Poll: Gun Legislation

You will notice that no lefty complained, or even commented on that post......why should we, it's part of the give and take of political discussion......but we sure do hear a lot of whining on the right if they don't get the respect they think they deserve, even when they post lies or dubious "facts". I have long suspected that the conservative right is only happy when they just talk to each other...Heaven forbid you should have to defend your "facts", cite your sources, or debate the issues with an opposing view.

archer wrote: You will notice that no lefty complained, or even commented on that post......why should we, it's part of the give and take of political discussion......but we sure do hear a lot of whining on the right if they don't get the respect they think they deserve, even when they post lies or dubious "facts". I have long suspected that the conservative right is only happy when they just talk to each other...Heaven forbid you should have to defend your "facts", cite your sources, or debate the issues with an opposing view.

We are still here...and actually I know of a few Lefty forums who will ban dissenting views like DemocraticUnderground. I have been banned there three times and no other forum has banned me. Righties should check that place out. LJ would be considered a moderate there.

archer wrote: You will notice that no lefty complained, or even commented on that post......why should we, it's part of the give and take of political discussion......but we sure do hear a lot of whining on the right if they don't get the respect they think they deserve, even when they post lies or dubious "facts". I have long suspected that the conservative right is only happy when they just talk to each other...Heaven forbid you should have to defend your "facts", cite your sources, or debate the issues with an opposing view.

frogger wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote:

frogger wrote: Bummer...This thread started out pretty intelligent and then unfortunately slid off the cliff.....as usual.
I think it was a set up. LOL
Back to Bob's.

You mean before posters started making up facts that are not true. Bob's World is the place for you if you don't want to be challenged on false statements.

LET ME TRY THIS FOR YOU AGAIN.

And just an FYI. I never said this bill included a database. Just said I would not favor one..
Should I type more slowly or in caps?

As I recall....the thread was pretty respectful until this......
(let me help you understand the disrespectful parts. They are in red) But you knew that...right?

And where does this bill or any other bill legislate the creation of a national or state database on who owns a gun? Because it does not, nor is there any consideration of doing so. This is typical nonsense, make up "facts" to create an outrage when those "facts" simply do not exist.

The big bad boogie man government is not coming for your guns. There is no gun registry. No one other than the entity from whom you purchased your firearm will know that you own it. Those are the facts.

Bob's place is nice to be because the disrespect level is under control there.
I can handle the challenge....just not the snarky.
Have a blessed evening.

edited to add......I just heard the splat at the bottom of the cliff.

[youtube:163xquce]

[/youtube:163xquce]

Poor frogger, got his itty bitty feelings hurt for being called out for spreading false information.

Again, as I have repeatedly pointed out to you, Grady claimed that he opposed universal background checks based on false information, i.e., that it would require a gun registry. I politely point out to him that the bills did nothing of the sort. Then frogger comes along and states that he agreed with Grady on his opposition to the universal background check. This obviously meant that frogger was claiming that the bills required a gun registry since that was the sole reason Grady gave fo opposing the background check. I then pointed out, once again, that Grady, and thus frogger were absolutely wrong, that there is no gun registry being created or contemplated.

frogger then got his feelings hurt, and then started whining about wanting to go back to Bob's World, where the lies can be politely ignored.

That about sums it up. Please frogger, go back to the echo chamber and the let the adults discuss the facts with no tolerance for the dissemination of false information.
This thread is in regard to discussion of the facts of the proposed gun legislation, not about whether or not it is disrespectful to point out false information.

Now if you have anything to add as to why you either support or oppose the proposed gun legislation, such comments are welcome. Please be advised if your comments are based on false information, then expect to be challenged. If you can not handle such challenges, then go back to Bob's echo chamber.

Science Chic wrote:

Grady wrote: I selected no on the universal background checks. Not that I have a problem with background checks on gun sales, I do have a problem with government keeping records of who owns what firearms. Now if that background check was a once in a lifetime or once every 5 years event type event such as the current CCW permit and during that time one could purchase as many firearms as they desire. I would support that.

I think what is happening is merely misinterpretation. I didn't read Grady's comment (or frogger's either for that matter) as stating in any way that this bill included a government database, I just saw them adding a comment that in general they wouldn't support that. Please correct me if I'm wrong Grady or frogger.

Good topic otherwise, thanks all!

My interpretation was that Grady (and frogger by implication) opposed the universal background checks due to the government keeping records of who owns what firearms. Since Grady and frogger gave no other reason than this issue for their opposition and even stated that they supported background checks but were against gun registry, there seems to be no other reason for their opposition other than their mistaken belief that the bills set up gun registries, which they do not.

It would be helpful if Grady and frogger would articulate their reasons for opposition of the universal background check since it can not be based on any gun registry as the legislation does not pertain to gun registries.

OK....LET ME SAY THIS AGAIN SLOWLY.

I A M N O T I N F A V OR O F A N Y " U N I V E R S A L" BA C K G R O U N D C H E CK "I N G E N E R A L" T H A T W O U L D I N C L U D E A D A T A B A S E O F A N Y K I N D.

Ths Sc. I suspect that most saw it as you did and you are correct in the message that was meant to be conveyed.

Slippery slope? And when the current batch of bills doesn't prevent another outlier shooting, what new rules will they want to add?

For example, less than three people in the last five years in Hawaii have been killed by any kind of rifle, but now they want to confiscate all the assault rifles on the islands that had been registered.

After background checks are allowed, it will be simple to also include the make and serial number f the firearm being transfered.

Dog,
What you don't have in your databanks are the history of gun confiscation we have been brought up on, Germany, China, the USSR, and the UK.
Think the Jews would have been so easy to round up if they had weapons? And you can say, this isn't Nazi Germany, but nations can change quickly. The Wiemar republic was pretty tolerant.

One of the suggestions after WWII, was to permit the Jewish people to live in America where they would be safe, but they feared being a minority that could be oppressed again. They wanted their own homeland.

I would "articulate" my reasons for opposing "gun registries" but why bother.
As has been stated SEVERAL times, my opinion does not pertain to the current CO statute being discussed but as a general opposition to a registry overall.
How many more times do you want me to say that STDS?

These statutes has already been amended to include up to 15 rounds.....Who is to say that additional amendments are not forthcoming.