Background checks fails and Obama cries

Polydectes · Apr 18, 2013

Protectionist said:
In the extended background checks fight, the NRA didn't lobby "for the Constitution". They lobbied for themselves, and their extremism in supporting gun rights. Everything can be brought to unhealthy extremes, and that's exactly what the NRA does. Here is their absurd statement:

Not really their interest, but the interest of the people.

Protectionist said:
1. SO WHAT if the amendment "would have criminalized certain private transfers of firearms between honest citizens, requiring lifelong friends, neighbors and some family members to get federal government permission to exercise a fundamental right or face prosecution." ?
First of all, the "honest" citizens may not always know how "honest" are the people they're selling their guns to (including friends, neighbors, & family members). They, as well as anyone, should be required to insure the American public that the guns are going into safe hands.

So?

Protectionist said:
2. I waited 3 days to get my gun, while my background was checked. I have no problem with that. In fact, I'd be uncomfortable if they didn't do a thorough check, knowing other gun buyers might not be thoroughly checked.

I was throughly checked in teen min, through isn't synonymous with in efficient.

Protectionist said:
3. The statement "...expanding background checks, at gun shows or elsewhere, will not reduce violent crime..." is FALSE. Sure it would reduce violent crime. By keeping guns away from people who are criminal or dangerously deranged. Not everyone can buy a gun on the street.

Everyone can buy a gun on the street no matter if you make them do background checks. all you need is money and someone that needs it. Sure you can make it illegal, but murder is illegal.

Protectionist said:
4. No, the NRA is NOT working with the Congress to protect our children in schools. Quite the contrary, they are working to endanger those kids.

how so?

Protectionist said:
5. We the American people (90%) are grateful for the hard work and leadership of those Senators who chose to vote FOR the extended background checks bill.

speak for yourself, nobody I know was upset about this.

Protectionist said:
6. Is the discomfort to a gun buyer of waiting for a background check as bad as the discomfort of the people killed by criminals who legally buy a gun, or the family & friends of those killed ?

It has no effect on people killed, you can't stop crime by making laws. laws are only for the people who choose to obey them.

Protectionist · Apr 19, 2013

Polydectes said:
Everyone can buy a gun on the street no matter if you make them do background checks. all you need is money and someone that needs it.

Nonsense! If you go up to 10 strangers on the street and ask them if they would know where/how to buy a gun on the street, most (if not all) of them would say NO, they would have no idea. You're living in some king of criminalistic cocoon.

Polydectes said:
speak for yourself, nobody I know was upset about this.

NO, I'm speaking for myself AND 90% of the American people who support extended background checks. Oh, nobody you know ? :giggle: In your little criminalistic circle of friends, you mean ?

Polydectes said:
It has no effect on people killed, you can't stop crime by making laws. laws are only for the people who choose to obey them.

Don't be stupid. Of course it has an effect. If we didn't have laws against murder, rape, robbery, etc, and law enforcement to go along with them, we'd have criminal chaos all over the country. You don't stop ALL crime by making laws, but you stop some of it, and some is better than none. Get it ?

And the NRA is working to endanger the kids (and everyone) by pressuring the Senators to vote against the extended background checks. This will allow criminals and mentally unbalanced people to buy guns at gun shows, and then go out and kill people . That was hard, huh ?

Protectionist · Apr 19, 2013

Polydectes said:
Far from special interest though. In this case I believe the legislature was the special interest lobby

The legislature was the special interest lobby (self-interest), but only because of the pressure from the NRA. The legislature is always a special interest lobby pressured by lobbyists. That's understood.

Polydectes · Apr 19, 2013

Protectionist said:
(Text removed irrelevant)

Protectionist said:
Don't be stupid.

Being rude doesn't help your case.

Protectionist said:
Of course it has an effect. If we didn't have laws against murder, rape, robbery, etc, and law enforcement to go along with them, we'd have criminal chaos all over the country. You don't stop ALL crime by making laws, but you stop some of it, and some is better than none. Get it ?

You call me stupid and you post this contradictory nonsense?

You wouldn't have any crime if there was no law, crime is breaking of law, if there is no law to break there would be no passable way to have crime.

No, it would have no effect on crime to extend background checks, a background check doesn't predict the future, there are currently background checks. If you aren't a felon or a mental case what is looking harder at those facts going to prove?

Protectionist said:
And the NRA is working to endanger the kids (and everyone) by pressuring the Senators to vote against the extended background checks. This will allow criminals and mentally unbalanced people to buy guns at gun shows, and then go out and kill people . That was hard, huh ?

How would regulating gun dealer sales effect gun show sales, many people there aren't gun dealers, a person selling a gun to a person is impossible to regulate, what are you going to do have a cop follow a gun owner around until he sales his gun or dies?

Statistically speaking, how many criminals buy guns at gun shows?

myp · Apr 19, 2013

Polydectes said:
Far from special interest though. In this case I believe the legislature was the special interest lobby

That doesn't make sense. How is a pro-gun association not a special interest group? Even they probably admit they are.

Polydectes · Apr 19, 2013

myp said:
That doesn't make sense. How is a pro-gun association not a special interest group? Even they probably admit they are.

How is the anti gun lobbyists not a special interest?

tecoyah · Apr 19, 2013

Polydectes said:
How is the anti gun lobbyists not a special interest?

They are both special interest groups.

"A Special Interest Group (SIG) is a community with an interest in advancing a specific area of knowledge, learning or technology where members cooperate to affect or to produce solutions within their particular field, and may communicate, meet, and organize conferences. They may at times also advocate or lobby on a particular issue or on a range of issues but are generally distinct from Advocacy groups and pressure groups which are normally set up for the specific political aim;[citation needed] the distinction is not firm however and some organizations can adapt and change their focus over time."
Special Interest Group - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Polydectes · Apr 19, 2013

tecoyah said:
They are both special interest groups.

"A Special Interest Group (SIG) is a community with an interest in advancing a specific area of knowledge, learning or technology where members cooperate to affect or to produce solutions within their particular field, and may communicate, meet, and organize conferences. They may at times also advocate or lobby on a particular issue or on a range of issues but are generally distinct from Advocacy groups and pressure groups which are normally set up for the specific political aim;[citation needed] the distinction is not firm however and some organizations can adapt and change their focus over time."
Special Interest Group - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So they bend to one special interest group or the other, why would it be any different if it went the other way?

David · Apr 19, 2013

Polydectes said:
Lobbing for the constitution seems to be in all the citizens interest, it seems the government is a special interest lobby.

Considering both the ACLU and NRA build 100% of their 'moral high ground' on the Bill of Rights, your comment makes no sense (and don't try to dodge this, we all know you were implying the ACLU was anti-Constitution).

Polydectes · Apr 19, 2013

David said:
Considering both the ACLU and NRA build 100% of their 'moral high ground' on the Bill of Rights, your comment makes no sense

No, the ACLU protects the first amendment, the NRA, the second.

David said:
(and don't try to dodge this, we all know you were implying the ACLU was anti-Constitution).

What on earth are you talking about?

the ACLU is pro constitution.

David · Apr 19, 2013

Polydectes said:
No, the ACLU protects the first amendment, the NRA, the second.

And the other 10.

Fool.

Tone it Down Please....when you start calling people names, you have lost.

Polydectes · Apr 19, 2013

David said:
And the other 10.

Fool.

well not sure there is a consisted effort to quarter troops in homes, so the third one doesn't need a group of people protecting it. The ACLU does protect the forth amendment to some extent, most Americans don't realize they have that right. It falls into obscurity. The fifth amendment, no danger posed to that one. The sixth amendment has advocacy groups and the state is pretty good at that, the seventh same as the sixth. There are an entire citizenry that will support the eighth amendment, woe be unto anybody that thinks they can step on that.

The ninth amendment, plenty of states that grant rights not listed in the constitution, the tenth, another place where the crybaby and chief thinks he can usurp the constitution, sadly no advocacy group is willing to take that on.

Freedom of speech is under the most attack by the "servants" a distant second, second amendment.

So does that sum if up?

myp · Apr 20, 2013

Polydectes said:
How is the anti gun lobbyists not a special interest?

If it is part of an organization like the NRA then they are... There are lobbyists on both sides of many issues- nothing new there...

When it comes to guns if you look at the money and organization though, the pro-gun lobby is much more organized and heavily outspends the anti-gun lobby, some 10 times over I remember hearing or reading somewhere recently.

Polydectes · Apr 20, 2013

myp said:
If it is part of an organization like the NRA then they are... There are lobbyists on both sides of many issues- nothing new there...

When it comes to guns if you look at the money and organization though, the pro-gun lobby is much more organized and heavily outspends the anti-gun lobby, some 10 times over I remember hearing or reading somewhere recently.

They have more funds, meaning they are better funded, meaning more people fund them, meaning that more people support less gun restriction. The anti gun lobby is not supported likely because nobody supports it.

David · Apr 20, 2013

Polydectes said:
They have more funds, meaning they are better funded, meaning more people fund them, meaning that more people support less gun restriction. The anti gun lobby is not supported likely because nobody supports it.

Or the anti-gun lobby is supported by a few wealthy people while the pro-gun lobby is supported by everyone else who can't afford to make equal donations.

Polydectes · Apr 20, 2013

David said:
Or the anti-gun lobby is supported by a few wealthy people while the pro-gun lobby is supported by everyone else who can't afford to make equal donations.

In that case they didn't have the effect they wanted to.

David · Apr 20, 2013

Polydectes said:
In that case they didn't have the effect they wanted to.

Seeing as about 75% of the NRA supported this, you're not making much sense.

Polydectes · Apr 20, 2013

David said:
Seeing as about 75% of the NRA supported this, you're not making much sense.

Look again

David said:
Or the anti-gun lobby is supported by a few wealthy people while the pro-gun lobby is supported by everyone else who can't afford to make equal donations.

This measure was anti gun.

David · Apr 21, 2013

Polydectes said:
Look again

This measure was anti gun.

The measure was pro-regulation. Only fools who think keeping guns out of the hands of violent criminals is a bad idea and gun manufacturers call this anti-gun. Like I said, 75% of the NRA's members supported this.

Polydectes · Apr 22, 2013

David said:
The measure was pro-regulation. Only fools who think keeping guns out of the hands of violent criminals is a bad idea and gun manufacturers call this anti-gun. Like I said, 75% of the NRA's members supported this.

Only fools think making laws stops law breakers. :giggle:

Background checks fails and Obama cries

Similar threads