Why the need to ban those?
  • Feb 3, 2014, 05:36 AM
    paraclete
    The idea dad is that where such collections exist they can be a source of weapons for criminals by way of them being stolen, if you want to have a collection have it in safe storage, but be specifically licenced and your security checked regularily. look, in my nation we used to allow possession of automatic and semi automatic weapons, after the Port Arthur massacre the right of such possession was removed and there has not been another occurence of such an event. We proved conclusively that gun control works, yes sometimes there is death by shooting, criminals still acquire illegal weapons but they do not acquire them legally. Most gun violence is criminals on criminals with few ordinary citizens being killed by guns. I have had personal experience where the ownership of such weapons offered opportunity for them to be stolen and used in a seige situation by a disturbed person. this was before Port Arthur and wouldn't be likely to happen today. There has been no attempt by government to force extremism either right or left on the nation, in fact we feel safer because we know a neighbour won't have such a weapon if they go nuts
  • Feb 3, 2014, 06:30 AM
    excon
    Hello again,

    I went to a gun show up at Evergreen Fairgrounds. You can tell who the FFL's are. They have SIGNS, and BOOTHS, and stuff. You KNOW they're dealers.. Then, when you look around, you see some guys hanging around with several gun belts over their shoulders, and guns sticking out of every pocket.. He's NOT shopping. He's STANDING there.

    Now, both you and I know what he's doing there. I'm not suggesting that he's doing anything illegal, but he is SELLING guns. And, if I buy a gun from HIM, I don't have to go through a background check... Now, I suppose I could have found him on the internet or though an add in the paper... But, I didn't. I found him at a GUN SHOW. And, IF I buy a gun from him, I don't have to go through a background check.

    You KNOW that to be so, but you'll probably deny it anyway.

    excon
  • Feb 3, 2014, 07:52 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Fact #3. If Texans didn't care about Wendy, WHY, oh WHY would you post about her and spend so much time putting her down? Oh, you care... You REALLY care, cause she's gonna WIN.
    LOL, she stands as much a chance as the Broncos did last night.
  • Feb 3, 2014, 08:19 AM
    speechlesstx
    After being harassed by the feds for most likely political reasons Gibson is celebrating with its first Government Series II Les Paul guitar.

    Quote:

    Government Series II Les Paul
    Great Gibson electric guitars have long been a means of fighting the establishment, so when the powers that be confiscated stocks of tonewoods from the Gibson factory in Nashville—only to return them once there was a resolution and the investigation ended—it was an event worth celebrating. Introducing the Government Series II Les Paul, a striking new guitar from Gibson USA for 2014 that suitably marks this infamous time in Gibson’s history.

    From its solid mahogany body with modern weight relief for enhance resonance and playing comfort, to its carved maple top, the Government Series II Les Paul follows the tradition of the great Les Paul Standards—but also makes a superb statement with its unique appointments. A distinctive vintage-gloss Government Tan finish, complemented by black-chrome hardware and black plastics and trim, is topped by a pickguard that’s hot-stamped in gold with the Government Series graphic—a bald eagle hoisting a Gibson guitar neck. Each Government Series II Les Paul also includes a genuine piece of Gibson USA history in its solid rosewood fingerboard, which is made from wood returned to Gibson by the US government after the resolution.

    And because it’s a Gibson, the Government Series II Les Paul is a pure and powerful tone machine. Aided by a pair of Dirty Fingers+ pickups, among the hottest humbuckers Gibson has ever produced, this historic Les Paul is ready and willing to wage war on tonal timidity—and to get you heard in the process! Add a set of high-quality Grover™ tuners, a black hardshell case with Government Series graphic, a Certificate of Authenticity personally signed by Gibson CEO Henry Juszkiewicz, and legendary Gibson quality and craftsmanship: this is one mighty Les Paul that you’ll want to confiscate quickly and turn to your own creative devices. The Government Series II is limited by the availability of qualifying woods, so seize yours now from your authorized Gibson USA dealer.
    LOL, go Gibson.
  • Feb 3, 2014, 11:17 AM
    cdad
    ex, I have seen the same thing except they hang out outside and not inside where the gunshow is. If the State where this took place allows for private sales then yes it is a reality. Many gun shows now do not allow parking lot sales. They self police and police are at hand to remove people from the premisis including the parking lot. Universal background checks would eliminate that part of it. The holding point is nobody wants it to turn into universal registration of guns. There is a difference.
  • Feb 3, 2014, 12:35 PM
    talaniman
    So fear of universal registration is the reason NO actions are taken?

    >Knock knock?<

    >Who's there?<

    >The gun collector, we want your guns!! <

    Really?
  • Feb 3, 2014, 12:43 PM
    cdad
    Lets look at an example Tal. New York, San Francisco and Chicago. Need I say more ?

    I dont object to gun background checks. I do oppose registration.
  • Feb 3, 2014, 02:03 PM
    paraclete
    If you legally own a gun what's wrong with registration?
  • Feb 3, 2014, 02:18 PM
    speechlesstx
    And Detroit, whose formerly pro-gin control police chief refuses to back down from encouraging citizens to own guns.

    Here's the thing, the gun control crowd won't stop at whatever harmless sounding measure they're trying to get past us and there is no reason to trust them one bit. You can't have my guns.
  • Feb 3, 2014, 02:23 PM
    excon
    Hello again,

    Right wingers believe we CAN'T make laws because Obama won't enforce them any way... So, it's Obama's fault that they block everything..

    Bwa, ha ha ha ha.

    exon
  • Feb 3, 2014, 02:45 PM
    speechlesstx
    Left-wingers believe in magic and fairy dust, so what's your point?

    By the way, congrats to the Seahawks...they kicked butt just like Abott will do to that sneaker wearing liar Wendy Davis.
  • Feb 3, 2014, 03:39 PM
    NeedKarma
    Quote:

    Left-wingers believe in magic and fairy dust
    The religious right you mean.

    BTW who is trying to take away your guns?
  • Feb 3, 2014, 03:51 PM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    The religious right you mean.
    I didn't stutter.
  • Feb 3, 2014, 04:06 PM
    NeedKarma
    Yes you did, you make a mistake.
    What does "i didn't stutter" really mean anyway? It's text, not speech.
  • Feb 3, 2014, 04:08 PM
    paraclete
    eh, eh, eh,
  • Feb 3, 2014, 05:22 PM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    NeedKarma Posts: 10,370, Reputation: 1665Uber Member #427 Report Today, 06:06 PMYes you did, you make a mistake.What does "i didn't stutter" really mean anyway? It's text, not speech.
    No I did not make a mistake, that's what "I didn't stutter" means. I'll gladly put the practicality of right wingers up against the fairy dust of let wingers any day. We aren't the ones that believed Obama would slow the rise of the oceans and think you can spend money you don't have to make everyone wealthy magically.
  • Feb 3, 2014, 06:46 PM
    paraclete
    Quote:

    We aren't the ones that believed Obama would slow the rise of the oceans
    only the climate change freaks could possibly believe that anyone can turn the tide of climate change, but the King Canutes of this world continually believe that rubbish. No the great black hope couldn't do that, or even get the population of the US covered for health care fairly, he could not reverse the GFC, but he has been able to turn the tide of republican wars. You have to face it, you have created a vortex of easy money and you are going to be swallowed by it and no politician is equal to the task of drawing back far enough. What you have done is borrowed from future generations, you have spent your grandkids wealth and what did you get for it. Absoluely nothing.
  • Feb 4, 2014, 08:15 AM
    speechlesstx
    This is why you gun control freaks terrify us. Massachusetts is considering banning innocent people from buying a gun.

    Quote:

    What is it about school shootings that so lobotomizes the political and academic classes? Per Boston.com:
    More than a year after the school shootings in Newtown, Conn., a panel of academic experts today released a long-awaited report recommending that Massachusetts tighten its gun laws, which are already considered among the toughest in the country.


    The panel made 44 recommendations, including that Massachusetts join a national mental health database for screening potential gun owners, that it beef up firearms training requirements, and that it eliminate Class B gun licenses, which are seldom used.
    It recommended that the Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association help define a series of factors that could be used to prohibit “unsuitable persons” from acquiring firearms. The panel said the current process allows local law enforcement officials too much discretion to determine whether a person is suitable to be granted a license to carry.
    This is your standard reactionary nonsense, guaranteed to have no effect in a state that already boasts some of the strongest gun-control laws in the United States and designed primarily to make people who know nothing about firearms feel better about themselves. But it is what comes next that should horrify one and all — regardless of their politics:
    It also said Massachusetts should require anyone wanting to purchase a hunting rifle or a shotgun to pass those standards of suitability. That could allow local police chiefs to deny gun purchases to people who have been arrested, but not convicted, of a crime.
    Let’s just repeat that, for clarity’s sake: Massachusetts is considering denying “gun purchases to people who have been arrested, but not convicted, of a crime.” In other words, an American state is thinking about denying a constitutional right to the innocent because they happen to have been picked up by authorities that couldn’t prove that they had done anything wrong. One hopes I speak for everybody here when I say, No, no, and no again. No to the abject hysteria that has slowly grown in small parts of the country; no to the ignorance that is striping like acid through reason and through the law; and no to a cabal of politicians whose disdain for the Second Amendment is so pronounced that they are happy not only to undermine that provision in pursuit of their quixotic goals but to dilute the rest of the American settlement into the bargain. Enough is enough. Where art thou, ACLU?




    What's next, confiscate our guns because we have allergies? You can't have someone holding a gun that needs to sneeze.
  • Feb 4, 2014, 08:51 AM
    talaniman
    Why can't we wait and see if a person gets convicted or not before he can buy a gun? What the hurry to give a potential felon a gun depending on the charges he faces? You don't get excited about holding someone that can't make bail until they have a trial do you? Why is making a potential felon wait before he can buy a gun a big deal?

    To carry your argument to the extreme as allergies is to distract the merits of the restrictions of defining a process to keep guns out of irresponsible hands. Now you say a guy can buy a gun before he is cleared of his arrest? I think you have proved that YOU are the problem with your attitude that anybody who wants a gun should have one without verifying they are law abiding honest citizens.

    Your stance is irresponsible. And you are scared of US? Of course you can't see the down side of allowing people who have bailed out of jail after being arrested being able to buy a gun.
  • Feb 4, 2014, 08:54 AM
    speechlesstx
    Since when does someone lose their rights for the simple act of having been arrested? What do you not get about our rights?
  • Feb 4, 2014, 08:59 AM
    talaniman
    What could possibly go wrong giving a potential felon a gun?
  • Feb 4, 2014, 09:02 AM
    speechlesstx
    Everyone is a potential felon. Again, what do you not get about our rights?
  • Feb 4, 2014, 09:06 AM
    talaniman
    Some have greater potential than others, and an arrest is a sign of GREATER potential. Naw, make 'em wait. Just to be on the safe side for any potential victims sake.
  • Feb 4, 2014, 09:12 AM
    speechlesstx
    Obviously you don't give a damn about our rights and that's why people like me are rightfully concerned.
  • Feb 4, 2014, 09:43 AM
    talaniman
    Obviously you don't give a damn about public safety and cannot see that giving an arrested fellow the right to buy a gun is a lousy idea.
  • Feb 4, 2014, 09:48 AM
    excon
    Hello again, Steve:
    Quote:

    Since when does someone lose their rights for the simple act of having been arrested?
    Since ALWAYS.

    Haven't you heard of people being required to hand over their passport BEFORE they're convicted? I have. It AIN'T right, I tell ya. If I was charged with murder, it would be MY preference to travel to a country that doesn't have an extradition treaty with the US. Do you think THAT should be rescinded???

    When people make bail, and not having been convicted of ANYTHING, they're OFTEN times put under the supervision of the court. It's very similar to being on probation... They wanna KNOW what you're up to. Should THAT be rescinded?

    There's more - LOTS more, but that's enough for now.

    Finally, this gun thing has got you wingers so twisted into knots, that you find yourself supporting criminals in a way that I never thought possible.. That MUST be scraping hard on your right wingerism, isn't it?

    excon
  • Feb 4, 2014, 10:29 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Haven't you heard of people being required to hand over their passport BEFORE they're convicted?
    You have a constitutional right to a passport? I didn't know that, but I do know I have a constitutional right to own a gun and I don't lose my constitutional rights when arrested, period.

  • All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:57 AM.