quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Actually, if you applied logic to Jeff's solution, you'd see that there already is an acknowledgement that it's possible the regulations can't be fixed. How are you to know if they can or can't if you don't try?

Really?
The impression I always get is that a lot of the gun bunnies are insisting that regulation just wouldn't work, so any talk about gun control has to be talking about an outright ban and crossing out the second amendment. It's like somebody's complaining about their Doctor wanting to treat an ingrowing toenail by amputating their leg, and trying to spin it as their GP being a surgery-happy freak rather than a refusal to remove their shoe so part of the nail can be cut off and filed down making things difficult.
The regulations could be fixed fairly simply and quickly, but some are claiming that the regulations can't possibly be fixed in order to insist that the other side want to take extreme measures. It's a pretty crude form of sophistry, but it seems to be working.

The moment I hear someone bring up the second amendment, I know they are incapable of being rational, and any challenges to their dogma are just going to be met with mindless patriotism.
The entire 'second amendment' defense against gun control relies exclusively on a completely uncritical worship of history (more accurately, what they think it means).
Inevitably the same person will have paranoid visions of being attacked by unknown assailants, the government, the military, a foreign power, etc.

It's like the gun nuts seriously think that people in 1791 knew so much more about how modern society should function than anyone alive today.

Not to mention that your country has had a fairly respectable military set up since the end of the American rebellionwar of independence which would seem to make having an armed civilian militia redundant.
(Though to be fair, that was still going on when the bill of rights was drafted...)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961
And the National Criminal Information system is not mandatory for all those who have access to that information which would prevent the persons that the above applies to is not mandatory for them to place that information into the data base, how in the fuck are more strict back ground checks or any other measure introduced to make it so these particular groups cannot buy a gun possibly work?

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Actually, if you applied logic to Jeff's solution, you'd see that there already is an acknowledgement that it's possible the regulations can't be fixed. How are you to know if they can or can't if you don't try?

Really?
The impression I always get is that a lot of the gun bunnies are insisting that regulation just wouldn't work, so any talk about gun control has to be talking about an outright ban and crossing out the second amendment. It's like somebody's complaining about their Doctor wanting to treat an ingrowing toenail by amputating their leg, and trying to spin it as their GP being a surgery-happy freak rather than a refusal to remove their shoe so part of the nail can be cut off and filed down making things difficult.
The regulations could be fixed fairly simply and quickly, but some are claiming that the regulations can't possibly be fixed in order to insist that the other side want to take extreme measures. It's a pretty crude form of sophistry, but it seems to be working.

The moment I hear someone bring up the second amendment, I know they are incapable of being rational, and any challenges to their dogma are just going to be met with mindless patriotism.
The entire 'second amendment' defense against gun control relies exclusively on a completely uncritical worship of history (more accurately, what they think it means).
Inevitably the same person will have paranoid visions of being attacked by unknown assailants, the government, the military, a foreign power, etc.

It's like the gun nuts seriously think that people in 1791 knew so much more about how modern society should function than anyone alive today.

Not to mention that your country has had a fairly respectable military set up since the end of the American rebellionwar of independence which would seem to make having an armed civilian militia redundant.
(Though to be fair, that was still going on when the bill of rights was drafted...)

The American had been over for nearly a decade when the Bill of rights was written.

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Actually, if you applied logic to Jeff's solution, you'd see that there already is an acknowledgement that it's possible the regulations can't be fixed. How are you to know if they can or can't if you don't try?

Really?
The impression I always get is that a lot of the gun bunnies are insisting that regulation just wouldn't work, so any talk about gun control has to be talking about an outright ban and crossing out the second amendment. It's like somebody's complaining about their Doctor wanting to treat an ingrowing toenail by amputating their leg, and trying to spin it as their GP being a surgery-happy freak rather than a refusal to remove their shoe so part of the nail can be cut off and filed down making things difficult.
The regulations could be fixed fairly simply and quickly, but some are claiming that the regulations can't possibly be fixed in order to insist that the other side want to take extreme measures. It's a pretty crude form of sophistry, but it seems to be working.

The moment I hear someone bring up the second amendment, I know they are incapable of being rational, and any challenges to their dogma are just going to be met with mindless patriotism.
The entire 'second amendment' defense against gun control relies exclusively on a completely uncritical worship of history (more accurately, what they think it means).
Inevitably the same person will have paranoid visions of being attacked by unknown assailants, the government, the military, a foreign power, etc.

It's like the gun nuts seriously think that people in 1791 knew so much more about how modern society should function than anyone alive today.

Not to mention that your country has had a fairly respectable military set up since the end of the American rebellionwar of independence which would seem to make having an armed civilian militia redundant.
(Though to be fair, that was still going on when the bill of rights was drafted...)

The American had been over for nearly a decade when the Bill of rights was written.

My bad: I was thinking of the declaration of independence. You people have so many documents you ignore it can be hard to keep them separate.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Actually, if you applied logic to Jeff's solution, you'd see that there already is an acknowledgement that it's possible the regulations can't be fixed. How are you to know if they can or can't if you don't try?

Really?
The impression I always get is that a lot of the gun bunnies are insisting that regulation just wouldn't work, so any talk about gun control has to be talking about an outright ban and crossing out the second amendment. It's like somebody's complaining about their Doctor wanting to treat an ingrowing toenail by amputating their leg, and trying to spin it as their GP being a surgery-happy freak rather than a refusal to remove their shoe so part of the nail can be cut off and filed down making things difficult.
The regulations could be fixed fairly simply and quickly, but some are claiming that the regulations can't possibly be fixed in order to insist that the other side want to take extreme measures. It's a pretty crude form of sophistry, but it seems to be working.

The moment I hear someone bring up the second amendment, I know they are incapable of being rational, and any challenges to their dogma are just going to be met with mindless patriotism.
The entire 'second amendment' defense against gun control relies exclusively on a completely uncritical worship of history (more accurately, what they think it means).
Inevitably the same person will have paranoid visions of being attacked by unknown assailants, the government, the military, a foreign power, etc.

It's like the gun nuts seriously think that people in 1791 knew so much more about how modern society should function than anyone alive today.

Not to mention that your country has had a fairly respectable military set up since the end of the American rebellionwar of independence which would seem to make having an armed civilian militia redundant.
(Though to be fair, that was still going on when the bill of rights was drafted...)

The American had been over for nearly a decade when the Bill of rights was written.

My bad: I was thinking of the declaration of independence. You people have so many documents you ignore it can be hard to keep them separate.

And the Declaration of Independence isn't law. You are totally confused.

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961
And the National Criminal Information system is not mandatory for all those who have access to that information which would prevent the persons that the above applies to is not mandatory for them to place that information into the data base, how in the fuck are more strict back ground checks or any other measure introduced to make it so these particular groups cannot buy a gun possibly work?

You forward the relevant information from the agencies who check this stuff to the ATF, make the gun vendors put their records online so that those can be cross referenced, and make the gun shops (and pawn shops, come to that) refer to the files before tooling anybody up. A blacklist based on those references could be compiled pretty quickly, and once it's there, it'd just need updating regularly.
Not exactly difficult to set up.

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

So you make it mandatory.
It's not fucking rocket science, mate. It wouldn't even be difficult to set up.

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

So you make it mandatory.
It's not fucking rocket science, mate. It wouldn't even be difficult to set up.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961
And the National Criminal Information system is not mandatory for all those who have access to that information which would prevent the persons that the above applies to is not mandatory for them to place that information into the data base, how in the fuck are more strict back ground checks or any other measure introduced to make it so these particular groups cannot buy a gun possibly work?

You forward the relevant information from the agencies who check this stuff to the ATF, make the gun vendors put their records online so that those can be cross referenced, and make the gun shops (and pawn shops, come to that) refer to the files before tooling anybody up. A blacklist based on those references could be compiled pretty quickly, and once it's there, it'd just need updating regularly.
Not exactly difficult to set up.

Except for the point that I have been trying to make and every anti gunner or more gun regulation proponent seems to not be able to grasp.

The forwarding of relevant information to the National Crime Information System is not now mandatory except at a Federal Level.

This means that at the State, County, city level, the courts, mental health care providers are not required by any law to do just that, so the information does not get 'forwarded' to anyone or anything where it could possibly do any fucking good.

But according to the brilliant dick headed fool that I was responding to, my arguments are based in my love of guns and not FUCKING COMMON SENSE.

Jesus christ the back ground check is severe as it stands, IF it fucking worked, which it cant because of the flaw I have repeatedly pointed out, because it returns a prohibited response on anyone in the classes laid down by the laws already on the books concerning who can buy a fucking gun and who cant.

I mean it is mandatory of every state to report to a central database people who have had licenses suspended for whatever reason so they cant just hop over to another state and get license to drive a car.

Traffic tickets goes on a national data base that follows you from state to state.

Why, because it is mandatory for each state to update that information at a national level.

So, what the fuck is the goddamn difference between driver information and information that would keep someone from buying a gun, especially if it has already been laid out for 49 fucking years!

And mandatory back ground checks have been around for 24 years.

And the system where that information was reported to went into service in 1973 and has been used for gun purchase background checks for 24 years.

And it is still not mandatory for all levels below the Federal level for data input, but every police department and court in the fucking country use it for back ground checks for every traffic stop or arrest in the goddamn country.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

So you make it mandatory.
It's not fucking rocket science, mate. It wouldn't even be difficult to set up.

I know that.

I have been saying that.

The idiots wanting stronger background checks, more regulations dependent on that system do not seem
to have the brain capacity to grasp that.

So they ignore that fact.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LTE

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

So you make it mandatory.
It's not fucking rocket science, mate. It wouldn't even be difficult to set up.

In the Land of the Free.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961
And the National Criminal Information system is not mandatory for all those who have access to that information which would prevent the persons that the above applies to is not mandatory for them to place that information into the data base, how in the fuck are more strict back ground checks or any other measure introduced to make it so these particular groups cannot buy a gun possibly work?

You forward the relevant information from the agencies who check this stuff to the ATF, make the gun vendors put their records online so that those can be cross referenced, and make the gun shops (and pawn shops, come to that) refer to the files before tooling anybody up. A blacklist based on those references could be compiled pretty quickly, and once it's there, it'd just need updating regularly.
Not exactly difficult to set up.

Except for the point that I have been trying to make and every anti gunner or more gun regulation proponent seems to not be able to grasp.

The forwarding of relevant information to the National Crime Information System is not now mandatory except at a Federal Level.

This means that at the State, County, city level, the courts, mental health care providers are not required by any law to do just that, so the information does not get 'forwarded' to anyone or anything where it could possibly do any fucking good.

But according to the brilliant dick headed fool that I was responding to, my arguments are based in my love of guns and not FUCKING COMMON SENSE.

Jesus christ the back ground check is severe as it stands, IF it fucking worked, which it cant because of the flaw I have repeatedly pointed out, because it returns a prohibited response on anyone in the classes laid down by the laws already on the books concerning who can buy a fucking gun and who cant.

I mean it is mandatory of every state to report to a central database people who have had licenses suspended for whatever reason so they cant just hop over to another state and get license to drive a car.

Traffic tickets goes on a national data base that follows you from state to state.

Why, because it is mandatory for each state to update that information at a national level.

So, what the fuck is the goddamn difference between driver information and information that would keep someone from buying a gun, especially if it has already been laid out for 49 fucking years!

And mandatory back ground checks have been around for 24 years.

And the system where that information was reported to went into service in 1973 and has been used for gun purchase background checks for 24 years.

And it is still not mandatory for all levels below the Federal level for data input, but every police department and court in the fucking country use it for back ground checks for every traffic stop or arrest in the goddamn country.

So everyone who has ever been given a prescription for antidepressants should be on a database which prevents them from gun ownership. It's a slippery slope.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961
And the National Criminal Information system is not mandatory for all those who have access to that information which would prevent the persons that the above applies to is not mandatory for them to place that information into the data base, how in the fuck are more strict back ground checks or any other measure introduced to make it so these particular groups cannot buy a gun possibly work?

You forward the relevant information from the agencies who check this stuff to the ATF, make the gun vendors put their records online so that those can be cross referenced, and make the gun shops (and pawn shops, come to that) refer to the files before tooling anybody up. A blacklist based on those references could be compiled pretty quickly, and once it's there, it'd just need updating regularly.
Not exactly difficult to set up.

Except for the point that I have been trying to make and every anti gunner or more gun regulation proponent seems to not be able to grasp.

The forwarding of relevant information to the National Crime Information System is not now mandatory except at a Federal Level.

This means that at the State, County, city level, the courts, mental health care providers are not required by any law to do just that, so the information does not get 'forwarded' to anyone or anything where it could possibly do any fucking good.

But according to the brilliant dick headed fool that I was responding to, my arguments are based in my love of guns and not FUCKING COMMON SENSE.

Jesus christ the back ground check is severe as it stands, IF it fucking worked, which it cant because of the flaw I have repeatedly pointed out, because it returns a prohibited response on anyone in the classes laid down by the laws already on the books concerning who can buy a fucking gun and who cant.

I mean it is mandatory of every state to report to a central database people who have had licenses suspended for whatever reason so they cant just hop over to another state and get license to drive a car.

Traffic tickets goes on a national data base that follows you from state to state.

Why, because it is mandatory for each state to update that information at a national level.

So, what the fuck is the goddamn difference between driver information and information that would keep someone from buying a gun, especially if it has already been laid out for 49 fucking years!

And mandatory back ground checks have been around for 24 years.

And the system where that information was reported to went into service in 1973 and has been used for gun purchase background checks for 24 years.

And it is still not mandatory for all levels below the Federal level for data input, but every police department and court in the fucking country use it for back ground checks for every traffic stop or arrest in the goddamn country.

So everyone who has ever been given a prescription for antidepressants should be on a database which prevents them from gun ownership. It's a slippery slope.

Have you EVER used your brain for something besides a spacer to keep your ears apart?

Try reading the fucking law for once. We know you can read, its your reading comprehension ability that we doubt, but in an effort to make it simple:

The mental conditions to which the regulation points to is any that person who has been institutionalized or treated for a condition that has manifested itself in any behavior making them a danger to themselves or others is prohibited from purchasing a firearm, it is not a blanket policy for any condition that may (in some individuals) but has, i.e the shooter at Virginia Tech.

Furthermore, that individual can be removed from the prohibited list after a competency hearing which finds that the condition or threat no longer exists, that change not being dependent on medication.

In other words, if the person is a sane or rational individual without medication to keep them that way, they can request a hearing and get the their prohibited status removed.

If they had not harmed anyone prior to that hearing.

In that case, it goes back to the history of violence prohibited status and we dont want them to have a gun anyway.

So, no, you idiot, anyone that has ever taken anti depressants would not be automatically disqualified.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka


You're not the sharpest tool in the shed, are you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker
Except you really need to be open to the possibility that the regulations can't be fixed because they are either designed to fail or simply not the best option.
The regulations aren't the problem-- the regulations are just an attempt to solve the problem of people constantly using guns to kill each other.
Whether you realize it or not, jlf's 'solution' is rooted in his very emotional relationship with his guns, not logic.

Actually, if you applied logic to Jeff's solution, you'd see that there already is an acknowledgement that it's possible the regulations can't be fixed. How are you to know if they can or can't if you don't try?
You're an idiot if you think the problem is that people are constantly using guns to kill each other. That's just a symptom to the actual problem: people are constantly trying to kill each other. There's the real problem.

It has nothing to do with applying logic, stop pretending that this is about logic instead of about what you personally believe.

quote:

The current system doesn't require people to prove that they are responsible enough to own a gun, and for that reason is doomed to fail.

quote:

The states don't submit the info... not just blue states like jlf wants to believe-- MOST OF THEM. This has been going on for 19 years!
At what point do we admit that it just won't work and it no longer matters why?

quote:

So hey, yes, people want to kill each other-- which is why I'm pretty sure that there are already laws against people killing each other... just not against making it much much easier for them to succeed.
So you can seriously argue that all of these 'defense against tyranny' arguments are about rational people facing the truth?
Please.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Actually, if you applied logic to Jeff's solution, you'd see that there already is an acknowledgement that it's possible the regulations can't be fixed. How are you to know if they can or can't if you don't try?

Really?
The impression I always get is that a lot of the gun bunnies are insisting that regulation just wouldn't work, so any talk about gun control has to be talking about an outright ban and crossing out the second amendment. It's like somebody's complaining about their Doctor wanting to treat an ingrowing toenail by amputating their leg, and trying to spin it as their GP being a surgery-happy freak rather than a refusal to remove their shoe so part of the nail can be cut off and filed down making things difficult.
The regulations could be fixed fairly simply and quickly, but some are claiming that the regulations can't possibly be fixed in order to insist that the other side want to take extreme measures. It's a pretty crude form of sophistry, but it seems to be working.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)